Introduction 

The Court of Appeals clarified that once a preliminary protective order is entered, it immediately supplants the emergency protective order, preventing any later prosecution for violating the earlier order. 

A recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision, Claramunt v. Commonwealth (Record No. 1731-23-1, Apr. 8, 2025), helps clarify an important question that often arises in protective order cases: what happens when more than one protective order is issued around the same time? The Court held that once a preliminary protective order is entered, it replaces the emergency protective order, meaning a person cannot be charged with violating the earlier emergency order after the new one takes effect. The case highlights the importance of understanding which order is active - and the potential confusion that can arise when multiple protective orders overlap. 

Background 

The case arose from overlapping protective orders issued within days of a domestic incident, leaving the husband uncertain which order governed his ability to return home or see his children. 

The case involved Diego Claramunt (“Husband”) and his wife, Adriane (“Wife”). After a domestic incident in late May 2022, Wife obtained an emergency protective order, which prohibited Husband from contacting her or their two children and granted her temporary possession of the family home. That order, which took effect immediately, was set to expire after 72 hours. 

The next day, Wife sought additional protection and obtained a preliminary protective order from the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. The new order continued to prohibit Husband from contacting Wife or visiting the home but allowed “no hostile contact” with the children. Husband learned of this order while at the courthouse and believed - based on what the judge said - that he could pick up personal items from the home and briefly see his son. 

Husband later went to the home for only a few minutes to retrieve his work uniforms and medical equipment. His wife was not present. Nonetheless, she filed a complaint alleging that he violated the emergency protective order by returning to the property. The Chesapeake Circuit Court found him guilty, concluding that the emergency protective order remained in effect until its scheduled expiration. Husband appealed, arguing that the preliminary protective order had already replaced the earlier one. 

Legal Analysis

 

The Court held that the preliminary protective order replaced the emergency order upon entry, meaning the husband could not be convicted for violating an order that was no longer legally in effect. 

The Court of Appeals agreed with Husband and reversed the conviction, explaining that under Virginia law, an emergency protective order automatically ends when a preliminary protective order is entered. The Court reasoned that emergency protective orders are designed to provide short-term safety until a hearing can take place. Once a judge issues a preliminary protective order, that new order becomes the one in effect; it does not simply add to or overlap with the earlier one. 

The Court also emphasized that a person can only be convicted of violating an order that is legally in force at the time of the alleged violation. Because the preliminary protective order had already been entered, the emergency order was no longer valid when Husband visited the home. 

The Court further clarified that even though Husband may not have been personally served with the preliminary protective order, it still applied because he had actual notice of it - he had seen it in court, testified about it, and acted based on his understanding of its terms. 

Following the decision, the Commonwealth requested a rehearing en banc, which was granted in May 2025. The case remains under review. 

Implications as they stand 

The decision highlights the importance of identifying which protective order is currently controlling, reinforcing that only one order can be active at a time and that defendants must have fair notice of the order they are accused of violating. 

The Claramunt decision provides valuable guidance for both individuals and families involved in protective order proceedings, emphasizing that these cases can involve complex timing and notice issues. Both petitioners and respondents must be aware of which order controls at any given time, and should seek legal advice before taking any action that could be seen as a violation. 

This case confirms that: 

1. Emergency protective orders are temporary and end once a preliminary protective order is entered. 

2. Only one protective order can be active at a time - the most recent one governs. 3. A person must have fair notice of the specific order they are accused of violating. 

Smith Strong Can Help 

Smith Strong assists clients in understanding, enforcing, or challenging protective orders by clarifying which order is active and advising on how to avoid alleged violations.

Protective orders are often issued during times of significant emotional stress, and understanding their terms can be confusing. At Smith Strong, PLC, our attorneys help clients navigate every step of the process - whether you need to obtain a protective order for your safety or defend against one that you believe has been wrongly issued. To discuss your situation confidentially, call our Richmond office at (804) 325-1245 or in Williamsburg at (757) 941-4298.