If you are subject to, or protected by, a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) in Queensland, or a similar order elsewhere in Australia, you have probably asked yourself one question.
Can the protected person contact the respondent, and does it matter who reaches out first?
It is a fair question to have. Protective orders exist to reduce conflict and keep people safe. But most people assume the order works both ways. It usually does not.
Getting this wrong can mean the difference between staying safe and a criminal charge. Below, our family law team at Collective Family Law Group breaks down exactly what the law says, how courts treat contact initiated by the protected person, and what both parties should do if contact happens.
What Does the Law Say About Contact?
A DVO, or an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) in New South Wales, places conditions on the respondent, not on the protected person.
This means the order usually stops the respondent from approaching, calling, texting or messaging the protected person. It does not stop the protected person from reaching out first.
However, if the protected person does make contact, the respondent may still be at risk of breaching the order if they respond. Courts are consistent on this point. The order is not mutual. It exists to control the respondent’s behaviour, and the legal risk sits with them, regardless of who started the conversation.
Can the Protected Person Breach Their Own Order?
No. Only the respondent can be charged with a breach.
Under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), and equivalent legislation in other states, the conditions of a protection order bind the respondent alone. A protected person cannot legally breach their own order, even by texting, calling or visiting the respondent themselves.
That said, initiating contact is not risk free. It can complicate the matter, and courts may view repeated contact from the protected person as a sign the order is no longer needed, or that it should be varied.
If the Protected Person Contacts First, Is the Respondent Still at Risk?
Yes, and this is the most common misunderstanding we see.
Many respondents assume that because the protected person sent the first message, invited them over, or said contact was fine, they are free to respond. In most cases, that assumption is wrong.
The order is directed at the respondent specifically. It is their responsibility to comply, regardless of what the protected person says or does. A single reply to a text message can be enough to result in criminal charges.
If you are the respondent and the protected person contacts you, the safest response is usually no response at all. Document the message, do not reply, and speak with a family lawyer before doing anything else.
What About Indirect Contact?
Many orders also prohibit indirect contact, not just direct calls or texts.
This can include asking a mutual friend to pass on a message, contacting a family member to relay information, sending a gift or letter through someone else, or messaging through a second social media account. If the order prohibits indirect contact, using a third party as a go between can still amount to a breach.
Can Contact Happen for Parenting Reasons?
Sometimes, yes. Parenting arrangements can overlap with protection orders, and courts will often build in specific exceptions.
For example, an order might allow the respondent to communicate with the protected person only about the children, and only through an agreed channel such as email, text or a co-parenting app. If the order allows contact solely for parenting purposes, any contact outside that scope may still be a breach.
If children are involved in your matter, it is worth reading more about parenting arrangements and how they interact with a protection order.
What if the Contact Was Accidental?
Accidental contact happens. You might run into each other at the shops, at a child’s school event, or at a mutual friend’s gathering.
If this occurs, the safest approach for the respondent is to leave the area or avoid interaction as soon as reasonably possible. An accidental encounter is not licence to have a conversation, even a friendly one. Courts generally focus on whether the order’s conditions were breached, not on the intentions behind the contact.
What if Both Parties Want to Reconcile?
This comes up often. A couple separates, an order is made, and weeks later both people want to resume contact.
Until the court formally varies or revokes the order, its conditions remain in force. Agreeing between yourselves that the order no longer matters does not make it lawful to ignore it. If both parties genuinely want contact restored, the correct path is to apply to the court to vary or revoke the relevant condition, not to quietly breach it and hope it goes unnoticed.
What Happens if the Respondent Breaches the Order?
Breaching a protection order is a criminal offence in every Australian state and territory.
Consequences can include criminal charges, a criminal record, fines, community-based orders, or in more serious cases, imprisonment. Courts treat breaches seriously even where the protected person initiated contact, and even where the respondent believed the contact was harmless or well intentioned, such as an apology.
You can read more about how Queensland courts handle these applications on the Queensland Courts domestic violence orders page.
Practical Advice for Both Parties
If you are the protected person and want to make contact, consider applying to vary the order first, particularly if the contact concerns children or ongoing practical matters. This avoids putting the respondent, and potentially yourself, in a difficult legal position.
If you are the respondent and the protected person contacts you, do not reply. Keep a record of the message, seek legal advice promptly, and lean on trusted family, friends or professional support in the meantime.
Finding Clarity in a Complex Area of Family Law
The question of whether the protected person can contact the respondent rarely has a simple yes or no answer once you factor in exceptions, indirect contact, and parenting arrangements. What is consistent is that courts remain focused on safety, on the wellbeing of any children involved, and on reducing further conflict.
Do You Need Guidance With Your Family Law Situation?
Whether you are the protected person or the respondent in a domestic violence matter, getting clear legal advice early makes a real difference. Our domestic violence law team at Collective Family Law Group can help you understand your order, your options, and the safest path forward.
Contact us today to book a confidential consultation with a family lawyer who understands the pressure these situations bring, and can guide you through it with clarity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can text messages be used in court in Australia?
Yes. Text messages, screenshots and social media messages can be used as evidence in Australian courts, provided they are relevant to the matter, obtained lawfully, and their authenticity can be established. Courts will weigh how the message was obtained and whether authorship can be proven before deciding how much weight to give it.
Who is considered the respondent in a DVO or AVO case?
The respondent is the person the order is made against. It is their behaviour that the conditions of the order restrict, and it is only the respondent who can be charged with breaching it, regardless of who else was involved in the incident that led to the application.
What happens if you violate a restraining order in Australia?
Violating a protection order is a criminal offence. Depending on the circumstances and the state you are in, penalties can range from fines through to imprisonment, particularly where the breach involved violence or repeated conduct. A conviction can also affect employment involving security clearances or working with children.
What is a protected person in NSW?
In New South Wales, the protected person, sometimes called the person in need of protection or PINOP, is the individual an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) or Apprehended Personal Violence Order (APVO) is made to protect. They are distinct from the applicant, who may be the protected person themselves or a police officer applying on their behalf, and from the defendant, whose conduct the order restricts.
