When a Virginia juvenile court issues a child protective order requiring someone to 'abstain from offensive conduct,' does that include harassing, stalking, threatening, or putting a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury?

Plain-English summary

The State Police Superintendent asked the Attorney General whether "offensive conduct" in Virginia juvenile court child protective orders included harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The opinion notes that the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN) includes a "Brady Indicator Field" for certain subjects of judicial protective orders and quotes 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(B). It does not decide whether a particular Virginia order satisfies the federal provision or should be flagged in VCIN.

Acting AG William Mims concluded yes. Section 16.1-253(A)(1) authorizes Virginia juvenile and domestic relations district courts to issue child protective orders requiring persons "[t]o abstain from offensive conduct" against the child, family or household members, or anyone with custody. The General Assembly did not define "offensive conduct," and no Virginia court has interpreted it. Under standard Virginia statutory construction, undefined terms take their plain and ordinary meaning. The AG turned to Black's Law Dictionary: "offensive" means "unpleasant or disagreeable to the senses; obnoxious" or "causing displeasure ... repugnant to the prevailing sense of what is decent or moral," and "conduct" means "personal behavior, whether by action or inaction; the manner in which a person behaves." Those broad terms easily cover the behaviors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(B).

The opinion's conclusion is limited to the meaning of "offensive conduct." It does not instruct the State Police to flag any protective order or decide when federal firearms law applies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Section 16.1-253(A)(1) authorizes juvenile and domestic relations district courts to issue child protective orders requiring persons "[t]o abstain from offensive conduct against the child, a family or household member of the child or any person to whom custody of the child is awarded." The opinion addresses the meaning of that phrase.

The opinion says the Department of State Police maintains a computerized Protective Order Registry that may be shared with law enforcement agencies through VCIN. It notes that VCIN includes a "Brady Indicator Field" for subjects prohibited from certain conduct by a judicial protective order.

The opinion quotes the federal language about "harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner" and conduct placing an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury. It does not analyze the federal provision's requirements or determine whether § 16.1-253 child protective orders satisfy them.

The AG read "offensive conduct" through standard statutory construction tools: undefined statutory terms take their plain and ordinary meaning, as confirmed by recent Virginia case law (Winborne v. Va. Lottery, 278 Va. 142 (2009)). Black's Law Dictionary supplied the dictionary definition. The AG's reading is generous: "obnoxious," "disagreeable to the senses," "personal behavior" are broad terms. Harassment, stalking, threats, and conduct producing reasonable fear of bodily injury all easily fit within that scope.

Common questions

Does this opinion mean every Virginia § 16.1-253 protective order triggers the federal firearm prohibition?

The opinion does not decide whether any § 16.1-253 order triggers the federal prohibition. It addresses only the meaning of "offensive conduct" in the Virginia statute.

What kinds of behavior does 'offensive conduct' cover beyond the listed examples?

The AG noted the dictionary definitions are "broad terms that encompass a wide variety of behavior." The opinion's examples (harassing, stalking, threatening, placing a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury) align with the federal Brady predicate, but the term as construed could reach further. The opinion did not catalog its outer bounds.

Why didn't the General Assembly just list these behaviors in the statute?

The opinion does not discuss why the General Assembly chose the phrase "offensive conduct." It applies the ordinary meaning because the statute does not define it and no Virginia court had interpreted it.

Does this apply to adult protective orders, or just juvenile court orders?

The opinion analyzes § 16.1-253(A)(1), which sits in the juvenile and domestic relations district court chapter. Other Virginia protective order statutes (for adults, in circuit court, etc.) use their own statutory language. The reasoning method (undefined terms take ordinary meaning) is portable, but each statute would have to be analyzed on its own terms.

Can a defense lawyer argue that 'offensive conduct' is too vague to be enforceable?

The opinion does not address a vagueness challenge or the enforceability of a particular protective order. It defines the statutory phrase by its plain and ordinary meaning.

Citations

• Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-253(A)(1) (juvenile court protective order; offensive conduct)
• Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-387.1(A) (Protective Order Registry within VCIN)
• Va. Code Ann. § 52-45 (Superintendent's duty to maintain Registry)
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(B) (federal firearm prohibition under qualifying protective order)
• Winborne v. Va. Lottery, 278 Va. 142, 677 S.E.2d 304 (2009) (plain and ordinary meaning of undefined statutory terms)
• Black's Law Dictionary 1188, 336-37 (9th ed. 2009) (definitions of "offensive" and "conduct")

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2009/09-048-Flaherty.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
William C. Mims, Attorney General

August 27, 2009

Colonel W.S. (Steve) Flaherty
Superintendent, Department of State Police
P.O. Box 27472
Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

Dear Colonel Flaherty:

I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.

Issue Presented

You ask whether "offensive conduct" includes the acts of harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Response

It is my opinion that "offensive conduct" includes the acts of harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Applicable Law and Discussion

The Department of State Police maintains a computerized Protective Order Registry which may be shared with law enforcement agencies through the Virginia Criminal Information Network ("VCIN").[1] VCIN includes a "Brady Indicator Field" for subjects who are prohibited from "harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child"[2] by way of a judicial protective order.

Section 16.1-253(A)(1) authorizes juvenile and domestic relations district courts to issue child protective orders that require persons "[t]o abstain from offensive conduct against the child, a family or household member of the child or any person to whom custody of the child is awarded."[3] The General Assembly has not defined "offensive conduct," nor has a Virginia court interpreted its meaning. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory term must be considered.[4] "Offensive" means "[u]npleasant or disagreeable to the senses; obnoxious" or "[c]ausing displeasure ... repugnant to the prevailing sense of what is decent or moral."[5] "Conduct" may be defined as "[p]ersonal behavior, whether by action or inaction; the manner in which a person behaves."[6] These are broad terms that encompass a wide variety of behavior. It is my opinion that harassing, stalking, threatening, or engaging in other conduct that would place a person or child in reasonable fear of bodily injury would constitute "offensive conduct."

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is my opinion that absent a judicial or statutory definition, "offensive conduct" includes the acts of harassing, stalking, threatening, or placing a person in reasonable fear of bodily injury.

Thank you for letting me be of service to you.

Sincerely,

William C. Mims

1. See VA. CODE ANN. § 19.2-387.1(A) (2008); see also VA. CODE ANN. § 52-45 (2005) (requiring Superintendent to establish and maintain Registry regarding outstanding, valid protective orders).
2. 18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(8)(B) (LexisNexis 2005).
3. VA. CODE ANN. § 16.1-253(A)(1) (Supp. 2009).
4. Winborne v. Va. Lottery, 278 Va. 142, 148, 677 S.E.2d 304, 306 (2009).
5. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1188 (9th ed. 2009).
6. Id. at 336; see also id. at 337 (defining "wrongful conduct" as "an act that unjustly infringes on another's rights"; defining "disorderly conduct" as "[b]ehavior that tends to disturb the public peace, offend public morals, or undermine public safety").