There are 2 to 3 million of them handed out each year [1].

If not "normal," that's certainly _common_. There is no proof or evidence required to issue one. The judge only reads a description of events. It is not required for the restrained party to be there to defend or present counter-evidence.

It's simply a 5-10 minute meeting between a judge and a person who alleges "fear" or "emotional harm." Exact laws vary from state to state.

They are free to file and cost 5-10 thousand dollars to appeal.

[1] http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/03/30/the-high-price-of-res...

The 2-3 million figure is based on an _estimate_ by http://www.mediaradar.org/ and http://www.acfc.org/, which are not neutral sources (though this does not mean that they are wrong). The one clear piece of evidence cited is ~38,000 orders for Pennsylvania, which comprises 4% of the US population.

Edit: My initial comment understated the issue. Media Radar states that women are twice as likely to engage in unidirectional (unreciprocated) violence towards their partners are men. While domestic violence against men is real and subject to a lot of shame and silence, this estimate seems insane: I have previously seen figures like 10% of domestic violence stemming from women.

Right you are talking about a temporary restraining orders, right? For a full fledged restraining order there is at least supposed to be a showing of evidence and an opportunity to rebut the evidence on the part of the other party, right? The article you link to seems to lump these together with no real discussion of the process.

The idea behind a lax standard for TRO's is that if there is danger, the court should temporarily try to mitigate it, pending further process.

That was my whole reason for asking; they seem common because of the media. Now that I see other comments here it seems really easy to get them which seems like something open to abuse. I am just surprised because they are so uncommon here.

He probably thinks so because of other comments above.