Something that seems to catch many lawyers and some clients unaware are the unexpected difficulties that people face later in life if they are ever the subject of a Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) Abuse Prevention Order.
    
    These Orders can be obtained from the court ex-parte.  This means that they can be issued by the court based on the appearance of only the accusing party, without the accused even knowing that an accusation is being made against them.
    
    Although the accused has a right to appear in court to attempt to overturn the FAPA Order once it is served on him (or her), few realize the full ramifications.  These ramifications can differ depending on whether the person appears in court to contest the FAPA, or whether the person simply allows the FAPA to stand, without challenging it.

    One unanticipated consequence of a FAPA Order against a person can include a restriction on the possession or purchase of firearms even within the US.

    Some other consequences can be even harder to foresee.

    It is not uncommon that the first time that one significant consequence of a FAPA becomes notable is years after the fact - and after the person has spent many thousands of dollars on an expensive vacation.  Much to their consternation, people attempting to enter Canada are turned around on a daily basis, for example, because they have a FAPA in their history.

    This can be particularly disconcerting if the person is traveling with his friends and/or family, and if the person has spent thousands of dollars on a non-refundable dream vacation.

    This can have even more unsettling consequences if the person needs to enter the country for a business trip.

    When you look at it from the perspective of the foreign government, though, this position becomes perfectly reasonable.  The foreign country has no obligation to admit any foreign citizen (not even an American), and they have every reason to make the determination that they prefer not to admit tourists or others who have a history of domestic abuse.

    After all, why should that country want to run the risk of a similar incident occurring in their country, with the potential of harm to their citizens, and with all the cost and disruption involved with a criminal arrest and prosecution.

    Countries can make similar policy determinations to refuse admission to someone who has had even one DUII conviction, or who has been involved in any crime involving honesty (including misdemeanor shop lifting), or the like.

    Indeed, in some circumstances, a conviction for DUII may be even more likely to result in being denied entry into another country than is the existence of a FAPA.  

    Further, as with certain of the firearms restrictions associated with having a FAPA, in some circumstances, the travel consequences of a FAPA can turn on whether the person unsuccessfully challenged the FAPA in a contested hearing in court, or whether the person simply allowed the FAPA to stand without challenge.