Judge Wells in Department 2J of the Riverside Superior Court has made it a game to continue restraining orders at length refusing to grant either party the statutory relief. A TRO is normally set for hearing within 21/25 days the maximum statutory time for a TRO to be heard (CA family code section 242). A respondent is allowed to request a continuance once. The plaintiff/petitioner has to proceed at the hearing for a permanent restraining order based upon a filed TRO according to CA family code section 243 which specifies as follows :  "When the matter first comes up for hearing, the petitioner must be ready to proceed. (b) If a petition under this part has been filed, the respondent shall be personally served with a copy of the petition, the temporary order, if any, and the notice of hearing on the petition.  Service shall be made at least five days before the hearing. (c) If the petitioner fails to comply with subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), the court shall dissolve the order. (d) If service is made under subdivision (b), the respondent may file a response that explains or denies the allegations in the petition.  The respondent is entitled, as a matter of course, to one continuance for a reasonable period, to respond to the petition for orders. (e) On motion of the petitioner or on its own motion, the court may shorten the time provided in this section for service on the respondent. (f) If the response is served on the petitioner at least two days before the hearing, the petitioner is not entitled to a continuance on account of the response". In this case Judge Wells had already granted a continuance on request of the respondent on 5/10/2017, and on 5/24/2017 continued the hearing for a permanent restraining order until 5/2018, after a response had already been filed. Instead of requesting a continuance the respondent could have requested a dismissal of the TRO by filing an RFO to dismiss. Instead this court violates the maximum requirements under the domestic violence act to continue a TRO for over a year based upon the domestic violence petition that was filed (CA family code section 6300) without reissuing the TRO as required by CA family code section 242 which species as follows: "(a) Within 21 days, or, if good cause appears to the court, 25 days from the date that a temporary order is granted or denied, a hearing shall be held on the petition.  If no request for temporary orders is made, the hearing shall be held within 21 days, or, if good cause appears to the court, 25 days from the date that the petition is filed. (b) If a hearing is not held within the time provided in subdivision (a), the court may nonetheless hear the matter, but the order is unenforceable unless reissued under Section 245". This scenario is even more ludicrous as the TRO was granted on 4/26/2017 and is listed as active. As a result the protected party is no longer protected by a granted TRO. Please sign this petition and share your own experience with the unbelievable judicial massacre of the law that prevails in Department 2J.