Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

A contempt order issues when someone knowingly violates an injunction or restraining order of the court. The judge has the authority to punish contempt occurring in his presence. The DA has the State of California for his client. When a defendant is charged with a crime it is by the people of the State of California approximation through their political representative, the District Attorney, by a deputy of that office. When the DA charges a crime, the judge doesn't have the authority to dismiss that case, but he has a separate duty to uphold the constitutions of the United States and of the State of California. This aspect of court is often overlooked. A man who is restrained from contact with his own children is in a peculiar position with these relationships. He is accused of something that is often driven by the scorn of a woman. Whether a restraining order is merited is not often the subject of proof following a trial. In fact, most of the time, a TRO or "EPRO" is granted on a "showing" not on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a conviction of spousal battery then the restraining order is considered justified because it is based on the conviction. Sometimes a defendant who is subject to a RO continues to show a lack or respect or disregard for the court order. Attempting telephone calls from jail will be considered a disregard by the judicial officer if the "restraind person" (RP) knows he is ordered not to make such calls, even if they are not accepted. Proof of a crime is related to two elements only 1- a guilty act; and, 2- a guilty mind. Each time a defendant demonstrates generally disregard for the RO it's like challenging the court to retaliate. The court is after all made up of real people. The defendant's talking to his son in the hallway in this situation seems a little bland to me. The questions I would ask are "Has he been accused of violence that affected the son?" Has he made a habit of disregard for the RO? Is this really a felony? (Charging and gaining a conviction of a felony isn't a discretionary act. Whether a crime is a felony is a matter subject to proof. I've seen this before where a defendant continues to challenge the RO in small ways and it only gets bigger and worse. It's important to stay for back of the line of violation because it risks criminal liability, which is itself a wreckage, akin to a train wreck. The defendant in this needs to vindicate himself and get out of harms way by holding out for innocence or by mitigating his liabilities. This seems like the best answer for now.