de mí en esposo

Charles Davis Dec 29, 2016:

It does seem inherently more likely that the ex-husband's restraining order would be against his ex-wife than against her employer, and it's true that in that case the employer contacting the husband would put the employee in an awkward position and she could see it as "no respetar la orden". What is certain is that it is the ex-husband who has the restraining order. It is perhaps more usual for wives to have restraining orders against their husbands, but it can be the other way round.

Marie Wilson Dec 29, 2016:

The problem is the lack of pronouns in Spanish. Presumably "Le había informado a la paciente" refers to the employee telling the patient, in that case it would make no sense for the restraining order to be on the employer, as she would already have been informed by the authorities.

spanruss (asker) Dec 29, 2016:

Marie, yes, I would have expected "contra" as well.

spanruss (asker) Dec 29, 2016:

I see your logic in that, Charles. It is indeed unclear. However, I would add that, even if the order was not against the employer, it would put the employee in a very awkward position to have her employer speaking with her husband. This could be why she decided to quit instead of seek legal recourse against violation of the order.

Marie Wilson Dec 29, 2016:

I agree with Charles and also if she had a restraining order against her husband it would be more likely to read "contra mi ex-esposo".

Charles Davis Dec 29, 2016:

Yes, I agree, it should probably read "mi ex-esposo".

I think the situation must be as follows. The speaker is a woman in the service of the patient, who is female. The servant's ex-husband has obtained an order preventing somebody from contacting him, though it is not quite clear whether that person is his ex-wife or her employer. It says "no podía mantener comunicación con él", which could mean either I (the servant, his ex-wife) couldn't or that she (the employer, the patient) couldn't. Perhaps the order could even be against both of them. But since the servant seems to say after this that her employer, the patient, took no notice and violated the order (presumably by contacting the ex-husband), causing her (the servant) to leave the patient's service, it does sound as though the ex-husband's order was against the employer, since otherwise she would not have been violating it by contacting him.

spanruss (asker) Dec 29, 2016:

Yes, it is poor handwriting and must be "ex-esposo". Thanks!

Marie Wilson Dec 29, 2016:

Could it be a typo for "de mi ex esposo"?

Iseult Harrington Dec 29, 2016:

Given that there is already an obvious typo ("or"), could it be that "mí en" is meant to say "mi ex-"?