Disagree.
Ex parte, is a
legal term which places the procedure smack dab right in the middle of due process.
It's important to understand exactly what the term means, how it is applied, and in under what circumstances it is used.
The term refers to a legal action taken by one party "without the other party included in the process."
Examples are restraining orders and injunctions. The link I provide gives some illustrations.
The legal process calls for an "immediate," action in court that involves the missing (ex parte) party.
The purpose is to provide emergency, temporary protection, where due process deems necessary.
From the link:
A court order from an ex parte hearing is swiftly followed by a full hearing between the interested parties to the dispute. State and federal legislatures maintain laws allowing ex parte proceedings because such hearings balance the right to notice against the right to use the legal system to avert imminent and irreparable harm. Far from violating the Constitution, the ex parte proceeding is a lasting illustration of the elasticity of due process.
Ex parte law is obviously useful and implemented very often and there have been few objections, particularly by the lay person.
The law does not automatically become unconstitutional when matters like child/spousal abuse, death threats, suicidal bevahiour, and other valid concerns include the word, "gun."
I'd like to emphasize, again, that ex parte is is a legal term used by the courts and the action is filed in the courts by plaintiffs presenting probable cause AND the temporary matter is followed by a full court hearing involving all parties with proper representation.