This document is a declaration in support of an ex parte request for domestic violence restraining orders, temporary custody and visitation orders, and child abduction prevention orders. It details the petitioner's background and history with the respondent, including past abusive behavior and arrests. It provides evidence of recent incidents where the respondent denied visitation access to the children unless paid and imprisoned the children in a hot vehicle. The petitioner fears for the safety of the children and risks of abduction. The memorandum argues it is in the children's best interest to grant the emergency orders due to the past domestic violence and abduction risks. Proof of service that the respondent was notified of the ex parte request is also provided.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Michael Baird from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
- The respondent, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, appealed the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and cancellation of removal by the Immigration Judge.
- The Board upheld the finding that she did not show the government of Zimbabwe was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution. However, the case was remanded for further consideration of her application for cancellation of removal based on the passage of time.
- On remand, the parties were instructed to further address issues such as good moral character, hardship if relocated to Zimbabwe, and whether relief should be granted as a matter of discretion based on an updated record.
This document is a brief in opposition filed by Donald Anderson, Douglas Tench, and Mary Tench (Respondents) against Stewart Enterprises' application for interlocutory appeal. It provides the procedural history of the case, in which the trial court denied Stewart's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of material fact. The brief argues the trial court's ruling was not erroneous given the evidence presented, including that water was found in the burial site and the deceased's casket was floating in water on the day of burial, requiring Respondents and others to assist and complete the burial over 8 hours. The brief contends Stewart omitted and misstated key facts, and failed to provide documents as required, and therefore the application should
This petition challenges a family court order granting temporary custody to the opposing party without notice. The petitioner filed an ex parte request for temporary custody of his daughter due to safety concerns from the mother's alcoholism and domestic violence. However, the judge crossed out the petitioner's request, checked the box for the mother, and signed the order without notice to the absent mother. The petitioner argues this violates statutes requiring notice and a hearing for temporary custody orders, and seeks review of the denial of a writ of prohibition to invalidate the improper ex parte order.
Detective Merchant repeatedly expressed his personal opinions about the defendant's guilt and speculated about facts during his interrogation of the defendant. The defendant, who was emotional and crying throughout the interrogation, now seeks to prohibit her statement from being presented at trial because the detective's improper opinion testimony would unfairly prejudice the jury against her. Allowing a law enforcement officer to offer opinions about a defendant's credibility or guilt invades the jury's role and carries more weight with jurors. The improper portions of the interrogation cannot be properly redacted without misleading the jury.
This motion seeks to preclude the defense from introducing evidence of the plaintiff's prior criminal record from New Jersey. Specifically, it aims to prevent evidence related to an accusation that the plaintiff obtained temporary disability benefits through deception. The plaintiff was accepted into a pretrial intervention program in New Jersey for this accusation but did not plead guilty. The motion argues this evidence should be excluded as it involves a collateral matter unrelated to the issues in the current civil case, and risks unduly prejudicing the plaintiff. Introduction of such extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness on a collateral matter is prohibited.
This document is the plaintiff's response in opposition to the defendant's motion in limine to exclude certain expert testimony in a wrongful death lawsuit. It summarizes the facts of two incidents where the deceased consumed alcohol at the defendant's bar and was later involved in altercations leading to his death. It argues that (1) the expert testimony of a psychologist regarding what employees of the bar would have foreseen should be admitted, as reliability goes to weight not admissibility, and (2) the probative value of the testimony is not outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice or issues like delay, as the jury should consider all relevant information and the defendant can cross-examine the expert.
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeVogelDenise
1) Newsome filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against her former employer CHM. The EEOC dismissed the charge after determining CHM was exempt from religious discrimination claims as a religious organization.
2) Newsome then filed a lawsuit against the EEOC seeking to compel further investigation. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding Newsome's claims lacked merit.
3) The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the EEOC has discretion over the scope of investigations and Newsome had other remedies available through suing her employer directly. Newsome's legal theories did not plausibly allege violations of Title VII, the APA, civil rights statutes, or the constitution.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a petition for certiorari filed by Rennie Declarador against the suspension of sentence ordered by the Regional Trial Court for Frank Bansales, who was convicted of murdering Declarador's wife. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that (1) Declarador had standing to file as the surviving spouse, (2) the Court could take direct cognizance of the petition due to the important issues involved, and (3) the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending Bansales' sentence given that he was charged with murder, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Philippine law and precludes suspension
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Michael Baird from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
- The respondent, a native and citizen of Zimbabwe, appealed the denial of her applications for withholding of removal and cancellation of removal by the Immigration Judge.
- The Board upheld the finding that she did not show the government of Zimbabwe was unable or unwilling to protect her from persecution. However, the case was remanded for further consideration of her application for cancellation of removal based on the passage of time.
- On remand, the parties were instructed to further address issues such as good moral character, hardship if relocated to Zimbabwe, and whether relief should be granted as a matter of discretion based on an updated record.
This document is a brief in opposition filed by Donald Anderson, Douglas Tench, and Mary Tench (Respondents) against Stewart Enterprises' application for interlocutory appeal. It provides the procedural history of the case, in which the trial court denied Stewart's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of material fact. The brief argues the trial court's ruling was not erroneous given the evidence presented, including that water was found in the burial site and the deceased's casket was floating in water on the day of burial, requiring Respondents and others to assist and complete the burial over 8 hours. The brief contends Stewart omitted and misstated key facts, and failed to provide documents as required, and therefore the application should
This petition challenges a family court order granting temporary custody to the opposing party without notice. The petitioner filed an ex parte request for temporary custody of his daughter due to safety concerns from the mother's alcoholism and domestic violence. However, the judge crossed out the petitioner's request, checked the box for the mother, and signed the order without notice to the absent mother. The petitioner argues this violates statutes requiring notice and a hearing for temporary custody orders, and seeks review of the denial of a writ of prohibition to invalidate the improper ex parte order.
Detective Merchant repeatedly expressed his personal opinions about the defendant's guilt and speculated about facts during his interrogation of the defendant. The defendant, who was emotional and crying throughout the interrogation, now seeks to prohibit her statement from being presented at trial because the detective's improper opinion testimony would unfairly prejudice the jury against her. Allowing a law enforcement officer to offer opinions about a defendant's credibility or guilt invades the jury's role and carries more weight with jurors. The improper portions of the interrogation cannot be properly redacted without misleading the jury.
This motion seeks to preclude the defense from introducing evidence of the plaintiff's prior criminal record from New Jersey. Specifically, it aims to prevent evidence related to an accusation that the plaintiff obtained temporary disability benefits through deception. The plaintiff was accepted into a pretrial intervention program in New Jersey for this accusation but did not plead guilty. The motion argues this evidence should be excluded as it involves a collateral matter unrelated to the issues in the current civil case, and risks unduly prejudicing the plaintiff. Introduction of such extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness on a collateral matter is prohibited.
This document is the plaintiff's response in opposition to the defendant's motion in limine to exclude certain expert testimony in a wrongful death lawsuit. It summarizes the facts of two incidents where the deceased consumed alcohol at the defendant's bar and was later involved in altercations leading to his death. It argues that (1) the expert testimony of a psychologist regarding what employees of the bar would have foreseen should be admitted, as reliability goes to weight not admissibility, and (2) the probative value of the testimony is not outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice or issues like delay, as the jury should consider all relevant information and the defendant can cross-examine the expert.
JUDICIAL THREATS OF SANCTIONS - Against Vogel Denise NewsomeVogelDenise
1) Newsome filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against her former employer CHM. The EEOC dismissed the charge after determining CHM was exempt from religious discrimination claims as a religious organization.
2) Newsome then filed a lawsuit against the EEOC seeking to compel further investigation. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding Newsome's claims lacked merit.
3) The appeals court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the EEOC has discretion over the scope of investigations and Newsome had other remedies available through suing her employer directly. Newsome's legal theories did not plausibly allege violations of Title VII, the APA, civil rights statutes, or the constitution.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of the Philippines decision regarding a petition for certiorari filed by Rennie Declarador against the suspension of sentence ordered by the Regional Trial Court for Frank Bansales, who was convicted of murdering Declarador's wife. The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that (1) Declarador had standing to file as the surviving spouse, (2) the Court could take direct cognizance of the petition due to the important issues involved, and (3) the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in suspending Bansales' sentence given that he was charged with murder, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Philippine law and precludes suspension
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether a child's aunt and uncle had standing to file an independent custody action while a child in need of services (CHINS) case was pending in juvenile court. The court held that the aunt and uncle did have standing under Indiana law to bring the custody action. However, the circuit court should have stayed the custody proceedings and deferred to the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over the CHINS case until it was concluded. Now that the CHINS case has ended, dismissing the custody action for lack of jurisdiction was an error. The case establishes that third parties have standing to seek custody, but circuit courts must defer to juvenile courts when a CHINS case is already pending.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Lori Handrahan had not proven abuse allegations against her ex-husband Igor Malenko by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court heard testimony from two experts involved in evaluating the alleged abuse of Handrahan and Malenko's child. Though the experts concluded there was moderate evidence of abuse, the district court was not compelled to accept their opinions and appropriately considered witness credibility and other evidence in making its factual determination. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's evaluation of the evidence and application of the legal standard.
Mp hc abortion wp 14658 2021_final_order_10-aug-2021ZahidManiyar
The petitioner, a 19-year-old woman, filed a writ petition seeking permission to terminate her 12-week pregnancy. She alleged that the father, Rocky Shakya, had promised to marry her and they had consensual sex on this basis for several years. However, when she informed him of the pregnancy, he refused to marry her. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the sex was consensual as the petitioner was a major and aware of the consequences. It held that termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted in such cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The observations do not affect the ongoing criminal investigation.
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Seth Row
US District Court, District of Oregon, order holding that insurer did not "rely" on insured's alleged misrepresentation by incurring expenses to investigate insured's loss
This document summarizes a court case, Williams v. State, regarding allegations of child sexual abuse. It discusses:
1) The victim told her foster mother and caseworker that her father had sexually abused her. A psychologist testified that the victim's behavior and test results were consistent with sexual abuse.
2) The defense sought to introduce evidence of a prior false allegation by the victim against her half-brother, but the court found the defense did not prove the prior allegation was likely false.
3) The defendant argued that witnesses improperly bolstered the victim's credibility, but the court found the testimony was properly addressing the investigation and not opining on the victim's truthfulness.
4) The
The document summarizes a court case in India. Three juveniles, Ankit, Mohan, and Deepak, were convicted of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy. They were found guilty under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Their defense argued the medical evidence did not support penetration and the conviction should be overturned. The court reviewed the medical evidence and victim's testimony but ultimately upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case against the juveniles.
Mp hc abortion wa 745 2021_final_order_27-aug-2021ZahidManiyar
This document is a court order from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding a writ appeal filed by a 19-year old woman ("prosecutrix") seeking permission to terminate her 16-week pregnancy resulting from an alleged rape by her neighbor. The court reviewed the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and found that since the pregnancy was below 20 weeks and resulted from an alleged rape, it satisfied the criteria for termination. The court therefore allowed the appeal and permitted termination of the pregnancy if the prosecutrix provides written consent and her physical condition is suitable.
1) This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a divorce granted on the grounds of malicious desertion.
2) The plaintiff claimed the defendant deserted him but did not specify the date of desertion in his pleadings. The defendant denied deserting the plaintiff and claimed he forced her to leave on a specific date.
3) The appeals court found multiple errors in the trial judge's decision, including allowing the plaintiff to introduce a specific desertion date not in the original pleadings, failing to properly analyze the evidence regarding desertion versus constructive desertion, and arriving at a conclusion not supported by the facts presented. The appeals court overturned the decision and dismissed the plaintiff's case.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay cancelled the anticipatory bail that had been granted to Mohit Subhash Chavan. The court found that the lower court's order granting bail was arbitrary and lacked sensitivity given the serious nature of the crimes, which included rape and sexual exploitation of a minor (Rinku Nana Pardhi) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The High Court determined that the lower court failed to properly apply legal principles in entertaining the anticipatory bail application. The anticipatory bail was quashed and Mohit Subhash Chavan was ordered to surrender immediately to the Investigating Officer.
The Supreme Court case Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal addressed custody of a child following divorce proceedings. The key issues were whether the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the father's rights to visitation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision granting custody to the mother, finding the child's welfare was best served by remaining with her. However, the Supreme Court modified the order to provide the father visitation rights twice monthly and longer periods during school holidays. The Court emphasized conciliation efforts should be made to prevent bitter legal fights over children.
J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
This document outlines functions of the court that can and cannot be performed by a single justice of the peace in family court proceedings. It provides two tables listing specific rules and practice directions where a single justice is not authorized to perform certain functions, such as making final orders, adding or removing parties, or excluding people from hearings. The document clarifies that unless otherwise specified, a single justice cannot make final decisions of the magistrates' court.
The dissenting justice argues that the case should not have been accepted for three key reasons: 1) The decision being appealed was made over four months prior to the case submission, outside the 10 day statute of limitations. 2) Information provided to the judicial council misled them about the timing of the original decision. 3) Accepting appeals of much older decisions could establish a poor precedent and be outside the council's authority. While the outcome agreed that overturning disbursed scholarships was not within their powers, the justice believes this case never should have been heard at all.
GEVITTA'S: Trevor Joseph Fisher's, Full Criminal HIstory and Tax Liens Gevitt...Evelynn Blue
The following information concerns Trevor Joseph Fisher, of Gevitta, Bhang and Concierge, and was originally published by the online website ... It alleges, among other things, that when Fisher was arrested for transportation and distribution, he wore a wire, contributed information to aid the prosecution, and sent his two employees to prison (Mike and Nate) In other words, Trevor Joseph Fisher, is reportedly a snitch and a rat. He was arrested again recently.
Over the next few days a site will go live, and provide a robust suite of resources to stop-cyber terrorist like Trevor Fisher from destroying your life, and to help anyone who has been harmed by him or others he works for or associates with. Please contact us.
Personal note: the redacted criminal report is a public document from a lawsuit. I'll fight any DMCA takedown notices as fallacious claims will no doubt be made by Trevor Fisher and Glenn Weisberger.
Complaint - Warrant Reynaldo Mercado West New YorkHudson TV
1) A complaint and warrant were issued for the arrest of Reynaldo Mercado for being a fugitive from justice in violation of NJSA 2A:160-10, a third degree crime.
2) Mercado was accompanied by a female juvenile who had been reported missing by the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department in Pennsylvania.
3) Mercado had an active warrant from Pennsylvania for interference with custody of children.
This document is a bill being considered by the Georgia legislature to reform the state's juvenile justice system. It proposes substantial revisions to Title 15 of Georgia law relating to juvenile court proceedings. The bill aims to modernize provisions around dependency, delinquency, and children in need of services cases. It seeks to protect communities, impose accountability, provide treatment and rehabilitation, and equip juvenile offenders to live responsibly. If passed, the bill would enact comprehensive juvenile justice reforms recommended by the governor's council.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in OregonLewis Castro
This letter summarizes Oregon law regarding grandparent visitation rights for Mr. and Mrs. Harbin. It notes that grandparents do not always have an automatic right to visitation, but that Oregon law provides factors for courts to consider in determining if visitation is appropriate. The letter argues that the Harbins have met at least three of the five factors due to their long history of caring for the children and the potential harm of limiting contact. It advises filing a petition for intervention to seek court-ordered visitation and offers contact information to represent the Harbins.
Guardianships can provide legal permanency for children in foster care under certain circumstances. They are often seen as more legally durable than custody but more flexible than adoption. Some key issues discussed include the inappropriate use of temporary guardianships to close child welfare cases without providing services, as well as a lack of clear procedures for handling cases transferred from probate to juvenile court. In response, the Division of Family and Children Services implemented a policy prohibiting the pursuit of temporary guardianships during child welfare involvement.
362017 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 - Supreme Court 2.docxtamicawaysmith
3/6/2017 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 - Supreme Court 2005 - Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&q=Castle+Rock+v.+Gonzales,+545+US+748+(2005)&hl=en&as_sdt=1006 1/17
545 U.S. 748 (2005)
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO
v.
GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN,
GONZALES ET AL.
No. 04-278.
Argued March 21, 2005.
Decided June 27, 2005.
Supreme Court of United States.
*750 John C. Eastman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas S. Rice, Eric M. Ziporin, and Erik S.
Jaffe.
750
John P. Elwood argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting
Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Michael Jay Singer, and Howard S. Scher.
Brian J. Reichel argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.[*]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally *751 protected
property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been
violated.
751
I
The horrible facts of this case are contained in the complaint that respondent Jessica Gonzales filed in Federal District Court.
(Because the case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal of the complaint, we assume its allegations are true. See
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002).) Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock,
Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police
officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband
was violating the terms of a restraining order.[1]
The restraining order had been issued by a state trial court several weeks earlier in conjunction with respondent's divorce
proceedings. The original form order, issued on May 21, 1999, and served on respondent's husband on June 4, 1999,
commanded him not to "molest or disturb the peace of [respondent] or of any child," and to remain at least 100 yards from the
family home at all times. 366 F. 3d 1093, 1143 (CA10 2004) (en banc) (appendix to dissenting opinion of O'Brien, J.). The bottom
of the preprinted form noted that the reverse side contained "IMPORTANT NOTICES FOR RESTRAINED PARTIES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS." Ibid. (emphasis deleted). The preprinted *752 text on the back of the form included the following
"WARNING":
752
"A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME . . . . A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE
CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER." Id., at 1144
(emphasis in original).
The preprinted text on the back of th ...
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether a child's aunt and uncle had standing to file an independent custody action while a child in need of services (CHINS) case was pending in juvenile court. The court held that the aunt and uncle did have standing under Indiana law to bring the custody action. However, the circuit court should have stayed the custody proceedings and deferred to the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over the CHINS case until it was concluded. Now that the CHINS case has ended, dismissing the custody action for lack of jurisdiction was an error. The case establishes that third parties have standing to seek custody, but circuit courts must defer to juvenile courts when a CHINS case is already pending.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court's judgment that Lori Handrahan had not proven abuse allegations against her ex-husband Igor Malenko by a preponderance of the evidence. The district court heard testimony from two experts involved in evaluating the alleged abuse of Handrahan and Malenko's child. Though the experts concluded there was moderate evidence of abuse, the district court was not compelled to accept their opinions and appropriately considered witness credibility and other evidence in making its factual determination. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the district court's evaluation of the evidence and application of the legal standard.
Mp hc abortion wp 14658 2021_final_order_10-aug-2021ZahidManiyar
The petitioner, a 19-year-old woman, filed a writ petition seeking permission to terminate her 12-week pregnancy. She alleged that the father, Rocky Shakya, had promised to marry her and they had consensual sex on this basis for several years. However, when she informed him of the pregnancy, he refused to marry her. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the sex was consensual as the petitioner was a major and aware of the consequences. It held that termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted in such cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The observations do not affect the ongoing criminal investigation.
Opinion granting plaintiffs' msj 17-02-10 reliance is required spending on ...Seth Row
US District Court, District of Oregon, order holding that insurer did not "rely" on insured's alleged misrepresentation by incurring expenses to investigate insured's loss
This document summarizes a court case, Williams v. State, regarding allegations of child sexual abuse. It discusses:
1) The victim told her foster mother and caseworker that her father had sexually abused her. A psychologist testified that the victim's behavior and test results were consistent with sexual abuse.
2) The defense sought to introduce evidence of a prior false allegation by the victim against her half-brother, but the court found the defense did not prove the prior allegation was likely false.
3) The defendant argued that witnesses improperly bolstered the victim's credibility, but the court found the testimony was properly addressing the investigation and not opining on the victim's truthfulness.
4) The
The document summarizes a court case in India. Three juveniles, Ankit, Mohan, and Deepak, were convicted of sexually assaulting an 8-year-old boy. They were found guilty under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Their defense argued the medical evidence did not support penetration and the conviction should be overturned. The court reviewed the medical evidence and victim's testimony but ultimately upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution had sufficiently proven its case against the juveniles.
Mp hc abortion wa 745 2021_final_order_27-aug-2021ZahidManiyar
This document is a court order from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh regarding a writ appeal filed by a 19-year old woman ("prosecutrix") seeking permission to terminate her 16-week pregnancy resulting from an alleged rape by her neighbor. The court reviewed the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and found that since the pregnancy was below 20 weeks and resulted from an alleged rape, it satisfied the criteria for termination. The court therefore allowed the appeal and permitted termination of the pregnancy if the prosecutrix provides written consent and her physical condition is suitable.
1) This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding a divorce granted on the grounds of malicious desertion.
2) The plaintiff claimed the defendant deserted him but did not specify the date of desertion in his pleadings. The defendant denied deserting the plaintiff and claimed he forced her to leave on a specific date.
3) The appeals court found multiple errors in the trial judge's decision, including allowing the plaintiff to introduce a specific desertion date not in the original pleadings, failing to properly analyze the evidence regarding desertion versus constructive desertion, and arriving at a conclusion not supported by the facts presented. The appeals court overturned the decision and dismissed the plaintiff's case.
This document is a response opposing an application for an extension of time to file a brief. It summarizes that the appellants, who are appealing an order adding them as judgment debtors, have already received 60 days of extensions for filing their brief, totaling 120 days. The response argues the appeal does not require unusually complex factual or legal analysis. It asserts the appellants' claims that the appeal involves issues of probate, taxation, and irrevocable trusts are not properly within the scope of the appeal. The response requests the court deny any further extensions.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay cancelled the anticipatory bail that had been granted to Mohit Subhash Chavan. The court found that the lower court's order granting bail was arbitrary and lacked sensitivity given the serious nature of the crimes, which included rape and sexual exploitation of a minor (Rinku Nana Pardhi) under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The High Court determined that the lower court failed to properly apply legal principles in entertaining the anticipatory bail application. The anticipatory bail was quashed and Mohit Subhash Chavan was ordered to surrender immediately to the Investigating Officer.
The Supreme Court case Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal addressed custody of a child following divorce proceedings. The key issues were whether the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and the father's rights to visitation. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision granting custody to the mother, finding the child's welfare was best served by remaining with her. However, the Supreme Court modified the order to provide the father visitation rights twice monthly and longer periods during school holidays. The Court emphasized conciliation efforts should be made to prevent bitter legal fights over children.
J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY J JOHN SEBASTIAN ATTORNEY
This document outlines functions of the court that can and cannot be performed by a single justice of the peace in family court proceedings. It provides two tables listing specific rules and practice directions where a single justice is not authorized to perform certain functions, such as making final orders, adding or removing parties, or excluding people from hearings. The document clarifies that unless otherwise specified, a single justice cannot make final decisions of the magistrates' court.
The dissenting justice argues that the case should not have been accepted for three key reasons: 1) The decision being appealed was made over four months prior to the case submission, outside the 10 day statute of limitations. 2) Information provided to the judicial council misled them about the timing of the original decision. 3) Accepting appeals of much older decisions could establish a poor precedent and be outside the council's authority. While the outcome agreed that overturning disbursed scholarships was not within their powers, the justice believes this case never should have been heard at all.
GEVITTA'S: Trevor Joseph Fisher's, Full Criminal HIstory and Tax Liens Gevitt...Evelynn Blue
The following information concerns Trevor Joseph Fisher, of Gevitta, Bhang and Concierge, and was originally published by the online website ... It alleges, among other things, that when Fisher was arrested for transportation and distribution, he wore a wire, contributed information to aid the prosecution, and sent his two employees to prison (Mike and Nate) In other words, Trevor Joseph Fisher, is reportedly a snitch and a rat. He was arrested again recently.
Over the next few days a site will go live, and provide a robust suite of resources to stop-cyber terrorist like Trevor Fisher from destroying your life, and to help anyone who has been harmed by him or others he works for or associates with. Please contact us.
Personal note: the redacted criminal report is a public document from a lawsuit. I'll fight any DMCA takedown notices as fallacious claims will no doubt be made by Trevor Fisher and Glenn Weisberger.
Complaint - Warrant Reynaldo Mercado West New YorkHudson TV
1) A complaint and warrant were issued for the arrest of Reynaldo Mercado for being a fugitive from justice in violation of NJSA 2A:160-10, a third degree crime.
2) Mercado was accompanied by a female juvenile who had been reported missing by the Wilkes-Barre City Police Department in Pennsylvania.
3) Mercado had an active warrant from Pennsylvania for interference with custody of children.
This document is a bill being considered by the Georgia legislature to reform the state's juvenile justice system. It proposes substantial revisions to Title 15 of Georgia law relating to juvenile court proceedings. The bill aims to modernize provisions around dependency, delinquency, and children in need of services cases. It seeks to protect communities, impose accountability, provide treatment and rehabilitation, and equip juvenile offenders to live responsibly. If passed, the bill would enact comprehensive juvenile justice reforms recommended by the governor's council.
This document summarizes issues related to domestic restraining orders. It discusses how restraining orders are obtained through a two-step process and are often issued on an emergency basis without the respondent being present. It estimates that around 60% of the millions of restraining orders issued annually are unnecessary or false. The document also discusses how restraining orders can negatively impact families and violate due process, as well as problems with gender bias in their issuance and victims sometimes being wrongly accused of abuse.
Letter Writing Sample for Grandparent Custody, Possession, Visitation in OregonLewis Castro
This letter summarizes Oregon law regarding grandparent visitation rights for Mr. and Mrs. Harbin. It notes that grandparents do not always have an automatic right to visitation, but that Oregon law provides factors for courts to consider in determining if visitation is appropriate. The letter argues that the Harbins have met at least three of the five factors due to their long history of caring for the children and the potential harm of limiting contact. It advises filing a petition for intervention to seek court-ordered visitation and offers contact information to represent the Harbins.
Guardianships can provide legal permanency for children in foster care under certain circumstances. They are often seen as more legally durable than custody but more flexible than adoption. Some key issues discussed include the inappropriate use of temporary guardianships to close child welfare cases without providing services, as well as a lack of clear procedures for handling cases transferred from probate to juvenile court. In response, the Division of Family and Children Services implemented a policy prohibiting the pursuit of temporary guardianships during child welfare involvement.
362017 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 - Supreme Court 2.docxtamicawaysmith
3/6/2017 Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 - Supreme Court 2005 - Google Scholar
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&q=Castle+Rock+v.+Gonzales,+545+US+748+(2005)&hl=en&as_sdt=1006 1/17
545 U.S. 748 (2005)
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO
v.
GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN,
GONZALES ET AL.
No. 04-278.
Argued March 21, 2005.
Decided June 27, 2005.
Supreme Court of United States.
*750 John C. Eastman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas S. Rice, Eric M. Ziporin, and Erik S.
Jaffe.
750
John P. Elwood argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting
Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Michael Jay Singer, and Howard S. Scher.
Brian J. Reichel argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.[*]
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally *751 protected
property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been
violated.
751
I
The horrible facts of this case are contained in the complaint that respondent Jessica Gonzales filed in Federal District Court.
(Because the case comes to us on appeal from a dismissal of the complaint, we assume its allegations are true. See
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 508, n. 1 (2002).) Respondent alleges that petitioner, the town of Castle Rock,
Colorado, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution when its police
officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond properly to her repeated reports that her estranged husband
was violating the terms of a restraining order.[1]
The restraining order had been issued by a state trial court several weeks earlier in conjunction with respondent's divorce
proceedings. The original form order, issued on May 21, 1999, and served on respondent's husband on June 4, 1999,
commanded him not to "molest or disturb the peace of [respondent] or of any child," and to remain at least 100 yards from the
family home at all times. 366 F. 3d 1093, 1143 (CA10 2004) (en banc) (appendix to dissenting opinion of O'Brien, J.). The bottom
of the preprinted form noted that the reverse side contained "IMPORTANT NOTICES FOR RESTRAINED PARTIES AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS." Ibid. (emphasis deleted). The preprinted *752 text on the back of the form included the following
"WARNING":
752
"A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME . . . . A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE
CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS
PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER." Id., at 1144
(emphasis in original).
The preprinted text on the back of th ...
This document is a bill being introduced in the Maryland Senate. It proposes prohibiting the practice of "rehoming" children by private individuals without court approval. Rehoming involves transferring custody of an adopted or guardianship child to someone not related to the adoptive parent without court permission. The bill makes rehoming a minor a felony offense of human trafficking. It also prohibits advertising children for adoption or placement except by licensed agencies. Individuals are allowed to report suspected cases of children living with non-custodial individuals. Violations of the advertising prohibitions are misdemeanors with fines.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Theresa Holmes-Simmons from 01/01/2014 to 05...Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
This Supreme Court case from 1975 deals with a husband filing for annulment of marriage, divorce, and judicial separation from his wife on grounds of fraud, unsoundness of mind, and cruelty. Both lower courts had rejected the claims of fraud and unsoundness of mind. The lower courts came to different conclusions on whether the wife was guilty of cruelty. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the wife's conduct did amount to cruelty under the relevant sections of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court also clarified that the standard of proof in matrimonial cases is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3.11 termination of parental rights (tpr)screaminc
This document outlines Georgia state policies and requirements regarding the termination of parental rights. It discusses when DFCS is required to file a TPR petition, including if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months. It also lists grounds for filing a TPR petition such as parental consent, abandonment, or failure to comply with a case plan. If grounds are established, the court then considers whether TPR is in the child's best interest based on their attachments, wishes, need for permanency and other factors. TPR hearings are held in the county with jurisdiction over the child.
The petitioner, Diwata Ramos Landingin, filed a petition to adopt her deceased brother's three children - Elaine, Elma, and Eugene Dizon Ramos. However, the petition was denied for three key reasons: 1) Landingin did not obtain written consent from the biological mother, Amelia Ramos, as required by law; 2) the authenticity of the written consent from Landingin's children was not sufficiently proven; and 3) there was doubt about Landingin's financial capacity to support the children given her part-time job and age. The court ruled that adoption requires fulfilling all legal requirements and considering the best interests of the children.
Improving Burdens of Proof and Standards in D.C.'s Child Welfare ProceedingsJera Oliver
This document discusses issues with the child protection system in Washington D.C., specifically the high number of unnecessary child removals from homes. It notes that while the state has a duty to intervene in cases of abuse and neglect, parents also have constitutionally protected rights to custody of their children. The document argues that standards for substantiating allegations and removing children are too low, resulting in many children being taken from homes where the allegations later prove to be unfounded. It calls for strengthening due process protections for parents in adjudication, disposition, and visitation determinations to remedy wrongful deprivations and ensure accurate rulings.
1) The document provides mnemonics and summaries from Atty. Manuel Riguerra's Remedial Law book to help remember important concepts in special proceedings, criminal procedure, and evidence.
2) It covers topics like venue, probate of wills, claims against estates, actions by and against executors, distribution of estates, habeas corpus, amparo, change of name, adoption, preliminary investigation, and the jurisdiction of different courts.
3) Mnemonics and acronyms are provided to summarize important elements, parties, grounds, and procedures for each rule, like the qualifications for Filipinos and foreigners to become adopters, the contents needed for an application for writ of habeas corpus,
Baldwin's Kentucky Revised Statutes Annotated
Title XXXV. Domestic Relations
SuperBrowse Chapter 403. Dissolution of Marriage; Child Custody (Refs & Annos)
SuperBrowse Custody
1. Proposed Legislation
Effective: July 14, 2018
KRS § 403.270
403.270 Custodial issues; best interests of child shall determine; rebuttable presumption that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in child’s best interests; de facto custodian
Currentness
(1) (a) As used in this chapter and KRS 405.020, unless the context requires otherwise, “de facto custodian” means a person who has been shown by clear and convincing evidence to have been the primary caregiver for, and financial supporter of, a child who has resided with the person for a period of six (6) months or more if the child is under three (3) years of age and for a period of one (1) year or more if the child is three (3) years of age or older or has been placed by the Department for Community Based Services. Any period of time after a legal proceeding has been commenced by a parent seeking to regain custody of the child shall not be included in determining whether the child has resided with the person for the required minimum period.
(b) A person shall not be a de facto custodian until a court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the person meets the definition of de facto custodian established in paragraph (a) of this subsection. Once a court determines that a person meets the definition of de facto custodian, the court shall give the person the same standing in custody matters that is given to each parent under this section and KRS 403.280, 403.340, 403.350, 403.822, and 405.020.
(2) The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child and equal consideration shall be given to each parent and to any de facto custodian. Subject to KRS 403.315, there shall be a presumption, rebuttable by a preponderance of evidence, that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the best interest of the child. If a deviation from equal parenting time is warranted, the court shall construct a parenting time schedule which maximizes the time each parent or de facto custodian has with the child and is consistent with ensuring the child's welfare. The court shall consider all relevant factors including:
(a) The wishes of the child's parent or parents, and any de facto custodian, as to his or her custody;
(b) The wishes of the child as to his or her custodian, with due consideration given to the influence a parent or de facto custodian may have over the child's wishes;
(c) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with his or her parent or parents, his or her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests;
(d) The motivation of the adults participating in the custody proceeding;
(e) The child's adjustment and continuing proximity to his or her home, school, and community;
(f) The mental and physical health of all in.
This document discusses a text message exchange between the respondent and petitioner regarding picking up their children from an undisclosed event. It also references exhibits of email exchanges between the respondent's attorney and petitioner's attorney regarding requests for respondent's employee plan information and other disclosures. The document indicates the respondent is combative and unreasonable in communications with the petitioner.
Igor Malenko, a resident of South Portland, Maine who works for IDEXX, has committed multiple crimes since entering the US 4 years ago that make him eligible for deportation. These include [1] shoplifting with his child, [2] multiple domestic abuse protection orders against his wife and child including failure to pay child support, and [3] a possible case of child sexual abuse. He is also accused of immigration fraud. Under US law, Malenko can be deported for committing crimes of moral turpitude and multiple criminal convictions, as well as crimes of domestic violence and those against children.
The Department of Justice advocates for ICE's right to place children in solitary confinement if their mother engage in protests against their unlawful detention.
This document is a memorandum filed by federal defendants in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. It argues that the court should deny the plaintiffs' motion because: (1) the plaintiffs have not established that the court has jurisdiction over their claims, as they have not shown a waiver of sovereign immunity; (2) even if jurisdiction exists, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the First Amendment as non-resident aliens; and (3) ICE's actions regarding hunger strikes are reasonably related to legitimate interests in operating family residential facilities safely. The memorandum also provides background on the plaintiffs and legal standards regarding reinstatement and withholding-only removal proceedings.
The document summarizes key provisions of Philippine laws related to exceptions under the Revised Penal Code (RA 7658). It discusses the crimes of adultery, concubinage, cohabitation, bigamy, violence against women and children under RA 9262, the juvenile justice system under RA 9344, and cybercrimes under RA 10175. Some key points covered include the elements that constitute these crimes, applicable penalties, and exceptions for minors under the juvenile justice law.
Under California law, grandparents may be granted visitation rights in certain circumstances. If a parent of an unmarried minor child dies, the deceased parent's parents can be granted visitation if found to be in the best interests of the child. However, if the surviving parent remarries and the new spouse adopts the child, grandparent visitation can be terminated. For married parents, grandparents may petition for visitation if the parents are separated, one parent is missing, one parent joins the petition, or the child lives elsewhere or is adopted. Grandparents of divorced or separated parents may also petition for visitation if found to be in the child's best interests and not interfering with parental authority. In both cases, parental objection
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...Putnam Reporter
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order in the appeal of the Final Divorce Order in the case of Dolores Jean Halburn v. Mark Vance Halburn. Case #11d-516 in Putnam County Circuit Court.
Order reversing in part and affirming in part, the Final Divorce Order - Halb...
CA PREVENTION ORDERS
1. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 1
First and Last Name1
Address2
City, State, Zip3
Petitioner, In Pro Per,4
Ask the courts to redact your personal information for safety.5
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, LAMOREAUX6
JUSTICE CENTER7
You First and Last Name, Petitioner) Case No: _______8
) Assigned for All purposes to: ________9
Time:10
) Date: _____11
) Depart: _____12
) DECLARATION OF YOUR NAME; IN13
vs ) SUPPORT EX PARTE RELIEF OF14
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; TEMPOARIARY15
his name ) RESTRAINING ODERS WITH16
Respondent CHILDREN; TEMPOARIRY CUSTODY17
) AND VISTIATION OREDERS,18
) CHILD ABDUCT PREVENTION19
ORDER, NO TRAVEL WITH CHILDREN20
ORDERDER(S)PURSUANT TO:21
California Family Code 3120;22
“the court may grant whatever23
temporary custody order seems24
Proper”, enjoined with CDVPA’s25
pursuant to Ca Family Code of26
Practice and Procedures § 6203,27
6211; 6218;§ 2045 (b), 2047, 3011,28
3022, 3060, 6323(a)], et seq.29
MEMRANDUM OF POINTS AND30
AUTHORITIES31
I, First and Last Name, declare that I am over the age of 18 and I am the Petitioner in32
this matter. I offer my declaration in lieu of personal testimony pursuant to California33
Code of Civil Procedure ŞŞ 2009 and 2015.5; California Rule of the Court 1225; Reifler34
2. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 2
vs Superior Court, 39 Cal.App.3d 479 (1974) If called to testify, I would do so of my own1
knowledge as to the following:2
I.3
BACKROUND FACTS4
“History” (provide copies of incident reports, police reports, arrest reports, etc..)5
On________, petitioner provides court with factual evidence to grant petitioner6
protection of domestic violence pursuant to Ca Fam §6218, 6320; 6203 (d), to prevent7
recurrence of domestic violence pursuant to Ca Fam §6300 (a) and §6211, in the form8
of _____________.9
Petitioner reminds court of respondent’s patterns of abusive behavior and prior arrests10
for violation of past restraining orders, terrorist’s threats, child abuse and declarations of11
multiple sexual assaults, including latest that prompted petitioner to file this temporary12
relief of Domestic Violence with children and DVPA judicial council forms attached.13
I am not capable of securing the safety of my children with out ex-parte14
protection from the Domestic Violence Prevention Act; temporary restraining15
order of relief of Domestic Violence with children, temporary custody and16
visitation orders, and Order for No Travel with children, pursuant to Ca Fam §17
6218 and Ca Fam §§ 2045(b), 2047, 3021, 3022, 3060 et seq., 6323(a).18
Petitioner respectfully request this court grant petitioner’s Ex Parte Temporary relief of19
Domestic Violence with Children; temporary orders for protection and temporary20
custody and visitation orders, temporary No Travel Order, Temporary Abduct21
Prevention Order, until permanent hearing pursuant to California Domestic Violence22
Prevention Act sections: §6300 et seq. § 6218; to prevent recurrence of domestic23
violence pursuant to this affidavit demonstrating, to the court satisfaction, “reasonable24
proof of past act or acts of abuse, pursuant to, [Ca Fam DVPA §6300, 6218], thus25
“abuse” need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault..26
Pursuant to CA Fam §3011 it is a detriment to the child’s best interest to award joint or27
sole custody to a parent that has perpetrated domestic violence in the past five year.28
29
30
31
32
3. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 3
II1
Pursuant to California Domestic Violence Protective Acts 6218, California Family2
Code 3120 , the court may grant whatever temporary custody order “seems3
necessary or proper”, [Ca Fam § 2045 (b), 2047, 3021, 3022, 3060 et seq., 6323(a)]4
Respondent continues to TORTURE PETITIONER WITH THREATS OF HARM, EXTORT MONEY from5
PETITIONER and family; uses denial of parental visitation and custody, as a means of “consequence6
to my disrespectful behavior”.7
Petitioner respectfully reminds this court that respondent has threatened me with8
“retaliation” if I proceed with court to seek protection, (by stating these types of9
facts; you are getting them into the court’s transcripts that create the record you will nee10
in the future).11
III12
Minor children are in immediate harm demonstrated by the respondent’s continued13
patterns of acts of domestic violence. (By stating these types of facts; you are getting14
them into the court’s transcripts that create the record you will nee in the future).15
Respondent’s violation of visitation order and pattern of abusive behavior are a16
detriment to the best interest of minor children. (by stating these types of facts; you are17
getting them into the court’s transcripts that create the record you will nee in the future).18
It is in the best interest of the minor children to order to grant ex parte temporary relief of19
Domestic Violence with Children Order, Temporary custody and visitation order; No20
travel with Children, and Abduction Prevention orders set out in DV judicial council21
forms DV 140, 105, 103 101___.(by stating these types of facts; you are getting them22
into the court’s transcripts that create the record you will nee in the future).23
On August 23, respondent refused to allow me to see my children unless I paid him24
“cash”, (exhibit ______,) and imprisoned the children in his vehicle, (in the heat with the25
windows rolled up), prior to allowing the children to visit, (exhibit____________).26
Grandparent, handed respondent cash and then CHILDREN WERE RELEASED from27
respondents vehicle and visit commenced, (declaration of witness filed with order for28
request), exhibit (_____)29
I have called the police each time respondent violates court order, however, LA police30
refer me to the DA… EXHIBIT31
32
33
4. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 4
IV1
Child Abduction Prevention Orders:2
The respondent is a detriment to the best interest of minor children’s health safety and3
welfare pursuant to Ca Fam §§ 3011, 3045(b), 2047, 3021, 3060 et seq., 6323(a) and4
poses great risk of abduction pursuant to CA Fam §§3048, (b).5
The Family code identifies several factors that may signal a risk of one parent might6
“abduct” the minor children to another county state or country. If it becomes aware of7
facts indicating such a risk, the court has a duty to determine whether orders should be8
entered to prevent the threatened abduction (move away or travel restrictions, posting a9
bond, even turning in passports, etc). Pursuant to CCP [Ca Fam 3048(b)].10
Respondent has been arrested ________ times in the last 5 years for violation of11
restraining orders, exhibit_______, terrorist’s threats, battery, and violation of court12
orders.13
Respondent refuses to cooperate regarding parenting, restricting visitation of minor14
children as tool to be relieved of his child support obligation of arrears,15
exhibit__________.16
I am fearful that the respondent will abduct minor children and flee the county or state.17
Respondent has changed vehicles, and minor children informed me that respondents18
has obtained passports with out my knowledge and has family ties outside of this19
country as his mother lives in ____.20
Respondent has recently quit his job; I confirmed this with the __________.21
I continue to respectfully pray to the courts for protection for myself and minor children; I22
do not want minor children to be further exposed to conflict and risk of abduction.23
I am not capable of securing the safety of my children with out ex-parte protection from24
the Domestic Violence Prevention Act; temporary restraining order of relief of Domestic25
Violence with children, temporary custody and visitation orders, and yempoary Order for26
No Travel with children, pursuant to Ca Fam § 6218 and Ca Fam §§ 2045(b), 2047,27
3021, 3022, 3060 et seq., 6323(a).28
In an effort to maintain frequent and continued contact with minor children, Petitioner is29
respectfully questing this court to order respondent to restrict contact with minor30
children to a secured residential land line; and order’s Respondent to exclude all31
conversation with minor children regarding issues of: domestic violence and32
custody/visitation proceedings, and respectfully requests this court allow33
5. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 5
communication to be recorded. (With out this court “order to record,” it is illegal to1
record).2
Conclusion3
Pursuant to California Domestic Violence Protective Acts 6218, California Family Code4
3120, this court has the authority and duty; and may grant whatever temporary custody5
order “seems necessary or proper”, enjoined with [Ca FAM § 2045 (b), 2047, 3011,6
3021, 3022, 3060 et seq., 6320(a), 6321, 6323]7
Judicial precedence give this court immediate discretion; ability and duty to grant Ex8
Parte Relief of Domestic Violence with Children Prevention Orders and No travel or9
visitation order to respondent, pending hearing pursuant to Ca Fam §(Pursuant to Ca10
Fam Code §3011, 3020, 3040(a) (1), and 3048).11
Pursuant to CA Fam §3011; it is a detriment to the child’s best interest to award joint or12
sole custody to a parent that has perpetrated domestic violence in the past five year.13
It is in the best interest of the minor children this court grant petitioner’s Ex Parte14
temporary relief of Domestic Violence with Children , temporary Abduct Prevention15
Order, Temporary Custody and Visitation Orders, temporary No travel with Children, set16
out in DV judicial council forms DV 140, 105, 103 101, 100___.17
Respondent’s behavior leaves me fearing for my life and the safety and welfare of18
our minor children.19
Respectfully submitted,20
21
Date:22
Your Name, Petitioner, In Pro Per23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
6. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 6
Memorandum of Points and Authorities1
It is in the best interest of minor children for court to grant EMERGENCY2
RESTRAINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH CHILDREN PREVENTION3
ORDERS to petitioner and minor children, pursuant to CA Fam Code §6300-4
6320, Ex Parte Relief of Domestic Violence with Children and Domestic5
Violence With Children Prevention Orders, defined in DVPA, CA Fam §6
3011; 6200, 6218, 6320,6323(a).7
1. It is a detriment to the child’s best interest to award joint or sole custody to a8
parent that has perpetrated domestic violence in the past five year, Pursuant9
to CA Fam §3011, CA Fam § 6323(a), (action for exclusive custody10
DVPA actions),.11
2. Child Abduction Prevention Orders:12
The Family code identifies several factors that may signal a risk of one parent13
might “abduct” the minor children to another county state or country. If it14
becomes aware of facts indicating such a risk, the court has a duty to15
determine whether orders should be entered to prevent the threatened16
abduction (move away or travel restrictions, posting a bond, even turning in17
passports, etc). [Ca Fam 6200, 6218, 6320, 6323(a). 3011, 3048(b)].18
3. Assign thus to remand this case for a hearing on the merits, before a different19
judicial officer [Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1(c).] directing the Superior Court to20
grant Emergency Restraining of Domestic Violence with Children Orders21
Prevention Orders, child custody and visitation orders, [6323(a) actions for22
exclusive custody DVPA actions] and Child Abduction Prevention Orders,23
[Ca Fam§§2045,(b), 2047, 3021, 3022,3060, et seq., 6323(a)24
25
Respectfully submitted:26
Dated: _______________27
Your Name, Petitioner, In Pro Per28
29
7. Declaration of______ in Support of Ex Parte’ Relief of Domestic Violence with Children, Temporary
Restraining Orders, Temporary Custody and Visitation orders, Child Abduct Orders and
Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Judicial Council Forms of the DVPA. Page 7
Case # 123456 PROOF OF SERVICE-1013.0, 2015.5 C.C.P.1
State of California )2
County of Los Angeles )3
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 184
and not a party to the within action5
On________, at 9:00a.m; I phoned respondent (first and Last name); at 949-123-4567;6
and informed him I would be seeking Ex Parte Relief of Domestic Violence with7
Children, Temporary Custody and Visitation, No Travel with Children order(s), Child8
Abduct Prevention order pursuant to the DVPA Judicial Council forms____________;9
and Declaration of First and Last name of Petitioner in support of above orders; on10
March 16, 2012; at The Superior Court House of Orange County; located at 341 The11
City Drive, Orange , CA 92683; at 8;30 a.m. on the fifth floor.12
________________________13
Dated: ______, 2012 Signature14
15
16
17
End of document18
(Please see superior court at www.superiorcourt.org, select Family Law, select Forms,19
click drop down arrow, and scroll down to Domestic Violence packet).20
If you are granted temporary orders you will be given a hearing date in which you must21
have him personally served by someone other than yourself. You may ask that the22
Sheriff’s Department serves these orders.23
You will now need a detailed declaration and evidence to support permanent orders and24
he will need to be served usually 5 day prior to hearing. And make sure to include the25
blank Response to Domestic Violence. Please contact us dpbey@familypeaceince.org for26
assistance.27
In some cases Family Peace, Inc., can provide an advocate to accompany the victims to court to28
provide support; (and we encourage anyone who is interested in joining our mission; to reach out29
and email us where you live and which court In some cases Family Peace, Inc., can provide an30
advocate to accompany the victims to court to provide support; (and we encourage anyone who is31
interested in joining our mission; to reach out and email us where you live and which courts are in32
y33
o34
u35
r36
37
a38
r39
e40
a41
)42