Temporary Restraining Order: Case Study

That case was made insufficient because the father never had full custody of the child so therefore he could not begin to influence her own

Identify and investigate these contemporary issues relating to family law and evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal responses to these issues

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

(2) Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant's conduct was willful and wanton in injuring plaintiff.

Defendant submits the following Memorandum in Opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion to amend their complaint.

With fault based divorce in the 1960s, child custody depended primarily on the child’s age. If the child was under seven years old, also known as the ‘tender years,’ the mother would receive physical custody. This was because of the belief at the time that women are good caregivers and it was their job to take care of the children at home. However, if the children were older, custody would be granted to the parent of the same sex. Sometimes judges would also award custody of children dependent on martial or sexual conduct of the spouses. When custody was awarded in this way, the presiding judge could be more focused on the rights of the parents than what is best for the child in that situation. Either way, it was quite noticeable that child custody was based on the judge and their opinion, which could change from case to case.

See other attached documents: Certification of Probable Cause statement completed by Ahenkuro, Supplementary Domestic Violence Offense Report, and Domestic Violence Referral Form.

To properly understand the events a chronological descripcion of the litigation is to be provided.

The colonies decided to take full political action against Britain after they passed the Coercive Acts and for the very first time all 13 colonies met in an official Continental Congress to talk about the future of the Colonies.

Protective Order: PO-17-420 was filed on Wenesday, November 29th, 2017 and was served to James on the same day by Sapulpa

As the court strives to put the child’s needs and best interests at the heart of decisions, so it expects of parents. Looking at proof of each parent’s ability and desire to provide for developmental needs and be active in the child’s life becomes part of the process. Evidence the court finds useful includes a parent’s:

The father reported that the mother invited him over to watch the super bowl with the children and they became involved in a heated argument. The father stated that she wanted to leave him alone with the children while she stepped out he indicated that they argued because she has continued to portray to the court that “he is a danger to the children and should not be alone with the children” He stated that his tone may have frightened Emile, he reported that he took out the belt and started banging it on the counter. Mr. LePape stated that he takes full responsibility for his actions, it was not the right thing to do. The father reported that the mother called the police and he left the resident. He indicated that Ms. LePape took out an Order of Protection against him in February of 2013.

Consequently, the father sent an email to the Guardian expressing all his frustration because of the clear bias attitude of the GAL against the father. On February 11, 2014, the GAL, not losing any time nor opportunity to hurt the father in the process and committing thereby fraud on the court, used mentioned frustration letter against the father and requested the mother’s attorney to file an emergency hearing to modify temporary order which reads as follows: “she [the GAL] is concerned for the safety of the children. At this time the Guardian Ad Litem is recommending that the Father not have any timesharing with the minor children until the February 26, 2014 hearing or trial on the case.” (R. 279). Moreover, the Mother’s attorney filed an email sent by the guardian ad litem, which stated in pertinent part “I am very concerned that he may hurt the children or himself in the mental state he is in right now.” (R. 271). Moreover, the GAL dared to contact the daycare where the children were and asked the owner not to allow the Father to picked up the children without even having been to a hearing on the matter, or having a court order to do such a thing. (R.

Based on the limited facts, the Johnson Superior Court should, at the least, modify the Agreed Entry between the parties that, among other things, granted Catherine McHugh (hereinafter the “grandmother”) visitation of the minor child Christopher A. Cronin (hereinafter the “child”). There is an issue as to whether the grandmother is entitled to visitation rights to the minor child and whether the bad relationship between the Alice Cronin (hereinafter the “mother”) and grandmother is a consideration in determining the child’s best interest.

The main purpose of having what we know to be called Law in place is to help protect the people as a whole. It is to provide the necessary protection and give out legal penalties if someone was to break the laws. The purpose and main for a protective order is to protect someone from harm of another individual. It helps those that may be in harm of sexual, physical, mental abuse, stalking, harassment as well as those that have issues with neighbors’. Pretty much a protective order is put in place to help citizens be protective of any form of abuse by anyone. According to (findlaws) protective orders are court-ordered documents that require the person named in the order to stay away from