ILNews

Judges dismiss man’s appeal of protection order extension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a Porter County man’s appeal of a judge’s decision to reset a hearing on a temporary protection order for six months after the victim had an anxiety attack while testifying. The judges held Douglas Allison had to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal in the matter.

Heather Pepkowski petitioned for an ex parte protection order against Allison, her neighbor, alleging he harassed her and her mother, which constituted stalking. The trial court granted the order and set a hearing for 45 days later. Pepkowski was the first to testify at the hearing, but because she had an apparent anxiety attack while on the stand, Porter Superior Judge Julia Jent continued the hearing for six months. Jent also extended the temporary protection order until that time.

“It was certainly within the trial court’s discretion to continue the matter based on Pepkowski’s apparent anxiety attack at the hearing. A six-month delay, though, defeats the (Indiana Civil Protection Order) Act’s purpose of protecting victims in a fair, prompt, and effective manner. It also runs contrary to Section 34-26-5-10(a), which requires a hearing within thirty days after a request for a hearing is filed ‘unless continued by the court for good cause shown.’ The trial court made no record explaining why a delay of six months was necessary,” Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote in Douglas J. Allison v. Heather Pepkowski, 64A05-1311-PO-554.

Allison argued that the trial court’s Oct.10, 2013, order is appealable as a matter of right because it is an interlocutory order granting or refusing to dissolve a preliminary injunction. However, a preliminary injunction may not be granted without notice and an opportunity to be heard at a hearing, Darden pointed out. Allison appeared at the October hearing, but it ended before he had an opportunity to be heard. The court’s extension granted a temporary protection order, not a preliminary injunction.

The judges dismissed Allison’s appeal because temporary protection orders are not appealable as of right.

“To pursue this appeal, Allison was required to seek the trial court’s certification of the order for interlocutory appeal, and upon the court’s certification, to ask us to accept jurisdiction over the appeal,” Darden wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT