ILNews

COA: Non-violent contact order 'defective'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has remanded a case regarding a non-violent contact order issued by a Marion Superior judge June 30, 2008, which involved a divorcing couple. The ruling calls the order "defective."

In DeVone Moore v. Damon Moore, No. 49A02-0810-CV-978, DeVone Moore's attorneys appealed a protective order granted to DeVone in response to physical, mental, and emotional abuse from her husband Damon Moore.

Neither party was represented at the June 30, 2008, hearing; Damon was not represented on this appeal and did not file an appellee's brief.

The abuse, which Damon had not denied, had escalated after he learned she was planning to file for divorce from him. The court had granted her an ex parte order for protection June 18, 2008, but amended that order June 30, 2008, so Damon could still have contact with DeVone, as long as it was "peaceable contact, without threats of violence or actual violence."

DeVone agreed to the peaceable contact because the two had a daughter together, and DeVone wanted her husband to still have contact with their child.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's non-violent contact order, calling it confusing.

"... The trial court issued an order for protection using the standard form authorized by the (Indiana Civil Protection Order Act)," Judge Margret Robb wrote. "Not only does the trial court's discussion of this alternative order confuse us, it obviously confused DeVone, who had difficulty understanding the relief being offered and communicating the relief she sought."

In its instructions to remand the protective order, Robb wrote, "... We hold that the order for protection does not provide the relief necessary to bring about a cessation of the violence or threat of violence as required by Indiana Code section 34-26-5-9(f). Therefore, we remand to the trial court to enter an order ... prohibiting communication, and ... requiring Damon to stay away from DeVone's residence and place of employment ...."

The Court of Appeals also instructed the trial court to include terms for unsupervised parenting time for Damon and their daughter, and to check "yes" for Damon to be Brady disqualified, meaning he couldn't buy, receive, or possess a gun while he was subject to the protective order.

Matthew Albaugh and Jon Laramore, both of Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis, represented DeVone pro bono on this appeal.

Albaugh said he was pleased with the ruling for his client and that there is another takeaway from this case.

He pointed to the part of the opinion that states, "No standard form for such an order has been created by the division of state court administration, and there is no mention of such an order in the (Indiana Civil Protection Order Act), in Marion County's local rules, or in the Protection Order Deskbook."

Kerry Hyatt Blomquist of the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who filed an amicus brief, agreed.

Because this was a published opinion, she wrote via e-mail, "It will give Indiana judges the precedent to follow; specifically why they cannot issue NVCOs (non-violent contact orders). The first paragraph of the opinion says it all; NVCOs are indeed defective."

Indiana Lawyer covered this case in the Jan. 21 - Feb. 3, 2009, issue: "I'm gonna just pray that he does the right thing."

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT