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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT