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."


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.