ILNews

Judges reverse protection order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A protection order under Indiana Code Section 34-26-5 against a woman should not have been issued because there was no evidence of domestic violence, stalking or a sex offense as required by statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

Vicky Tisdial appealed the issuance of a protection order against her in favor of Christine Young, who lives near Tisdial. Both live near a park where Tisdial would often put bread on the park's pathways to feed animals. Young, who walked her dogs in the park daily, was annoyed by the bread and asked Tisdial to leave some room for others who walk the path. Tisdial ran toward Young and threatened to spray her with a can of Mace. During another encounter between the two, Young yelled at Tisdial to stop putting bread in the pathways and Tisdial ran at Young and sprayed her with Mace.

Young then filed a petition under I.C. Section 34-26-5, the Civil Protection Order Act, for a protection order, which the trial court granted the same day. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court upheld the original order through May 2011.

In Vicky L. Tisdial v. Christine Young, No. 29A05-0909-CV-544, the appellate court reversed the protection order. The CPOA authorizes the issuance of a protection order only where the petitioner shows violence by a family or household member, stalking, or a sex offense has occurred. The trial judge granted it based on stalking, but there's no evidence Tisdial ever stalked Young. Stalking requires some evidence that the actor is looking for the victim, but the encounters between Young and Tisdial happened because they both used the park and Young verbally initiated each encounter.

"Although Young was understandably concerned regarding the possibility of future fights and reasonably sought legal recourse, we do not believe the general assembly intended orders for protection under the CPOA to serve as a remedy for a situation that entailed fighting between unrelated individuals," wrote Judge Margret Robb for the majority.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Protection Order
    Back in 2009, my girlfriend's mother, not my girlfriend out of jealousy got a Protection Order on me.My girlfriend was supporting me all along this. I hired a lawyer to contest it. This was in Greenfield, IN. There was a pro-temp Judge assigned since Judge was on vacation. There was not a single evidence that I am threatening her, there were no phone calls, no emails, no videos, no texts. Most importantly I didn't even knew where she lived. I was 33yrs old and the woman was 53 yrs old. She was simply jealous that I was educated and made a good salary. When she found out I had few thousands in savings, which was huge amount to her, she got very jealous. So even though the Judge found no evidence, the parties involved are not related by any relationship as intimate partners or household members, and Judge admitted making a mistake, he nevertheless issues the PO. He was Temp and didn't want to take any chances. Few months later, the mother apologize to me and dropped the PO. My criminal background comes clean with no records. Problem is my public record has a PO Dismissed on it. I have been unable to get a straight answer as how to remove it from my public records. I am willing to hire a lawyer who knows if this can be done, not someone who says I got to do research.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT