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. 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