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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT