Mountain Flowers

Mountain Flowers

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

NEW 2018 DV Case out of Sacramento CA--in Female's Favor

Please bear with us---before we get to the published case from Sacramento, which was not our case, but shows what we often talk about,  thank you...................

WOO HOO!! Just won another DV in an unusual case (not in Butte County) where the female had two pets in her custody and got sued for having them by the ex live in--who lives at other end of the USA...
We helped her file the DV as she had prior DV case in another state, and asked that pets be under the protection order. Despite our doubts, the Court awarded her the order for 5 years (not 3) and she thus has DV protection as to the pets. Meanwhile, the ex is actually suing to gain something out of the pets, there is nothing to gain actually. And even though he hired an "animal law attorney" from another state, all we can say is, good luck on that one. They might as well have flushed that case down the toilet. (Attorney herein does animal law and for longer than most attorneys that know animal law...)
Second DV case-- just settled another DV case!! It does happen from time to time!!! [If we did not settle we would have won the case anyway...facts were in our favor....]


https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2018-c082857.pdf?ts=1519675297


....[D]uring a child custody hearing a year later in June 2012, Judge Kevin Culhane found that Riley still failed to comprehend the nature and gravity of his conduct.5 According to Judge Culhane, Riley involved a number of third parties, including his family members, in private parenting issues. The court found that Riley was the source of threatening e-mails Rybolt received from Riley’s sister and that his family members had followed her and copied private parenting documents. “Such controlling and intrusive conduct,” in the court’s view, “[wa]s fundamentally inconsistent with any finding that the [Family Code section 3044]6 presumption ha[d] been rebutted.”

Image result for domestic violence photos
(the photo above is not the victim, this is photoshop)

[J]udge Culhane further found that, “[m]ost fundamentally the evidence demonstrates an ongoing course of conduct whereby father attempts to blame multiple third parties, includ[ing] mother, mother[’]s boyfriend, other parties, the co-parent counselor, the former lawyer, mediator, and others for the continuance of father[’]s own activities.” Riley had also “drawn the child into these disputes on a number of occasions.”

This case is indicative that the courts are not wavering on protecting domestic violence victims.  It is in the DV victim's best interest to obtain a litigator that can best protect those rights.  If you need help, call today. Waiting can ruin your case as has been seen in the past for those who do not listen to good advice.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Family Violence Appellate Project-- CA DV Survivor and Out of State Abusers


October 30, 2017The appellate court granted  publication request in the case of Hogue v. Hogue, making the decision binding legal precedent in trial courts statewide.


  California victims of domestic cyber abuse will now be able to get restraining orders against out-of-state abusers. The new published appellate opinion is binding statewide legal precedent that can be cited in any CA trial court case where the abuse survivor wants to obtain a restraining order against someone who committed an act of domestic abuse from another state, (i.e. cyber harassment or electronic abuse) as long as the survivor was in California at the time of abuse.


 The universal pervasiveness of social media has made it exponentially easier for ex partners to commit domestic abuse, cyber harassment, and other forms of online predatory behavior across state lines. This new ruling in effect extends the intention of California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act to include modern electronic communications from out-of-state parties.