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....]
....[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.”
(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
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.