C-PALSY Archives

Cerebral Palsy List

C-PALSY@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Anthony Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Cerebral Palsy List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:04:17 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
Joy, 

Tomorrow morning when my attendant comes, I'll have her read the information
that you provided, but I feel bad that you had to research for a answer that
common sense already told us.  Yesterday she met with the priest, and he
agreed to get her some counseling, and he wants to meet with the husband.
Again I personally don't know him, but I respect him.  

Thanks, 
Anthony 
Visit my website at www.anthonyarnold.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Cerebral Palsy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Joy Welan
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C-PALSY Digest - 21 Mar 2006 to 22 Mar 2006 (#2006-57)

Hi Anthony,

I did a little bit of research while I was procrastinating today, and
it seems like your friend's husband's claim would be really unlikely
to succeed.  Here's the statute that governs restraining orders in
North Dakota (12.1-31.2-01 of the Criminal Code):

"1. "Disorderly conduct" means intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or
gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security,
or privacy of another person. Disorderly conduct does not include
constitutionally protected activity.

2. A person who is a victim of disorderly conduct or the parent or
guardian of a minor who is a victim of disorderly conduct may seek a
disorderly conduct restraining order from any court of competent
jurisdiction in the manner provided in this section."

According to a case called Tibor v. Lund (1999), "merely showing that
a person's actions are "unwanted" is not sufficient to support a
restraining order; the petitioner must show specific unwanted acts
that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy
of another person."

Basically, this means that the fact that he didn't want the attendant
there wouldn't be good enough to get a restraining order.  He would
have to prove that she was acting with intent to affect his safety,
security, or privacy, which she wasn't.

Does that help?  I'd be happy to do more research if you want/need me to.

~Joy~

ATOM RSS1 RSS2