Did any know?

Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and
then finding a judge that will listen.

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try
the case.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Thank you, Chris.

Chris wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent
could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any
suits have been won based on this though.

Dusty wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Thank you, Chris.

Do you have a problem with being wrong?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:4LeDf.15346$sA3.14047@fed1read02...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states
and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as
a a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie
case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them
try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they
just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Thank you, Chris.

Do you have a problem with being wrong?

I was not wrong. Chris said the samething as I, he just phrased it so that,
with the exception of yourself, anyone could understand it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states
and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a
a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them
try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent
could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any
suits have been won based on this though.

Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you might
find it in the courthouse) and look it up.

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Did anyone know that you can sue for intentional inference with
visitation rights in South Dakota?

I hate to break it to ya, but you can in just about all 50 states
and
territories. The trouble is getting the proof to back up the
aligation
and
then finding a judge that will listen.

I am refering to an actual recognized cause of action in tort. Sure,
you could write the pleading. Many states (through the courts) have
rejected intentional interference with visitation rights as able to
maintain a cause of action in tort. South Dakota has accepted it as a
a
seperate and distinct cause of action. If you pled a prima facie case
and it was dismissed you could appeal, and theoretically, make them
try
the case.

Remember the movie "Deliverance"? They decided it was best if they just
buried the body being that they would be facing all the relatives as
jurors/judge. This is no different; you're swimming against the tide.

Of course you are, read the "theoretically" in there. The precedent
could be overturned and noone would care. I would like to know if any
suits have been won based on this though.

Do a Google search on it, or head over to the local law libarary (you might
find it in the courthouse) and look it up.

Do you know what a recognized case of action is?

Ok, here is a breakdown . . . . intentional interference with
noncustodial parents visitation rights by custodial parent is not
recognized as a cause of action in the following states:

Louisiana, no.

New York, no.

Missouri, no.

Wisconsin, no.

Maryland, no.

Wyoming, no.

Delaware, no.

Florida, no.

Oklahoma, no.

You look up the rest down at your local law library, I am bored. Make
sure to distinguish between interference by a third-party as more
courts allow this. I wanted to pointed out an anamoly, and a positive
one at that, in the law. You need to step down about three notches...

Oh yeah, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.