• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Is my plan a legal one?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
When Dad refutes that by saying he begged her to stay but she left and took his children anyway...

He doesn't have to prove a negative.

And seriously - I am concerned for the children. But there are ways of doing things, and then there are ways of doing thingsl

Credibility is critical here.
Especially when you note the wording of the OP: he kicked her out two months ago but recently things became violent. Why was that? Was she keeping the children from him? Was she teasing him? What does she define as violence (yelling or hitting)?
 


Proserpina

Senior Member
Just providing the information. She has a TRO. She'll have an injunction hearing. That means this whole plan will be hatched out right in front of a judge.

If I were OP, I'd be looking to move somewhere that my violent ex didn't know where I lived, not the rental we shared. That may be difficult since OP's name is already on one lease, but Wisconsin Act 184 addresses that situation:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/184

Tax credits? Que?
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
I don't know. I swear it was the law on TROs and injunction hearings when I pasted it there :)

LOL no worries, Dad.

True story: It was a dark and stormy...okay never mind that part. About 2 years ago I spent a good 3+ hours preparing a post about immigration and family law. I cited pertinent case-law, found (after digging through the Illinois statutes) relevant bits and bobs and boom, I went for it. I hit the button!

And 2 hours later - yes, TWO HOURS - Illinois decided to use that time to upload a new and improved version. Okay, fine, fair enough. But what was worse, was the fact that they didn't just update the old stuff.....they actually changed the statutes themselves, removing them from one section, adding them to another, and making some of them disappear completely.

Imagine my joy.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
I believe this has happened to me more than once, too. I seem to remember Oklahoma (which uses/used a convoluted system of PDF files you can't copy and paste from rather than plain text on the web) changing a document entirely in the time it took me to post a reply, which reply of course was hand-typed.

There's also the distinct possibility that I made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

For the OP's benefit, here's attempt #2 at the pertinent information:

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/813/12

(c) The temporary restraining order is in effect until a hearing is held on issuance of an injunction under sub. (4), except that the court may extend the temporary restraining order under s. 813.1285. The temporary restraining order is not voided if the respondent is admitted into a dwelling that the order directs him or her to avoid. A judge or circuit court commissioner shall hold a hearing on issuance of an injunction within 14 days after the temporary restraining order is issued, unless the time is extended upon the written consent of the parties, extended under s. 801.58 (2m), or extended once for 14 days upon a finding that the respondent has not been served with a copy of the temporary restraining order although the petitioner has exercised due diligence. A judge or court commissioner may not extend the temporary restraining order in lieu of ruling on the issuance of an injunction.
As well as the intended information on terminating tenancy with an injunction:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2007/related/acts/184.pdf

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/704/16

(1)  Terminating tenancy by tenant. A residential tenant may terminate his or her tenancy and remove from the premises if both of the following apply:
(a) The tenant or a child of the tenant faces an imminent threat of serious physical harm from another person if the tenant remains on the premises.
(b) The tenant provides the landlord with notice in the manner provided under s. 704.21 and with a certified copy of any of the following:
1. An injunction order under s. 813.12 (4) protecting the tenant from the person.
2. An injunction order under s. 813.122 protecting a child of the tenant from the person.
3. An injunction order under s. 813.125 (4) protecting the tenant or a child of the tenant from the person, based on the person's engaging in an act that would constitute sexual assault under s. 940.225, 948.02, or 948.025, or stalking under s. 940.32, or attempting or threatening to do the same.
4. A condition of release under ch. 969 ordering the person not to contact the tenant.
5. A criminal complaint alleging that the person sexually assaulted the tenant or a child of the tenant under s. 940.225, 948.02, or 948.025.
6. A criminal complaint alleging that the person stalked the tenant or a child of the tenant under s. 940.32.
7. A criminal complaint that was filed against the person as a result of the person being arrested for committing a domestic abuse offense against the tenant under s. 968.075.
And in correcting myself I realized what happened: the Great State of Wisconsin recycles their Act numbers as they pass through the legislature each year. I followed a link to "Act 184" from 2008 (for the 2007 version), but the number was recycled in 2011 and 2013 at a minimum. Rather than give each page a globally unique name, the pages just forward to the most recent act with the relevant number.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top