Court Overturns Ban on Ex-Spouse's "Making Disparaging Comments" About Ex to "Anyone"

In Israel v. Israel, decided today by the Indiana Court of Appeals (Judge Mark Bailey, joined by Judge Edward Najam and Chief Judge Cale Bradford), the trial court had issued a divorce decree that provided, among other things,

The parties shall refrain from making disparaging comments about the other in writing or conversation to or in the presence of [Child], friends, family members, doctors, teachers, associated parties, co-workers, employers, the parenting coordinator, media, the press, or anyone. Disparaging remarks include[e], but are not limited to, negative statements, criticisms, critiques, insults[,] or other defamatory comments. The parties shall not say or do anything or allow a third party to say or do anything about the other party in [Child's] presence that may estrange [Child] from the other party or impair his regard for the other party. The parties shall not involve [Child] in matters that are adult matters and that solely involve the parents or the other parent.

Unconstitutional, the appellate court held:

There is a compelling government interest "in protecting children from being exposed to disparagement between their parents." To the extent the non-disparagement clause at issue in this case prohibits each parent from disparaging the other in Child's presence, the order furthers the compelling State interest in protecting the best interests of Child and does not violate the First Amendment. Father does not contend otherwise.

However, we agree with Father that the non-disparagement clause in this case goes far beyond furthering that compelling interest to the extent it prohibits the parents from "making disparaging comments" about the other in the presence of "anyone" even when Child is not present. Thus, the following portion of the first sentence of the non-disparagement clause [the only portion Father challenges -EV] is an unconstitutional prior restraint and must be stricken: "… friends, family members, doctors, teachers, associated parties, co-workers, employers, the parenting coordinator, media, the press, or anyone."

Congratulations to Alexander N. Mosely and Bryan L. Ciyou of Ciyou and Dixon, P.C. for their victory on this point.

 

Comments

[Cal Cetín]

"The parties shall not involve [Child] in matters that are adult matters and that solely involve the parents or the other parent."

Wait, wouldn't that stop the parties from getting divorced?

[Pavel Petrovich]

What is the jewish definition of 'adult matter'?

The family court must provide all directives to divorced parents on dealing with their kids, society is lost without family court orders on how to raise kids, lawyers, judges, jews know everything!!!!

Obey, obey, obey!

[Illocust]

Makes sense to me. Though I do wonder why he agreed to this in the first place.

[Pavel Petrovich]

The fallacy of state court's power to gag citizens post judgement because they have kids ... violation of 1A, vagueness of disparaging is unconstitutional, family court being a jewish invention to interfere with parent-child bonds, which are constitutionally protected. Another example of clowns in black robes being clowns to the tune of the jew.

[David Nieporent]

Yawn. Boring troll is boring.

[SilverlakeBodhisattva]

I keep waiting for a nice clean appeal of one of these "no disparaging" orders on vagueness grounds, but I realize that we may never see one, since a ripe, non-moot appellate remedy would probably only arise in the context of a contempt finding for violation of such an order. In the interim they have an in terrorem effect... ...except when they don't; some folks (like appellant in this case) seem determined to do everything they can to lose their cases

[korioliam]

This is a typical story for people after a divorce. It seems to me that those teenagers who see all this from TV screens consciously refuse marriage as a stage of a relationship. If we look at the statistics, we can see that most young people prefer hookup tonight. It made me sad before. But now I'm glad that this type of relationship allows you to avoid dirty disputes in the courts.

[elytratoys]

The folly of state court's jurisdiction to silence individuals post decision because they have kids ... breach of 1A, vagueness of disparage is unconstitutional, family court being a jewish creation fireboy and watergirl to interfere with parent-child connections, which are constitutionally protected.