Fatal Flaws On the Face Of The Petition and in Testimony
The lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the petition. On forms DV-100 pg. 1 and DV-110 pg. 1, the petitioner describes the respondent as an “ex-friend”. (exhibit, exhibit). An “ex-friend”, someone with whom one has a platonic relationship, does not satisfy the standard of a domestic relationship set forth in Family Code section 6211.1
Consider a similar case, the petitioner and appellant, hereon Oriola, appealed the dismissal of a restraining order sought pursuant to the DVPA for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appeal asserted the trial court erred in finding there was no dating relationship between Oriola and the respondent, hereon Thaler. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, based on Oriola’s pleadings and statements, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court concluded a “dating relationship” had not been established since: the parties went on four social outings; were alone during one outing; Oriola had told Thaler after the first date that she was not interested in a romantic relationship; Oriola reminded Thaler she was not interested in a romantic relationship on several occasions; the relationship was relatively brief, over a period of less than two months; and Oriola, in …show more content…
On the face of the petition, the petitioner plead the respondent is an “ex-friend”; has stated his sexual encounter with the respondent is “one meaningless drunken night” the respondent has made into a “huge ordeal”; and refers to having “fucked” her. In conversations with the respondent the petitioner has always minimized whatever relationship existed between them; has never discussed the relationship as having been a “dating relationship”; and communicated to the respondent, within weeks of the sexual encounter, that he did not intend to mislead her and requested they remain
The lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the petition. On forms DV-100 pg. 1 and DV-110 pg. 1, the petitioner describes the respondent as an “ex-friend”. (exhibit, exhibit). An “ex-friend”, someone with whom one has a platonic relationship, does not satisfy the standard of a domestic relationship set forth in Family Code section 6211.1
Consider a similar case, the petitioner and appellant, hereon Oriola, appealed the dismissal of a restraining order sought pursuant to the DVPA for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appeal asserted the trial court erred in finding there was no dating relationship between Oriola and the respondent, hereon Thaler. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, based on Oriola’s pleadings and statements, that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court concluded a “dating relationship” had not been established since: the parties went on four social outings; were alone during one outing; Oriola had told Thaler after the first date that she was not interested in a romantic relationship; Oriola reminded Thaler she was not interested in a romantic relationship on several occasions; the relationship was relatively brief, over a period of less than two months; and Oriola, in …show more content…
On the face of the petition, the petitioner plead the respondent is an “ex-friend”; has stated his sexual encounter with the respondent is “one meaningless drunken night” the respondent has made into a “huge ordeal”; and refers to having “fucked” her. In conversations with the respondent the petitioner has always minimized whatever relationship existed between them; has never discussed the relationship as having been a “dating relationship”; and communicated to the respondent, within weeks of the sexual encounter, that he did not intend to mislead her and requested they remain