Savitri Bhama

Plaintiff Savitri Bhama and defendant Rajendra Bhama were married until they got a divorce in 1977, they both are psychiatrists. While married they had two kids together. After the divorce custody of both kids was given to Savitri. Which led to a custody battle between the defendant and the plaintiff. In 1981, custody of both children was given to the defendant. Which was then appealed and reversed and sent back for an evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the plaintiff had custody of one child and the defendant had custody of the other. When appealed the court gave custody of both children to the defendant.
Procedural History
The Plaintiff, Savitri, filed a complaint that Rajendra negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. She alleged that he used his psychiatric training in order to manipulate and brainwash the children into hating her. The defendant then made a motion for summary disposition, which the court granted. The court found the claim to be barred by res judicata. The plaintiff then claimed that by the court granting a summary of disposition was wrong, because her claim was based on relief and was not adjudicated by a court.
Issue #1
Was the Plaintiff’s claim of prima facie barred by res judicata?
Issue #2
Does the Plaintiff meet the requirements of Prima Facie?
Holding #1
No, the plaintiffs claim …show more content…
During this, the plaintiff did argue that the defendant had brainwashed the kids on purpose to make them hate her. The best interest of a child is determined by an eleven step test, and one of the factors of the test is determining the willingness of each parent to encourage a relationship with the other parent. During the custody case, they are only interested in how this affects the child’s best interest. They were not looking at emotional distress. She is also seeking damages for an injury not custody of her children, which was the goal of the previous