-
If my child's mother left me and my daughter and hasn't come back or done anything for my child in over 2 months, but my child is not legitimized as of now, is this considered abandonment? My child is 19 months old and her mom and I were never married. She decided she did not want the job of full-time motherhood and left to pursue other"interests".
Have you checked this out yet? There is an earlier post regarding it too, but this is the current one. Have nay input?
http://www.thelaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39656
Unfortunately, I don't have a clear law to cite, but I do know that it is the practice. I do see that 83.67 explains the things that you can't do to force someone out. As for why eviction is required, my best guess is that it has to do with something along the lines of waiver/estoppel. Mom is trying to put a sudden end to the agreement without giving the son any recourse.
We, as police, are not the ones that draw the line. That is very much why it gets referred to a judge through the eviction process. We aren't in the habit of throwing people into the street when they have nowhere else to go. However, say you allow someone into your home for a week and on day 3 you have had enough of them and want them out... by all means we can help you out. If on day 112 you finally decide you had enough... sorry, you have a civil dispute and need a judge to get the person out if they won't go willingly.
You wouldn't get arrested for changing the locks... you would get a citation. You would get to explain to the judge why you didn't evict... maybe you could sell it, I dunno.
I just did a little googling and found this to be quite common in Florida too. The statutes really depend on the definition of "temporary", which the don't define.
Experience does tell me that family members that lock doors will get the point across and the person will leave without pressing the issue... but in this scenario, mom does face misdemeanor charges if she locks him out, throws his stuff to the curb, or cuts water/power to force him out even though it is her own home.
The "entitlement" to the property comes with mom's consent to his being there without restriction for the previous six months... whether he pays rent or not. We caution people all the time to be careful who they allow into their home, to clearly state the terms of the stay, and to boot them when the time comes. Once they start extending the agreement and give consent to stay, they force the issue of eviction.
Well it wasn't meant to be shallow. Perhaps the law is different where you are. Here, whether you pay rent or not has no effect. If you start out as a guest for just a few days but are still there several weeks later with the consent of the homeowner, you have to be evicted to be forced out. In this scenario, mom allowed her son back into the residence with no clear end date for his stay. The son apparently has no other residence to return to, making mom's house his primary residence.
We go through this all the time with people trying to get friends or family members out of the house. They allow them in to "help them out", but several weeks later they are still there and mooching... but that is several weeks with consent. It becomes a civil issue requiring eviction. Now, if a guest is allowed for 3 days and on the 4th day the homeowner is asking the police to put the guest out... no problem! There is no specific time required to establish residency- it depends on circumstances.
(CONT)
Anyway, if when asked about speeding the driver offers the information about talking on the cell phone... OOPS! The officer may add that to the citation based on the admission, but it can probably be fought off since he did not observe it.
Let's use the extreme situation where the officer stops the speeding car and asks the driver why he was driving so fast... and the driver replies that he just killed his wife and is trying to leave the country. It is hard to believe that the admission would not be admissible as evidence should his wife be found dead at home. The guy offered it voluntarily and was not in custody.
However, in the cell phone situation, the officer has no other evidence other than the driver's statement, and a well argued challenge to the cell phone violation should prevail since the officer can't testify to what he saw.
When an officer stops you, you are required by law to provide your driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration... That's it. You are not obligated to answer any other questions, and doing so is considered voluntary. Miranda does not apply unless you are in custody. When you are still sitting in your car you are not in custody. You are in fact detained, but only for the sole purpose of the officer to write a citation... not so that he can fish more information out of you. In your question, the officer is asking about speeding (the reason for the stop) which he is entitled to do without Miranda (I think it falls under Terry V Ohio), but you are not obligated to answer. If the officer witnessed a violation, he may write you a citation for it. If he needs to fish more information out of you, then it was probably a bad stop to begin with.
I can believe it. Many people are too ignorant to stand up for themselves and will let the landord get away with it. The landlord is either just greedy or there is more to this story that would would explain the nitpicking. After all, she IS behind on the rent. That alone is enough reason to keep the deposit though... so heck, I dunno what the deal is with the weeds
Jharris:
I have not had the pleasure of conversing with you before, but just wanted to drop in quickly and say I was quite impressed with your well-measured, restrained, and (still) accommodating response to JV27403's uncalled for ghetto comment.
Respectfully,
fredrikklawJharris,
You're right, it is odd of me to be nice to Sunfrog. . .I guess it reminded me of a case that happened a few years ago where I vaguely knew some of the people involved. -
Loading…
-
Loading…
-
Loading…