Family Court Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

Miami-Dade County‘s Family Courthouse Report Legal Abuse Violations-Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

What Is “Legal Abuse Syndrome”?

Whatever the court setting, whether it is regarding divorce, child custody, parental support, probate matters, personal injury, property disputes, legal or medical malpractice, criminal charges, or other deeply personal issues, the frauds put forth in our courts add greatly to the trauma.

When litigants are unable to get fair resolution to their issues, when the court dysfunction further adds to the litigant’s burden, when no amount of actual case law compels an equitable outcome, litigants suffer often disabling levels of stress. When further attempts to achieve redress fail, litigants display the hallmark signs of Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS). *The concept of Legal Abuse Syndrome was brought to the attention of this writer by investigative journalist Michael Volpe, who’s completing a book on the life and suicide of ones of its victims. The book’s pre-publication title is Bullied to Death: The Chris Mackney Story.

Dr. Huffer, incidentally, invites reports of cases like this one on her website’s Contact page..

It’s Constitutional – Discussing Constitution and Family Law Reform

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Children's Rights: It's Constitutional - Discussing Constitution and Family Law Reform | Kids' Rights and Family Court | Scoop.itJustice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law,natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens,..

Prejudices & discrimination based on a person's sex, social status, gender or race too often rule in U.S. courtrooms!

Prejudices & discrimination based on a person’s sex, social status, gender or race too often rule in U.S. courtrooms!

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Interest  —  Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort claim of recent origin for intentional conduct that results in extreme emotional distress. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same. Some jurisdictions refer to IIED as the tort of outrage.

Rationale for classification

IIED was created in tort law to address a problem that would arise when applying the common law form ofassault. The common law tort of assault did not allow for liability when a threat of battery was not imminent. A common case would be a future threat of harm that would not constitute common law assault, but would nevertheless cause emotional harm to the recipient. IIED was created to guard against this kind of emotional abuse, thereby allowing a victim of emotional distress to receive compensation in situations where he or she would otherwise be barred from compensation under the common law form.

According to the first doctrine articulated by common-law courts, a plaintiff could not recover for physical injury from fright alone absent a physical impact from an external source (“shock without impact”), even if the fright was proven to have resulted from a defendant’s negligence, with the case on point referring to the negligent operation of a railroad. Even with intentional conduct, absent material damage, claims for emotional harm were similarly barred. “Mental pain or anxiety, the law cannot value, and does not pretend to redress, when the unlawful act causes that alone. Though where a material damage occurs, and is connected with it, it is impossible a jury, in estimating it, should altogether overlook the feelings of the party interested.” Courts had been reluctant to accept a tort for emotional harm for fear of opening a “wide door” to frivolous claims.

A change first occurred in the Irish courts which repudiated the English railroad decision. The idea that physical/mental shock without impact from an external source would be a bar to recovery was first questioned at the Queen’s Bench in Pugh v. London etc. Railroad Co. In the following year, the tort was first formally recognised in the case of Wilkinson v. Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, although it was referred to as “intentional infliction of mental shock”. Citing Pugh and the Irish courts as precedent, the Wilkinson court noted the willful nature of the act as a direct cause of the harm.

Elements

  1. Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
  2. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
  3. Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and
  4. Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant’s conduct.

Intentional or reckless act

It is not necessary that an act be intentionally offensive. A reckless disregard for the likelihood of causing emotional distress is sufficient. For example, if a defendant refused to inform a plaintiff of the whereabouts of the plaintiff’s child for several years, though that defendant knew where the child was the entire time, the defendant could be held liable for IIED even though the defendant had no intent to cause distress to the plaintiff.

Extreme and outrageous conduct

The conduct must be heinous and beyond the standards of civilized decency or utterly intolerable in a civilized society. Whether the conduct is illegal does not determine whether it meets this standard. IIED is also known as the tort of “outrage,” due to a classic formulation of the standard: the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to exclaim “Outrageous!” in response.

Some general factors that will persuade that the conduct was extreme and outrageous (1) there was a pattern of conduct, not just an isolated incident; (2) the plaintiff was vulnerable and the defendant knew it; (3) the defendant was in a position of power; (4) racial epithets were used; and (5) the defendant owed the plaintiff a fiduciary duty.

Causation

The actions of the defendant must have actually caused the plaintiff’s emotional distress beyond the bounds of decency. IIED can be done through speech or action; if emotional stress, must manifest physically.

Qualification

The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiffs must be “severe.” This standard is quantified by the intensity, duration, and any physical manifestations of the distress. A lack of productivity or a mental disorder, documented by a mental health professional, is typically required here, although acquaintances’ testimony about a change in behavior could be persuasive. Extreme sadness, anxiety, or anger in conjunction with a personal injury (though not necessarily) may also qualify for compensation.

An example of an act which might form the basis for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress would be sending a letter to an individual falsely informing the person that a close family member had been killed in an accident.

Pleading practices

In civil procedure systems (such as in the United States) that allow plaintiffs to plead multiple alternative theories that may overlap or even contradict each other, a plaintiff will usually bring an action for both intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). This is just in case the plaintiff later discovers that it is impossible to prove at trial the necessary mens rea of intent; even then, the jury may still be able to rule for them on the NIED claim.

There are some reported cases in which a plaintiff will bring only a NIED claim even though a reasonable neutral observer could conclude that the defendant’s behavior was probably intentional. This is usually because the defendant may have some kind of insurance coverage (like homeowners’ insurance or automobile liability insurance). As a matter of public policy, insurers are barred from covering intentional torts like IIED, but may be liable for NIED committed by their policyholders, and therefore are targeted indirectly in this fashion as deep pockets.

First Amendment considerations

The U.S. Supreme Court case Hustler v. Falwell involved an IIED claim brought by the evangelist Jerry Falwellagainst the publisher of Hustler Magazine for a parody ad that described Falwell as having lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protected such parodies of public figures from civil liability.

See also

References

  1. ^ LeRoy Miller, Roger (2011). Business Law Today: The Essentials. United States: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 103. ISBN 1-133-19135-5.
  2. ^ Cusimano, Gregory S. “Tort of Outrage”. LexisNexis. Retrieved 26 July 2015.
  3. ^ For English law, see Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas (1888) 13 AC 222 (woman barred from recovery due to shock despite suffering a miscarriage); for a similar decision in New York in the same month, see Lehman v. Brooklyn City Railroad Co., 47 Hun (N.Y.) 355 (1888).
  4. ^ Lord Wensleydale, Lynch v. Knight (1861) 9 HLC 577 at 598; 11 ER 854, where a married woman unsuccessful sought redress for “slanderous imputation of unchastity”
  5. ^ Mitchell v. Rochester Railway Co. 151 NY 107 (1896)
  6. ^ see Bell v. Great Northern Railway of Ireland (1895) 26 LR (Ir) 428; also citing an unreported decision inByrne v. Great Southern and Western R. Co. of Ireland
  7. ^ [1896] 2 QB 248
  8. ^ http://trucounsel.com/index.php/intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress
  9. ^ Taylor v. Metzger, 706 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1998).
  10. ^ GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605 (Tex. 1999).
  11. ^ “Emotional Distress and Defamation in Personal Injury Cases”. Slappey & Sadd. Retrieved 26 July2015.
  12. ^ Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · Wikipedia

Reform Family Law ~ Stop Hurting Parents and Children
World4Justice : Cyber Protest!

Put Family Justice and Child Welfare Reform at the top of Politicians Agenda!we the people

False Accusation Law & Legal Definition

Prosecute False allegations of DV - 2016An accusation that is contrary to fact or truth is a false accusation. To accuse means to make a charge of wrongdoing against another. Accusation can be a formal charge of criminal wrong doing, like the accusation that is presented to a court or magistrate having jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged crime. It can also be an informal statement that a person has engaged in an illegal or immoral act.


The BEST parent is BOTH parents!! the-best-parent-is-both-parents-20151

Parents must stop making false allegations of domestic violence to derail and gain an unfair advantage in Family Court!

“The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right.”

Support the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children.

Add 28th Parental Rights Amendment to U.S. Constitution

Dedicated to the proposition that children are best served by having unfettered EQUAL access to BOTH parents.

Father’s Rights In Child Custody & Support Agrrement

Father's Rights In Child Custody & Support Agrrement | Kids' Rights and Family Court | Scoop.it

Longton DM works to preserve the relationship between a father and his children. Child custody and parenting times are all factors we take very seriously when negotiating your rights during a divorce. Our Michigan child custody lawyer will aggressively seek fair and impartial judgments on child custody and support arrangements.divorce process, representing dads in Brownstown, Wayne County dads divorce, Dads divorce Livingston County, Allen Park Family Law Lawyer, Woodhaven Divorce Lawyer, Wyandotte Divorce Lawyer

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Family Court Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress

  1. Pingback: When further attempts to achieve redress fail, litigants display the hallmark signs of Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) | Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

  2. Pingback: Maximizing the time each parent spends with the child | Children's Rights

  3. Pingback: I’m not the best father in the world, but I’m yours. – Stand Up For Zoraya

  4. Pingback: Effects of Trauma on Family Court Cases | Children's Rights

  5. Pingback: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Legal Abuse Syndrome | Children's Rights

  6. Pingback: JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2016 – SOUTH FLORIDA – Family Law Reform

  7. Pingback: Where to Find Support? | Children's Rights

  8. Pingback: When a Partner Grieves and The Moment of Truth – Stand Up For Zoraya

  9. Pingback: No parents should have to go through this – Family Law Reform

  10. Pingback: Right of a Parent to make decisions regarding their child… – Family Law Reform

  11. Pingback: Best Divorce Advice | American Fathers

  12. Pingback: Narcissism and Parental Alienation Syndrome | The Recovery Expert – Stand Up For Zoraya

  13. Pingback: Do Nothing Judiciary – Family Law Reform

  14. Pingback: One Judge Removed From Family Court – Family Law Reform

  15. Pingback: Child custody and visitation; the relationship continues | Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

  16. Pingback: “How will you fix this?” We asked Republican and Democratic Primary Candidates | Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

  17. Pingback: What is your stance on equal constitutional parental rights for all parents and any needed reforms to the family law system to ensure them? – Family Law Reform

  18. HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?

    What is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, “The Lottery,” in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on “junk science.”This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children’s lives—-especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential—-with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children’s attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one’s bed trumps consistency with a parent!Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child’s time—even in a 50-50 arrangement—-with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom’s House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents’ separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this? By Linda J. Gottlieb, L.M.F.T., L.C.S.W.

    http://www.causes.com/actions/1755308-every-other-weekend-is-not-good-enough

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Pingback: Family Court Stress Disorder (PTSD)… | Children's Rights

  20. Pingback: False Allegations of Abuse | American Fathers

  21. Pingback: A Year Without My Daughter Zoraya. Here’s to you Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr. | American Fathers

  22. Pingback: Never Stop Fighting – Stand Up For Zoraya

  23. Pingback: Take Back Your Power | Children's Rights

  24. Pingback: You’re Worth Fighting For!! ~~ #StandupforZoraya | Children's Rights

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

sb393

waiting for my daughter to resurface

TheLovingStepMonster

You did not grow under my heart, but within it...

kiwijustice2blog

kiwijustice2.blogspot.com

Walter Singleton

Walter Singleton's blog, dedicated to Aiden Singleton and Seth Singleton living near Chattanooga, TN.

traciie

A Blog about Parental Alienation, & Corruption in the Courts

Savagely Free

Loose threads of thought involving politics, philosophy, mathematics, poetry and beyond...

EQUALITY 4 MEN

The Global Campaign for Men and Boys

Patricia McKnight ~~ My Justice

The trauma, The recovery, The truth

A Voice for Men

Humanist Counter-Theory in the Age of Misandry

JESSICA@earthsaylove.com

EMCEE. SURVIVOR. FACILITATOR AND MENTOR. WRITER. SPEAKER. PRODUCER. DEEJAY. BREAKBEAT DIGGA. YOGI. ATHLETE. BELIEVER.

101Harmony

CEO / President Of One Y Films USA

Peace Now

responsible human, no hunger, NoDapl, Black lives Matter, Our Children, War, Peace, Democratic-Socialist, America Who?

%d bloggers like this: