Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Success Stories of Personal Injury Lawyers Directory US Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Canada Personal Injury Lawyers Directory Personal Injury Lawyers Resource Directory
Search Lawyers by Zip Code
facebook.com/injury.usa

  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

O'Bannon v. O'Bannon

11/20/2003

s remarks made by Mrs. Riddle, including that Mr. Riddle was a pedophile, a rapist, a pornographer and that he caused them to engage in sex in the presence of the children which really put her fitness as a parent in question. She used this tactic to make her proposal to move seem reasonable.
c. The instability of her current marriage, and in her life since the divorce , including her affair with a married man.

d. Her bad judgment in allowing one of her boyfriends to stay overnight (while the children were present) and even when the boyfriend seemed a bit put aback by her conduct.

a. The infamy of the breakup of Tina and Paul Riddle's marriage as being her real motivation for the proposed move to South Dakota.

b. The strong evidence of her intention to defeat or deter Mr. O'Bannon's time with the children where it is evident that it was in the children's best interest to permit more and liberal time for the children to be with their father.

c. The dog bite episode which "evinces just incredibly bad judgment to have a dog that had attacked two other children and then keeping that dog until it attacked the third child."

d. That Mrs. Riddle did not bother to notify Mr. O'Bannon about the dog attack on Grace until after the child returned from the hospital. She did not advise the children's father early enough in this very significant incident in the life of the child.

i. That her proposed relocation had no reasonable purpose except for convenience, i.e. to be around her mother and to avoid social consequences of her role in the breakup of the marriage of Tina and Paul Riddle.

To the extent the Chancellor did not make specific findings by format with respect to the comparative fitness of Husband and Wife, such omission was harmless error and does not constitute a ground for reversal in this case.


The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and costs of appeal are adjudged against Wife.






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys    Personal Injury Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.

Personal Injury Lawyers Brain Injuries Spinal Cord Injuries
Quadriplegia and Paraplegia Back Injuries Ruptured & Herniated Disks
Bulging Disk Neck Injuries Dog Bites
Toxic Mold Product Liability Fire Accidents
Trucking Accidents Boating Accidents Car Accidents
Plane Crashes Medical Malpractice Motorcycle Accidents
Wrongful Death Personal Injury Lawsuits Testimonial
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites
DUI Defense  |  SiteMap  | PI Blog  | Trading Partners | Attorney Registration  | PI Case Laws  | FAQ | Personal Injury Forum
 | Personal Injury Lawyers Directory  | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2005. “National Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (NAPIL)”. All rights reserved.
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE