Dear Ms. Peters-Smith: Let me start by saying how very sorry i am to hear about Mrs. Ashworth and the apparent mental heaith issues that you describe. This famiiy certainty have complicated lives. I appreoiate the detail that you provided in your ernaii in an effort to assist me in reviewing this family's situation. There are some additional details that may help forrn as accurate a picture as we can. given the conflicting aliegations. You are correct that judges should not comment on pending cases. To my knowledge, no case is pending. Also, it can be quite a challenge to try to piece together what is truly happening in a litigious family. You can imagine the hundreds of cases that I hear. The following is a summary from the official court records, with some additional information. We have many cases filed where a Petitioner seeks an injunction for Protection. I do not have statistics, but many are valid, and some are not. The following is my best effort to assist you within my ethical constraints. I apologize for the length of this document, but I believe that it provides a more complete summary of the multiple legal actions involving these parties. A brief summary of some aspects of Injunction for Protection law may be helpful in your analysis. When a Petitioner files a Petition for injunction for Protection, the facts alleged must be specific and meet the statutory criteria. It is reviewed in what's called an "ex parte" fashion, meaning the other side is not allowed to respond in deciding whether a Temporary injunction should be entered. As to Domestic Violence, a person has to have either been a victim of violence, as described in the law, or have reasonable cause to believe they are in imminent danger of becoming a victim. Reasonable cause is analyzed from the point of view of a mind of an ordinarily intelligent and rational person. Imminent means close, looming. Threatening words alone are inadequate to obtain an injunction for Protection, even if the threat is to kill. They can be entered only to prohibit statutorily unauthorized behavior. The Second District Court of Appeal, which controls this Circuit, has issued an opinion reminding trial courts that Injunctions to be used only to rectify the egregious conduct outlined in the statutes statutory provisions are not a panacea to be used to cure all social ills." (Be) There is also appellate authority that discusses that trial courts are without power to compel "good behavior" or enjoin general "bad behavior." Appellate courts have also made it clear that trial courts are urged to assure that the facts are adequately alleged and proven because of the many negative collateral consequences that result to a Respondent when an injunction is entered. As to imminent danger, the law requires that the facts alleged be "strong and clear," establishing a need for protection. The law also places the burden of proof on the Petitioner to prove sufficient allegations. I will not bother to enclose the case cites that set forth this law, but I have them if you should want them. 1) Case No. 2012-DR-066698-SC (Jacqueline Ashworth V. Mark Ashworth): Orr 8i'18i/12, Ashworth fiiad a sworn Petition for injunction for Protection against her son, Mark Ashworth. She swore that a few weeks earlier, on 7/27/12, Mark held his fist in front of her face "as if to hit me." She oiairned he yeiis at her and scares her. She indicated that her son is handicapped." She aiso stated that her husband has "dementia," and that Mark yeiis at him. She said Mark told his father to "be careful what he eats because morn may do something to make hirn sick." She described some detail about things the family argue over (Mark's leaking oil, the temperature in the home, where the is parked). She claimed that Mark had threatened to kill her approximately 5 years earlier. She wanted hirn removed from her home immediately. (lt should be noted that the law as to injunctions is not to be used simply to accomplish an eviction.) She indicated that she and her husband owned the residence at 556 Bellaire Drive, Venice, FL, where they lived with Mark. I entered the Temporary Injunction on 8/16/12 out of an abundance of caution, as the allecrations were borderline in meeting the statutory requirements. (Mrs. Ashworth was diven temporarily use of the residence.) When the parties came to court on 8/30/12, they ended up reaching an agreement. (This is common, particularly with family members.) An "Agreed Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection (Without Fact Findings)" was entered on 8/30/12. The "terms" of the Agreement are self explanatory. Mrs. Ashworth and her son arrived at the terms of the Agreed Final Judgment, and agreed that it would only remain in effect until 9/20/12 (approximately 3 weeks). The agreed terms were not normal. Usually, an Injunction based on an alleged fear of violence does not result in essentially solving family disagreements (like where the son can park his Also, they most often do not provide for an alleged potentially violent Respondent to continue to some to the Petitioner's home, as their agreement did. Only 4 days later, on 9/4/12, Mrs. Ashworth filed a sworn Motion asking that the Aqreed Final Judgment be dismissed. She again mentioned her husband's dementia. She said that the stress made her edgy and nervous, and she took out her frustration on her son. She said she was wrong to do so, and that her son got the brunt of her frustrations. She said that her husband and son needed to be in each other's lives, and mentioned the tell that dementia takes on a family. (This certainly raises the issue of whether the facts in her Petition were entirely true as to alleoeol concerns about Mark.) It is not clear if this Motion was ever brought to the Courts attention. The general procedure when a Motion to Dissolve an lnjunotion is filed is that the Clerk makes a copy and forwards it to the judges office for review. The fast that no action was taken leads me to believe that our office never received the Motion. However, had our office received the Motion, the Court would have entered an Order advising the parties that the injunction would automatically expire on its own terms (in approximately 2 weeks), which was prior to the time a hearing be scheduled. Contact had not been prohibited by their own agreement. 2) 3) Case Ne. 2912-DR-009736-S-C (Jacqueline Ashworth V. Mark Ashwerth): A few months later, on 12/5/12, Mrs. Ashworth again tiled another sworn Petitien against Mark. She indicated that they were still living tegether at the Bellaire address. She again described him as "disabled." Her Petitien referred to the prior case, and she said that she had it "rescinded because of drying father." She now alieged that weeks earlier she again felt frightened at Mark. She repeated her previous allegations that he was verbally abusive. She again referred to her hdsbandis dementia. She claimed that Mark had taken Central at the horns and his father. She complained that she was net allowed to administer her husband medications, and that Mark was not allowing her to prepare food far her husband. Again, she described other family arguments and disputes, as well as alleged destruction of items. She claimed that Mark was taking advantage of his father in various ways. She wanted Mark removed again. Given the very recent prior litigation, and the fact that in her Metion to Dismiss the prior case, she stated that she had been wrong, and had been takinc; out her frustrations on her son, and because she was now repeating essentially similar family disputes, I entered an Order Denying her Petition. ruled that it was abusing the "injunction Against Violence" process. I advised her that she had options of eviction and obtaining a "no trespass warning," neither having the statutory requirement of violence, which is required for an lniunction for Protection. indicated that "Petitioner describes a dysfunctional family," meaning that their conduct fit the definition in Webster's Dictionary, as "impaired or abnormal functioning." This family certainly has difficulties, but "violence," as envisioned by the law, was not the basis of these allegations. Case No. 2012-DR-009888-SC (Earl Ashworth v. Jackie Ashworth) On 12/11/12, 6 days after Mrs. Ashworth's Petition had been denied, husband filed and signed a sworn Petition for Injunction for Protection against Petitions are often filled out by others for a Petitioner, but the Petitioner must sign and swear to its accuracy in front of a notary/deputy clerk, which the husband did. His Petition alleged actual violence, not fear of it. He alleged that, on 11/19/12, Mrs. Ashworth had repeatedly hit him in the face with closed fists while screaming and berating him. He said that this behavior is ongoing, and that she screams and throws objects to frighten him. He indicates that DCF had been involved with the family at an unspecified time. (I can only infer for abuse of the elderly.) He alleged that he needed temporary use of the horns, and did not have the money for alternative heusind. He said that Mrs. Ashworth had an alternative, since she could temperarily live with her sister in Venice. The allegations ef physical violence were clear, and a Temporary Injunction for the Petitioner's protection was entered in 12/11/12. He was given temporary use of the residence, which is the usual procedure envisioned by law (just as Mrs. Ashworth was given temporary use of the residence in Case No. 006608-SC). In the Temporary Injunction I explained that it is in a Disseiutien of Marriage action that final decisions, such as related to the home, are made. is Florida law. On 12/27/12, a Final Judgment for protection of Mr. Ashworth from Mrs. Ashwerth was entered. Mr. Ashwerth was present with his attorney, Brent McPeek. ivirs. Ashworth appeared without an atterney. There was a contested evidentiary hearing. The eiridence was adequate to supper': Mr. Ashwerths aiiegations of being beaten. The Finai was to be in effect far 'i year. As again is cernrnan and expected under the iaw, the person victimized (here, Mr. Ashworih) is awarded ternperary use of a joint residence. Also, as is expected under the law, again added informative language "Any further litigation needs to take place in a Dissolution of Marriage, not this injunction action, property disputes, alimenv, etc." 4) Case Number 2013-DR-000480-SC (Jacqueline Ashworth v. Ear! Ashworth): Less than 1 month later, Mrs. Ashworth initiated a divorce action. She filed a "Petition for Dissolution of Marriage" on 1/17/13 through her attorney, Lawrence Tornese. It is unknown what Mrs. Ashworth said to Attorney Tornese regarding her husband's alleged dementia, but in paragraph 5 of her Petition she alleged that the husband is "sui juris," which means that the husband is not under any type of legal disability, the power of another, or guardianship, and has the capacity to manage his own affairs. I cannot imagine Attorney Tornese filing her Petition had Mrs. Ashworth alleqed it was against her will. On 2/11/13, an Answer and Counter-Petition were filed by the husband, in which he admitted to paragraph 5 of Mrs. Ashworth's Petition. It was also signed by his attorney, Brent McPeek. Had Attornev McPeek felt that the husband was not competent, he would have been ethically obligated to pursue that issue. He did not. The parties appeared with their attorneys at a mediation conference. The neutral Mediator's Report filed 5/6/13 reflected that an agreement had been reached. On 7/10/13, the parties appeared for the final hearing with their attorneys. They were sworn, and agreed that the terms of the Mediated Settlement were fair, and should be enforced. (The terms in the Agreement are self-explanatory, but it is noteworthy that Mrs. Ashworth agreed that Mr. Ashworth would receive the use of the residence while she received other property. This included the parties' splitting the net proceeds from the sate of the home, if the husband could not obtain a reverse mortgage within 45 days.) Both attorneys are very experienced in family law. A Final Judgment was then entered. Neither party nor their respected attorneys raised any issue. In closing, have no answers as to the reasons why this family has reached this place in their lives. We see many cases involving disputed claims, and sad scenarios. I hope this has been helpful. Respectfully, Judge Robert W. McDonald, Jr.