Elizabeth Densmore and Matthew Densmore
Case No: 17FL01819
Hearing Date: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: DVRO

Req. for Order: DVRO

Attorneys:

Tracey Rangel Cruz for Petitioner (“mother”)

Paul Pettine for Respondent (“father”)

Ruling: For the reasons set out below the matter is continued to November 26, 2019; all temporary DVROs will remain in effect until further order of Court.

Analysis

The case was last on calendar on 4/30/19 [nothing filed since then except that the matter was continued to 7/23 on 5/21] and the Court made the following ruling: For the reasons set out below the matter was continued to July 23, 2019, to the Family Law CMC Calendar; all temporary DVROs will remain in effect until further order of Court.

Background

Mother filed the Petition for Dissolution in 7/2017; just answered in 4/2019; 3 year 10-month marriage; one child born 3/2016. The request for a DVRO was filed 8/2017; temporary restraining orders were issued; Tracey Rangel Cruz has periodically appeared and requested the RFO: Domestic Violence Restraining Order with all temporary orders to remain in effect; the Court has granted her requests; and the CMC has also been continued. For the 4/30 hearing a FLIS was filed by Mr. Pettine, counsel for father; reports that Counsel have met and are working on a parenting plan. Father requested that this matter be continued for 90 days with all orders remaining in full force and effect unless agreed otherwise in writing. The Court concluded the case should be on the CMC calendar with all temporary DVRO to remain in effect until the case is prepared for a hearing. For a very long time father has not participated in the proceedings and it is evident he is now willing to do. Mr. Pettine has requested time to address the issues. Additionally it appears that as to mother’s request for a DVRO, it may overlap a criminal DVRO which may now be in place. We never know, however, when those ROs might be vacated. Thus the temporary civil temporary DVROs should remain in place for now. The Court intends to set trial dates at the next CMC.

FLIS filed by Petitioner’s lawyer on 7/19

Reports: A Draft Marital Settlement Agreement has been circulated. The parties are actively discussing issues, largely related to custody. If those issues cannot be resolved, the parties are discussing whether to agree to a 3111 Evaluation. Petitioner requests the CMC be continued 90-120 days, because if there is no agreement that can be reached, and a 3111 Evaluation is necessary, the parties will simply stipulate to begin the evaluation. Petitioner further requests that the TRO orders remain in full force and effect until further hearing or Order of the Court.

The Court’s Conclusions

The matter should be continued as requested for the reasons stated.