Curious about the case of the abusive father in Minnesota, I went looking for the details.
This is the only thing I could find.
From the article:
“Finding a case that fits this description has proved a bit of a challenge. White House staff informed me that Judge Sotomayor had named the wrong court. The decision in question, they say, is Hall vs. Hall, a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling from 1987. (The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to review it.)
Even assuming that’s the right case, Judge Sotomayor’s description was imprecise. In Hall, a 14-judge “en banc” appeals panel upheld a lower court’s protective order on a 7-7 vote. Four male judges joined three female judges on the prevailing side. Seven judges, all male, dissented.
All the judges agreed there was no evidence — in fact, not even an allegation — that the father had ever abused his children.”
If this is indeed the case in question, then she got the court wrong, the number of judges wrong and also agreed that it is reasonable to enact a restraining order against a father preventing him from seeing his children when there is no evidence at all that he is a threat to them.
