offering santuary

[shiftyer1]

We have a close family friend that is going through what is hopefully the end of a bad relationship.

My wife told her if she ever needed to run off she can come here, they each have 2 kids and share a baby a few months old. He has threatened to take the baby and she called the sheriff tonite on him.

I live in central texas, about 25 miles from city police and theres a few sheriffs running around maybe close by. If i'm luckly.

My question is this, do the circumstances (his child here) work against me IF he breeches my door?

Plainly spoken, if he kicks in my door because his ol lady and kid are inside and I feel it necessary to take action.........does this extra drama effect the castile doctrine?

 

[Telekinesis]

I don't believe it would. You are on your own property and your friend (and her children) are obviously your guests. His child being there with the other parent does not implicitly give him a right to access your property.

If he is trying to physically break down a door or window, he has become an attacker/intruder just the same as if his child wasn't in your home. The fact that your friend has already called the sheriff to make an official complaint (or call for help) means that there is documentation that he has tried to forcibly take her child, and it can only strengthen your case.

If I were you, I might give the sheriff a heads up about the situation with your friend staying with you and the fact that she has been threatened (leave out anything about firearms unless they ask about them). They may try to keep a deputy close by so that they can get there quickly if called.

 

[bikemutt]

I'd have to believe that harboring what is arguably the man's most precious possession in your home (his child), thereby denying him his unalienable right to be with his child is going to seriously test the foundation of any castle law. Maybe less so if there's a restraining order active on him.

I'd avoid this one. Getting between a bear and her cubs is just borrowing trouble.

 

[j1]

Tough question and even tougher answer. This situation is better avoided than faced. You have done what you think is the correct thing, now you have to face the results of your actions. If someone is kicking down your door it is an attack. If he enters your home and he is intent on harming you you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

 

[hmphargh]

I'd have to believe that harboring what is arguably the man's most precious possession in your home (his child), thereby denying him his unalienable right to be with his child is going to seriously test the foundation of any castle law. Maybe less so if there's a restraining order active on him.

I'd avoid this one. Getting between a bear and her cubs is just borrowing trouble.

I believe, in Texas, unless the court removes the rights of the mother or she voluntarily surrenders them, the mother maintains rights to custody over the father. I'm sure some lawyers will chime in soon on this one.

Either way, I think Telekinesis has the right idea. Let the sheriff know the situation.

Other ideas to consider:
-If you don't have a home alarm already, you may want to buy some individual door and window alarms to alert you if he does try to force his way in.
-Make sure you keep any doors and gates you have locked and any additional security devices enabled (blind deadbolts, security bars, etc)
-Keep the area around your house as well lit as possible and monitor the area as much as possible
-If you have a dog, keep it in a room/area that it can alert you to anything strange going on
-If you have an attached garage, you may consider having a car backed in to it so that your friend can take her children and escape (and make sure she knows the fastest way to the nearest police station)

 

[JShirley]

thereby denying him his unalienable right to be with his child

Sorry, you obviously don't understand what "unalienable" means. One meaning of "alien" is "separate". An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away. If a parent abuses a child, for instance, that parent can, and should, rightfully lose the ability to be with that child. The right is therefore NOT "unalienable/inalienable".

John

 

[hso]

I've been in this situation and in the most straightforward terms a guest in your home is a guest and someone that isn't is trespassing and if they're violent and a threat you have a right to defend yourself, family and guests. Someone kicking in your door that has expressed the intention to do harm is a threat.

If your guest is fleeing someone they need to contact the police and file a complaint and they need to get a restraining order. You should as well.

 

[Walkalong]

I believe I would be called local law enforcement and/or a lawyer instead of discussing it on an open forum where you have no idea of the qualifications of the posters answering the question, including myself.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I believe, in Texas, unless the court removes the rights of the mother or she voluntarily surrenders them, the mother maintains rights to custody over the father. I'm sure some lawyers will chime in soon on this one.

You are in error. Parents have equal custody rights until one voluntary gives them up or a court orders differently.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If your guest is fleeing someone they need to contact the police and file a complaint and they need to get a restraining order. You should as well....

This is an important point and really needs to be done. The whole side issue of one parent coming for a child is a potential complicating factor. It doesn't take away the OP's right to defend a guest in his house, but it adds a side issue that can make things uglier and more expensive to sort out, and add an undesirable element of uncertainty to the legal outcome.

Creating a paper trail, reporting and documenting threats or aggressive acts and getting a retraining order can be a big help.

 

[bikemutt]

Sorry, you obviously don't understand what "unalienable" means. One meaning of "alien" is "separate". An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away. If a parent abuses a child, for instance, that parent can, and should, rightfully lose the ability to be with that child. The right is therefore NOT "unalienable/inalienable".

John

I disagree. For example, any number of unalienable rights may be suspended or revoked if a person becomes a felon. The fact the right was lost after due process doesn't mean the right isn't unalienable.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'd have to believe that harboring what is arguably the man's most precious possession in your home (his child), thereby denying him his unalienable right to be with his child is going to seriously test the foundation of any castle law....

And what is the basis for that belief? Are there some cases or statutes that support it. Do you have some professional qualifications to back it up?

...For example, any number of unalienable rights may be suspended or revoked if a person becomes a felon. The fact the right was lost after due process does not make the right unalienable...

And what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?

As I've mentioned, it's possible that the fact that one of the OP's guests is a man's child could possibly be a complicating factor that could be addressed by the mother securing a restraining order. But you're getting too far afield and need to stick to the topic.

 

[hogshead]

All I would say is keep in mind their are 2 sides to every story. You are getting your self in a bad situation.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Creating a paper trail, reporting and documenting threats or aggressive acts and getting a retraining order can be a big help.

De Becker has argued that getting a restraining order, if it is not a trigger of immediate violence, is often a sign that violence is imminent. I agree that the TRO should be sought, but--as stated--mostly for "documentation" purposes. Don't expect it to have any true violence-prevntion properties.

 

[dprice3844444]

All I would say is keep in mind their are 2 sides to every story. You are getting your self in a bad situation.

hog is right,but,he does not have the right to be on your property w/out permission.the logical thing for him to do is call the cops and let them handle the situation.if he tries to break in or kick the door in,he is basically committing a felony,burglary.therefore,you can defend yourself and guests after calling cops first.who knows what violance he will cause upon yourself or guests when he gets inside.

 

[Telekinesis]

if he tries to break in or kick the door in,he is basically committing a felony,burglary.therefore,you can defend yourself and guests after calling cops first.

I agree with most of your post, and definitely agree with letting the LEOs know about the situation, but there is no need to call the cops before you are allowed to defend yourself.

I think a key to the decision of using lethal force would be to make sure that you are defending yourself, regardless of who else you might also be defending. Ask yourself if you would act the same if your friend and her child weren't in the house and it was only you and your family, and if the answer is yes, you should be ok.

 

[9mmepiphany]

his unalienable right to be with his child is going to seriously test the foundation of any castle law. Maybe less so if there's a restraining order active on him.

I have to ask the basis of this too.

I worked around the Family Law Courts for many years and have several friends who are Family Law attorneys and mediators and I've never heard this. The closest idea to this I can recall is a cult belief that husbands own their wives and children

 

[bigfatdave]

I'm confused

If someone is violently breaking into your home, are you obligated to I.D. them?
Are you obligated to determine their intentions/reasons for their violent actions?

 

[Loosedhorse]

If someone is violently breaking into your home, are you obligated to I.D. them?
Are you obligated to determine their intentions/reasons for their violent actions?

To some extent. If it is some drunk breaking in because he's at the wrong house and thinks his wife locked him out, that would be an unfortunate person to shoot.

Similarly, if police are breaking in (because they've been falsely told that the child was kidnapped), shooting them won't be taken welll, either.

 

[mgkdrgn]

"Plainly spoken, if he kicks in my door because his ol lady and kid are inside and I feel it necessary to take action.........does this extra drama effect the castile doctrine?"

Nope

At least in SC anyway (and I can't believe that TEXAS of all places would be any different). Once someone has broken into your home (I do believe that kicking in the door qualifies) while you are there, the legal =presumption= is that they are there to kill you or do you grievous bodily harm. It makes no mention of "who" breaks in. You may use what ever means you see fit to stop the threat.

Note ... STOP THE THREAT. Once the threat has been removed, your "free ride" stops. IE, once he is writhing on the floor gut shot, assuming he poses no further threat at that point (ie, no gun in his hand, yadda yadda yadda), "one to the head" just for good measure is not justified, or legal.

 

[sgtstryker]

I struggled for years with a close family member in a bad relationship. She always went back. Personally, I would direct the family to a safe house/ shelter in the area. If she is serious about the change, they can help. You are in a bad place, IMO. Do you want to use deadly force on man whose wife and children are present?

 

[Kendahl]

How much are you willing to invest in helping this woman? The minimum would be advising her to contact a shelter for help. The maximum would be taking her and some number of children into your home for an extended period of time until she is ready to stand on her own feet.

Does she have a family lawyer to advise her? Taking her to one, even if it costs you some money, would be worth while. You would learn what you can do for her without getting yourself into legal trouble. The lawyer could help her establish a good position with the family court by documenting previous bad behavior by her estranged other. That will protect you, too, if she comes to you for emergency sanctuary and you have to defend her and yourself. If she does show up in an emergency, immediately call the sheriff to send a deputy to handle what you have reason to believe is a dangerous situation.

 

[smalls]

Do you want to use deadly force on man whose wife and children are present?

I don't think he wants to use deadly force at all. I don't think many of us here do. But, if he's coming in the house, are you just going to not shoot because his wife and child are there?

Shiftyer, I was in this spot a few months ago. A couple my wife and I are friends with were in a bad spot in their relationship, and he started to get violent. We offered a couch for her and her son, and they stayed about 2 weeks before moving on to a new place to live. Everything went pretty smoothly, and I only had to have a light conversation with him on the phone to stop calling her, and his calls immediately stopped.

The key is to keep out of it, while giving them a place to stay.

 

[zedsdead]

How would the husband know the wife is staying with you? Presumably, she won't tell him. Nor anyone else on his side of the dispute, most likely. This is probably something that needs to be discussed with her before she moves in.

 

[9mmepiphany]

How would the husband know the wife is staying with you? Presumably, she won't tell him. Nor anyone else on his side of the dispute, most likely. This is probably something that needs to be discussed with her before she moves in.

I would never presume that.

There is also the father's right to know, in most states, where his children are living when the Family Law case starts