Common Law International, Intentional tort A type of tort that can only result from an intentional act of violence towards the defendant, Depending on the exact tort alleged, general or specific intent will need to be given, Common intentional torts are a battery of many types, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to writ, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975 TA \l "Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975" \s "Nguyen Da Yen v. Kissinger, 528 F.2d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 1975" \c 1 ) In NDY, the court recognized that it is well established that custodial restraints on a minor child are a sufficient deprivation of liberty to be challenged by way of habeas corpus. The majority of American states accept the English view that a child's absence from the parent's legal custody is equivalent to illegal restraint on the child and that habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for such restraint. The writ has the capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969) TA \l "Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969)" \s "Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,291 (1969)" \c 1 . The overwhelming weight of applicable precedent clearly indicates that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction exists to challenge state child custody judgments. The question is whether federal-state comity considerations render inappropriate the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction (Lehman). Petitioner claims that it is not inappropriate. In the instant application, Petitioner has standing. Petitioner acts on behalf of her children. Petitioner’s parental rights were erroneously terminated in an arbitrary manner, using no standard of proof, and that lacked a fact finding hearing, res ipsa loquitur. The issue in cases such as Lehman is not who shall have custody of the child or even whether the petitioner-parent's rights should have been terminated, but rather the constitutional sufficiency of the state court proceedings. (See Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947) TA \l "Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947)" \s "Pukas v. Pukas, 129 W. Va. 765, , 42 S.E.2d 11, 13 (1947)" \c 1 , State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819)) TA \l "State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819))" \s "State v. Cheeseman, 5 N.J.L. 522, 525 (1819))" \c 1 ; Note, supra note 44, at 272
top of page
bottom of page