While the evidence offered by respondent in support of its claim that petitioners' son resided with them in violation of a permanent order of exclusion was hardly compelling, consisting as it did only of the son's unverified, hearsay statement to respondent's police officers, it was nevertheless sufficient to require petitioners to come forward with some evidence that their son in fact resided elsewhere. Petitioners, however, offered nothing but blanket denials found unworthy...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
