Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An ex-husband’s claims that his ex-wife engaged in criminal activity at her job are protected by the First Amendment, the Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed.
During Jacquelyn and Milan Ivankovic’s marriage, Jacquelyn was the director of pharmacy for a hospital in Merrillville while Milan was a middle school teacher. The couple had three children and a Boston terrier named Roxy.
The marriage was dissolved by the Lake Superior Court in November 2022. Jacquelyn appealed the division of marital property, and the appellate court ruled that the children didn’t have the authority to take her dog to their father’s home.
A day after the appellate court’s opinion was issued, Milan began a campaign of harassment against Jacquelyn. She filed a request for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction against him.
Specifically, Jacquelyn alleged Milan contacted her employer and made claims that she engaged in wrongdoing during her employment. She believed Milan wanted her employer to fire her.
Because Jacquelyn’s income is significantly greater than Milan’s, she pays the children’s fixed expenses as well as child support to Milan. She claimed that his attempt to interfere with her job threatened the children’s economic stability.
She also stated that her employer was investigating Milan’s claims that she engaged in wrongdoing during her employment, and her job may be in jeopardy.
After a hearing, the trial court concluded that it lacked the authority to prohibit Milan from making statements concerning Jacquelyn to third parties outside the children’s presence.
Jacquelyn filed a motion to correct error, arguing that Milan’s communications were not entitled to First Amendment protection but instead were slanderous and defamatory speech.
The trial court denied her motion because Milan’s communications with third parties involved allegations that Jacquelyn committed illegal conduct, which is protected under the First Amendment.
On appeal, Jacquelyn argued that the trial court had statutory authority to issue the requested injunction, and the restraint on Milan’s speech under the circumstances was not constitutionally impermissible.
But the appellate court affirmed the order denying Jacquelyn’s request for a permanent injunction against Milan.
The COA noted that Jacquelyn is the one responsible for failing to safeguard her children’s financial well-being if Milan’s allegations are proven to be true.
“We agree with Wife that the State has a compelling state interest in protecting and preserving a child’s financial well-being,” Judge Paul Mathias wrote. “… In addition, we do not condone vindictive behavior.
“However, Husband has alleged that Wife engaged in criminal wrongdoing, and ‘[a]llegations of criminal activity are public as a matter of course,’” Mathias wrote, citing In re Paternity of K.D., 929 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “Ultimately, the children’s financial well-being will be adversely affected only if Wife has in fact engaged in the wrongdoing as Husband has alleged. If that is the case, it is her own conduct, not Husband’s, that would have a potentially adverse effect on her employment.”
The appellate court also cited Daugherty v. Allen, 729 N.E.2d 228, 235- 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), in noting that Jacquelyn has an adequate remedy at law if Milan’s prior or future statements constitute defamation and she suffers damages as a result.
Judges Elizabeth Tavitas and Leanna Weissmann concurred in Jacquelyn Ivankovic v. Milan Ivankovic, 23A-DC-1954.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.