Court denies Perricone’s motion to intervene in restraining‑order case, finding no legal standing

A Dixie County judge denied a motion to intervene by Christopher Perricone, who argued a prior restraining order had named him and affected his possession and contact with his son.

Perricone told the court the order — based on a Texas order that he said was sealed and improperly in the file — listed his name and caused him to miss possession time with his son and to alter travel plans. He argued the order’s wording was vague and infringed on his ability to exercise possession and to make phone calls with his child.

The judge explained the restraining order at issue restrains the former spouse (identified in the record as Mrs. Perricone or Mrs. Baker) from allowing contact between her children and the other parent; it applies to children of that marital relationship and does not make Mr. Perricone a party with standing in that domestic proceeding. The judge said he did not find Perricone had a basis under the law to intervene and denied the motion. The court directed counsel for the respondent, Mr. Goble, to draw an order that explains the findings and clarifies that the prior restraining order restrains the former spouse from allowing contact between her children and the other parent and does not restrain Perricone from having contact with his minor child.

Perricone asked to make an offer of proof; the judge refused to allow it on standing grounds, although Perricone had his objection noted for the record. The court did not permit further argument because it concluded there was no legal standing to intervene in the matter.