published Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

Judge strikes down restraining order against Matthew Palmgren

A judge has ruled that the husband of a missing Signal Mountain woman cannot be prevented from moving their children out of state if he chooses.

Hamilton County Chancellor Frank Brown dismissed today a restraining order filed by Kevin Nowacki and Diane Nowacki Nichols, siblings of the missing Gail Nowacki Palmgren, 44, who was last seen April 30.

The order asked that Matthew Palmgren, husband of Gail Palmgren, not be allowed to move the children out of Tennessee and no farther than 100 miles from their Signal Mountain home.

It also asked the court to appoint a legal guardian for the children, someone to look after their best interests in court and other legal matters and that Matthew Palmgren be prevented from damaging or selling any property that the couple share or that Gail Palmgren owns independently.

The case will move forward in Chancery Court, Brown ruled, but all aspects of it now will be heard by Chancellor Jeff Atherton, who has been involved with the case in the past.

For complete details, see tomorrow’s Times Free Press.

5
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
bpqd said...

30 days hath September, April, June and November. Moving this court date up to today from July 11 puts the filings within 30 days of the mother's disappearance.

Someone tell us the significance of that move.

June 29, 2011 at 12:50 p.m.
rolando said...

Her husband will automatically become the prime suspect should her body be found or other evidence of foul play be uncovered, PR.

So tell us why you would have taken his kids away from him and turned them over to her sister, Cruella?

June 29, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.
rolando said...

Sounds to me like the judge made the only decision possible under the circumstances, although we certainly aren't privy to the judge's information...

June 29, 2011 at 4:29 p.m.
dgtb4urb said...

Rolando, based on what I read, no one said the children would be given to the aunt or uncle, but another to be court appointed in the children's best interest. That doesn't mean they would be taken from their father, which I agree isn't the best thing, but made sure they were OK, getting counseling from an objective party, and allow possible visitation from their mother's family. That isn't asking too much, one would think the children need stability from both sides now more than ever.

June 29, 2011 at 7:18 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement
400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.