Showing posts with label DV Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DV Law. Show all posts

October 25, 2009

Strangulation attacks now carry year in jail

 

By Jaclyn O'Malley • jomalley@rgj.com • October 25, 2009

For many victims of domestic violence, the name-calling, slapping and pushing escalates into a pair of hands gripping so tightly around their necks, they can't breathe.

Many report they believe they are dying while their brains and bodies are depleted of oxygen at the hands of a loved one. Some lose consciousness within a minute, and are lucky if they survive, domestic violence advocates say.

But a new law is giving police officers and prosecutors some teeth in charging suspects who use this potentially lethal form of abuse. As of July, the act became a felony that has a minimum sentence of one year in prison. Before the change, abusers were charged with misdemeanor domestic battery and faced a maximum of six months in jail.

More than three dozen men and two women have been arrested in Washoe County in the three months since the new law took effect.

"We now have a way of taking away an abuser's tool of asserting power against someone by cu...Read the rest of this two page article here:  Strangulation attacks now carry year in jail | rgj.com | Reno Gazette-Journal




October 15, 2009

California's GOP vote-boycott ends, key bills pass

 

Squabbles -- both between and within the parties -- are set aside as senators unanimously vote to restore domestic violence funding and make it easier for localities to borrow money.

Reporting from Sacramento - Setting aside political squabbles, Senate Republicans lifted their blockade on several budget bills Wednesday, voting with Democrats to approve measures that restore funding cut from domestic violence shelters and help cities and counties borrow money to balance their budgets.
Republican lawmakers had refused last month to help muster the necessary two-thirds vote for two dozen pieces of legislation in a dispute over unrelated matters.
"We've resolved the issues and we're moving forward," Senate minority leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta said after Wednesday's vote.
Lawmakers said they hope to carry the new bipartisanship into negotiations over a plan to upgrade California's water system. The Senate on Wednesday gaveled in special sessions on water and tax reform.
Senators voted unanimously to approve a measure restoring $16 million cut from the budget for 94 domestic violence shelters, forcing half a dozen shelters to close and others to reduce their services.
"We have put more families at risk," Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) said of the cuts. "When shelters close down, lives are at stake."
The spat between the two parties was not the only one that affected SB3X 13. The Democratic leadership stripped Yee's authorship of the bill... Read more here:  California's GOP vote-boycott ends, key bills pass -- latimes.com

September 12, 2009

Domestic violence victims have a "pre-existing condition"


5:03 PM Eastern - September 11, 2009  By Maria Tchijov
Insurance companies have used the excuse of "pre-existing conditions" to deny coverage to countless Americans. From cancer patients to the elderly suffering from arthritis, these organizations have padded their profit margins by limiting coverage to patients deemed "high risk" because of their medical condition.
But, in DC and nine other states, including Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming, insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition.
Words cannot describe the sheer inhumanity of this claim. It serves as yet further proof that our insurance system is broken, destroyed by the profit-mongering of the very companies who's sole purpose should be to provide Americans with access to care when they need it most. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when decided whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended.
It is clear that insurance companies refuse to police themselves. It's up to us to call on Congress to take action now to pass health care reform and end discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions.
SEIU - Service Employees International Union - Domestic violence victims have a "pre-existing condition"?

May 18, 2009

Domestic violence: Legislation requiring automatic arrest of parolees goes to governor


By Angela Rozas | Tribune reporter
May 15, 2009
Parolees accused of domestic violence would be automatically arrested for violating their parole under a measure sent to Gov. Pat Quinn Thursday.
The bill comes a little more than a year after a woman was killed in Chicago by a former boyfriend on parole for murder. Mersaides McCauley, 22, was shot to death by Glen Martinez five months after he was arrested for attacking her and a parole officer declined to push to revoke his parole and he was freed.
Under current state law, arrest warrants must be issued only if parolees commit felonies with a knife or firearm or don't register as sex offenders. In all other cases, arrest warrants for parole violations are issued at the state's discretion and decided on a case-by-case basis. The new law would take away that discretion for domestic violence crimes.
The measure would also double the mandatory supervised release term for a number of domestic violence crimes to four years from two. Also, the bill would require 40 hours of domestic violence training for all parole officers handling more...Domestic violence: Legislation requiring automatic arrest of parolees goes to governor -- chicagotribune.com

May 15, 2009

Gay teens in SC excluded from being protected by new Domestic Violence Prevention Program

This is just sick...Here’s part of since I can not comment intelligently on this, the link at the bottom is to the full article.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina lawmakers want to prevent violence in teen relationships but won't allow a new school program aimed at curbing such abuse to mention gay and lesbian partnerships.

State representatives voted overwhelmingly Thursday to bar any mention of homosexual relationships in the new program for middle and high school students. The move was pushed by lawmakers who said they don't want schools teaching about gay relationships and said they doubt those partnerships have high levels of abuse.

"I do not want the Department of Education or school districts teaching our children in grades six through 12 about same-sex relationships," said Rep. Greg Delleney, a Chester Republican who pushed to make the violence prevention program apply only to heterosexual relationships. "I'm sure it would develop into that."

The measure, which was swiftly condemned by gay rights advocates passed the GOP-dominated House 75-25 and should head to the Senate next week. It initially was intended to curb youth violence in a state that consistently ranks high in the number of women killed by men.

Steve Ralls, national spokesman for Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians & Gays, said he had not heard of another state with an anti-dating violence program that excluded same-sex relationships.

"We are astounded that there are those who would prioritize their own homophobia ahead of the safety of the young people of South Carolina," he said. "Lesbian and gay young people are often doubly vulnerable when they are in environments where they are disrespected and adults are sending clear messages that their well-being isn't as important."

Bill sponsor Rep. Joan Brady said excluding gay relationships is fine and declared that, "Traditional domestic violence occurs in...MORE Here --> The Associated Press: SC House nixes mention of gays in date-abuse bill

September 22, 2008

Good Faith Allegation of Abuse Cannot Be Held Against Accuser in Custody Proceeding

Hopefully this new law will help relieve some of the worries that come along with coming forth with evidence of abuse and domestic violence when in custody disputes.  This may not totally work to the child's best interest, but it is a step in the right direction.  This is something to keep an eye on, to see what ramifications this new law is having on cases.  If the outcome is desirable, this possibly something that other states should adopt.

Recently, in divorce and custody cases, the so-called parental alienation factor has become particularly prominent among the statutory criteria dealing with custody. The court decisions have described parental alienation in terms of failure to support the childs relationship with the non-custodial parent. This particular issue has carried a tremendous force in custody cases, and often was used to override the primary caregiver criterion. The significance of parental alienation can be explained as follows. If parental alienation is proven, it often has resulted in a change in custody despite the long-standing parenting arrangements that have been successful otherwise. The problem with claim of parental alienation is that in some cases judges have treated allegations of abuse and neglect that could not be proven as tantamount to false allegations maliciously brought to advance an agenda of alienation. This has placed concerned parents between the proverbial rock and the hard place. If they act in good faith to protect their child, they do so at risk of losing custody. If they dont act, they are abdicating their parental obligation to protect their child. The Legislature has acted in response to this problem and the Governor has signed into law an amendment to DRL § 240 to provide protection for litigating parents who report abuse or neglect in good faith and based on a reasonable belief that the allegation is legitimate. Domestic Relations Law § 240, subdivision 1 (a) was amended to provide that a good faith allegation of abuse cannot be held against the accuser in child custody proceedings. The amendment to the statute is intended to ensure that the accuser engaging in a good faith effort to protect or seek treatment for the child due to the child abuse or neglect cannot have these actions used against them when determining custody or visitation. If a parent makes a good faith allegation based on a reasonable belief which is supported by facts that the child is the victim of child abuse, child neglect, or the effects of domestic violence, and if that parent acts lawfully and in good faith in response to that reasonable belief to protect the child or seek treatment for the child, then that parent may not be deprived of custody, visitation or contact with the child, or restricted in custody, visitation or contact, based solely on that belief or the reasonable actions taken based on that belief. If an allegation that a child is abused is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then the court must consider such evidence of abuse in determining the visitation arrangement that is in the best interest of the child, and the court may not place a child in the custody of a parent who presents a substantial risk of harm to that child. Laws of 2008, Ch 538, effective September 4, 2008.

Original Article:  Rochester Family Lawyer » Blog Archive » Good Faith Allegation of Abuse Cannot Be Held Against Accuser in Custody Proceeding

August 27, 2008

Louisville Woman Found Dead

Where in the world do they find these judges?!?!?  Would it have killed him to grant the damn order??  No but his refusal to do so killed her!  It is a piece of paper, and we all know that a piece of paper does not stop bullets but come on...was he trying to save money by saving ink and paper?  Oh, no sorry he said there wasn't enough evidence...well hopefully he isn't involved with trying the man that killed her...the dead body may not be enough evidence for him to prove a murder was committed!

There really does need to be more checks on judges.  I like the law that was recently passed in CA that the judge has to give a reason for denying a temporary restraining order.  I was very happy to read that, and blind, sheltered me thought WOW, way to go, we are finally getting somewhere!!  Well, I guess I was wrong...this judge DID give the reason he denied her restraining order...in sufficient evidence. 

There have been several cases where this has happened this year that I have seen, I am sure it has happened before and I am also sure that I have not seen all of them.  Something needs to be done to make these judges accountable for their actions.  Can't they charge him as an accomplish to murder or something??  I know that sounds crazy, and yes I am a bit worked up over this.

And...WHY did it take HOURS for the police to get into the house when they were called out there by someone reporting shooting??  HHHMMM....I'm just speechless with that one.

Read the story that I am ranting about...LEX18 - Lexington, KY - News, Weather, Sports - Louisville Woman Found Dead ...please leave me your thoughts and feelings on this!  I am interested in knowing how others feel about this.

Share this post :

July 13, 2008

Landmark ruling used to challenge gun case

...one of the first to use the ruling to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute that makes it a felony for a person under a protective order to buy and possess a firearm, said Lee C. Kindlon, his attorney....

Landmark ruling used to challenge gun case -- Page 1 -- Times Union - Albany NY

 

Judge's ruling on restraining orders draws concern -- Newsday.com

 State Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz found that some elements of the 17-year-old law are unconstitutional. Among them: a low threshold of evidence _ just a "preponderance" _ to get a restraining order violates due process protections. Instead, judges need "clear and convincing" evidence to issue a restraining order, Schultz said....Judge's ruling on restraining orders draws concern -- Newsday.com