tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2625913753383648089.post6417593700978743122..comments2024-01-05T03:21:11.952-05:00Comments on CourtWatcher: DV = Domestic Violence = Deputy VillellaLaura S Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11875246311102958250noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2625913753383648089.post-2853583209559563612010-03-22T05:53:42.184-04:002010-03-22T05:53:42.184-04:00I totally agree with you Laura and your assessment...I totally agree with you Laura and your assessment of the situation. This is a ridiculous order and the petitioner is no better off now then before the hearing. This only gives the respondent a sense that the law is on HIS side and not taking the petitioner seriously. Furthermore, it is never "easy" for a petitioner and they ALWAYS have the burden of proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2625913753383648089.post-48229029838986809962010-03-10T21:16:02.692-05:002010-03-10T21:16:02.692-05:00No hostile contact injunctions, as I mentioned in ...No hostile contact injunctions, as I mentioned in the blog, are not enforceable for two reasons:<br />1. A "covert" act of hostility, like the wedding band story I mentioned, will probably never be acted upon by law enforcement because it doesn't involve a battery with injuries that could be documented. No one will get arrested.<br />2. Even if it's a more "overt" scenario where the Respondent yells at the Petitioner, unless there is a corroborating witness or other evidence, the same problem exists. In a "he said - she said" situation, where the burden of proof falls on the Petitioner, the judge will likely not be convinced if the Petitioner files a Notice of Violation.<br /><br />No Hostile Contact injunctions empower an abuser to continue to behave abusively toward their victim and therefore teach their victim that law enforcement can't/won't help because they didn't witness the "hostile" contact.Laura S Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11875246311102958250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2625913753383648089.post-68352794311128487572010-03-07T19:26:03.277-05:002010-03-07T19:26:03.277-05:00And what was it that made you think he was being i...And what was it that made you think he was being intimidated into acquiescing???? No hostile contact makes it easier for the petitioning party to actually put the person back in jail as the respondent may have a false sense of security. The respondent could call the petitioner, since that would be allowed, and the petitioner could then say whatever he wanted to get a rule to show case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2625913753383648089.post-77699941929341239452010-03-07T18:55:47.687-05:002010-03-07T18:55:47.687-05:00If the petitioner was requesting no contact, how d...If the petitioner was requesting no contact, how did Judge Kest figure no hostile contact was an intelligent option?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com