We’ve discussed on many occasions the massive violations of men’s and fathers’ rights that occur under the guise of fighting domestic violence. Nowhere is this more true than with restraining orders–all a woman has to do is tell a court that her husband “threatened her” or she is “in fear of him” and the court orders a restraining order booting the man out of his own home and prohibiting him from contacting his own kids.
A new New Jersey court decision is a step forward in curbing these abuses. Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Executive Director of Fathers & Families, writes:
A single justice of the Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled that a key element of the New Jersey Domestic Violence Act (DVA) is unconstitutional.
In law, lives are shattered or saved based on the meanings of words. In this case, the difference between “preponderance of the evidence” and “clear and convincing evidence” may determine whether Mr. Anibal Crespo of New Jersey gets to live a normal life or instead permanently loses his home and his relationship with his children.
Mr. Crespo, in a typical restraining order proceeding, was kicked out of his home and largely separated from his children in a typical “he said, she said” dispute concerning alleged domestic violence. The court, as it almost always does, issued the restraining order and made it final based on “a preponderance of the evidence.” But another judge has now found that the proper legal standard of proof should have been “clear and convincing evidence.”
“Preponderance of the evidence” simply means that the matter seems more likely than not, 51 percent to 49 percent. Under this standard of proof, almost any “he said, she said” situation will be decided in favor of the plaintiff, unless the complaint is obviously fraudulent or is off-the-wall.
Continue reading here.
|
