Guess who just voted overwhelmingly against expanding protective orders to dating couples.
They also plan to testify against upcoming legislation. Because of “budget” issues.
You guessed it (or I gave it away): Jefferson County Family Court judges.
Way to go, folks!
UPDATE:
Received an email from one of the Judges:
I am not sure what your source was for the information you posted, but please be advised that the information that you posted
regarding the stand of the family court judges is fundamentally inaccurate. The judges appeared before the Jefferson County legislative delegation on Monday, November 16th. In making the presentation to the delegation on behalf of the judges who appeared last night, I specifically stated that we do NOT oppose expanding the protection of domestic violence orders to dating couples. Rather, we addressed specific aspects of the implementation of the legislation and offered suggestions as to ways we believe the extended protections would be more feasibly implemented. Nor is it accurate to indicate that we intend to speak in opposition to expanded protection during the legislative session. Please correct the information on your website in order to reflect the accurate position of the judges.
My sources were two of this Judge’s colleagues. Based on what they told me at the time, what I published was not inaccurate. And they told me at the time that there were, indeed, loose plans to speak against the legislation over cost concerns.
The members of the Jefferson County legislative delegation I spoke with say that none of the nine Judges appearing took time to call them for a discussion about the legislation. They’re quite unhappy and disappointed.
Thought I’d share the update.
P.S. It is HIGHLY pleasing to hear they don’t plan to oppose the legislation (we hear brother/brother-in-law language is part of the hold-up). We’ll hold them to it.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Bill // Nov 19, 2009 at 11:50 am
The problem is that the whole Family Court system is flawed from the get go. One issue is that the system is usually biased against men. There should be no bias either way and yes they should have DVOs for various reasons. Its obvious though that Stevie Nunn as well as the rest of the criminals aren’t worried about DVOs and someone hell bent on violating one obviously isn’t going to stop if they are bent on committing a crime. Sad but true. I guess the only other way to get a real result is to lock everyone up but that won’t work either. Maybe ankle bracelets will work or some sort of monitoring system.
2 JTT // Nov 19, 2009 at 11:51 am
The concept of adding dating couples is absolutely INSANE. Come on folks, you meet someone, go out once, become a “dating couple” – remember, there is no definition of the term – and they can have an EPO issued against you. No big deal? Well, they never go away, they will always be on your record, and they can, depending upon the circumstances, have you forced to leave your home or work. Imagine two college students living in the same dorm, within the prohibited distance, or attending the same class. Who do you force to move for the interim – or forever? And of course, they can take all your guns, leaving YOU unprotected should they decide to show up on your doorstep. (Remember, this are one-way orders, the restrictions don’t apply to the person taking them out.)
Get a clue, folks. If your dating partner assaults you, TAKE OUT A WARRANT – that will automatically come with the same restrictions of an EPO, but requires the alleged victim to actually take some action.
Leave a Comment