Family of Montclair murder victim seeks legal protection for women in domestic violence cases

Men need to be punished for assaulting their wives/girlfriends and I'm not talking about no rinky-dink restraining order. The result should be removal of the father from those that need protection: wife and children. Automatically. They keep getting away with this shit and getting custody because society condones violence and does not respect women and children.

(emphasis mine)

The family of Monica Paul, the woman murdered at the Montclair YMCA last June, is circulating a petition to enact "Monica's Law," which would restrict child visitation by fathers in case of documented domestic violence, according to a report on Baristanet...

Monica's Law
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The family of Monica Paul, the woman brutally murdered at the Montclair YMCA last June, is circulating a petition to enact "Monica's Law," which would restrict child visitation by fathers in case of documented domestic violence. The petition specifically mentions access that Kenneth Duckett, accused of murder, had to Paul because he had "curbside visitation" of their two children.

The proposed law would require psychological testing before a man accused of domestic violence could be granted child visitation and would punish violators of restraining orders with a 3-5 year prison sentence. "People take restraining orders to be a joke," the petition says. "People need to understand the severity of the consequences to their actions. A stiff penalty as such will force others to think twice before violating a court ordered judgment."

Read the petition here.

In a similar case, Joseph Pallipurath, the man accused of killing his estranged wife and two others in a Clifton church shooting in November, tried to commit suicide in jail this morning. He is in stable condition.

Related Posts :

Sphere: Related Content

2 advocates for peace:

"ReadMyLips" Mar 9, 2009 10:41:00 PM  

I think the protocol should be a cooling off NO visitation period. I read the newspapers, too. Also, when children are involved, right aftger separation they are also emotionally vulnerable. Whoever gave the RO with kickout should be consistent in their message to the children.

Jack Straton, Ph.D., as published in NOMAS (Nat'l Org. in Men Against Sexism, ab. 1992) recommends this better than the alternative.

I do NOT agree with psychological testing for 2 reasons: A. It doesn't measure past criminal behavior or potential for future. Some criminal can pass with flying colors while the women/Moms they abused will fail. This is discussed in seminars teaching evaluators to screen for abuse.


B. the crowd of professionals making a living (if not whole careers) off OUR (yes I'm one), drama and distress -- and poverty following close after -- the whole premise is to psychologize abuse and thereby shift the focus off the crime and call it something else.

B2. This is going to (and does) "breed" more business because who (other than an abuser, already a manipulator) wouldn't be mentally challenged by witnessing some authority say that what happened to herself (pronoun intentional) or her children some mild, diversionary name. That'd fry all but the strongest "thinkers" -- psyches.

Instead, No means No. Make sure the RO was granted fairly, and then MEAN it -- disarm the batterer and reprove him strongly for it. And send the same messsage to any children around. "Your Dad is on "time out" for bad behavior." Most kids of kindergarten age or more could probably get the concept. . . .

Stop court-appointed, taxpayer-funded professionals from psychologizing crime, and profiting from the psychological consequences of it! THEY may say it's not really crime, but "high conflict." Well, I'm John Q (excuse me, "Joan Q") public and I disagree. I have irreconciliable differences with abuse. They are not about to get reconciled either, til the abuse is acknowledged, and stopped or I have a refuge in which I can work and live my life.

The process of psychologizing (made-up term) should be replaced with fact- and evidence-gathering, and case file readings in these cases. And interviewing other sources. There is only so much time available in any case, and what I've come to think is that Psych Labeling sometimes just is done by a lazy mind (as in mediator). Or, an expert psychologizer can be hired to do the same type of process. They are not the experts. The people who have experienced these things are! !! If the shoe fits (the law), then it should be worn. If it doesn't, makling a newer, different shoe, is not going to solve the problem (I'm talking about identified behavior that breaks existing laws).

Rj Mar 10, 2009 7:37:00 AM  

great comments deserve a special be continued...

Pray the Devil Back to Hell



  © Blogger template 'Perfection' by 2008

Back to TOP