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.
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Comments (39)
A man simply accused of domestic violence has to take psychological testing to see his own children.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
This is a bad idea. Change "accused" to "found guilty of".
"Found guilty of" may be too late, as in the case of poor Ms. Paul.
Then beef up restraining orders.
People should not be cut off from their children because their ex-wives accuse them of something.
The man from Montclair who drowned his two young daughters in the bathtub had also been accused of domestic violence. Had he been disallowed from seeing his children, they would most likely still be alive today.
If we imprisoned everyone accused of crime we'd have a lot less crime too.
It sounds more like the restraining order procedure already in place needs beefing up and enforcement.
Restraining orders do not work. In most cases teh guy is stable enough to want to avoid the women who filed for one - but when the man is unstable it is lighting a fuse.
ALso this isn't about being accused of domestic violence - its states "documented domestic violence" Documented equals proof to me.
Should I post a few more times using the words documented domestic violence - or will that spoil the flying off the handle not bothering to read the facts fun?
Perhaps restraining orders ought to be enforced more rigidly. With severe penalties attached. I don't think have psychological testing would deter anyone, but it would benefit psychologists somewhat.
And what if his children have accused him of "domestic violence"?
I believe that they have a right to be protected against continuation of that violence.
That the children should be protected at all costs.
I actually agree with ROC on this one, and I almost never agree with ROC. So all a woman has to do is accuse her husband/boyfriend of abuse and they would have to undergo psych testing in order to see their own children?
If I had a nickel for every custody battle that I have seen where a wife has claimed unfounded abuse by the husband, I would have a lot of nickels. That's not to say that some claims are not unfounded, I'm just raising the point that a law like this is ripe for abuse.
The events at the Y were tragic, but that does not mean we should begin punishing people based on accusations.
hrh,
according to the proposed law "documented" means police report and/or hospital report.
I realize that may equal proof to you, but thankfully we have the right to due process.
There are already in place laws to restrict visitation or place restraining orders or have court supervised visitation without considering an accusal automatically some degree of guilt.
ROC,now you disregard a police or hospital report that documents domestic violence? You, sir, are a piece of work.
One quibble I have is that the proposed law should apply to women as well. There are instances of men battered by women.
looney,
not disregard. I am sure a judge issuing a restraining order can and should take those into consideration. It's the automatic assumption of "instability" and denial of visitation because of an accusation that i think is wrong.
Our laws are getting clogged with these "ends justifies the means" shortcuts.
You are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Yes ROC - I know, I read and understood the petition. A man can't be accused and then get a psych profile - like you outraged above. She needs to have documented proof before she can accuse and before anything happens regarding custody of the kids. And yes, I consider a police report or a hospital report to be sufficient to question a situation. Or should we have a few more of these situations happen in our community? I've yet to read the falsely accused man who kids were taken away from him news article - but this horror keeps showing up - in our community.
To the people who want restraining orders enforced more - how? Follow the guy around 24/7? That seems akin to stalking the stalker and I'm sure if that were a bill you'd be posting about his privacy being an issue. Never mind the outrage over the taxes needed to pay for all those extra police officers.
Based on the crimes that we see - in our own community -time after time - makes me willing to err on the side of caution, not because I don't think the man has rights but I think the children's rights should be the priority. No curbside visit would be worth my mother.
A police report is not "documented proof" hrh. You are simply wrong on this one. Neither is it evidence perse.
It is still in the world of accusations.
I realize no amount of civil rights talk will ever assuage the "ends justify the means" mob.
I would be uncomfortable with a law mandating psychological testing without a conviction in a court of law. And who gets the results of this testing? What are the courts allowed to do with it?
ROC your posts are telling that you know very little of what a person has to do to get a restraining order – it’s not like on tv. There are court dates (plural) and you need a mountain of evidence before you are taken seriously enough to be allowed to file for one. Also the time between his being served and getting the order takes weeks - weeks where he is free to do whatever he wants to resolve his anger of being served.
I'm glad this is news to you - it means you and your loved ones have never had to experience this. If you ever had to however, your concerns for the justice system would be turned on its ear.
what else would you suggest hrh. Imprisonment on the spot based on a bruse and a story?
Yes, we do indeed have due process in this country hrh, as inefficient as it may be.
And should you ever be accused of something you did not do, you'll be thankful that there are few inconvenient roadblock between an accusation and the curtailment of your rights.
and you seem woefully ignorant hrh.:
http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=557&state_code=NJ
No, I won't be thankful. I have said many times in my life I support the death penalty - and I wouldn't change my mind if I were the innocent who had run out of appeals. No system is perfect but again, I?d rather err on the side of caution.
And no it would take more then a bruise and a story ? again, let?s go back to documented ? that would mean a hospital staff or police officers giving their opinion ? an opinion I?d trust due to their experience with BS stories, real victims and training. See, their opinion would be based on some knowledge unlike your 7 posts full of assumption that a bruise and a story would get a man?s kids ripped away from his loving arms.
You should stop posting for a little while and at least research this issue. Your posts are showing over and over that you really don?t know much about domestic violence and how prevalent it is in our society, and how weak the laws are protecting people.
"erring" on the side of caution justifies the "mistaken" execution of an innocent person.
I'm not sure what to say except that I hope i misunderstand.
And the police and doctors don't render pronouncements of guilt. Where ever did you get that idea? Prosecutors do.
Have to go with ROC here. Monica was at the Y, not at her home and not dropping the kids off for visitation.
Using her tragic death to push through a law that has nothing to do with her case is disgusting.
And sadly, restraining orders can do nothing to keep a violent individual from antoher person. If they are willing to committ murder, a restraining order violation will not be a deterrent.
And yes, specious allegations of abuse are now derigour in some custody battles. It makes it more difficult for women and children who are actually victimized to be believed and protected.
It's obvious that right of center's posts demonstrate why Monica's Law SHOULD be enacted, as I wouldn't let ROC near any kids after those pyscho postings.
ROC reading and comprehension go hand in hand. If you?re confused then go back and re read my posts - but try to do it without spending half the effort already refuting it before you understand what was written. You'll notice I didn't even use the word guilt yet you seem to thinK I did.
well, hrh, what would they be giving their opinion of if not the guilt of the abuser?
That these bruises are indeed bruises?
You did not say the word "guilt" but what else could you mean? Comprehension indeed.
I guess then what precisely do you mean by police officers "giving their opinion" ?
on what?
Police reports hrh. usually state facts not opinions...
Men are such jerks. We need a law granting mothers the right to preemptively shoot the father of her children, at her sole discretion. The childrens' safety must be paramount!
ROC is absolutely right on this one. Jeepers, hrh, whatever happened to the civil rights you're normally so fond of?
It really is a dangerous thing that so many people are willing to erode our civil liberties in the name of ANYTHING.
The guy was clearly a nut, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that he probably would have committed this crime with or without restricted visitations.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Hmm. I'm not too sure we can equate mandatory psych testing in this scenario with erosion of civil liberties.
Is it an erosion of civil liberties to test a driver's blood alcohol level when he/she is suspected of DUI? I fail to see how this is meaningfully different--but this is generally accepted as a reasonable practice to protect innocent drivers. Yes?
I do agree with the person who commented that this should be a gender-neutral proposal since women have also been known to violate restraining orders and batter/abuse/kill their partners/ex-partners/stalkees.
ROC displayed amazing restraint in responding analytically to hrh's perfectly bizarre reasoning and insultingly personal attacks.
Well shoot walleroo, (um, no don't, sorry), the laws against robbing banks have definitely been a deterrent; thank a deity that's taken care of...
And they do take the current laws very seriously, even too far if you get the wrong judge, but that's another story.
Just more knee jerk reaction to a sad circumstance, the only one of these was Amber Alert because of the instant possibility of stopping a heinous crime. The rest have basically done nothing to stop anyone that's determined and in fact add to the overburdening laws in this "free" country.
Maybe after a man has fathered 2 children he should be neutered. This would reduce his testosterone levels (aggression) and therefore result in a huge reduction in domestic violence... and would also help the over population of the world! Genius.
We're talking about taking away a father's right to see his children essentially on the word of the mother, rather than a cop, and on the basis of a "psych test," a much less definitive measurement than blood alcohol level.
Better to just neuter all men, bank the sperm, establish a matriarchy and be done with it.
I'm fine with this effort as long as the woman was "brutally" murdered. I'd hate for all this effort to be expended over a humane murder. In a related, but unrelated matter, stay-at-home mom Marcelle Thibault, who last January pulled her car off of I495 in Lowell, Massachusetts and marched herself and her five-year-old niece and four-year-old nephew into traffic, where all three were struck and killed, is still dead. No effort in the works to name a law as a result, but perhaps this woman should have been required to undergo psychological testing before being allowed around her sister's children.
Instead of petitioning his family should be given the option of delivering a 357 shell to Duckett's brainpan. It would have a much more salutary effect on domestic violence than some idiot, dinosaur-brained law of unintended consequences. Ditto for Pallipurath.
execute their asses now.
Humane murder?
I can't even believe that there are people who would support this draconian law the family is trying to get passed. I realize this was a tragedy, but this law won't bring back Monica and it will do little to help battered persons -- a crazy ex is going to remain a crazy ex no matte what the penalties. It's why some battered persons have to go into hiding -- there is only so much the law can do to protect people from violent psychopaths.
And besides, the law would never withstand a constitutional challenge. Not only would it be struck down for not being gender neutral, but the law seeks to take away a constitutionally protected right without any hearing. Custody and visitation are protected rights -- its why parents facing a loss of custody are entitled to free legal counsel. No way a law can survive that allows a parent to withhold custody from the other parent without a hearing...no matter if they filed a police report, or went to the hospital, or whatever.
This is a great idea! Lets use this tragic incident to push thru even more "feel good" legislation that's just going to erode our civil liberties even more...
Does anybody even remember what the hell happened that night? This guy went to the Y to shoot his wife... Yes, the kids happened to be there... But they had NOTHING to do with why he went there...
hrhppg:
Since you are so in favor of "erring on the side of caution", how do you feel about all the suspected terrorists in guantanamo bay? Oh, wait, that's just a little too cautious, isn't it?
KatebirdRex:
Just so you know, you can legally refuse to take a BAC test even if you are suspected of DUI... Probably has something to do with that pesky fifth amendment... However in NJ if you refuse to take a BAC test you're assumed guilty at 0.1% BAC.... (I'd like to see somebody take that to the supreme court... assumed guilty because I refuse to incriminate myself...)