Domestic Violence Suspects Get Another Day In Court
People accused of domestic violence have a lot to lose. Not just their freedom, but the right to even visit their children.
That was the scenario for a Stamford man who was arrested two years ago for allegedly assaulting his wife. She said he threw her down a flight of stairs and kicked her in the head, all in front of their two toddlers.
But the defendant, Fernando A., whose full name is not released in court records, said the two were divorcing and his wife fabricated the attack story to gain leverage in family court proceedings. Fernando A., however, never got a chance after his arraignment to object to the order of protection issued against him that prevented him from seeing his children.
His lawyer, Steven D. Ecker, of Hartford’s Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, asked for an evidentiary hearing after the arraignment, but Superior Court Judge James Bingham denied the request. Ecker challenged the denial up to the state Supreme Court.
In an opinion to be officially released this week, a divided court ruled that a defendant must be granted an evidentiary hearing at which the state must prove, by the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence, that the order of protection is a continued necessity.
“All we were asking for is a hearing within a reasonable time after someone is kicked out of their home and prohibited from any contact with their children,” said Ecker. “It seems appropriate a court would permit a hearing to consider both sides of the story. That doesn’t seem particularly controversial.”
There are about 19,000 protective orders currently in place in Connecticut. And in a year when domestic violence cases have repeatedly made headlines in the state, it’s no surprise that the Fernando A. appeal drew interest from various advocacy groups, including the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut.
| More from Anthrope1
Stumble It!
