Published on:

New York Appellate Court Rules There is No Incident That Requires Wife’s Protection from the Court


Domestic violence is much harder to accept because the perpetrator is a family member. There are many undocumented domestic violence cases because not only do victims get traumatized, they are also afraid of the outcome of the case, which usually means the breakdown of a family unit. This is a case between a married couple and a parole officer. The husband is forbidden to contact his wife without the parole officer’s permission. The special condition stated by the Supreme Court was to permit the husband to see his wife, even during out-of-curfew hours, as long as the wife wanted to see him, as well.

These provisions were agreed upon by the husband. He agreed to follow the curfew policy set by the parole officer. However, the husband appealed to remove the curfew clause and be with his wife. Although this was not a violation of his rights, he was still denied to visit his wife during non-curfew hours. But if his wife wanted to do so, he could visit her. In this case, is very important to consider the desire of the wife to see his husband. The court also convicted the husband of rape, domestic violence and assault.

The state can place restrictions on the release of the parole because there was no constitutional right released before the full sentence was served. With the past convictions of the husband, it showed that the husband had a long-standing history of violence and assault towards women. The order of protection given to the wife was a result of the continuous harassment and assault of the husband.

Moreover, there was a special condition that prohibited the husband from communicating or being associated with the wife. This can only be done if the husband secures permission from the parole officer. The petition of the husband to disable this special condition so that he can live with his wife was denied by the court. This was because there was a policy that prohibited victims of domestic violence to live with the person who committed the assault. This is also true even if the couple tried to reconcile. This policy was created to protect victims from domestic violence.

The court also rejected the husband’s challenge to the constitution. Furthermore, the husband did not cross-appeal the court’s decision to reject his first appeal. The husband’s cross-appeal was reviewed because it interferes seriously with exercising his right to marry.

There is no record of any incident that substantiates the wife’s appeal for court protection. The arrest of the husband was based on the allegations of his wife when they were not married yet. The court dropped the charges, as well as the violation of the parole.

However, a record that the husband did bother his wife existed, which caused him to be arrested. Furthermore, the record did not show how or in what manner did the husband bother his wife. Because of that, he was released from jail for not violating his parole. The judge’s restriction also extends to their daughter. The husband is not allowed to communicate and associate with his daughter, which affected and disrupted the father-daughter relationship.

This condition had nothing to do with the violations that the petitioner had recently committed. He was found to have forged an instrument but that does not mean that the husband can be a threat to the safety of his wife and daughter. Furthermore, he was convicted of rape but it was against a different person and this was committed when he was 19. After that incident, there were no more recorded criminal sex offenses made by the husband against someone else.

At Stephen Bilkis and Associates, our team of lawyers who are proficient with different cases associated with domestic violence and assault will help you get enough confidence and courage to face your offender.

Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information