In an editorial published by the Washington Post, Eileen King writes: "[A] bill, sponsored by Del. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick) and Sen. Jennie Forehand (D-Montgomery), would have changed the burden of proof from "clear and convincing evidence" to "preponderance of the evidence" for final orders of protection, the same standard in place for the vast majority of other civil actions in Maryland, including tort actions for large damage awards, child abuse determinations and custody decisions. Maryland hangs on obstinately as the only state to adhere to this high standard of proof... Amy Castillo came to Annapolis to tell the members of the committee about her unsuccessful attempts to get a final protective order against Mark Castillo...
"Referring to a transcript of the final hearing on her request for an order of protection, Del.Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) attacked the rationale for the bill, stating that Judge Joseph A. Dugan Jr. had substantial problems with Amy Castillo's credibility. In tones that were anything but kind, Simmons declared that he wouldn't read verbatim what the judge said because he didn't want to "embarrass" Castillo. The exact nature of this "embarrassing" information -- presumably the fact that she submitted to her estranged husband's demand for sex, something not uncommon in such cases -- was left to the imagination of those present.
"In his zeal to discredit the mother of three murdered children, Simmons seemed to forget that Dugan had been tragically wrong..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031301846.html
Technorati Tags: UPDATE,Maryland,House,Judiciary,Committee,victims,justice,editorial,Washington,Post,Hecht,Frederick,Jennie,Forehand,Montgomery,preponderance,orders,protection,actions,custody,Castillo,Annapolis,Mark,transcript,Luiz,Simmons,rationale,Judge,Joseph,Dugan,problems,nature,fact,husband,cases,imagination,zeal,children,article,decisions,members
Posts
