PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

CONNECTICUT'S STANDARD OF PROOF FOR DV PROTECTIVE ORDERS PRACTICALLY THE LOWEST IN THE COUNTRY!

SO WHY DID JUDGE BARRY PINKUS PUT A PROTECTIVE ORDER BEYOND ADRIANNE OYOLA'S REACH IN VIOLATION OF OUR OWN CONNECTICUT LAW?  THE BOTTOM LINE IS JUDGE PINKUS DID NOT OBEY THE CT GENERAL STATUTES AND USED A BURDEN OF PROOF THAT WAS WELL BEYOND WHAT THE LAW REQUIRED.

 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS POINT, SEE THE LINK BELOW:

 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/pdfs/Standards_of_Proof_by_State.authcheckdam.pdf
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

1 comment:

  1. AnonymousJuly 18, 2015 at 3:03 PM

    Yet another problem in Family Courts in CT is that they have too much discretion (power)! Restraining orders issue here at the judge's discretion. You can see from other states they use the language "shall" issue. Nothing discretionary about it. We need to start limiting the discretion afforded in our state to family court judges with changes to the laws made by our legislatures that the people need! Needs to start next session.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)