Domestic and intimate partner violence

Title 30 of the Alabama Code addresses marital and family relations and outlines the state’s statutory framework for preventing and responding to domestic violence.

Section 18.66.100 allows a person who has experienced domestic violence in Alaska to ask the court for a protective order against a current or former household member. A parent or guardian can file on behalf of a minor. After providing at least ten days' notice and holding a hearing, the court can take several steps to help keep the petitioner safe.

Alaska Stat. § 21.36.430 protects individuals who have experienced domestic violence, as well as those who provide services to such individuals, from discriminatory treatment by insurers. Under this statute, an insurer may not deny, cancel, refuse to renew, limit coverage, deny a valid claim, or raise premiums solely on the basis of a person’s status as a domestic violence survivor or service provider.

Alaska Statutes §§ 11.41.260–.270 establish the laws for stalking in the first and second degree. Under § 11.41.270, a person commits stalking in the second degree by knowingly engaging in a course of nonconsensual conduct that recklessly places another in fear of death, physical injury to themselves or a family member.

Alaska Statutes §§ 14.30.360 and 14.30.361 jointly establish the framework for health, personal safety, and reproductive education in the state’s public schools. Section 14.30.360 encourages school districts to offer health education from kindergarten through grade twelve. This education may include instruction in personal safety, with specific attention to the identification and prevention of child abuse, abduction, neglect, sexual abuse, and domestic violence.

Under Alaska Stat. § 14.30.356 the state, in consultation with school districts, must develop and approve a program targeting teen dating violence and abuse awareness and prevention for grades 7 through 12. The program must include training for employees and students, notices to parents, and periodic review by a qualified individual or committee to ensure alignment with accepted standards.

Amit Sundra v. Sheetal Khanna was a domestic violence case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Delhi High Court vacated a stay the husband had obtained on a Magistrate Court’s order allowing the wife to reside in the marital home and receive monthly maintenance.

Father and Mother were divorced in 2003 and were granted joint custody of their son, Z.  In January 2008, Mother sought an order of protection against Father covering her house, her mother’s house, and Z’s school, claiming that Father, a police officer, had committed domestic violence against her, and had intimidated Z to a point where he left a suicide note.  After an evidentiary hearing, the family court found sufficient evidence to support an order protecting Mother.  The court found, however, evidence was insufficient to cover Z in the order, and thus removed Z’s school f

In 2004, the common-law marriage between Dalibor Perić (“Perić”) and his wife was terminated.  Perić’s ex-wife was granted custody of their two-year-old son, and Perić was ordered to pay BAM 100 per month in child support.  Over the next three years, Perić never paid child support, he verbally abused and physically assaulted his ex-wife and her parents resulting in two domestic violence charges.  In addition, he beat the child on several occasions.  In 2007, the mother of the child filed a motion to terminate Perić’s parental rights.  Two years later, the Basic Cour

The defendant husband held enduring suspicions that the late victim, his wife, was involved in an extramarital affair, and required her to seek permission to leave their home without his or their children’s accompaniment.  The victim one day attempted to leave the house without the defendant’s permission, resulting in an argument in which he shot and killed her.  The defendant was charged with Aggravated Murder under Article 147 of the Provisional Criminal Code of Kosovo, found guilty, and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.  The defendant appealed, arguing that the offense