Domestic and intimate partner violence

Here, the plaintiff had obtained a protective order against the defendant in Kentucky because she feared that the defendant would abuse her and the parties’ daughter. Subsequently, the defendant threatened to kill the plaintiff, and the plaintiff fled to Maine, where she filed for a protective order. The district court granted a temporary protective order. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed for custody of the parties’ daughter. The district court found that it could not grant the plaintiff custody as Maine was not the daughter’s home state.

The Campus Sexual Assault, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, and Stalking Prevention and Response Act modernizes New York State's sexual-assault response programs by requiring all New York State colleges and universities to adopt uniform policies for preventing and responding to sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking. It mandates a comprehensive system of definitions, rights, procedures, and reporting obligations that apply to every institution chartered by the Regents or created by legislative act.

Here, the plaintiff was a resident of Massachusetts and she sought an abuse prevention order against her nonresident partner.  The plaintiff and her partner met in Massachusetts and moved to Florida, where they had a child.  The plaintiff took the child to Massachusetts on occasion but the defendant never returned.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant physically abused her and she fled to Massachusetts with her son.  The plaintiff alleged that prior to her escape, the defendant accused her of cheating, called her a whore, and threatened to kill her and the child.&nb

The appellant Barry Carne was formerly in a relationship with L.S., the victim and the mother of his four children.  One day Carne entered L.S.’s home without consent, destroyed property, and confronted L.S..  During the altercation he grabbed and twisted L.S.’s right hand and fingers, causing her to fall in pain.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) submitted the case Carrión y Otros v. Nicaragua to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning Nicaragua’s international responsibility for failing to properly investigate the death of Carrión. She was in the process of divorce and had custody of her son when she was found dead at home. The medical examiner classified the death as suicide, but her family disputed this, citing her ex-partner’s history of violence.

The defendant was found guilty of acts of violence toward his sons, which included physical abuse and constituted a continued offense because the violence involved a number of uniform and continuous acts over a period of ten (10) years. Additionally, he was found guilty of threatening his wife with abuse and death. Prior to these offenses, the defendant had no criminal record. Initially, the High Court found the defendant guilty of acts of violence and abuse against his children and wife and sentenced to one year and three months of imprisonment.

A man, E.O., repeatedly physically assaulted his wife, S.M., and threatened to kill her. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of S.M. and expanded the definition of domestic violence in Sweden, stating that the victim’s entire situation is relevant when assessing gross violations of a person’s integrity, not just a single act. The court further ruled that the injurious acts must only be of a type that would typically lead to a serious injury to a person’s self-confidence, as opposed to having led to serious injury to this particular person’s self-confidence.

R.Z. sexually assaulted his female partner, C.J., with his fingers. During this action, R.Z. threatened to hurt her. In their testimony, the parties both said that he had done so to check whether the plaintiff had been cheating. The question was thus whether the act could be considered non-sexual. However, under the Swedish Penal Code, one of the prerequisites for an act to be classified as rape (Chapter 6 Section 1 first paragraph) or the subsidiary, sexual compulsion (Chapter 6 Section 2), is that it must be sexual.

A woman, L.I., suffered extensive injuries from being dropped from her balcony by her husband, B.B. From text messages between the parties during the night of the event, it was clear that L.I. was upset about something B.B. had done and it was clear that L.I. did not want B.B. to return to the apartment. The Supreme Court stated that in criminal cases, the prosecutor has the burden of proof. For conviction, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime for which he is prosecuted, which is normally difficult in these types of cases.

The Constitutional Court found that the legislature could take necessary measures to reduce violence within families. Articles 1.1 of the Law on the Protection of the Family allows judges to take measures against one spouse, not both, and not against the children or members of the family, if a spouse has subjected another family member to domestic violence. The Gulyaly Peace Court found that because the Articles did not provide for an injunction or penalty if a child committed a violent act, rather than a spouse or parent, the Articles violated the principle of equality.