Below are links to PDF documents related to a number of our cases.
RIGHTS LITIGATION PROJECT
Robertson v. Watson
U.S. Supreme Court - 2010
This Supreme Court case deals with the issue of private prosecutions in domestic violence cases.
Abbott v. Abbott
U.S. Supreme Court - 2009
This case concerns the problem of international parental abduction and the scope of the Hague Convention on Civil International Abduction.
Giles v. California
U.S. Supreme Court - 2008
This Supreme Court case involves the issue of whether a defendant can "forfeit" his right to cross-examination by causing the unavailablity of his victim.
Hammon v. Indiana; Davis v. Washington
U.S. Supreme Court - 2006
This Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of the admission of 911 calls and statements to police in domestic violence prosecutions.
City of Castle Rock, CO v. Jessica Gonzales
U.S. Supreme Court - 2005
This Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of police failure to enforce a protection order.
DC LEAP
Clark v. United States
DC Court of Appeals - 2011
In this case the defendant argued that his violent violations of the victim's protection order were waived because she had previously consented to prior (non-violent) violations. This issue revisits the "consent defense" argument raised in the case that launched DV LEAP, Ba v. U.S. DV LEAP filed (in-house) an amicus brief arguing (again) that a consent defense should not be recognized as it would cede the validity and enforceability of court orders to private litigants. DV LEAP also urged the Court not to rule (as it previously did in Ba) that any consent had been "revoked" by the time of the violence, because the revocation theory is predicated on the idea of a viable consent defense, and because the proper analysis should be one of "waiver" rather than "revoked consent." The case is pending.
MR v JT
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2010
In this successful appeal, DV LEAP represented a victim of domestic violence whose request for a civil protection order was denied because the abuser falsely but successfully claimed that his violence was an act of self-defense in response to the victim's actions. This case was especially troubling because the trial court's decision was based on representations the abuser made in his closing argument, not during his testimony and the victim was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine the abuser's factual assertions about the violence. In reversing the trial court's decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion by relying on "testimony" that did not exist.
Upson v. Wallace
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2010
In this case DV LEAP filed an amicus brief on behalf of a mother who had been ordered to pay thousands of dollars to the respondant, who had represented himself pro se. The court took this opportunity to adopt a blanket rule that attorneys who represent themselves may not recieve attorneys' fees as a sanction against the other party.
E.J. v. D.J.
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2010
This case provides an opportunity for the D.C. Court of Appeals to further strengthen its pronouncements that trial judges must apply the child safety provisions of D.C. Code Section 16-914 (a-1) to all custody and visitation cases.
In re Robertson
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2008
This case involves the right of victims of domestic violence to privately enforce their civil protection orders.
P.F. v. N.C.
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2008
This custody appeal challenges the court’s penalizing a battered mother’s decision to flee to another state by denying her custody and granting custody to the batterer.
Murphy v. Okeke
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2008
This case involves the re-victimization of the victim by the trial court, which issued a protection order against the victim to “protect her from herself” and repeatedly chastised the victim for “provoking” her abuser’s assault.
C.W. v. E.F.
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2007
This custody case involved the sexual abuse of a child by the father and established a powerful precedent requiring courts to place safety first and to give due weight to a history of battering when considering child abuse allegations in the context of custody and visitation.
Ba v. United States
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2002
This case involved whether a victim can “consent” to her civil protection order being violated.
CUSTODY & ABUSE PROJECT
J.A. v. P.G.
MD 2009
This MD Court of Special Appeals case addresses a critically important avenue towards safety and empowerment for domestic violence victims: the ability to enforce civil protection orders through the criminal justice system without suffering retaliation from their abusers. This appeal arises from a malicious prosecution case filed by a perpetrator of domestic violence against his victim's daughter after he was prosecuted unsuccessfully by the Maryland State Attorney for a protection order violation which the then-18-year old daughter reported to the police.
Mrs. O v. Mr. O
AR Court of Appeals 2009
DV LEAP submitted two amicus briefs and worked with the pro bono lawyers representing the mother in this case, in which the trial court awarded sole custody to an abusive father on the grounds that the mother had committed "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS). The court also denied a protection order on this ground. The amicus briefs argue that PAS is scientifically invalid and inadmissible, and that the court ignored a long history of abuse, as well as evidence of abuse of the children. In 2010, the court of appeals affirmed the decision on grounds that the PAS issue had been waived.
- Court decision on custody
- Court decision on protection order
Mrs. R v. Mr. R
TN Court of Appeals 2009
This Tennessee appeal represents the all-too-common phenomenon of battered women losing custody of their children to their abusers. DV LEAP and their pro bono counsel Crowell and Moring filed an amicus brief on behalf of several domestic violence organizations in support of the mother's appeal and argued that the trial court's decision to award full custody to the father, despite an admitted history of physical abuse against the mother, reflected a profound misunderstanding of domestic violence and its consequences to children, as well as an alarming misinterpretation of teh Tennessee Code provisions that were enacted to protect victims of domestic violence and their children.
L.H. v. I.M.
In this case, the trial court granted joint custody to a father who had abused the mother and refused to admit testimony from several expert witnesses including a lethality assessment which found the mother to be in the highest level of risk from the father.
Debek v. Bhatia
Connecticut Court of Appeals - 2008
This case concerns the misuse of the tort of “malicious prosecution” against a mother who sought to protect her daughter from the father’s sexual abuse.
Licata v. Licata
New Jersey Supreme Court - 2002
This case involved the court’s reliance on the pseudo-scientific theory “parental alienation syndrome” and exclusion of an expert on domestic violence.
See also
P.F. v. N.C. and C.W. v. E.F.
under DC LEAP above.
ALL STATES LITIGATION PROJECT
Ms. X v. Mr. Y
Virginia Court of Appeals - 2011
This appeal challenged a Virginia court’s order requiring a protective mother to pay over $10,000 in attorney’s fees for seeking a protection order to protect her young daughter from her father’s abuse. This case was especially troubling because of the trial judge’s lack of legal analysis in imposing the attorney’s fees award upon the victim, the chilling effects these kinds of decisions can have on victims seeking to protect their children, and the fact that a different trial court had originally granted her a protection order on behalf of her daughter against the father. Her appellate brief argued that the trial court failed to articulate a factual basis regarding the reasonableness of the conduct of the parties, it erred in failing to comply with the attorney’s fees statute, and that imposing fees on a protection order applicant is contrary to the purpose of VA’s protection order statute.
In re Muhammed v. Gilbert
D.C. Court of Appeals - 2005
This case involved a decision by the trial court to deny a victim any share of her husband’s pension, which was marital property, on the ground that her protection order caused him to lose his job as a police officer.
Triggs v Triggs
Maryland Supreme Court - 2003
This case concerned the appropriateness of a sentence of 18 years in jail for 18 separate violations of a protection order against an abuser who had held the children hostage for days while tormenting the mother by phone; the brief discusses major risk factors of lethality
See also
Debek v Batia
under CUSTODY & ABUSE above.