Summary

1/23/2013--Introduced.Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 - Amends the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, as amended by the Violence Against Women and Department... Read More

Status

This bill was introduced on Jan 23, 2013, in a previous session of Congress, but was not passed.

Date Introduced
Jan 23, 2013

Co-Sponsors

Bill Text

A BILL

To consolidate, improve, and reauthorize programs that support families and victims in the justice system affected by domestic violence.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013''. (b) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows: (1) The 2010 National Survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner, while 1 in 7 men experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner. Female victims of intimate partner violence experienced different patterns of violence than male victims. Female victims experienced multiple forms of these types of violence; male victims most often experienced physical violence. (2) A critical issue in domestic violence cases is the risk of continued victimization during the pretrial period. Offenders may violate no-contact orders, further injure victims, or intimidate them. Such occurrences highlight a critical need for efficiency in court proceedings. (3) Of 3,750 intimate partner violence cases filed in State courts in 16 large urban counties in 2002, children were present during the violent incident in 36 percent of the cases. Of those children who were present, 60 percent directly witnessed the violence. Court collection of information and statistics related to children who witnessed a violent incident between intimate partners assists courts in identifying children in need of...

Read Full Text

Sentiment Map

Select:

Nation

18 Supporting
53 Opposing
25% 75%

State: CA

2 Supporting
3 Opposing
40% 60%

District: 1st

0 Supporting
0 Opposing
0% 0%

Popularity Trend

Organizations Supporting

No organizations supporting yet.

Organizations Opposing

No organizations opposing yet.

Users Supporting

Members of Congress should support H.R. 393. BECAUSE SOME ONE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSABLE Serious violation by Lorain County Court Judge Debra Boros, her former Magistrate James Gemelas and GAL and present Magistrate Michelle Arredondo. Family law is a matter of state and federal law, not county law all 88 Ohio counties have to follow the same law. Maschari / Braley family were deliberately misusing their connections to Lorain County Court. Judge Debra Boros, Former Magistrate James Gemelas Present Magistrate Michelle Arredondo of kidnap my daughters children, in this case involving Lorain County Court Judge Debra Boros, done with the knowledge and assistance of Judge Debra Boros Present Magistrate Michelle Arredondo and former Magistrate James Gemelas. This case involving Judge Boros, Gemelas and Arredondo unprofessional presence of inaccurate, inappropriate and irrelevant personal attacks. Boros’ order-defending placement of my children, in an apparent attempt to discredit my words. Averting attention away from what CONVICTED FELON Dustin Braley and his mother Jeanne Maschari are actually doing to gain custody of these children using inappropriate accusations with half-truths, distortion, and total fabrication. My attorney Judge Boros, and opposing councils James Gemelas / Gemelas law firm, Smith, Illner & Gemelas Co. LPA. agreed to something either while at the bench, in chambers or at some other time when I could not be privilege to the conversation. Therefore, the court was protected because I was represented. This is no longer a country of laws; it is a country of creative interpretations of laws. They decided my Due Process formulating a legal logic to support their decision by, manipulating, dissecting and eliminating the facts and evidence to support their decision, using a rubber stamp doctrine of "judicial discretion" forcing a settlement by telling me Boros was going to call CPS and place my children with CPS. This way Boros did not have to rule on this case therefore taking the controversy away from her by not having to decide this case. The purpose of this letter is to encourage government officials to investigate and ensure those responsible for these abuses of power, including a criminal investigation, as is their duty. A forced Judicial Audit and immediate removal of Lorain Magistrate Arredondo and Judge Debra Boros from the Court system.

Share
OH
7
vcoon53
OH-7
1 year ago

Users Opposing

I oppose The Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act because... Plenty of laws on books its a sneaky gun ban bill

Share
IN
4
Bill-Of-Rights
IN-4
1 year ago

I oppose H.R. 393: Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 because... The federal goverment needs to stay out of the home, and handle our Country's security. This should be a State issue.

Share
MI
9
pfranks
MI-9
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 393: Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013. The federal government needs to get out of every aspect of American life, their micro management and hyper involvement in our lives needs to be reduced not increased!

Share
NY
22
JJBookman
NY-22
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 393: Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 because the language of the bill leaves 30 million LGBT Americans out of the legislation by not defining the term "families" and with DOMA still on the books, we are not looked upon as a family. SHAME ON YOU.

Share
MD
1
MichaelDavidBarberMoghul
MD-1
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 393: Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 because...this is a local or state issue and while the entire country is on the brink of financial collapse this is not an issue in which the federal government should meddle. This is a local or state issue.

Share
SD
0
freethepeople
SD-0
2 years ago

I oppose H.R. 393: Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 because...this issue is a state responsibilty not a federal one. The federal government should support ideals that strengthen the family unit (including both parents and extended family) The crux of many moral related issues is due to the failure of the family unit as a center piece to a stable society.

Share
TX
21
5LKM3
TX-21
2 years ago

Bill Summary

1/23/2013--Introduced.Domestic Violence Judicial Support Act of 2013 - Amends the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, as amended by the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, courts and other specified providers for: (1) supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange of children and youth by and between parents in situations involving domestic violence, dating violence, child sexual abuse, sexual assault, or stalking; and (2) court-related and child protective services workers education on the dynamics of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault (including child sexual abuse), and stalking. Amends the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 to: (1) ensure that by January 1, 2016, a court-appointed special advocate shall be available to every victim of child abuse or neglect in the United States that needs one; and (2) reauthorize through FY2018 the court-appointed special advocate program and the child abuse training programs for judicial personnel and practitioners.

H.R. 392The Student Privacy Protection Act H.R. 394The Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act