Tuesday, March 17, 2009
SOUTH CAROLINA DOMESTIC COURT DOMESTICATED ANIMAL CUSTODY ACT
The AP reported in SC bill seeks to help victims leave abusers:
A South Carolina bill seeks to protect pets in domestic violence cases to make it easier for victims to leave their abusers.
Democratic Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg told The State newspaper some women stay because their abuser has threatened to kill their beloved pets if they leave. Her bill would allow victims seeking temporary restraining orders to ask a judge for custody of a pet.
Advocates of domestic violence victims praised the legislation as removing one barrier that keeps women from seeking help.
South Carolina consistently ranks high nationwide in domestic violence. The state ranks second nationwide in women killed by men in the latest report by the Violence Policy Center. A House subcommittee hearing for the bill has not been set.
We are not making this up. Despite reports of jail overcrowding, serious backlogs in Family Court, and PROPOSED BUDGET CUTS TO HIT SOUTH CAROLINA COURTS--which will increase the likelihood of even greater backlogs in Family Court--some members of the Legislature want to grant jurisdiction to the Family Court Judges to litigate the issue of "pet custody."
The South Carolina Legislature needs to focus on real issues and stop trying to invent problems where none exist. Dogs, pot-bellied pigs, and (even more so) cats--no matter how beloved--are not children and their custody should not be litigated in Family Court. End of story.
---
---
Labels: Family Court Backlog, Silly Laws
Comments:
<< Home
What about the women who take the mans pets for spite? I can't imagine the legislation taking time for this when they have much more important issues to take care of so they can free up the court system. Then maybe they can address this issue. Pets are not people! They need to get a clue and get their priorities straight.
According to http://www.thestate.com/breaking/story/717558.html, “Under the bill, abused women seeking temporary restraining orders against abusive husbands, boyfriends and fathers of their children could ask a Family Court judge for custody of a pet, even if the abuser owns the pet…However, ultimately, Family Court judges typically don’t take pets into consideration when issuing these orders.” Again we think this Bill is ludicrous—it will create an expensive cure for a rare and innocuous disease while other serious and common diseases go untreated. Simply stated, Family Courts need more sessions for child abuse cases and no sessions for pet abuse cases.
Post a Comment
<< Home
