State lawmakers on Wednesday called for stronger protections for victims of domestic violence, including ending the practice of providing child support for some offenders.
Currently, a perpetrator can physically assault a victim, and then the victim could later be sentenced to pay child support in a divorce court.
The bill specifically states that persons “convicted of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or certain other Class A or B crimes that qualify as sexual or family violence against their spouse” cannot receive child support.
Supreme Court justices already have discretion in these cases, but proponents say it’s not enough.
“There are situations where awarding alimony should simply never be contemplated by the court, and this proposal removes those situations from the court’s discretion,” said Meghan Scanlon, president and executive director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “The prohibition on alimony payment is not intended to limit the powers of the court, but rather to remove the power of those convicted of the listed crimes to continue to abuse their victim using the legal system.”
The bill would help victims “by removing the fear of abandoning an abusive relationship for certain victims, by providing the victim with means to support themselves and their children, and by eliminating abuse through litigation in such situations.” , said Scanlon, who testified Wednesday before the Judiciary Committee at the State Capitol Complex in Hartford.
But Wallingford Rep. Craig Fishbein, the ranking Republican on the committee’s House of Representatives, said judges already had a long list of reasons for denying alimony, including consideration of the length of the marriage and reasons for the dissolution.
“Isn’t that already in the articles of incorporation?” Fishbein asked.
Jessica Hill / Specially for the Courant
State Representative Craig Fishbein, a Wallingford Republican, speaks at the state House of Representatives in Hartford.
California has enacted a similar law statewide, while New Jersey is blocking child support payments for certain criminal convictions.
“A victim should not have to spend time and money in court trying to deal with something that the court has found unreasonable to judge,” Scanlon said. “To do so would continually re-victimize and re-traumatize the victim, requiring them to prove their fault or the reasons for the marriage’s breakdown, as long as the perpetrator chooses to abuse the legal system in this way.”
Senate Law No. 5, covering the Domestic Violence Provisions, provides funding for victim services in addition to federal funding. At the federal level, the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) fund has a volatile funding stream due to its exposure to fees and fines levied in connection with federal prosecutions. The fund covers cases of stalking, child abuse, human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence. VOCA served more than 100,000 crime victims in Connecticut during the 2021 federal fiscal year.
The bill provides additional funding of $13.175 million for the current fiscal year and $20 million for next year.
The Judiciary Committee faces a March 31 deadline for all bills created by the committee. If passed, the measures would be subject to final compromises before the legislative session ends in early June.
patient privacy
Lawmakers are also debating Senate Bill 3, which aims to protect patient privacy when using online apps, as well as in abortion clinics and doctor’s offices.
Pro-Choice Connecticut state director Liz Gustafson said she supports the bill because of concerns about healthcare privacy.
“While abortion remains legal in Connecticut, we are not immune to the efforts of the global anti-abortion movement to restrict or deny access to pregnancy-related care,” Gustafson told the committee. “Now, in this post-Roe world, the serious threat of harm from data breaches has increased significantly. Privacy is non-negotiable.”
She added: “Globally, the United States has the highest number of data breaches. … After Dobbs, we no longer speak in hypotheses.”
Among other provisions, the bill would also bar anyone under the age of 16 from setting up a social media account without parental consent.
Advocates point out that online stores, smartwatches, menstrual apps, and search engines often collect detailed personal health information. However, these details are sometimes sold for marketing reasons. However, the bill would prevent companies from selling health data unless the person gives permission.
But Tim Phelan, president of the Connecticut Retail Network, said lawmakers already passed a landmark consumer privacy law last year, known as Public Act 22-15, and should wait before passing new regulations. The wording of the new draft law is so broad in terms of health that it could be misinterpreted and spill over into retail as an unintended consequence.
“We are concerned that some of the language under consideration, such as the way consumer health data is described, is too broad and unspecific,” Phelan said in his written testimony. “It could therefore be misconstrued as encompassing retailers and retail transactions that go far beyond what consumers understand by health data.” Still, as worded in this bill, it could be assumed that it refers to retail products from which neither the consumer nor the company understands that they are in any way related to an individual’s health.”
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
Comments are closed.