Expatriate Owl

A politically-incorrect perspective that does not necessarily tow the party line, on various matters including but not limited to taxation, academia, government and religion.

Monday, August 15, 2011

Inside and Outside

Here is the first paragraph of Judge Joan M. Genchi's decision in A.B. v. C.D., 2011 NY Slip Op 51404(U) (Family Court, Suffolk County):

"In this proceeding brought pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner, A.B., filed a Family Offense Petition on April 7, 2011 which alleges that the respondent, C.D., her husband, committed the following family offenses: Harassment in the first or second degree; Aggravated harassment in the second degree; Menacing in the second or third degree; and Reckless Endangerment approximately between December 2009 and January 2010 and again in October 2010 during conjugal visits at the Elmira Correctional facility where the respondent was incarcerated. The petition alleges numerous attempts by the respondent to communicate with the petitioner, either by mail, telephone, texting, or through third-party contact with the petitioner. The respondent has since been transferred to Southport Correctional Facility where he is serving a sentence of 28 years to life for the murder of his deceased former wife's husband, and for other convictions. The parties had a child on August 31, 2004, and they were married on January 14, 2006 at the Clinton Correctional Facility. On April 4, 2010, the respondent had divorce papers served on the petitioner."

So here we have a woman who marries a man who is doing an indeterminate sentence of 28 years to life on a murder conviction. Don't let the number 28 throw you; it is the theoretical date when the inmate can start with the biennial petitions to the Parole Board. And in New York, it is very rare that those convicted of a violent offense get paroled the first time before the Board.

Then this woman decides to divorce the guy. Not a bad move, given the predicament she got herself into. But then, after filing the divorce papers, she continued with the conjugal visits at the State Penitentiary.

And now, she wants an order of protection from the guy who is incarcerated (and apparently in solitary confinement).

Judge Genchi declined to award an order of protection, inasmuch as the incarcerated husband does not present a danger to the estranged wife (estranged, that is, when she's not up at the State Pen on a conjugal visit).

So what do we now have? (A) A violent felon who is now confined behind bars for the next 20+ (and perhaps 30+) years; (B) A ditzy bimbo who doesn't want said violent felon to bother her, but who is not above going up to the Big House for a conjugal visit with him; and (C) a seven-year-old child who has two piss-poor role models in his/her life, one on the inside and the other on the outside.

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home