The debate over coercive control and judicial training is where the fight gets real. Supporters say judges must understand patterns of abuse that do not always leave bruises. Critics worry vague standards and court-sponsored training can create new power centers, new experts, and new ambiguity inside a system already addicted to discretion. Both concerns deserve scrutiny. But one thing is clear: the old framework failed too many protective parents and children. HB 2995 changes the presumption, raises the stakes, and puts safety first. If judges are uncomfortable, maybe that is the point.
Preponderance of the evidence allows the judges to refuse to look at evidence or to just make their own call which most of the time is disastrous! This part is BS! This gives the court to ability to be biased.
The debate over coercive control and judicial training is where the fight gets real. Supporters say judges must understand patterns of abuse that do not always leave bruises. Critics worry vague standards and court-sponsored training can create new power centers, new experts, and new ambiguity inside a system already addicted to discretion. Both concerns deserve scrutiny. But one thing is clear: the old framework failed too many protective parents and children. HB 2995 changes the presumption, raises the stakes, and puts safety first. If judges are uncomfortable, maybe that is the point.
Preponderance of the evidence allows the judges to refuse to look at evidence or to just make their own call which most of the time is disastrous! This part is BS! This gives the court to ability to be biased.
Preponderance of the evidence is standard in civil cases. What standard would you use?