Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Domestic violence

University of South Carolina

Discipline
Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Reconsidering Dual Consent, Lisa V. Martin Apr 2014

Reconsidering Dual Consent, Lisa V. Martin

Faculty Publications

Before a child may travel internationally, many countries require proof that both of the child’s parents consent. These “dual consent” requirements are aimed at preventing international child abduction, and many countries have adopted them as part of the coordinated effort to implement the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In recent years, international air carriers have been urged to impose similar requirements for all children traveling on international flights. Although well-intentioned, dual consent requirements pose significant harms, especially to children of single parents and parents subjected to domestic violence. This article explores the unintended consequences …


What's Love Got To Do With It: Securing Access To Justice For Teens, Lisa V. Martin Apr 2012

What's Love Got To Do With It: Securing Access To Justice For Teens, Lisa V. Martin

Faculty Publications

During the past 15 years, researchers have documented the pervasiveness, severity, and lasting impact of dating violence on American adolescents. Studies also have shown teens to be firmly resistant to disclosing abuse to adults. Nonetheless, civil protection orders - the civil legal remedy most commonly relied upon to redress intimate partner violence in adult relationships - often remain inaccessible to abused teens. State protection order statutes exclude teens from their protections by restricting rights to standing by age and the relationship between the parties. When states grant teens standing, they often deter teens from pursuing the protections extended to them …


We Have A "Purpose" Requirement If We Can Keep It, James F. Flanagan Oct 2009

We Have A "Purpose" Requirement If We Can Keep It, James F. Flanagan

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court in Giles v. California held that a defendant forfeits the right to confront a witness only when he purposefully keeps the witness away. Many see the "purpose" requirement as an unjustified bar to the use of victim hearsay, particularly in domestic violence prosecutions where victims often refuse to appear. The author defends Giles as a correct reading of history, and independently justified by longstanding precedent that constitutional trial rights can only be lost by intentional manipulation of the judicial process. Moreover, the purpose requirement does not prevent prosecutions or convictions because the definition of testimonial hearsay is …