A hearing in French
I am reminded of a day I spent on the bench as a judge pro tem years ago, listening to an Order of Protection hearing. Both parties spoke French, which I do not speak, and there was a translator. I was stunned to learn that I had immediate reactions just listening to two very different stories where the language lagged the speech. I formed impressions of truth-telling by facial expressions, tone, loudness, body position, eyes and hand gestures. Once I paired the speech with what I observed, I believed that I knew who was telling the truth.
Why corroborating evidence matters under the Alec and Lydia Act
Why am I writing about this? I have been reading complaints about the Alec and Lydia Act that specifically criticize its rule that a domestic violence claim does not require corroboration from exhibits or another witness. Critics suggest that people may lie and that some parents may be falsely accused. Yes, that might happen, and it always has been a possibility. But the overall goal of the Alec and Lydia Act and Arizona public policy is to protect children.
Most domestic violence happens without witnesses
Domestic violence can kill and injure. Abusers are very cunning. Most domestic violence is not witnessed. We know. We recently had a case where a parent pinched the child while being on a supervised visit. He did it while ostensibly hugging the child.
Judges still evaluate credibility and the full record
Judges are the fact-finders. They listen to testimony, assess credibility and consider the full evidentiary record. Under the Alec and Lydia Act, the absence of documents or testimony from another person does not automatically prevent a domestic violence claim from being established. The court still decides whether the evidence meets the applicable legal standard. This change is designed to help courts respond to abuse that may be difficult to document and to protect more children.
