Woman set on fire was denied restraining order against ex-lover

[Baitball Blogger]

BOYNTON BEACH — Naomie Breton begged a judge two weeks ago to forbid her violent ex-boyfriend from coming near her but was immediately turned down.

On Monday, her ex-boyfriend allegedly doused the 34-year-old single mother of three with gasoline and set her ablaze, a gruesome event captured by a surveillance camera. Although burned on her face and body, doctors at Delray Medical Center say she should recover.

Breton in March moved out of the home she shared with Roosevelt Mondesir, the father of her 4-year-old son. She told police the two were meeting about 3 a.m. outside the 7-Eleven at 7044 Lawrence Road in Boynton Beach to exchange custody of the boy.

Breton, a limo service dispatcher, was pumping gas into her silver Mercedes when Mondesir's white Jaguar pulled up. But her son was not with him. Instead Mondesir rushed at her with the gas can and what appeared to be a machete, police said. Mondesir poured gas on Breton and set her on fire.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-12/news/fl-woman-set-on-fire-20120611_1_gas-station-police-spokeswoman-stephanie-slater-burns

[hobbit709]

1. That judge should be censured at the least.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Lack of evidence?

How about now?

[hobbit709]

4. It's like when a friend of mine got divorced a few years back.

She wanted him to have a breathalyzer interlock on his truck before he could pick up the kids. The judge ruled that since he had never been stopped for DWI, he didn't need one.
Her response was that "She had been the designated driver for 20 years.
That was on a Thursday, the following Monday he was picked up not once but twice for DWI. In the morning on his way to work, and after they let him go, on hi way home that evening..
she went to the judge the next day with her lawyer and said "Well?"

3 years later he died of liver failure.

[4th law of robotics]

20. But judges/the law can't really operate on a person's word alone

they need evidence.

Otherwise how could the judge separate a legitimate case such as the one you cite from a frivolous one made up by a vengeful ex-wife just to be a pain?

Like saying "better not let him have the kids, he's a child-molesting serial killer". If that turns out to be the case, well obviously he shouldn't have the kids. But if there's no evidence that's just one person's word against another. Not exactly the basis for sound verdicts.

[hobbit709]

21. When her husband admitted to a drinking problem.

I'd think that should be considered in making a decision.

[4th law of robotics]

22. He admitted, in court and to the judge

at that point in the hearing?

[hobbit709]

23. that's what I said.

[4th law of robotics]

24. That is not what you said

I was responding to this:

She wanted him to have a breathalyzer interlock on his truck before he could pick up the kids. The judge ruled that since he had never been stopped for DWI, he didn't need one.
Her response was that "She had been the designated driver for 20 years.
That was on a Thursday, the following Monday he was picked up not once but twice for DWI. In the morning on his way to work, and after they let him go, on hi way home that evening..
she went to the judge the next day with her lawyer and said "Well?"

3 years later he died of liver failure.

At no point in here do you indicate that he admitted before the judge that he was an alcoholic prior to the judge deciding not to install a breathalyzer lock.

[hobbit709]

25. Maybe I should have put that info in post #4 instead of adding it in post #21

Sheesh!

[4th law of robotics]

27. It's a pretty big factor

and just to be clear: he admitted, to the judge, in those exact words (I have a drinking problem) when the discussion on whether or not to require he have a breathalyzer installed on his vehicle came up. Not afterwards. Not once he was caught. Not to someone else, but specifically to the judge prior to the judge making a decision?

Because I find that difficult to believe.

[hobbit709]

28. You haven't been around some of the legal profession as I have.

Like the judge that turned someone loose after his 8th DWI conviction and on his way home killed someone on the highway while drunk.

Hell, my own stepfather had 4 DWIs before they even suspended his license.

[jberryhill]

11. Why?

Explain: Because he didn't issue a restraining order, then she had to personally meet him alone at a 7-11 at 3 A.M.?

[PotatoChip]

35. I'll have to go back to the link since I only skimmed it, but

IIRC, the 7-11 was supposed to be the place where the mother was to pick up their 4 year old son on some sort of mutually agreed upon custody arrangement.

-Pure speculation here, but perhaps one or both of them wanted the exchange to occur in a public place?-

As far as the 3am part, I don't know what that was about. Certainly and odd time to choose, especially when it involves such young child. But maybe the strange hour had something to do with one or both of their work schedules?

[Fawke Em]

36. Why do all things odd in the Orlando area happen

around 7/11s?

[AngryAmish]

18. Because of what?

You and I know nothing about the facts of this case. What evidence was presented to the judge? Did she have jurisdiction to enter the order? Was the judge told that there was a history of violence? Were there previous threats?

But go ahead and demand professional sanctions against this person. Just a few more electrons spent.

[lookingfortruth]

2. This sounds and looks eerily like an "Honor" Killing. Why didn't the clerk call 911 as soon as she

heard the woman screaming get away from me?

[Meg_Griffin_1]

6. I know this situation very well..

I went through this kind of scenerio 5 years ago with a restraining order on my X.
I got the order but he walked right through it and I was put in a hospital for 4 days and he got 6 months.
Do I think they work?
NO, she should have bought a gun and ended it before it even started.

[kelly1mm]

37. I instruct all my clients after getting a Protective Order to get a weapon (firearm usually). nt

[malaise]

16. Why did she leave the store

I saw video this morning - frightening. He would have had to attack me inside the store

[obamanut2012]

31. He dragged her from the store in the article I saw

[Honeycombe8]

5. How horrible. What a monster. The judge should be removed. nt

[WolverineDG]

12. For what? Following the law?

DV laws, like all of our laws, are reactive, not proactive. You don't get restraining orders just because you "think" someone is going to hurt you. You have to prove it.

[Honeycombe8]

40. I guess you didn't read the article. There WAS evidence. It's opinion as to

whether there is ENOUGH evidence.

If you make a habit of noticing these kinds of stories....ex-boyfriend or ex-husband stalkers who have threatened spouses/girlfriends....you'll notice that it's not unusual for MALE judges not to issue a restraining order, unless there have been extreme circumstances of serious prior injuries. Which is not required under the law.

Statistics show that when an ex has been violent in any way and threatens killing a spouse and is stalking, he will in fact act on his threat(s).

It's really up to the judge, subjectively, to determine if there's enuf evidence to issue a restraining order.

Another woman a few years ago was set on fire by ex who was stalking her and had threatened to harm or kill her. The judge in that instance didn't issue a restraining order, either. I'll look up and see what happened to that judge.

[justiceischeap]

7. Judge probably working within the parameters of the law

It most likely isn't the judges fault but the domestic violence laws of the state that created this situation. And as one poster has already stated, restraining orders really won't stop someone from harming someone else if they're dedicated to harming the person.

[obamanut2012]

8. Yes to both points

[whathehell]

10. Then they need the law changed. n/t

[jberryhill]

9. 3 AM outside of a 7-11?

Okay so, believing he is dangerous, she arranges to meet him alone in the middle of the night.

What difference would a restraining order have made?

There are ways to exchange custody without the two parents having to confront each other. Divorced or separated parents who cannot get along do this all of the time, and it doesn't involve meeting alone in the middle of the night.

Something doesn't add up. Nice cars, though.

[Sedona]

13. You get a call in the middle of the night

saying he's dropping off your 4 year old at a 7-11 at 4am.

What do you do?

Me? I'd show up with a cop at the very least.

[4th law of robotics]

19. Yep, show up with a cop

at the very least you can document that he was leaving a kid at a 711 at 4am. Probably won't look good in the custody hearing.

[WolverineDG]

14. to exchange custody of a 4 year old?

Seriously? She says he's violent, but she's turning over her 4 year old, at 3 a.m. at a 7-11.

Maybe there's court-ordered visitation, but I doubt the time for exchanging custody is 3 a.m.

[jberryhill]

15. The story implies that he was turning ove the child

But, yes, the answer to "I'm dropping him off at the 7-11 at 3 AM" is something other than, "Okay, I'll be there alone.".

[Mairead]

17. It's probably significant that the child was found asleep at *his* residence

That suggests that he demanded that she be there at that time and place, and that he was to deliver the kid, not pick him up.

In her place I'd have gone, fearing for the child's safety if I didn't. I don't know whether I'd have had the presence of mind to try to get a cop to come with.

[laundry_queen]

29. yep

Lots of blame the victim here. Obviously people have never been in an abusive relationship and dealt all the mental turmoil that ensues.

That said, it's hard for a judge to give out a restraining order with no evidence. However, restraining orders don't generally stop someone from hurting you if they are determined to do so. It may be helpful if someone is stalking you or harrassing you - it means they will get put in jail sooner rather than later, and it leaves a paper trail, but generally, if someone wants to hurt you, a piece of paper won't stop them.

[jberryhill]

32. It's not "blame the victim"

A restraining order is not relevant to going to meet someone in the middle of the night.

The point is that the denial of the restraining order - emphasized in the story - has nothing to do with what happened here.

[WolverineDG]

34. It's not "blame the victim" for commenting on someone

acting as if they didn't have the sense God gave a turnip. Meeting anyone anywhere ALONE at 3 a.m. is not the wisest course of action & rarely ends well.

[PotatoChip]

39. No, she's supposed to be picking him up.

Not turning him over.

Again, as I mentioned above, I've only skimmed the link, but there was something in it saying that the cops had broken into the father's home (after the attack) to find the 4 year old boy there alone and asleep. The boy is now in the custody of the mother's family member(s).

It's my understanding that the mother thought that she was there to pick up their son. Not the other way around.

[revolution breeze]

26. I was denied a restraining order.

Ex broke into the house while I was not home and stole jewelry, nothing expensive just sentimental. Cops came out and made a report, but because there was no sign of forced entry (he had unlocked a window in the bathroom when he picked up daughter for visitation) they did not feel I was in any danger. My parents and I found it at the pawn shop, he sold it all under his real name, even showing identification. One week later, followingthe divorce hearing, he broke a window in the house, crawled in and I ended up with three broken ribs from being kicked. When I went to the judge the next day, again asking for a restraining order, the judge asked me what I had done to provoke him.

[laundry_queen]

30. ugh

that's horrible. I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

[slackmaster]

33. The GOOD news is she now has sufficient evidence to get that restraining order

That will keep him away for sure.

[Liberal_in_LA]

38. horrible. Glad she will recover.