Proposed bill would extend protective orders to pets

[The Straight Story]

Proposed bill would extend protective orders to pets

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Proposed state legislation would extend domestic violence restraining orders to protect pets in physically abusive relationships among couples.

Domestic violence counselors say the legislation is needed to stop abusers who often target family pets to terrorize spouses or partners.

"A lot of victims of domestic violence are in horrible positions because abusers will make threats against their pets and carry them out," said Lisa Holden, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Connecticut law allows individuals to seek restraining orders in civil court if they fear domestic violence or to obtain protective orders in criminal court if they are victims of domestic violence in a criminal case. The orders often prohibit an alleged abuser from having contact with, threatening, harassing or entering the home of the applicant or other individuals who are identified in the order by court officials.

People who violate the orders can face a criminal charge of violating a protective order or criminal trespassing or be subject to a fine of up to $5,000.

The proposed law extends those protections to domestic animals and pets.

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070304/NEWS0103/103040151

[iamjoy]

1. And Shelters Need To Start Taking Pets

they don't have to really house them, if it is too complicated, but maybe they can make a deal with local Humane Society and Animal Rescue organizations to help foster the animals of survivors fleeing domestic abuse.

If the human abuse survivor gets back on their feet, they could reclaim their pet. IF not, they could waive claim to it, but at least the animal would be "safe." The Animal Rescue group could then try to adopt it out to a loving home.

Not perfect I know, just a thought not fully organized.

[HappyWeasel]

2. I generally oppose animal rights legislation but...

this law seems to be very reasonable because it only clearly targets companion animals with the exception of reasonably very rare circumstances that would be best dealt with by courts.

[saracat]

4. Why do you generally oppose animal rights legislation?

Don't you think animals have rights? Just curious.

[InvisibleTouch]

3. Good - long overdue! n/t

[Danger Mouse]

5. Very good idea...

since it seems that a lot of times, the angry abuser seeks to take his/her revenge by targeting helpless pets...a disgusting and cowardly act.

[catnhatnh]

6. I am going to rant and you are welcome to hate me for it...

but just like our valiant national legislative branch,never afraid to approach the mike and sing the praises of a home state boys/girls basketball/football/hockey/baseball/lacrosse/etc, etc team and to waste time with resolutions endorsing national education month,daylight savings appreciation week,kumquat day,fiscal responsibility hour,hand weavers minute, and Beethoven's second....the Connecticut Legislature is blowing smoke up your ass...and for no reason-admit it-animal cruelty cases are drawing HUGE attention from the press and massive penalties from the judicial system...quite frankly,from a retaliation point of view, if I were to have my ass beaten, I would much rather be a golden retriever than an Irishman from Connecticut...we lack neither laws nor punishments...mostly we lack focus.Did you see the news today?How many thousands of wounded soldiers were given inadequate care today?And how many golden retrievers could have been protected today if this "legislation" in Connecticut was already passed???I like animals but have to believe we need to keep our eyes on the ball-not every passing shiny thing.

[Quantess]

7. Well, that's good.

Abusive spouses will take it out on the family pets, usually the dog, if there's no other punching bag around. I'd like to see a stop to that.