Opinion ID: 1913746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Domestic Violence Definitions

Text: The Mother contends that the Family Court erred as a matter of law by changing primary placement of the minor child to the Father's home after making specific findings of domestic violence and finding the Father to be a perpetrator of domestic violence, in violation of title 13, chapter 7A. [7] The record does not support that assertion at all. The record reflects that, although the Father committed an act of domestic violence, he was not a perpetrator of domestic violence. The General Assembly specifically defined the term perpetrator of domestic violence in title 13, section 703A(b), [8] as follows: ... any individual who has been convicted of committing any of the following criminal offenses in the State, or any comparable offense in another jurisdiction, against the child at issue in a custody of visitation proceeding, against the other parent of the child, or against any other adult or minor child living in the home: (1) Any felony level offense; (2) Assault in the third degree; (3) Reckless endangering in the second degree; (4) Reckless burning or exploding; (5) Unlawful imprisonment in the second degree; (6) Unlawful sexual contact in the third degree; or (7) Criminal contempt of Family Court protective order based on an assault or other physical abuse, threat of assault or other physical abuse or any other actions placing the petitioner in immediate risk or fear of bodily harm. [9] Title 13, section 705A provides, in part: (a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child. (b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence. [10] To properly apply section 705A, it is necessary to refer to the definitions provided by the General Assembly in title 13, section 703A, which distinguish between domestic violence and perpetrator of domestic violence. Domestic violence, as defined in title 13, section 703A(a): includes but is not limited to physical or sexual abuse or threats of physical or sexual abuse and any other offense against the person committed by 1 parent against the other parent.... [11] Contrary to the Mother's argument, the Family Court did not find the Father to be a perpetrator of domestic violence, as that term has been defined by the General Assembly. That determination would have required evidence of either a criminal conviction of one of the offenses enumerated in the statute or a criminal contempt of a Family Court protective order based upon an assault or other physical abuse. [12] A finding only of domestic violence, however, requires evidence of neither. [13] In this case, the record reflects only motor vehicle violations by the Father. [14] The PFA Order was issued by consent and expressly stated that it was entered without a finding of abuse. That Order was later vacated and there was never a finding of contempt. With neither a criminal conviction nor a contempt proceeding to establish that the Father was a perpetrator of domestic violence, the rebuttable presumption of title 13, section 705A, preventing an award of custody or primary placement, did not apply to the Father.