Court Opinion

ID: 9542445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:34:28.663002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:56.656834
License: Public Domain

ARMIJO, Judge, specially concurring. {23} Domestic violence is a category of crime which bears not only upon the family unit but, ultimately, upon society as a whole. The Crimes Against Household Members Act (CAHMA) evolved in very recent years in part because of our society’s awareness of family violence and its profound impact., Our decision today removes a child from the protected class of victims — that is, the family or household unit — solely because of his or her relationship to the alleged perpetrator. As the majority has noted, much effort has been expended in recent years to combat domestic violence. The consequence of today’s decision speaks to one failure of this effort: the lack of consistency and standardization in the manner in which family violence is prosecuted. While the minor child of an alleged perpetrator is excluded, presumably other relatives, which may include children, are not. The majority fails to address these practical implications. {24} I specially concur in the majority’s opinion solely because I believe it reasonable to infer that the Legislature acted purposefully when its definition of household member in the CAHMA omitted any reference to “child.” However, I do not speculate, as does the majority, as to the reasons for this omission.