View Single Post
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2010, 11:04 AM
ConcernenedStepMom78 ConcernenedStepMom78 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 610
ConcernenedStepMom78 is on a distinguished road
Default

Ugh you would not believe waht I read last night.....It makes my brain hurt hopefully it doesnt do the same to you.

In parallel cases such as a criminal and famil law proceeding happens a the same time ......

Criminal COurtParent A assalts Parent B) Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doublt an offence was commited, we all know if prosecution fails to do this it leads to acquittal, meaning the evidence didnt establish "beyond a resonable doubt" the crime was comited. This does not mean Parent A is not guilty but rather the evidence din't establish the degree of certainty the offence was commited....Flip to Family Court:

If a parent was acquitted in criminal court, or for some reason the charge is/was withdrawn, it is still possible for a family Judge to conclude that parent A probably assaulted parent B, even though the evidence did not persuade the criminal court Judge or jury "beyond a reasonable doubt".....What if family court finds that parent A assaulted parent B? Does this ruling bind the criminal court and require that parent A be convicted? Nope....Proof on balance of probabilities can never be enough to justify a criminal finding of guilt. The criminal court will not find parent A guilty unless the evidence satisfies the Judge or jury that Parent A assaulted Parent B on the more rigerous standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words evidence that convinces a family court Judge that Parent A probably assaulted Parent B may not be compelling enoughto convince a Judge or Jury beyond a resonable doubt that Parent A assaulted parent B......


Brain hurt yet theres more where that came from.
Reply With Quote