“We need to include offenses that have remained outside the law, such as the rape of a minor who is not the child of the abuser but lives in his home, and we need to ensure the protection of other children. The burden of proof needs to shift. It is the parent who has been convicted of violence who will have to prove that they deserve to be granted guardianship (decision-making) for their children,” says Attorney Keren Horowitz, CEO of the Rackman Center.
Last week, the Knesset Constitution Committee held a discussion on the expansion of the denial of parental guardianship for those convicted of domestic violence offenses, amending the law following the attempted murder of Shira Isakov. The Rackman Center welcomes their intention to expand the law that denies guardianship to parents guilty of serious violent offenses (murder or attempted murder of the other parent, or rape of one of the children) to also include cases of aggravated assault.
However, the proposed expansion still only provides a partial solution. It is important to also discuss expanding the scope of the law so that it provides broader protection for minors that is not addressed by the existing law. In our opinion, the law should be expanded so that a parent can more easily challenge their partner’s involvement in their children’s lives in cases of aggravated assault, without having to prove malicious intent, abuse or rape.
Under current law, in cases where there is no automatic denial of guardianship for murder or attempted murder, the burden of proof is on the victim to explain why they are challenging their involvement. We propose that, in legal proceedings to revoke guardianship after a conviction for violent offenses, the burden of proof should be shifted to the offending parent, who must convince the court that they will not abuse their rights over their children. Perpetrators convicted of violent offenses must not be allowed to use their children to continue to control the victim.
“We need to include offenses that have remained outside the law, such as the rape of a minor who is not the child of the abuser but lives in his home, and we need to ensure the protection of other children. The burden of proof needs to shift. It is the parent who has been convicted of violence who will have to prove that they deserve to be granted guardianship (decision-making) for their children,” says Attorney Keren Horowitz, CEO of the Rackman Center.
Yesterday, the Knesset Constitution Committee held a discussion on the expansion of the denial of parental guardianship for those convicted of domestic violence offenses, amending the law following the attempted murder of Shira Isakov. The Rackman Center welcomes their intention to expand the law that denies guardianship to parents guilty of serious violent offenses (murder or attempted murder of the other parent, or rape of one of the children) to also include cases of aggravated assault.
However, the proposed expansion still only provides a partial solution. It is important to also discuss expanding the scope of the law so that it provides broader protection for minors that is not addressed by the existing law. In our opinion, the law should be expanded so that a parent can more easily challenge their partner’s involvement in their children’s lives in cases of aggravated assault, without having to prove malicious intent, abuse or rape.
Under current law, in cases where there is no automatic denial of guardianship for murder or attempted murder, the burden of proof is on the victim to explain why they are challenging their involvement. We propose that, in legal proceedings to revoke guardianship after a conviction for violent offenses, the burden of proof should be shifted to the offending parent, who must convince the court that they will not abuse their rights over their children. Perpetrators convicted of violent offenses must not be allowed to use their children to continue to control the victim.
Read more in The Jerusalem Post: Bill to expand loss of guardianship for abusive parents passes first reading
