I haven't written a blog in forever.  Very few have ever read my blog anyway -- which I can see from the stats.  In major part, I feel ashamed of how my divorce ended up, probably because I had no choice than to just give up and give him everything.  I will need to blog about all that some day, I'm sure.  I felt like a failure -- but I had to make it stop.  I didn't believe it would stop -- and it didn't.  But then, it did actually stop.

It's taken me a while to reconcile that in my heart.  At the end, I didn't feel like anything I could say to someone else going through the hell of divorce after domestic violence was really worthwhile.  I fought so hard to keep my confidential address secret -- and I won that battle.  But I lost everything else -- which I was willing to lose anyway -- but that doesn't result in a person feeling like a "hero" for a cause.   How can I successfully communicate to another person that you really have to give up on everything in order to have a life free from an abuser?  How will that make another victim feel?  Does it empower anyone?  I would have said no a while ago.

My ultimate goal was to have a life free from him.  And, I now have that.  Well, as "free from him" as one can ever be.  I'll always wonder what might make the "sleeping ogre" awaken.  I'll always look over my shoulder.

In March 2015, it will be a year since his attorney (assrat lawyer) has harassed me.  After he stopped, I waited and waited ... for the other shoe to drop.  My ex had cycles of 3-5 months during the early years of our marriage.  So, I couldn't even really breathe until 3 months had passed.  That time passed.  I started living a little -- for the first time in sooooo long.  But I knew there was a possibility of it starting up again until the 5 month mark.  It didn't.  I still couldn't be sure.  Maybe I missed a date or something.  Then, came 6 months and 7 and 8.  Nothing further.  3.5 years since he tried to kill me.  3.5 years since I'd had to look at his evil eyes in court.  3.5 years since he'd had an opportunity to shut off water in my house.  And 7-8 months since he'd had the opportunity to devastate me with a motion in court -- that I needed to respond to, write something that challenged my heart to deal with things.

I was a different person.  But I was cautious.  My strength, my new life, was built on sand.  Sand crumbles easily.  I had to be cautious of that sand crumbling.  What if he started up something again?  After all, he'd continued his attempts to ruin my life for 3 years after he was arrested.  I couldn't think of anything that would make him start up again.  He had everything.  The divorce was LONG over.  But .. there's always that lingering fear.  What would stop him?  Nothing.  I'd already learned that.  I'd lived with that terror since 2001.

Life became real and wonderful for me.  I made friends.  I had fun.  I lived carefree -- and still do.  And of course, the real love of my life, my fiance, has been there all along, and still is.  How he dealt with some of the darkest days of my existence on this planet through that divorce and loved me anyway -- I will never know.  He never gave up on me -- even when I gave up on myself.  And I did.  I truly truly gave up on me.  Perhaps that was the turning point?  For me, there was nowhere further down to go.  I wanted to die.  I'd wanted to die many times since 2001.  But, at that point, in late 2013, I still wanted to die, but I wanted help so that I didn't feel that way anymore.  And I wanted to be the woman my fiance believes -- and has always believed -- I could be -- not for him, but for myself.  I accomplished that for the most part.  So much of my confidence in me came back -- but it was a bit shaky here and there -- and still is. It has been built back slowly, cautiously, but each bit of it has been built in rock this time.  So, when it's built, it's built.  If that makes sense.

But that shadow of the ogre, my ex -- that shadow -- it will always hang over me.  Or will it?  Will there come a day that I will know I'm 100% free of him?  Perhaps not until someone tells me he's dead -- if someone actually even tells me that ... or maybe, I'll just sense it.   Don't get me wrong.  I don't wish him dead.  My wish is that he realizes his problems and gets help.  But at his age, 61 this year, how realistic is that?

I didn't like hearing it, but I've heard from someone from my past -- our past -- that nothing has changed with him.  I insulate myself from people I knew back then.  You really can't trust ANYONE you knew while with an abuser -- NO ONE.  Sad as that is to realize.  I thought my PTSD was gone and I was beyond it.  Talking to just one person who knew me (us) then, hearing about the ogre since then, ouch, it all came back up.  I struggled to overcome that for a while.  And it took a while to get through it all ... again.  It had to be processed, I guess.  To sink the roots of my new self, my new life, deeply, I had to sort of live through it all again -- in my mind.  This time, I saw it all differently.  I felt it all differently.  I am truly a new person.

APPEAL: The Appellate Court's Decision

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2013

WIFE'S NAME,

Appellant,

v.

HUSBAND'S NAME,

Appellee.

No. XXXX-XXXX

[ July 24, 2013 ]

PER CURIAM.

     XXXXXXX,  the  wife,  appeals  a  final  judgment  of  dissolution  of marriage entered after the trial court struck her pleadings for refusing to comply  with  certain  discovery  orders  and failing  to  attend  a  court-ordered  video  deposition.   We  reverse,  because the trial  court  erred  by striking  the  wife’s  pleadings and  entering  a   final  judgment  without affording  the  wife  an opportunity  to  be  heard  and offer  mitigating  or extenuating evidence.

     XXXXXXX, the husband, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault  for  allegedly threatening  his  wife  with  a wine  bottle.   The  wife obtained  a   Temporary  Injunction  for  Protection  Against  Domestic Violence and later  an Agreed  Permanent  Injunction  Against  Domestic Violence.   Shortly  thereafter,  the  wife  left  Florida  and relocated  to another state.  The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. After filing his petition, he served the wife with the standard family law interrogatories.   She failed to timely  comply  with the  request,  and the trial  court  compelled  her  to  respond  to  the  interrogatories.   The wife requested a protective order allowing her to omit her current home and work  address  from  the  interrogatories.   As  grounds,  she  asserted  that she  feared  further  abuse from  her  husband  if  she  disclosed  this information.   As to the  other  requested  information,  she  indicated  her
willingness to comply.

     The trial  court  denied the  wife’s motion,  but immediately thereafter, counsel  for  the  wife  ore  tenus moved  to  have  the  husband’s counsel barred from providing the husband with the wife’s current home or work address.  Counsel for the husband agreed not to provide his client with the wife’s current home address but argued that his client needed access to  his  wife’s  current  work  address.   The  trial  court  entered  an agreed order  as  to  the  wife’s  current  home  address  but denied  the  ore  tenus request to have her work address omitted.

     When the wife  failed  to  respond  to  the  husband’s standard interrogatories, the trial court held another hearing and warned the wife that her pleadings would be stricken and a default entered against her if she  failed  to  comply  with  the  discovery  request.   The trial  court  also ordered the wife to attend a video deposition scheduled to take place in Washington D.C.  Counsel for the husband would attend the deposition telephonically from his office in West Palm Beach.  The husband would not be attending the deposition.

     Minutes  after  the  trial  court’s  deadline  for  complying  with  its discovery  orders,  counsel  for  the  wife  provided  the  husband  with  a partial  response to his interrogatories.   She  still  refused to provide her current  home  or  work  address.   The wife  also  failed  to  attend  the deposition after learning that her husband could be aware of the location where she would be appearing.

     The  trial  court  held  a hearing  on the husband’s Motion  to Strike Wife’s  Pleadings  Based  on Wife’s  Refusal  to  Comply  with  Order  on Husband’s Motion  for  Contempt,  and  Wife’s  Refusal  to  Attend  Court Ordered  Deposition.   Counsel  for  the  wife  asked the  trial  court  not  to strike  the  wife’s  pleadings  without  first  conducting  an evidentiary hearing.  She argued that her  client “for lack  of a better way to put it, [suffers  from]  extreme  paranoia  she  claims  as  a result  of the  domestic violence she suffered.”  The trial court denied her  request for a hearing and granted the husband’s motion to strike the wife’s pleadings, stating: “The Wife  acted  and  continues  to  act  in  a   deliberate,  willful,  and contumacious  manner,  whereby  she  continues  to  act  in  defiance  and disobedience of numerous orders issued by this court.”  The court struck all of the wife’s pleadings, including her Counter-petition for Dissolution of Marriage,  and ordered the  wife to  pay the  husband’s attorney’s  fees and costs as a sanction.  The court then conducted a trial and entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage.

     The  wife  argues  that  the  trial  court  erred  by striking  her  pleadings without  a   hearing  to  determine  if  her  conduct  warranted  such an extreme  sanction.   We  agree.   Sanctions  imposed  pursuant  to  Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and a trial  court may  exercise  its  discretion  by striking  a  party’s  pleadings “where  evidence  shows  deliberate  and contumacious  disregard  of  the court’s  discovery  orders.”  Belle  Glade  Chevrolet-Cadillac  Buick  Pontiac Oldsmobile,  Inc.  v.  Figgie,  54  So.  3d  991, 996  (Fla.  4th DCA  2010) (citations omitted).  However, the striking of pleadings is the severest of penalties and should  only be exercised under “extreme  circumstances.” America’s Yate de Costa Rica v. Armco Mfg., Inc., 82 So. 3d 882, 885-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Cook v. Custom Marine Distrib., Inc., 29 So. 3d 462, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).  If the trial  court  can impose a less severe sanction as a viable alternative, then it should use the alternative. Id.

     In  any  case, the trial  court  should have  granted the  request  by the wife’s  counsel  to  hold  an evidentiary  hearing  before  striking  the  wife’s pleadings.  See,  e.g., Kuechenberg v. Creative  Interiors, Inc., 424 So. 2d 145, 146  (Fla.  4th DCA  1982) (“The trial  court  erred  by not  affording appellants an opportunity to explain their failure to make discovery even after being ordered to do so.  An evidentiary hearing held after  remand will  correct this  error.”);  accord Wildwood  Props.,  Inc.  v.  Archer  of  Vero Beach,  Inc., 621  So.  2d  691, 692  (Fla.  4th DCA  1993) (“A  party  to  be sanctioned  for  discovery  violations  must  first  be given  notice  and an opportunity to be heard and offer mitigating or extenuating evidence as to why discovery did not take place.”).

     Accordingly,  we  reverse  the  order  striking  the  wife’s  pleadings  and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the wife’s failure to obey the discovery orders rose to the level of disobedience which would justify the  severe  sanction  of  striking pleadings  or whether  some lesser sanction would suffice.

     Because we are reversing the order striking the pleadings,  we  must  also reverse  the  final  judgment  of  dissolution  of marriage.  See Wildwood, 621 So. 2d at 692.  This moots the remaining issues on appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.

---

^[1]  We  note that  Florida  Supreme  Court  Approved  Family  Law  Form  12.980(h) allows a party who has been the victim of domestic violence to file a request for a  confidential  address.  See  In  re  Amendments  to  Florida  Rules  of  Judicial Admin.,  Florida  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure,  Florida  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure, Florida Probate Rules, Florida Rules of Traffic Court, Florida Small Claims Rules, Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure—E-Mail Service Rule, 102 So. 3d 505, 570 (Fla. 2012).   A  battered  spouse may  omit  certain  details  from  his  or  her  financial affidavit and request that these details be kept confidential by the court.  Id.

TAYLOR, CIKLIN, JJ., and ROBINSON, MICHAEL A., Associate Judge, concur.

*            *            *

     Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach  County;  XXX XXXXX,  Judge;  L.T.  Case  No.
2011XXXXXXXXX.

     Wife, Pro Se.

     Asshat Rat Lawyer, Jupiter, for appellee.

     XXXX,  Attorney  General  of Maryland,  and XXXX,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Baltimore,  Maryland,  XXXX, Assistant Attorney General, Annapolis Maryland, and XXXX,  Okeechobee,  for  Amicus  Curiae-Office  of the  Secretary  of State, State of Maryland.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

NO ONE BELIEVES THE RISK -- THE GRIM REALITY OF SURVIVING ABUSE

JACQUE WALLER - RIP

I'm glad this disgusting despicable excuse for a man (see link below) accepted a plea deal in return for giving up the location of his estranged wife's dead body -- for her family's sake.  Juries are so unpredictable these days; at least he's locked up for now and he was forced to allocute to the world that he murdered this beautiful young mother, fully aware that his actions could cause her death.  I'm struck with immeasurable sadness that her triplets lost not only their mother, but also, essentially, their father on that tragic day.  The family will all remain in my thoughts and prayers.

As I read this sentence (see below) from Jacque's father, I could not help but wonder why no one ever believes abuse survivors when we say our abusers will kill us.  Before my ex tried to kill me, no one believed that was an actual possibility.  Everyone thought I was exaggerating.  Then, he tried to kill me -- and yet, very few people believe me that the risk still exists now should he discover my location.  The Florida divorce judge didn't believe me when she ordered me to disclose my home and work address.  Today,when I say the risk still exists, I'm mocked, derided, called "overly dramatic" or "mentally ill" -- sometimes even by other abuse survivors.  Why?

"Rawson said at the news conference that he and other family members knew Jacque Waller feared her estranged husband, and that she had told them Clay Waller would kill her, but they didn't believe it would happen."  http://www.semissourian.com/story/1976164.html

Abusers are extremely dangerous and, yes, even more deadly than cancer or war.  How many more lives will be lost before society believes?  How many more headlines will it take?

Are we only believable AFTER we're killed?  How about believing us BEFORE -- when something can still be done to help?

AMAZEMENT AT MARYLAND'S AMICUS BRIEF

I cannot even begin to properly express my gratitude to the State of Maryland for filing an exceptional Amicus Brief in support of my case on appeal.  I received a copy of it a few days ago and have been completely floored by the powerful arguments Maryland makes in regards to courts disclosing the residential address of a domestic violence victim who participates in an Address Confidentiality Program (ACP).  If you do not already know the facts of my case, read a summary HERE.

It remains to be seen whether or not the appellate court in Florida will take Maryland's points into consideration.  We are both asking Florida to set a legal precedent which has not been ruled on in any US court before (although the third footnote in a New Jersey Supreme Court Sacharow v. Sacharow certainly alludes to it).  It could equally be stated that we are asking Florida NOT to set a legal precedent that allows courts to order domestic violence victims to disclose their new addresses to their abusers.  Maryland successfully lays out the significant danger that could be caused by such a precedent being set.

One of Maryland's points that I hadn't even considered is one I consider may carry the most weight of all:

"Finally, and most troubling, failure by a Florida court to protect Maryland Address Confidentiality Program participants' locations from disclosure will invite a perverse type of forum shopping.  Abusers from across the country will interpret such an action as an indication that Florida courts are unlikely to conceal the location of any non-Florida domestic violence victim.  Accordingly, those who are dead-set on tracking down their victims may relocate to Florida, establish residence there, and file an action in a Florida court that entails disclosure of their victim's address.  Thus, no matter where domestic violence victims relocate, and no matter whether the state where they relocate has an address confidentiality program, they will not be able to protect themselves from having their whereabouts disclosed, so long as their abusers can avail themselves of Florida courts.  This result must be avoided, both as a matter of public policy and as a matter of public safety."

Maryland makes some other very strong arguments:

1. Maryland plainly informs Florida that if it refuses to cooperate in maintaining the confidentiality of a domestic violence victim's address while participating in their program, Florida will be the FIRST entity who has failed to do so.  That's a very powerful message to Florida.
2. Maryland argues that failing to maintain my address confidentiality will "implicate Florida courts in creating a threat to a[n ACP] Program participant's physical safety."  Maryland clearly tells Florida that my fears for safety were sufficient for a Florida court to enter an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, which was also sufficient for my enrollment in their ACP.  Maryland states:  "It is not an exaggeration to say that non-enforcement of the Maryland Address Confidentiality Program will put participants' lives at risk, as well."  Pretty strong words -- which are, of course, completely justifiable.
3.  Maryland informs Florida that there are 36 states with ACPs and that if Florida fails to protect my location from disclosure, they will set a legal precedent which will endanger the thousands of participants in ALL of the ACPs throughout the country.
4. Maryland further informs Florida that "[w]ithout confidence in courts to protect their whereabouts, many of these participants may be deterred from seeking needed relief for themselves and justice for their abusers."  In other words, if we cannot protect our location, domestic violence victims may not report crimes.
5. Maryland also discusses comity as one of the "founding principles of American law, enshrined in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution."  Comity is a principle designed to ensure that citizens of one state will be on equal footing with those of another state during legal cases.
   
   Maryland tells Florida: "Given that Florida shares Maryland's strong interest in protecting domestic violence victims through address confidentiality, and given that Florida has even enacted its own program to advance that interest, it would plainly violate the norms of comity for Florida to decline to give effect to Maryland's parallel address confidentiality program.  Doing so would deprive the Address Confidentiality Program participant of an advantage of her Maryland citizenship by removing the value of the Program's protection even in Maryland, because her abuser would now be able to track her down there.  Denying comity would also deprive the Program participant of the very same advantage of citizenship she would have enjoyed if she were a Florida citizen, thereby placing her on unequal footing with Florida citizens and effectively discriminating against her on the basis of her state of residence."

In my opinion after reading and re-reading the Brief, Maryland is very clearly telling Florida that its victim (me) relocated to Maryland for her own safety and Maryland is doing all that it can to protect me.  Florida, therefore, has no right to go against Maryland's efforts, and that doing so, will put domestic violence victims in ACPs all over the country (including in its own state) at risk.  Not only that, but Florida may become a laughing stock inviting abusers to move there so they can track down their victims.  

This brief is so powerful and I do not believe Florida can ignore it.  But courts are always reluctant to set precedents.  If they find against me on this point, I suspect Maryland may well have given me grounds to appeal this further; to at least the Florida Supreme Court, and perhaps even the US Supreme Court.  Maryland basically made a federal case out of it.  

Researching and writing the briefs for this appeal has been one of the MOST difficult things I have ever done in my entire life.  There were many times I almost gave up.  Knowing that this case was NOT just about me kept me going.  If my life amounts to nothing else, and even if I lose the rest of the appeal, if I can be a part in ensuring that victims of domestic violence can maintain their locations confidential from their abusers, then my life will have had meaning.  While I have no desire to be a martyr, my fight -- and Maryland's amazing assistance -- may well ensure that many lives are saved.

Thank you Maryland for doing the right thing.

APPEAL: THE ISSUES: 1st ISSUE - MARYLAND'S POINTS

STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

      Amicus curiae is the Office of the Secretary of State for the State of Maryland. The Office of the Secretary of State administers the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program ("Program"), Md. Code Ann., Family Law §§ 4-519 - 4-530, which since its creation in 2006 has provided victims of domestic violence residing in Maryland a means of keeping their residential address confidential from their abusers.  Victims who qualify to be participants in the Program are provided with a substitute address (a P.O. Box) to use as their legal address for dealings with State and local government agencies.  In addition, the Address Confidentiality Program provides free mail forwarding for first-class mail and legal papers.  Appellant [Wife] has been a Program participant since September 2011.

     The State of Maryland has a strong interest in ensuring the effectiveness of the Address Confidentiality Program, both within the state and across state lines so that participants may be sufficiently protected from the serious physical harm that could result from exposing their residential address to their abusers.  Accordingly, the Office of the Secretary of State works continuously with government agencies, schools, businesses, and courts to keep participants' residential address confidential.  If an agency or court were to require the disclosure of a participant's address, these efforts would be for naught, and lives would be put at substantial risk.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

     With the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program, the State of Maryland has provided a critical tool for victims of domestic violence to use to shield their location from their abusers.  The effectiveness of the shield depends on the cooperation of government agencies, schools, businesses, and courts.  If any one of those entities fails to cooperate and the victim's location is consequently revealed, the entire value of the protection is lost.

     By statute, Maryland state and local agencies must abide by the Address Confidentiality Program upon the request of a Program participant, Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 4-526, but the Program relies on voluntary cooperation from those entities that state law does not reach. These include insurance companies, credit card companies, and utility companies operating both inside and outside Maryland, and courts operating outside Maryland.  If this Court or the court below orders disclosure of the residential address of a Program participant such as [Wife] for any reason, e.g., as part of a discovery request, or to any person, even to opposing counsel alone, it will mark the first time an entity has declined to cooperate with the Program.  It will also mark a major departure from longstanding principles of comity that operate among state courts.

     More importantly, failure by a Florida court to protect the confidentiality of a Program participant's residential address may put that participant's physical safety at risk.  The participant in this case, [Wife], was granted a court-ordered Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection against Domestic Violence without Minor Children as a result of alleged threats of physical violence against her. Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXNB (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, Mar. 15, 2011).  These alleged threats, sufficiently serious to convince a Florida court of the need to take immediate protective action, were also sufficiently serious to qualify her for enrollment in the Maryland Address Confidentiality Program after she relocated there.  As the entry of the Injunction for Protection attests, [Wife’s] fear for her physical safety is not unfounded, and she understandably considers her continued safety to be dependent on the confidentiality of her whereabouts. Indeed, the lower court's Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage with Property But No Dependent or Minor Children, Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, June 18, 2012), which [Wife] understood to require disclosure of her residential address, caused her to relocate yet again.  Circumstances like these illustrate the importance of cooperating with the Program.  Finally, failure by a Florida court to protect the confidentiality of an ACP participant's residential address will send a signal to participants in Address Confidentiality Programs across the country that these programs are not dependable, that the participants therefore are not safe, and that their abusers need only find a sympathetic ear in another jurisdiction's court if they want to obtain their victim's address and track her down.  As a matter of both public policy and public safety, this Court should not allow such a precedent to be set.

ARGUMENT

I.      COMITY DEMANDS COOPERATION WITH MARYLAND'S STATUTORY CONFIDENTIALITY PROTECTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS.

     Comity among the states is one of the founding principles of American law, enshrined in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1 ("The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."). As the Florida District Court of Appeals for the First District has written:

The Privileges and Immunities Clause sets out "a norm of comity" or "substantial equality of treatment." . . .See Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656, 660 & 665, 43 L. Ed. 2d 530, 95 S. Ct. 1191 (1975).  The Founding Fathers deemed it critical to unite the citizens of the various states into one union, and "it was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each state upon the same footing with citizens of other states, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those states are concerned." Paul v. Virginia, 15 U.S. 168, 180, 19 L. Ed. 357 (1869).

     Reinish v. Clark, 165 So. 2d 197, 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2000); see Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 523-24 (1978).  States maintain comity by enforcing laws passed by other states to ensure the fair and safe treatment of their citizens. Doing so "place[ s] the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned," Paul v. Virginia, 15 U.S. at 180, and also prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of their own.  Id.; see Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939).  Generally, a state only disregards comity when applying comity would contradict its own laws or be injurious to its citizens. See Flash, Lewis & Co. v. Conn, 16 Fla. 428, 428 (Fla. 1878) ('"Courts of justice in one State will, out of comity, enforce the laws of another State when by such enforcement they will not violate their laws or inflict an injury on some one of their own citizens.”’) (quoting 1 Bouvier's Law Dic. 244); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Enright, 258 So. 2d 4 72, 4 75 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1972).

     Maintaining comity is particularly important in the area of domestic relations. See, e.g., Herron v. Passailaigue, 110 So. 539, 542 (Fla. 1926) (discussing the importance, as a matter of comity, of giving "full force and effect" to decrees of other states involving domestic relations ''unless there is some good and valid reason to the contrary"); Dep 't of Children & Families v. V. V., 822 So. 2d 555, 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002) (finding that "principles of comity" demanded that a parental termination judgment from another state be recognized when "[n]o paramount rule of public policy dictates otherwise").  Accordingly, state laws and regulations pertaining to domestic relations, such as the statutorily-created confidentiality program at issue here, should be followed in other states, absent special circumstances.  Cf. Thomas v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6484, *13 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2006) ("Considerations of comity require the court to consider the confidentiality interests outlined under state law'').

     As explained above, Maryland provides domestic violence victims address confidentiality protection by statute, through the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program. Md. Code Ann., Family Law§§ 4-519-4-530. This protection is given only to those who provide credible, independently evaluated evidence of actual or threatened physical violence.  Id § 4-522 (Program applicants must provide some evidence that they or a person under their care are a victim of domestic violence and a statement that disclosure of their actual address would endanger their safety of the safety of their child); COMAR 01.02.11.03F; see § 4-513 (defining “victim of domestic violence"). Through administering the Address Confidentiality Program, Maryland furthers its compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens.  See State v. Sheldon, 332 Md. 45, 63 (Md. 1993) ("To be sure, the State has a compelling interest in protecting the social welfare of all its citizens.").

     Florida also provides domestic violence victims address confidentiality protection by statute, through a similar address confidentiality program. Fla. Stat. §§ 741.401-741.465.  It also provides these victims express statutory protection when filing a petition for injunction for protection against domestic violence.  Fla Stat. § 741.30(3)(b) (a petitioner "may furnish [her] address to the court in a separate confidential filing if, for safety reasons, the petitioner requires the location of the current residence to be confidential"); see Fla. R. Jud Adm. 2.420( d)(2).  In creating these statutory protections, the State of Florida has recognized the importance of protecting the health and safety of domestic violence victims within its borders. See Fla. Stat. § 741.401 (legislative findings about the need to protect from disclosure the locations of "persons attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence" through relocation); see also In re Report of the Comm'n on Family Courts, 646 So. 2d 178, 182 (Fla. 1994) (“we recognize the extreme importance of having domestic violence issues addressed in an expeditious, efficient, and deliberative manner").

     Given that Florida shares Maryland's strong interest in protecting domestic violence victims through address confidentiality, and given that Florida has even enacted its own program to advance that interest, it would plainly violate the norms of comity for Florida to decline to give effect to Maryland's parallel address confidentiality program.  Doing so would deprive the Address Confidentiality Program participant of an advantage of her Maryland citizenship by removing the value of the Program's protection even in Maryland, because her abuser would now be able to track her down there.  Denying comity would also deprive the Program participant of the very same advantage of citizenship she would have enjoyed if she were a Florida citizen, thereby placing her on unequal footing with Florida citizens and effectively discriminating against her on the basis of her state of residence. See Paul v. Virginia, 15 U.S. at 180.  Surely no justification for this departure from comity can be identified here.

II.      FLORIDA'S FAILURE TO PROTECT MARYLAND ACP PARTICIPANTS' LOCATIONS FROM DISCLOSURE WILL PUT THEIR PHYSICAL SAFETY AT RISK.

     Failure by a Florida court to enforce Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program will not only threaten comity; it will implicate Florida courts in creating a threat to a Program participant's physical safety. Program participants are enrolled only after they provide credible evidence of actual or threatened physical violence.  See Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 4-513 ("'victim of domestic violence' means an individual who has received deliberate, severe, and demonstrable physical injury, or is in fear of imminent deliberate, severe, and demonstrable physical injury from a current or former spouse, or a current or former cohabitant").  For too many Program participants, their abusers have struck before and are determined to strike again.  Address confidentiality is therefore one of the only meaningful tools they have to break free from patterns of abuse and seek safe shelter. 

     From the point of view of Maryland's domestic violence victims, this protection is critical to their continued physical safety.  Nearly 1,000 individuals - including hundreds of children - have sought the protection of Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program since its inception in October 2006, with hundreds enrolling every year.  The value of address confidentiality protection to those who participate is demonstrated by their high re-enrollment rate:  The Maryland Address Confidentiality Program operates on four-year terms, and on average at least fifty percent of Program participants re-enroll after their initial term has expired.  Non-enforcement of the Maryland Program by courts in other states would put the physical safety of hundreds of men, women, and children at risk, and compel many of them to relocate, often at great personal cost. 

     It is not an exaggeration to say that non-enforcement of the Maryland Address Confidentiality Program will put participants' lives at risk, as well.  Many Program participants bear the bruises and scars of attempts on their lives, and, all too frequently, their abusers are willing and able to make those attempts eventually succeed.  [Wife]'s enrollment in the Program came after an alleged attempt on her life by her former husband, an act she claims was the latest in a series of physically abusive actions spanning several years.  This pattern of alleged abuse, when brought to the attention of Florida courts, warranted the issuance of an Injunction of Protection against Domestic Violence without Minor Children and eventually a Final Judgment of Protection.  Stories like hers are all too common among the Maryland Address Confidentiality Program participants.  Without a dependable, court supported means of protecting their locations from disclosure, these participants cannot be assured of their safety. Surely, Florida courts wish to avoid this outcome, particularly for a former Florida resident like [Wife]. See In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges, 889 So. 2d 734, 738 (Fla 2004) (discussing the value of "the court system to help ensure [domestic violence victims'] safety"); Stephens v. State, 659 So. 2d 1303, 1304 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995) ("The hidden epidemic of domestic violence is a serious public safety and criminal justice problem which requires the courts to use a full range of available resources and tools.") (internal quotation and citation omitted).

III.      FLORIDA'S FAILURE TO PROTECT MARYLAND ACP PARTICIPANTS' LOCATIONS FROM DISCLOSURE WILL PUT THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AT RISK.

     Finally, failure by a Florida court to enforce Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program will also threaten the physical safety of domestic violence victims all over the country, not just those in Maryland.  In addition to Florida, thirty-six states have enacted address confidentiality programs of some form, with thousands of enrollees, and the effectiveness of all of these programs depends on their enforcement in other jurisdictions.  If Florida declines to protect the confidentiality of a Maryland victim's address, it will send a signal to address confidentiality program participants in all thirty-six states that their addresses are not truly safe from disclosure, and that, therefore, they are not truly safe. Worse, this signal will be sent by the judiciary, the very institution that many of these participants may be relying on to obtain divorces from their abusers, child custody, and other legal remedies.  Without confidence in courts to protect their whereabouts, many of these participants may be deterred from seeking needed relief for themselves and justice for their abusers.

     For Floridian domestic violence victims desperate to relocate to safety in a place far from their abusers, non-enforcement of another state's address confidentiality program may suggest the need for them to stay put in Florida if they want address confidentiality protection, no matter the other safety risks involved. Interstate relocation by domestic violence victims is currently quite common, with [Wife] being just one example. The Maryland Address Confidentiality Program alone has dozens of participants who enrolled after relocating to Maryland from another state, and dozens more who have relocated to states outside Maryland while still remaining enrolled in Maryland's Program. Non-enforcement of a state's address confidentiality program in another state will discourage program participants from crossing state lines to escape their abusers, thereby further limiting victims' ability to pursue alternatives to enhance their security. 

     Finally, and most troubling, failure by a Florida court to protect Maryland Address Confidentiality Program participants' locations from disclosure will invite a perverse type of forum shopping.  Abusers from across the country will interpret such an action as an indication that Florida courts are unlikely to conceal the location of any non-Florida domestic violence victim.  Accordingly, those who are dead-set on tracking down their victims may relocate to Florida, establish residence there, and file an action in a Florida court that entails disclosure of their victim's address.  Thus, no matter where domestic violence victims relocate, and no matter whether the state where they relocate has an address confidentiality program, they will not be able to protect themselves from having their whereabouts disclosed, so long as their abusers can avail themselves of Florida courts.  This result must be avoided, both as a matter of public policy and as a matter of public safety.

CONCLUSION

     For the reasons stated, the Office of the Secretary of State for the State of Maryland urges this Court to honor Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program by preventing the court-ordered disclosure of [Wife]’s residential address.  Protecting the confidentiality of her address throughout these proceedings will best ensure her physical safety, the safety of Florida domestic violence victims who may need to relocate out of state, and the safety of domestic violence victims already under the protection of other states' address confidentiality programs.