However, the fact that Maryland tried so hard to help was one of the most empowering thing that has happened to me in the last two years since my (now ex-)husband tried to kill me.
NOTE: I have changed my name to "ex-Wife" and that of my ex-husband to "ogre" throughout the letter.
August 16,2012
Fourth District Court of Appeal
Chief Justice Melanie G. May
1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
RE: Case No. 4012-XXXX
Ex-Wife, Appellant v. ogre, Appellee
Lower Tribunal Case No. 2011 DRXXXX
Dear Chief Judge May:
We are writing on behalf of Maryland resident ex-Wife, a participant in the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program (ACP or "program"), and a party in Case No. 4012-XXXX, currently pending before the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Due to domestic violence she has experienced and continues to fear at the hands of her then husband/now Appellee, ogre, she has been a member of our program since September 2011. We understand that ex-Wife has recently been ordered by the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit to reveal her home address to her husband. For reasons we explain below, ex-Wife s physical safety depends on that address not being revealed. We strongly urge this court to reconsider this order to this effect.
Background on the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program
Since October 2006, Maryland's Office of the Secretary of State has administered the Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program (ACP or "program"), which has provided victims of domestic violence a means of keeping their residential address confidential. Victims who qualify to be participants in the program are provided with a substitute address (a P. 0. Box) to use as their legal address for dealing with State and local government agencies. In addition, the ACP provides free mail forwarding for 1st class mail and legal papers. The substitute address bears no relationship to a participant's residential address and, therefore, acts as an important measure of safety for the participant, one of several such measures a participant is expected to put in place.
There are two way applicants can qualify to be enrolled as participants in Maryland's ACP: They can either apply directly to the Office of the Secretary of State, which involves submitting proof that they are a victim of domestic violence, or - as is more common - they may be connected with the program through the services of registered Application Assistants at domestic violence agencies or other victim service providers. Application Assistants are trained professionals, experienced in working with victims, who can effectively evaluate the veracity of an individual's attempts to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence independently of whether these acts or threats have been reported to law enforcement.
If an Application Assistant determines that an individual has been the victim of legitimate violent acts or threats of violence, that Application Assistant may enroll the individual in the ACP. Once enrolled in the program through either of these channels, the participant receives address protection for a four-year term. The value of the ACP is immeasurable to its participants. Their ability to receive their mail and interact with State and local governments without their whereabouts being divulged in the public record can provide them, after a period of time, the ability to live without hiding or wearing disguises and, therefore, conduct a more normal life. Unfortunately, the threats to some participants' safety do not diminish during this time; our Office has seen a 51% renewal rate of those participants eligible to re-enroll at the end of the four-year term.
Sequence of Events Leading to Ex-Wife's Participation in the Maryland ACP
On March 14, 2011, police arrested ogre, then ex-Wife s husband, and charged him with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a large, empty wine bottle) against ex-Wife Ogre had been yelling and screaming at ex-Wife and had said "I should kill you" (paraphrased statement).
Immediately thereafter ex-Wife submitted a Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence, attached as Exhibit A, in which she described acts and threats of violence against her, including a repeated pattern of abusive and menacing behavior and physical actions (slapping, forcibly shoving, punching, and striking of the head) that had occurred at least since 2008 through March 4, 2011. In the Petition, she also stated that she has a seizure disorder and is unable to drive a motor vehicle, which limits her mobility and ability to escape danger.
On March 15,2011, ex-Wife was granted both a Criminal No Contact Order and a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence without Minor Child(ren) against ogre, attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively. On March 29, 2011, ex-Wife was granted a Final Agreed Judgment of lnjunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence without Minor Child(ren), attached as Exhibit D, specifically stated that the parties are only allowed to communicate by electronic mail.
On June 3, 2011, ex-Wife relocated to the State of Maryland after ogre had shut off water and garbage collection in the marital home where she had been living and changed her mailing address without her consent. ex-Wife sought to relocate to an area where she could secure gainful employment and accessible transportation. The Final Judgment for Protection issued by the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit was entered in Maryland on September 30, 2011 . Coincident with this event, ex-Wife applied to and was accepted as a participant in the Maryland ACP. A week earlier, she had worked with a registered Application Assistant at a domestic violence agency to prepare her application. Her enrollment in the ACP was based on that Application Assistant's evaluation of the actual and threatened domestic violence Me had experienced and was continuing to fear.
Sequence of Events Leading to the Circuit Court's Order Requiring Ex-Wife to Disclose Her Address
On March 22, 2011, ogre filed for the dissolution of the marriage between ex-Wife and ogre. An Order on Wife's Agreed Motion for Protective Order, attached as Exhibit E, was granted in part on May 17, 2012 with the stipulation that the residential address of the Respondent/Wife (ex-Wife) not be disclosed but provided to ogre's attorney.
As part of the discovery process for the dissolution of the marriage, the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Palm Beach County, Florida ordered ex-Wife to disclose her work and home addresses. Ex-Wife filed a motion on May 29,2012, attached as Exhibit F, in which she opposed this disclosure, given the existence of a permanent restraining order and her continuing fear for her safety and related relocation out of state. The pleadings of ex-Wife were stricken by the Court in an Order entered on May 29, 2012, attached as Exhibit G.
The Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage With Property But No Dependent or Minor Children was granted on June 18, 2012, attached as Exhibit H. Ex-Wife filed a Former Wife's Motion for Reconsideration of Final Judgment on June 27, 2012, attached as Exhibit I, in part because efforts on the part of ogre's counsel to reveal her residential and work address in order to collect the monetary award imposed by the Final Judgment are a threat to ex-Wife's physical safety. As a reminder, because of seizure disorder, ex-Wife has limited mobility and her ability to escape danger is thus impaired. This impairment is compounded by the Final Judgment, which ordered ex-Wife to surrender her Ford Ranger to ogre.
The Interest of the Maryland ACP on Ex-Wife's Behalf
Given the past pattern of abusive behavior by ogre against ex-Wife an ACP participant, we are concerned that court-ordered disclosure of her residential and work address will put ex-Wife s physical safety at risk. Furthermore, we are worried that compliance with those portions of the Court's order that require ex-Wife to disclose address information will undermine the ability of the ACP to effectively protect her from violence in Maryland, where she now resides. Accordingly, we strongly urge the Court to take steps to protect ex-Wife s ability to refrain from disclosing her residential or work addresses. We understand that this is an unusual situation and we would be happy to speak with you by phone to answer any questions you may have about the ACP and ex-Wife s participation in it. We greatly appreciate your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deputy Secretary of State
Office of the Secretary of State
Maryland Safe at Home Address Confidentiality Program
Office of the Secretary of State
Address Confidentiality Program
Coordinator
