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.

The State of Maryland's Amicus Curiae Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 4D12-XXXX

L.T. CASE NO. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB

[Wife’s Name],

Appellant,

v.

[Husband’s Name],

Appellee

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT

Attorney General of Maryland                                                  
Assistant Attorney General                                                     
Other Assistant Attorney General                                              
Counsel to Amicus Curiae Office of the                                   
Secretary of State for the State of Maryland

Florida Attorney
Counsel of Record for Amici
                     

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT

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

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

     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

CONCLUSION

---

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Enright,
     258 So. 2d 472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1972)
Austin v. New Hampshire,
     420 U.S. 656 (1975)
Dep 't of Children & Families v. V. V.,
     822 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002)
Flash, Lewis & Co. v. Conn,
     16 Fla. 428 (Fla. 1878)
Hague v. C.I.O.,
     307 U.S. 496 (1939)
Herron v. Passailaigue,
     110 So. 539 (Fla. 1926)
Hicklin v. Orbeck,
     437 U.S. 518 (1978)
In re Certification of Need for Additional Judges,
     889 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2004)
In re Report of the Comm'n on Family Courts,
     646 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 1994)
Paul v. Virginia,
     15 U.S. 168 (1869)
Reinish v. Clark,
     765 So. 2d 197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2000) 
State v. Sheldon,
     332 Md. 45 (Md. 1993)
Stephens v. State,
     659 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995) 
Thomas v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist.,
     2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6484 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2006)
Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB, Final Judgment
     of Dissolution of Marriage with Property But No Dependent or Minor
     Children (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, June 18, 2012)
Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB, Final Judgment
     of Injunction for Protection against Domestic Violence without Minor
     Children (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, Mar. 15, 2011)
Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB, Motion in Opposing [sic]
     of Motion to Strike (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, May 29, 2012)

Statutes

23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 6701-6713
750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 61/1
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-484 & § 16-153
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-811
Cal. Gov't Code §§ 6205-6211
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-21-201 - 24-21-214
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-240 et seq.
Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 305 & tit. 15, § 1303
Fla Stat. § 741.30(3)(b)
Fla. Stat. § 741.401
Fla. Stat. §§ 741.401 - 741.465
Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5701 - 19-5708
Ind. Code § 5-26.5-1-1 et seq.
Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-451 - 75-458
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44:51 - 44:52
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 9A, §§ 1-7
Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§ 4-519 - 4-530
Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 4-513
Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 4-522
Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 4-526
Md. Code Ann., Family Law §§ 4-519-4-530
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 90-B
Minn. Stat. §§ 5B.01 - 5B.09
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-47-l
Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 589.660 - 589.683
Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40-15-115 - 40-15-120
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15C-1 et seq.
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 7:41 - 7:48
N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:4-1 - 47:4-6
N.M. Stat. § 40-13-11
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-1201 - 42-1210
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 217.462
Okla Stat. tit. 22, § 60.14
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 192.820 - 192.868
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 17-28-1 - 17-28-8
Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 56.81 - 56.93
Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-418 & § 2.2-515.2
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 1150 - 1160
W. Va. Code §§ 48-28A-101 - 48-28A-110
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 40.24.010 - 40.24.090
Wis. Stat. § 6.47

Other Authorities

The National Center for Victims of Crime, State Address Confidentiality Programs (2009), available at: http://www. victimsofcrime.orgldocs/src/state-address-confidentiality-programs.pdf?sfvrsn=0

Rules

Fla. R. Jud. Adm. 2.420(d)(2)

Regulations

COMAR 01.02.11.03E
COMAR 01.02.11.03F
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2, cl. 1

---

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.

                                                                           Respectfully submitted,

                                                                           Florida Attorney

                                                                           Assistant Attorney General
                                                                           Other Assistant Attorney General
                                                                           Counsel to the Office of the Secretary of State
                                                                           for the State of Maryland

---

^[1]  See Husband v. Wife, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB, Motion in Opposing [sic] of Motion to Strike (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, May 29, 2012) ([Wife] describing her understanding that compliance with discovery requests would require her to disclose her location, endangering her safety).

^[2]  It bears emphasis that all Program participants must meet the financial burden of relocation as a condition of initial enrollment in the Program.  COMAR 01.02.11.03E ("To be designated as a participant in the Program, the individual shall ... [h]ave recently relocated or intend to relocate within 30 days from the date of application to an address unknown to the abuser").  The need to relocate again because an address is divulged would create additional economic strain on what are usually already-strained finances.

     As mentioned above, see supra n.l, the lower court's rulings regarding compliance with discovery requests, which [Wife] understood as requiring disclosure of her residential address, caused her to relocate at her own expense for fear of her continued safety and the inability of the Address Confidentiality Program to protect the confidentiality of her whereabouts under the circumstances. Husband v. Wife, Motion in Opposing [sic] of Motion to Strike, No. 502011XXXXXXXXXXXXNB (Fla. Cir. Ct., 15th Jud. Cir., Palm Beach County, May 29, 2012), at para 5.

^[3]  Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-484 & § 16-153; Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-811, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 6205-6211; Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-21-201-24-21- 214; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-240 et seq.; Del. Code Ann. tit. 21, § 305 & tit. 15, § 1303; Fla. Stat. §§ 741.401-741.465; Idaho Code Ann. § 19-5701-, 19-5708; 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 6111; Ind. Code § 5-26.5-1-1 et seq.; Kan. Stat.  Ann. §§ 75-451-75-458; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44:51-44:52; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5, § 90-B; Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law §§ 4-519-4-530; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 9A, §§ 1-7; Minn. Stat. §§ 5B.01-5B.09; Miss. Code Ann. §  99-47-1; Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 589.660-589.683; Mont. Code Ann. §§ 40-15-115--40-15-120; Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-1201-42-1210; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 217.462; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 7:41-7:48; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:4-1- 47:4-6; N.M. Stat. § 40-13-11; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15C-1 et seq.; Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 60.14; Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 192.820-192.868; 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 6701-6713; R.I. Gen. Laws§§ 17-28-1-17-28-8; Tenn. Code Ann. § 10-7-504; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 56.81-56.93; Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 1150-1160; Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-418 & § 2.2-515.2; Wash. Rev. Code §§ 40.24.010-40.24.090; W. Va. Code §§ 48-28A-101-48-28A-110; Wis. Stat. § 6.47.  

^[4]  See The National Center for Victims of Crime, State AddressConfidentiality Programs (2009), available at: http://www. victimsofcrime.orgldocs/src/state-address-confidentiality-programs.pdf?sfvrsn=0.

THE STATE OF MARYLAND'S EFFORTS TO HELP

Over the last two years, I have lost track of all the agencies, law firms, groups, etc., that I asked for help from.  No one could ever help me.  I got very tired of hearing "Legal Aid".  All roads lead to Legal Aid.  In Florida, they would not help me because I do not have children.  When I decided to appeal my divorce, I was told by group after group that it is a landmark case (see my blog as to why: MY APPEAL WILL RESULT IN A LANDMARK DECISION).  Still, no one could help.

After his arrest for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, my (now) ex-husband changed my mailing address on USPS.com and received all my mail at his new address.  He also used my debit and credit cards.  He shut off water in the house.  He had also stolen the business -- my only source of income.  After I relocated, he continued to open credit cards in my name.  He went to extreme lengths during the divorce case to find out where I lived.

Protecting my address

I was accepted in Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program (see my blog for more: Maryland's Address Confidentiality Program).  I was afraid that if he ever got that address, he would simply change it on USPS.com.  This became an even bigger issue when he was awarded a huge judgment against me.  I contacted the coordinator of the Maryland ACP.  She realized it was an issue that could affect ALL participants.  Ogre isn't the only manipulative abuser out there, after all.  Any one of them could come up with the same "bright idea" and do the same.  If the PO Box was changed for one participant, would it affect the mail for all participants using the same PO Box?

She reached out to the US Postmaster's Office and a wonderful woman there was able to make a change:  the PO Box address used for the Maryland ACP can NOT be changed unless a signed letter by the Maryland Secretary of State accompanies the request.  Finally, I felt that my address with the ACP was truly safe.

A letter to the appellate court

After finding the Sacharow case, I noticed that there was an amicus curiae involved.  Realizing it was a long shot, I asked Maryland if they would consider becoming an amicus curiae in my case.  They wrote a fantastic letter to the appellate court, instead.  I tried to include their letter in my brief, but his assrat lawyer objected.

Maryland files as amicus curiae

I went back to Maryland and they filed as an amicus curiae.  It was, unfortunately, stricken.  Apparently, the attorney they used (a guy in the attorney general's office) was licensed in FL, but not eligible to practice.  This was discouraging.  Apparently, they have filed again -- this time with an attorney who *is* eligible to practice in FL.  I'm not sure that the appellate court will allow it, as this is now procedurally late. (See my update below.)

However, I cannot quite get over the fact that me, a nobody, has somehow convinced Maryland to try to help.  They are THE only body or agency that have helped at all.  Many people have been surprised.  It's not typical that a state does get involved.  But this is a landmark case.

Update

Maryland has indeed filed again, and their petition to become and Amicus Curiae in support of my position was granted by the appellate court on January 11, 2013.  Their brief was filed the same day.  I received a copy of it recently and I am absolutely blown away by their exceptional efforts.  Maryland's Amicus Curiae Brief

MARYLAND'S LETTER TO THE APPELLATE COURT

Maryland's Deputy Secretary of State and the Coordinator of the Address Confidentiality Program jointly wrote this letter to the Appellate Court in support of my position on appeal.  Later, they filed as an amicus curiae and filed a brief.  As of posting, the court has not yet ruled whether to accept their brief or not.

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