How Maryland Courts Evaluate Domestic Violence And Protective Orders
When a person experiences domestic violence, the legal system can feel overwhelming. One of the most important Maryland cases explaining how protective orders work is the case of Katsenelenbogen v. Katsenelenbogen. This case helped clarify what a person must prove in order to receive a protective order and reinforced that Maryland courts are meant to protect victims, not burden them with criminal levels of proof.
Background of the case
In Katsenelenbogen, the former wife sought a final protective order against her husband. She claimed that there was ongoing domestic violence. At the trial level, the judge denied her request because the court believed she needed to prove her claims “beyond a reasonable doubt” — the same standard used in criminal cases.
In this case, the wife appealed. The case eventually reached the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland’s highest court). The appellate court made a clear and important ruling: the trial court applied the wrong standard of proof.
Key legal principle: proof by “Preponderance of the Evidence”
The Court of Appeals clarified that when someone seeks a final protective order under Maryland’s domestic violence laws, they only need to prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. That means it’s more likely than not.
This is a much different bar. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is quite a high bar to prove. Protective orders are civilian in nature. Their purpose is to prevent harm, not punish someone.
By lowering the standard of proof to something more reasonable, the court made protective orders more accessible to victims.
Why this case is important
This case is significant because it makes protective orders much more realistically attainable for people who are experiencing domestic violence. Prior to this ruling, some courts believed victims had to meet the same standard of proof that prosecutors did in criminal trials, which can be nearly impossible when abuse happens privately. By confirming the proper standard, the courts made it so that litigants only needed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
The decision also affects child custody and visitation. Maryland courts recognize that exposure to domestic conflict can harm children emotionally, even when they are not directly abused. For that reason, if the court finds domestic violence occurred, it must take steps to protect the safety and well-being of both the parent and the child. Katsenelenbogen reinforces the idea that the court’s priority is protection and stability — not punishing anyone or assigning blame.
Ultimately, this case emphasizes that the legal system should not make it harder for someone to escape or prevent abuse. It ensures that Maryland law focuses on safety, credibility, and the right to seek help without facing unreasonable barriers.
Talk to a Bel Air, MD, Domestic Violence Attorney Today
Schlaich & Thompson, Chartered, represent the interests of Maryland residents who are facing domestic violence in their households. Call our Bel Air family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin gathering proof on your behalf right away.
Source:
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/md-court-of-appeals/1187011.html
