Catherine Gonzalez, age 23, was forced to go to court to get an order that her husband pay child support, an application that is brought routinely in family law courts across North America, when a parent refuses to pay support voluntarily.
Her husband Paul Gonzalez Jr., a former Marine, was enraged when Judge Geoffrey Cohen made the order and stormed out of the Judge’s chambers. But he returned, and attacked his wife, in front of Judge Cohen and her lawyer, pummeling his wife with his fists. Ms. Gonzalez suffered significant injuries including a broken nose, a broken jaw, a torn lip, a concussion, and severe bruises to her face and eyes.
The beating ended with the intervention of Ms. Gonzalez’s lawyer and court bailiffs who confronted Mr. Gonzalez with a stun gun.
The Court threw the book at Mr. Gonzalez, sentencing him to 15 years in prison for the brutal assault on his wife, despite testimony from the a psychologist that he suffered from bi-polar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Judge Cohen was particularly incensed by Mr. Gonzalez’s attack in a court of law, where participants had every right to feel safe. The sentence he imposed was more than three times Florida’s maximum sentence for aggravated battery.
Earlier, Ms. Gonzalez had sought a restraining order against her husband but couldn’t persuade a judge to make that order.
In courts in British Columbia where counsel are concerned that one of the parties may become violent, a special request is made to ensure that a sheriff is in the courtroom during the hearing.
It is a shame that Ms. Gonzalez’s fear of her husband’s threatening behavior was not taken seriously, by anyone
Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang
Lawdiva's Blog 
Only in America..comes to my mind…cheers..aj
Something I fear myself
sent from my IPhone
>
First and foremost. Thanks for posting this story. Its a terrible reminder of the failures of family law.
There is no justification for the man’s violence in this story.
The whole Family Court System is a disaster. We have courts that don’t care about anyone’s well-being but claim to have the children’s best interest at the forefront, when in fact the first interest is gov’t reimbursements for collecting child support and kick-backs from unnecessary court appointed experts.
I would however offer that the gov’t and court need to get out of peoples private lives UNLESS a child’s wellbeing is being threatened or a child has been harmed in the past.
The whole concept of “child support” for all is a disaster, and often ruins men, women, and children over time.
What the court has lost track of is that people have the right to raise their children as they see fit whether married or not.
A woman has a responsibility to decide if she is having a child and with whom she has it with. This responsibility is 100% the womans (as unfair as that seems). If men get right to decide when to have or terminate pregnancy then we’d have a different scenario. But since woman have chosen to spread their legs, trust their partner to father a child, and have a child, a woman is technically always 100% responsible. Sure would be nice if women would support fathers throughout divorce rather than be incentivized to destroy a mans ability to support himself or live with dignity.
More importantly if a child has at least one fit parent, the courts frankly have no role to play. In the U.S. the Supreme court has stated that parents should decide what is in their children’s best interest, yet every family court has twisted this ruling and interpreted it to excuse the state’s meddling in the lives of children that the Judges often never meet in person!