[ekm]100x100[ekm].jpg)
« Guess The Dictator or Sit-Com Character | Main | A Letter From Lowell Jaks, In Jail »
June 15, 2004
Judicial Ignorance of Domestic Violence Puts Children In Harm's Way
[This arrived in my e-mail this morning, and I thought it was worth posting. Nothing in it surprises me in the least.]
JUDICIAL RESPONSE
Judicial Ignorance of Domestic Violence Puts Children in Harm’s Way
Copyright 2004 AScribe Inc.
AScribe Newswire
May 27, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: Researchers Say Massachusetts Family Courts Fail to Protect Battered Women and Their Children; Study Applies Human Rights Analysis to Child Custody Cases Involving Domestic Violence
BODY: BOSTON, May 27 [AScribe Newswire] -- Taking a novel approach to the analysis of child custody awards in cases where domestic violence is involved, researchers at Harvard School of Public Health [HSPH] have documented what they argue is a recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state and a failure to protect battered women and their children.
Examining litigation in Massachusetts family courts involving a sample of battered women, the researchers found that the courts consistently dismissed or minimized the relevance of the male partners' abuse in awarding custody of children to such men.
The researchers cited numerous human rights treaties and conventions meant to protect women and children from violence including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. They argue that a human rights framework is an important tool for pressing the need for legal, social and political reform to address domestic violence and to protect women and children, the most common victims of such violence.
The analysis was performed by Jay Silverman, PhD, assistant professor of Society, Human Development and Health at HSPH, and colleagues and appears in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health [http://www.ajph.org/]. Silverman is co-author of the book, "The Batterer as Parent" [Sage Publications, 2002].
Intimate partner violence and child abuse are increasingly recognized as major public health concerns in both the United States and around the world. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, one fourth of women in the United States are reported to be affected by intimate partner violence. In U.S. studies, male partners have been found responsible for one third of all homicides of women and half of all homicides of children.
Although there is increasing recognition of the great threat to children posed by men who perpetrate domestic violence, many family courts view such concerns as either irrelevant or a tactic to be ignored in cases of divorce, said Silverman. This failure directly leads to courts placing children in harm's way.
The researchers interviewed 39 women representing 10 of the 12 Massachusetts family court districts.The women were participants in the Battered Mothers' Testimony Project which drew women through social service agencies and legal providers serving battered women. The women all had experienced violence from an intimate male partner with whom they'd had children and had engaged in child custody litigation with the abusive ex-partner. As this study was an attempt to document human rights violations based on historic concerns regarding these processes from battered women and family violence experts throughout the country, women were also selected based on expressed dissatisfaction with the family court process. All possessed some kind of documentation of domestic violence [eg. police reports, witness affidavits, restraining orders, child protective service reports]. None of the cases involved women's abuse of male partners nor were there cases involving substantiated child abuse by the mothers.
Several themes emerged that corresponded to a consistent pattern of potential human rights violations by the Massachusetts family courts. According to the researchers, these included:
-
1] granting physical custody of children to men who had used violence against the mothers or both the mothers and their children
2] granting unsupervised visitation of children to men who had used such violence
3] failing to accept or consider documentation of domestic violence as relevant evidence in child custody determinations
4] failure to investigate allegations or consider documentation of child abuse
In light of international human rights declarations and treaties, wrote the researchers, the state family courts likely failed to sufficiently consider the "right to due diligence" as described in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women; the "best interests of the child" as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the right to "bodily integrity," a fundamental human right enshrined in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the "right to equal protection" under the law described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"Battered mothers face a perilous irony," said Silverman. "Authorities push these women to leave abusive men in order to protect their children. But women who can make this break then face
family courts, another authority, that often ignores this history of abuse as a threat to children's safety and, perversely, concludes that women's attempts to protect their children from these men actually demonstrate their own lack of fitness as mothers."
"Although our laws increasingly urge courts to make domestic violence a primary consideration in deciding child custody, implementation of these laws is inconsistent at best, and will likely remain so, without strong oversight," said Silverman. "Placing a human rights framework on child custody decisions involving domestic violence clarifies the critical need to reform the system in order to protect the rights and lives of battered women and their children."
"This is an issue everywhere in the country," he added, "and this same project is being conducted in several other states. This report is but one of many continuing attempts by organizations nationwide to
make the voices of these women and their children heard."
Major support for this study was provided by The Ford Foundation.
Posted on June 15, 2004 at 03:23 PM | Permalink
Comments
Though the example is small, and culled from a specific group, I am fairly certain that a larger, nation-wide study would reveal the same results.
Unfortunately, experience with the family court in the case of a woman I was trying to help, has led me to believe the court system is not concerened with the children, and in many cases is antagonistic to women.
It seems to me what is needed is to bring oversight into the court, and make the records open to the public.(in the case I am talking about the judge made decisions based on things "the child told him" in camera, and it was not even put into the court record. The mother was never told "what the child said" making it impossible to defend against any statements or claims against her, if any such statements were actually made.
Further study would be probabtive, but something is called for. This situation has existed for too many years.
Posted by: Rachel Ann at Jun 16, 2004 12:03:00 AM
Hmm... this seems strange coming from Mass. It is my perception from various sources that Mass is one of the easiest states to get a restraining order (the well noted 209A).
In my reading, it 209A abuse, as it is called in Mass - is common - to the point where it is almost considered legal malpractice to go for one, whether there is abuse or not. At it would follow that, at least you would think, that it is awfully hard to get custody if you have been pre-empted with a 209A - whether you are actually abusive or not.
My question is this. What definition did the researchers use for abuse? What kinds of abuse are they talking about (emotional, financial, physical)? There is a huge continuum there - and at one end, nearly ANYONE who has ever been in a relationship could be abused and abuser at the same time.
In no way, shape, or form do I mean any disrespect towards victims of domestic violence in questioning this - but this area is a battleground where both sides of the issue tend to issue a lot of propagandistic arguments.
The fact that a.) 209A's can be easy to get and b.) Getting one can provide great tactical advantage in a divorce case and c.) There is little penalty for getting one on false or "stretched" pretenses - well - those of us who work in the fraud detection business call this the triangle of fraud. It is defined as follows:
The incentive to commit fraud. ("winning" the divorce by pre-emptive 209A, high chance of getting away with it, little penalty if caught)
The opportunity to commit fraud. (a conservative court where nobody judge wants to be the one that did not hand out the 209A - and then the next Laci Peterson winds up washing ashore)
The rationalization that enables individuals to commit fraud within their own ethical mores ("I am doing this for the children" is the usual rationalization in these kinds of cases)
The presence of these three elements tell a fraud investigator where to look for fraud - it is not conclusive evidence of it's existence in a particular case. However, over the entire set of divorce cases in a state, these kinds of abuses are certain to happen.
I would suspect that - if the above study is true - it is a tradegy. However, I am skeptical - particularly given Mass. reputation as a woman friendly state (cheap stab - unless you are in a car with Ted Kennedy late at night :-o )
Posted by: souraaron at Jun 16, 2004 3:50:32 PM
The fact that a.) 209A's can be easy to get and b.) Getting one can provide great tactical advantage in a divorce case and c.) There is little penalty for getting one on false or "stretched" pretenses...
There are a lot of 209As issued in Massachusetts, but are not easy to get, nor are they routinely used by women to falsely accuse men of abuse. Restraining orders are not easy to get in any state. Nationwide fewer women and children are believed when they make accusations of abuse, one of the results beinging that the mother loses custody. Friendly parent theory and the false assumption that most allegations of abuse made by women are falsehoods have led to more mothers losing custody of their children to abusers.
Domestic Violence & The Courtroom. Understanding The Problem... Knowing The Victim, The American Judges Association. Quote: [emphasis in original]
- "Threats to Harm or Take Away Children: One of the most common reasons given for resuming an abusive relationship is the fear that the abuser will act on the threats of taking the children from the victim. Studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases."
Why Attorneys Should Routinely
Screen Clients for Domestic Violence. By Pauline Quirion, Esq. for the Massachusetts Women's Bar Journal, 1999.
-
Quote: "[t]he high frequency with which RO's [sic] are issued might lead some skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men against whom RO's have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others."
By the way, this is from a Boston Globe New England News Brief written on January 29, 2001:
-
Judge dismisses men's rights suit
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a men's rights group alleging that Massachusetts probate court judges - who deal with divorce, custody, child support and restraining orders - are biased against men. The lawsuit, filed in September by six divorced men and a fathers' rights group called the Fatherhood Coalition, was dismissed by US District Judge Edward F. Harrington, who said they had failed to show that they had been deprived of their constitutional rights. Harrington said judges are immune from being sued.
I know some will jump on the fact that judges are immune from being sued, but the fact is that the Fatherhood Coalition has been claiming for years that restraining orders are easy to get and that women frequently use them as a weapon in court. Not coincidentally, plenty of men in the Fatherhood Coalition have had restraining orders filed against them. These men have documented histories of abuse. The Fatherhood Coalition is known for supporting men who claim they have been falsely accused of abuse and who claim that they were slapped with 209As for no reason or for something like letting their child into their ex's apartment complex to use the bathroom (thereby violating the no contact order). I have files from these cases that show these men are not the innocents they claim to be. They were unable to prove their claims in court, so their suit was thrown out.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 16, 2004 5:10:02 PM
Trish-
In my experience - and my day job for a number of yearswas in developing computer models for fraud investigation - the conditions for 209A abuse exist - based on the preconditions for any other type of fraud. That is what I am pointing out. women - because I think you would agree that women (right or wrong) are not typically seen as the aggressor in DV cases - will be more represented in a sample of people who misuse these kinds of laws. Believe me - I have enough non-faith that if men had this kind of opportunity, some proportion of them would do exactly the same thing. And some of them probably do - which is why men and women have a common interest in restoring what used to be due process in this area of law (e.g. innocent until proven guilty, rather than the reverse).
To say that ROs are not easy to get - I am not sure that is the truth. The standards of evidence for a TRO are low - and it is in the nature of judges to be conservative and grant them, unless they see a real and clear reason not to (the most obvious of nonmeritous cases). Nearly anyone can get an ex-parte TRO - particularly if they are believable liars.
I wish I did have access to all the variables in a TRO case database. I would want to know what the breakdowns criminal history is (e.g. is it other cases of abusive behavior, other violent crimes, drug crimes, jaywalking...) - before I draw a conclusion about the men who get accused here. The danger here is, of course, is that criminal history can be a proxy for economic status. In other words, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have a criminal history, if for no other reason, people with money tend to hire better lawyers. So, in a sense, when the person you quoted says "Men against whom RO's have been used are clearly not a random draw from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often reflective of violent behavior toward others." - all that means to me is that the person who has a 209A file against them is more likely than not to be poor. If she said more specifically that the criminal background was violent - it would make a much better case.
The tragic part of this is that people getting tactical TROs create a problem for people who really need the protection. I want to stress that all women and men have an interest in finding a process that accomplishes all of the following:
* Protect victims of domestic violence
* Is designed to protect the rights of the accuser AND the accused - adheres to "innocent until proven guilty"
* Protects the interests of children
* Provides a means for case predictability
* Is designed to prevent abuse of the system by the unscrupulous
I do not think these ideals are mutually exclusive. Men are rightly concerned about their due process rights when it comes to 209As. And while I think both sides engage in some degree of propagandizing in this debate - which is natural since so much is at stake - I think that to a fair-minded non biased onlooker - much of the anti-DV law seems pretty Orwellian.
In other words...
When someone uses "protecting children" or "protecting women" in an argument - by internal BS detector goes into high gear. Mostly because some of the most racist, homophobic, and classist laws are passed by politicians and judges in the name of "protecting women and children".
Posted by: souraaron at Jun 16, 2004 5:58:33 PM
Some things that people use to determine whether you are abused... why abuse is flimsy
From this site.
"Tries to keep you from doing something you wanted to do"
e.g. What if you wanted to punch him in the face, and he defends himself. Technically, under the definition on this list, blocking a punch from your wife is abuse.
"Withholds approval, appreciation or affection"
Not nice, but if you - say - lose my entire paycheck at the casino, I am going to withold my approval, appreciation, and affection. Not purposefully - but the worry about how the rent is going to be paid is going to give me enough time to provide approval, appreciation, or affection.
"Repeatedly harasses you about things you did in the past"
Could be misinterpreted. So if one's spouse confronts you more than once about that little affair last month, you are abusive? I think not.
"Takes away car keys, money or credit cards"
What if you take away someone's car keys when they are drunk to prevent them from driving drunk?
"Threatens to commit suicide"
Perhaps the person who threatens this needs psych help immediatley - not an abuse accusation.
"Comes home at late hours refusing an explanation"
?!?@^%?! Think what you want, but I would think being required to report at late hours your whereabouts is abuse - not lack of explanation.
"Criticizes the way or amounts of money you spend"
If you are my spouse, and you are gambling all the money away, or spending it on crack, or for that matter, giving it all away to others without conferring with me - there is abuse - but my criticism of you doing the above is not where the abuse is.
"Places you on a budget that is unrealistic"
Unrealistic to whom? For Bill Gates, living on Opera's budget may be unrealistic. Such a condition means that a couple needs counseling - not that there is abuse.
"Refuses to get a job"
What if there are no jobs available? And what if it is the woman who refuses to get a job? The author seems to confuse "lazy" with "abuse".
"Withholds sex or affection"
Wow - if I decide that it is my body, my choice, about having sex (e.g. refusing sex to my spouse) - I am an abuser? Any man who has erectile problems and is embarrased to talk about it could be considered an abuser here. And imagine if this standard were held to women??? Refuse sex = your an abuser? Uh-what?
"Disregards your sexual needs and feelings about sex" and "Pressures you to perform sexual acts that make
you uncomfortable or hurt you"
These seem contradictory - communication of the sexual needs could easily be construed as pressure to do sexual acts that are uncomfortable.
"Threatens to take custody of your children"
If one partners mentions that they are getting a divorce, and they are taking custody of the kids (and usually, one or the other does) - then that would qualify them as an abuser. While I agree that a threat to do this as an intimidation tactic is abuse - merely communicating your litigation intentions could be easily construed as abuse.
Trish - this is why I think it is vital, when talking about a topic like this, to define abuse. Clearly, there is a continuum here that needs to be addressed. Some of the reasons on the site that I refer to are, obviously, more serious than others. Some definitions of abuse are so diluted that nearly every man and woman is guilty - I think this site's definition falls under that banner (refusing sex? who has not done that at some point).
Abuse ought to be defined, rigorously, if we and anyone else wants to have a real discussion about this.
Posted by: souraaron at Jun 16, 2004 6:52:50 PM
souraaron, I think a better, more concise list of domestic violence traits can be found here.
See, the one of the traits of victims of domestic violence, is that they do not think of themselves as being victims. Many folks in abusive relationships are in denial, because of the societal and media push of the extreme and unusual cases. There's a feeling that it's "not really" abuse if one hasn't suffered broken bones or some other form of disfigurement...punches, slaps, kicks...especially if they don't leave much of a mark are thought of as "no big deal". Also, the use of the term "battered woman" in much of the written intervention materials disturbs me. Many years ago, I was married to an abuser, yet I never would have described myself as a battered woman...."battered" draws up an image of someone beaten beyond belief...or a physically weak person who was completely incapacitated and beaten within an inch of her life...you know, the classic Hollywood picture of broken limbs, face swollen, black and blue beyond recognition....I was not (am not) alone in taking that as my (false) image of the abused victim. Point being, that when you hold a certain level of physical violence up to be "real" abuse, it is similar to claiming that someone wasn't "really" raped if there isn't obvious, horrific signs of brutality. The act itself is brutal, ya dig? Another trait of survivors of domestic violence is that many (as I did) view themselves as being very strong, physically and emotionally. Many would (and do) not recognize themselves in the old, traditional print materials on DV; these lists are better. And as for the seemingly innocuous traits that are listed...those are there because abusers ramp up the abuse over time. Like career criminals, they start off slow, and get emboldened by success. There is a demonstrated pattern of escalating behavior that sets the stage for further actions that anyone would recognize as abuse. My ex-husband followed that pattern, of "grilling" me if he thought I took too much time at the grocery store, alienating friends until I had no contact with them, not working, and following me to work. This progressed into ridicule, humiliation, sleep deprivation (waking me up in the middle of the night to argue!); from there to destroying homework from my apprenticeship class, trashing the apartment, accusing me of being gay when I didn't want to have sex with his drunk ass; and from there to shoving, spitting on me, slapping, kicking and punching....actions that anyone would recognize as abuse, no? Thank God we didn't have kids.
Anyway, I think it is also pertinent to mention that a woman (I don't know of any statistics on this for male victims) is most in danger when she leaves the abuser. That's when the abuser feels he has "nothing to lose" and is most willing to put some of those threats in action. And yes, this happened to me...he tried to kill me, and obviously didn't get the job done. I don't know about other states, but here in Illinois, it seems to be damn hard to get an order of protection...unless you have a police report demonstrating that your partner has abused you, good luck.
Just thought I'd throw that out there as food for thought. Those lists are not designed as guidelines for police and judges to determine who is an abuser; those lists are for people who suspect they may be in an abusive relationship...they list "warning signs" along with more obvious signs of abuse, so that people who are in an abusive relationship can get out now! I didn't recognize the warning signs, because like many folks, I grew up in an abusive environment. Sick, but I thought of that totally fucked-up, dysfunctional environment as "normal" or "typical". I'm not alone in that, either. It's hard for people who haven't been in that situation to understand that.
Posted by: amarettiXL at Jun 16, 2004 11:36:51 PM
One of the fundamental difficulties in defining abuse (and indeed in ‘fitting’ it into the legal system) is that other than most acts of physical abuse, it isn’t about individual acts – it’s about patterns of behaviour and context. In some ways, it is easier to define abuse in terms of effects…. but this too has disadvantages.
An example.
If my boss prevents me from attending an event – this may be legitimate. If my partner does the same – it may be abusive. It’s not the act – it’s the context.
Similarly, if my partner does this once, it’s going to have a different effect on me than if it happens all the time – so is it the act or the pattern?
The complexity in defining abuse is a debate that has been going on for decades now and there's no easy answer.
Posted by: at Jun 17, 2004 3:21:50 AM
Sorry - didn't intend previous comment to be anonymous.
Posted by: spicy at Jun 17, 2004 3:23:54 AM
This same debate about whether or not women frequently file false allegations of abuse in order to get restraining orders is going on in Australia. I've heard all the arguments that women often lie before, but all of the evidence shows that most of the time they don't. That Women's Bar Association link I gave said the same thing Amaretti said; that women underestimate the abuse they are subjected to. It also said that men unestimate the abuse that they commit.
In Australia, the orders are called AVOs or ADVOs (Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders). Below is some Australian material that comes to the same conclusions that the U. S. material comes to - that these orders are not easy to get, that women can't just go in, say they feel 'afraid,' and walk out minutes later with an order, and that most requests for these orders are valid. Please note that final paragraph. Most women who request ADVOs have experienced abuse over long periods of time, not based on one incident.
-
Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders
Not only is there no empirical evidence to suggest that applicants in domestic violence situations are routinely abusing ADVOs; research indicates that the opposite is true.
It should also be noted that very few ADVO complaints (6.8% in 1998) that go to hearing are ultimately dismissed.
Furthermore, the fact that it is not unusual for an ADVO complaint to be made at the same time as an application for a family law order does not mean that the former is made to gain advantage in the latter. Indeed, it makes sense for these two applications to be associated given the number of ADVO complainants with dependant children, and the fact that violence often escalates (and may even become fatal) at the time of separation being the time when future parenting arrangements become an issue.
For many applicants a complaint for an AVO is seen as a last resort.
A 1989 study found that 88.6% of complainants had been assaulted or threatened by the defendant before the incident that led to the initiation of the complaint.
More recently, an evaluation conducted by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) found that only 14.8% of subjects had applied for an AVO on the basis of a single incident. The remaining 85.2% of subjects had experienced abuse over longer periods. Of these subjects, 50.7% had experienced abuse for up to one year - and 8% for more.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 17, 2004 7:03:26 AM
For the near-decade that I have worked on these issues I see the same old accusations about domestic violence pop up again and again and again. It's the same old thing all the time. Accusations that TROs are set up so that women can and frequently do use them as weapons in court. Accusations that definitions and characteristics of abuse are flimsy and that "any guy can be hauled into court on an abuse charge" because of that. Accusations that all a woman has to do to get a TRO is go into court, say she's afraid of him, and she walks out a few minutes later with her "weapon." All of these accusations are based on opinion or isolated, anecdotal, third-party stories, as well as being based on both misunderstanding and misrepresenting the nature of domestic violence and restraining orders. Frankly, I'm tired of it. No matter how often and I others who work on these issues bring up reams of material and links to show that none of this crap is true, those resources are ignored and the same accusations come up over and over and over again. I post the same material all the time. I even post new material. It doesn't matter. The doubts persist because some people really believe women frequently use TROs as weapons. THEY DON'T. Amaretti posted a good link describing the cycle of abuse. That list is there to help abused women see the position they are in . It's a wake-up call. It's not a set of isolated incidents that can be minimized. Domestic violence is an established pattern of behavior on the part of the abuser that is designed to denigrate, debase, and control the abusee. It's not a little checklist of "minor" things, nor are they checklists that anyone can just minimize or misrepresent to undercut how devastating domestic violence can be.
I know I can post various links here that others who understand domestic violence will appreciate because it's likely they haven't seen the stuff before, (and I may very well do that), but I really don't feel up to educating yet another person who doesn't "get it" about domestic violence and restraining orders. I just have a feeling that no matter what I post, souraaron won't be convinced.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Jun 17, 2004 7:26:15 AM
Trish-
I actually had a conversation with my girlfriend about this last night - and she brought up some of the same points some of your posters did. She works in a field that publishes these kinds of materials - and has worked with people who advocate for the abused.
I saw her point. And it is context that matters. I should know - others had to bring it to my attention that my ex-wife was doing many of the things in the "emotional" category - hence, one of the reasons that I filed for my divorce.
On the other hand, I get worried about "slippery slope" arguments - especially used in the context of prosecuting "pre-crime" (watch the movie Minority Report - and you will see what I mean). I am all for crime prevention and protecting people at risk for violence. I just don't like the RO mechanism as it exists - it is too easily used as a weapon to do anyone any good. Even if it is used as a weapon in only 5% of cases - it is 5% too many - given the dire consequences that happen when a false accusation is successful.
My challenge - is to find a way to allow someone who thinks they are abused to protect themselves from further violence - but yet - do so in a way that does not trample on the due-process rights of the accused. I dislike the way TROs work today for the same reason I dislike the Patriot act and other laws that put safety above all other considerations. Sacrificing our civil liberties, particularly due process, to the altar of safety strikes me as dangerous.
What if - you could get a RO (temp or not) - and it was designed to serve it's intended purpose - to secure safety of the person getting the RO. In other words, the scope should be very narrow - to secure the person(s) getting the RO. ROs would then need to NOT be seen as a sign of guilt - they should be understood as only the result of an accusation until due-process where the accused can defend themselves has a chance to do so. Perhaps if an RO was not such an effective pre-emption mechanism in divorce, there would be fewer attempts at mis-using them.
The fact that people will misuse these things - is not an attack on women, in my view. It is a criticism of the TRO process. People who do fraud prevention will tell you that, in order to prevent fraud, you improve the process to root out the fraud. It is inevitable that - if you have a process that affords such an advantage in litigation - there will be unscrupulous people who misuse that process. I know a fraud investigator who has a mantra that goes like this - 10% of people are completley honest, 80% of people are "situationally" honest, and the last 10% are constantly scheming. The numbers may be off - but if someone who is getting a divorce is in the constantly scheming category - it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that fraud will occur when there is an opportunity to do so. The protections I am talking about really focus on that 10%.
Trish - I hope you can see that I am not taking the "company line" here with the FR activists - who would paint a picture that most TROs are bogus. I don't believe that - I think they are being activists - and we all know that activists sometimes have a tendency to yell "fire". What I am doing, however, is looking for the kernel of truth that exists under the covers of most activist rhetoric - and I think by ignoring their concerns outright, you risk sounding like a partisan yourself, believing that noone would ever do a false accusation, or that the number of false accusations are acceptable. I will re-iterate - the risk to women here is that if you start taking away too much due-process, we set a standard for dilution of our civil liberties that might turn on women. Men could start getting these TROs in larger numbers - particularly, if public opinion accepts that emotional abuse, in particular, can be something men are subject to (and note in the link I provided - some of the language is indeed gender neutral). I do not believe it is in the interests of women, men, or anyone else, to have civil liberties diluted in this way.
Posted by: souraaron at Jun 17, 2004 9:41:11 AM
amarettiXL-
That list does seem more reasonable - at least it seems to put the abuse in a better context.
If these lists would stress that it is about the pattern, not about the isolated incident, I think they would be more reasonable (at least in some of the cases e.g. an isolated incident of "denial of sex" may mean I am tired, not that I am abusing you). It is a tough line to walk - but the damange that an overbroad definition of abuse can cause can become a serious problem in and of itself - particularly to those that the definition is designed to protect (e.g. defining abuse in such a way that nearly everyone, man or woman, is guilty of it at one time or another)
Posted by: souraaron at Jun 17, 2004 9:56:55 AM
Does anyone know what can be done when someone obtains a restraining order based on untrue allegations. When two people are in the process of divorce and one party is angry and obtains an order the other to have no contact at all with their child. No history of domestic violence at all. Is it possible to dispute and have the order dismissed.
Posted by: Yvette at Mar 23, 2005 1:48:50 AM
"Men could start getting these TROs in larger numbers - particularly, if public opinion accepts that emotional abuse, in particular, can be something men are subject to (and note in the link I provided - some of the language is indeed gender neutral). I do not believe it is in the interests of women, men, or anyone else, to have civil liberties diluted in this way."
Yes, how interesting...You appear to be saying that women had better stop getting too many restraining orders protecting themselves and their children against men for 'real' violence that actually leaves people dead or seriously injured, otherwise men will begin retaliating by getting restraining orders against women to protect mens' emotions...
Well the day an emotion picks up a gun or a knife and kills someone, then that argument will make sense...
Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 23, 2005 2:33:04 AM
"Is it possible to dispute and have the order dismissed."
Yes, it is...MOST of those orders are dismissed actually...it's really quite difficult to get one of those orders established permanently...so just go get an attorney...
Posted by: at Mar 23, 2005 2:35:21 AM
