In essence, the criminal justice system is forcing couples to separate—whether they want to or not.

This excellent piece takes on the human side of the TRO system (Seattle Weekly, 10/30/07).  Without saying so outright, it shows in disturbing detail the nitty-gritty of how the state has used the domestic violence scare to reach into every nook and cranny of what we once believed to be our private lives. 

I recently posted a piece about a woman, Ann Bauer, and her husband who are currently under an indefinite "no contact" order because he saved her from being hit by a car by throwing her out of harm's way.  That was interpreted by a passing motorist as an act of domestic violence and called the police.  The police officer, who had witnessed none of the couple's behavior, nevertheless reported it as DV.  Based solely on that hearsay report, a judge issued an order forbidding the married pair from speaking to each other or being in each other's presence.  How they're supposed to live their lives as a married couple or raise their children is, apparently, not the judge's department.

I suppose I don't need to mention that Bauer's case is not an isolated one.  As the article linked to makes clear, it's all too common.  And, as in the Bauer case, whether DV actually occurred makes no difference to the issuance of a no contact order.  One will be issued irrespective of that, just as long as someone claims that DV did in fact take place.

If DV does occur, the actual wishes of the victim are likewise irrelevant.  As one veteran Seattle criminal defense attorney said,

"On the majority of my domestic violence cases, probably 90 percent of the time, the victim does not want a no-contact order." Yet, she says, the victim "is not listened to. She's not respected. Her opinions are not valued."

An attorney in the public defender's office adds,

"People have a right to make bad choices," agrees Pat Valerio, another public defender who works for the Associated Counsel for the Accused. A no-contact order, she says, is supposed to be for the benefit of someone who wants to be protected. It's not "to have all the power of government coming in and saying, 'We know better than you; you need to get over this guy.'"

Aye, there's the rub.  That is precisely what's happened.  The state has used the issue of DV to dramatically expand its powers over the lives of everyday citizens.  Thomas Jefferson would not be surprised in the least.  As Ann Bauer learned and as Pat Valerio said, the state simply substitutes its wishes for those of the people it is supposedly helping.

Of course there are always cases in which a victim of DV truly is too scared of his/her abuser to tell the truth to the district attorney.  But public defender Karen Baker says,

"that fear is not valid in the vast majority of cases, and the harm done by prosecutors acting on that fear is a huge problem."

In other words, prosecutors use the excuse of a single bad case to expand state power in all cases, irrespective of the facts.

As seriously as no contact orders are for adults, they're all that more so for children.  No contact orders routinely include that there be no "indirect" contact and what that means is that a parent (usually a father) can't even get someone else to arrange visits with his kids.  Baker adds,

"There are a lot of kids going fatherless while their dads' cases are pending."

I've said it before and I'll say it again; despite some pro-family rhetoric, states do their share to break up families.  States do plenty to keep fathers and children separate.  The system of no contact orders and TROs is a big part of that.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 at 8:28 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence/DV System, Crime/Criminal Justice System/Police. You can trackback from your own site.