No Contact Orders Expand State Power, Split Up Families
October 27th, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.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.
"));
19 queries. 0.337 seconds.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
I'd actually have to disagree here. When people make repeated phone calls to 911 for DV issues they are wasting public resources. It costs money to send the police out, it costs tax money to make arrests, it costs tax money to hold people in jail, and it costs the tax payer for all of the legal prodeedings that become of a DV call. So here's the rub: if you want the continued freedom to continue a bad relationship then fine: DO NOT call the police. If you're going to call the police, waste tax payer funded resources, and get the courts involved in your life then the courts do have an interest in making sure your bad choices don't waste even more resources.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Mark: are you serious?
I understand your concern for saving our tax dollars, but your solution is just crazy. We don't need to split couple by force (regardless of the facts of their particular cases) to save on taxes. It's like shredding the constitution and depriving children of their homes, to save money!! How about telling people that if they call police more than say 3 times in a year for a DV problem, the police will simply refuse to intervene any more?
October 27th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
How about telling people that if they call police more than say 3 times in a year for a DV problem, the police will simply refuse to intervene any more?
How about a "bill" of 3,000 for the police visit after you use up your free 3 visits per year it costs $3,000 per call on a DV issue?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
This forcing of couples apart joins seizure of children, financial reward for divorce, trumped up DV, bans on physical disciplining of children and the loss of male headship in a household. All these relatively new pushes have one particular feature in common: the destruction of all forms of authority.
Kids no longer see their parents as authority figures. They see all adult strangers as potential threats, rather than probable representatives (and enforcers) of societal values. Wives laugh at the idea of a husband having any kind of authority. School teachers have none. The only authority figure remaining is the state, and to paraphrase a well-known phrase, the state appears to be a jealous state.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:52 am
I had a discuision with a police officer up here in Canada and he saw no issue with the police officers choice. He said that you get a DV call, you go out and they swear up and down nothing happened. You then get a call again, and again from the same people. If you do nothing, you can get sued for failing to act, even when they say there was no DV. So we are basically forcing our police officers to do exactly what this guy did.
To a lesser degree we are doing the same thign to judges. If they don't put the order in, and something DOES happen, the media and everyone else jumps all over them and demands they be thrown off the bench.
It's certainly an interesting perspective he has.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:55 am
See my posts- For one if the rcmp or police are getting sued after the fact because they fail to act, then that is the first thing that needs to change.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Talk about a rock and hard place. On one hand what Robert talks about is correct. There is most certainly a problem of the system taking matters into its own hands to the point that they ignore evidence (or lack thereof) and the people they claim to protect. On the other jon has a point that law enforcement and the judicial system are always under the spotlight being examined by people looking for the slighterst excuse to kick them out and push their own "won't someone think of the children" agenda. Wasn't there a judge in Virgina last year that pretty much got booted off the bench for using unconventional methods to settle a visitation dispute and by unconventional he didn't just automatically side with the mother like judges are "supposed to" (and shortly after he was booted the mother in that exact case kidnapped the child. Schull I think his name was.)?
Its like these men who are being saved from false rape allegations by video taping their sex acts. Yeah there aren't many of them but really when you are being saved only by the grace of wanting to record your sex acts something is wrong.
There is fear at work. The system overacts for fear of being held responsible for an incident that people will say the system could and should have prevented. I wonder how many men have begun recording their sex acts for evidence in case they are hit with a rape accusation later instead of satifying their own ego?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Maybe someone should the President Obama what is going on, because he keeps saying that too many fathers are abandoning their children.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Ed, Saint Obama isn't gong to do anything to resolve this because the resulting chaos gives him justification for more social programs, more spending, and more "tough on deadbeat dads" programs. He's got his special interests to think about, just like any other politician.
But the message to take from this is to apply the conflicts of interest and the resulting indifference to what actually happened to any other aspect of our lives that the government wants control of. Healthcare being a prime example of this - how many choices are going to be made on your behalf because someone can't take the risk of trusting you to act in your own best interest, or to protect some sacred cow program, or to promote something that's just bad science? Do you really want gender politics or other radical dogma in your healthcare plan? Look what it's done to our justice system!
October 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I recently witnessed one of the egregious double standards in DV/medical care this past week. I was in the hospital twice because of a serious side effect that burst most of the blood vessels in my face. The first thing most people say is that I look like I've had the crap beat out of me. Both eyes are bloody and I have two black eyes.
Not once was I asked if I felt "safe at home".
Contrast that to my wife who has been to the hospital for pregnancy complications, delivery, ovarian cysts, and other random ailments over the years. Every single time she has been grilled both in my presence and when I stepped away even though there was not a mark on her. Every time they not only asked, but probed and I'm positive if she had hesitated they would have had social workers step in.
It's sickening.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Mark says...
October 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Mark says...If you're going to call the police, waste tax payer funded resources, and get the courts involved in your life then the courts do have an interest in making sure your bad choices don't waste even more resources.
Anyone can pick up the phone and call the police Mark. Anyone can ask for a restraining order Mark. WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO WARRENT A RESTRAINING ORDER, IT HURTS THE CHILDREN. My ex and I go to a place to drop off and pick up my child where we are not supposed to see each other because she is so afraid. There was NO EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A RESTRAINING ORDER, AS A MATTER OF FACT I HAD EVIDENCE TO SHOW THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ONE !!! It is amazing she can WALK IN where we drop my child off when she wants to because she is NOT AFRAID. I am a FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. I can NOT get in any trouble or I would lose my job, and most importantly the right to see MY CHILD !
Due to the make-up of the state's STANDARD ORDER, my ex gets to see my child much more often than I do. When my child starts activities, a restraining order will keep me from being involved (OR GREATLY LIMIT) my involvement in my child's activities. It is another way to CONTROL and get their way. I have been told "HE DOES NOT NEED YOU, HE HAS ME AND MY FAMILY. When there is NO EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A RESTRAINING ORDER, THERE IS NO REASON THERE SHOULD BE ONE. IF MY LOVE AND TIME AS A PARENT WAS VALUED BY OUR SYSTEM AS IMPORTANT TO MY CHILD AS MY MONEY, THERE WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. I THOUGH OUR CURRENT SYSTEM WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
There was a time when the state got is power by declaring enemies in foreign lands, and sending our men off to be killed in wars which were glorified, as were those young men when their bodies were returned in boxes.
Then the people realized what their government was up to and put a stop to it. Today our "wars" are no more than police actions in foreign lands, and the body counts are tiny. And even then, it took a direct attack on America's largest city for our people to tolerate any of our soldiers being sacrificed.
But government has found a much more insidious scam in its divisive strategies of setting woman against man, man against woman.
It is certainly the sickest "war" our government has ever used against its own people.
How long do the mal-functionaries in our courts, family destroying bureaucracies, and legislatures, think it will be before the people demand justice against them?
October 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Restraining orders aren't the subject here. We're talking about courts issuing cease contact orders to people because the police are regularly being summoned to their home for DV calls. DV calls make up a rather high precentage of the calls answered by law enforcement, and the costs of this are very signficant to the public. If you want to carry on a violent relationship, great if that's what floats your boat. Don't call the cops when things get wild, or you can probably expect a judge to say: "enough wasting of public resources, you two need to cease all contact." Again, not talking about people that go out and abuse the idiotic restraining order system as a weapon in divorce cases.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Mark,
Why not just enforce existing "filing a false police report" laws? The problem, like everything with DV, is proving anything.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:54 am
To make such a charge the burden of proof would be on the state to establish that a false report had been made. In many of these cases that simply isn't accurate. The police are responding to legit domestic violence, in the usual form of two individuals going at it. In many of these cases the spousal combat becomes a regular occurance to which the police are summoned numerous times. So yeah, there does come a point where it is prudent for a judge to tell two individuals that they need to terminate the behavior by not contacting each other. If you want to lead such a life, again, go for it. Simply beat the crap out of eachother without calling the cops and wasting lots of tax payer resources in the resulting process. Even in false report cases the DA's office has better things to do with its time than put on trials with low success potential and waste even more resources on these people.
It's kind of like a teacher I had in high school used to say: "you can be controlled and orderly in your behavior by internal or external means, but you will be orderly in your conduct." When these people's behavior creates a burden on public resources they may need to be controlled externally, via cease contact orders.
October 29th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Right on Offended Dad; any MRA who voted for Obama is going to have voter's remorse throughout the next VERY LONG three and a half years!!!
October 29th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I didn't mean to single out Obama - I refer to him as "Saint" Obama, because he enjoys little scrutiny by the media for the things he says, and the fawning over that the press has done for him the last 2 years. I used to refer to Saint Hillary for the same reasons.
It used to be that Pat Robertson and Jessie Jackson, both presidential candidates, didn't suffer much analysis of their political plans and political history. Whatever restraint that the religious right enjoyed has vanished, but not so much the extreme left.
I hold a great deal of skepticism for any politician that's out there trying to save me from myself, or has some grandiose program for equality, declares a "war on X", or vilifies any section of our population, or suggests any program that punishes taking care of yourself and being self reliant, and rewards helplessness.
The restraining order is the result of lawsuits where the police were called, no one was arrested, and then someone went back and murdered or harmed their spouse. The result is that due process and personal responsibility were thrown out the door because law enforcement, city and county governments decided that their exposure to liability for the actions of others requires them to take extreme, one-size-fits-all remedies. The easiest to picture bogey-man in this case is men. It takes no effort to present us as an easy to understand, viscerally appreciated potential menace, and it's easy to tap into our cultural desire to protect people who can't defend themselves, e.g. women.
Men have, for lack of a better word, become a watered down "willie horton" ad for any politician.
Unfortunately, it doesn't take into consideration any malfeasance or manipulation by the presumed victim, nor does it take into consideration the things that women typically do to retaliate, while not violent, are still just as serious.
For example - I got tossed out of my house for a year, (my house, not joint property). i still had to pay for it, PLUS pay child support, PLUS pay spousal support, PLUS pay for all of the insurance. I literally had $20. a month to live on. My ex never paid the bills she was ordered to pay, so I was stuck with thousands in unpaid utilities when was finally free to return.
My ex vandalized the house, destroyed leased vehicles, maxed out credit cards, intercepted mail, made false allegations, called the police constantly reporting harassment, called me at all hours of the day and night, called constantly at work, tried to get me to come over to the house or to reconcile (in violation of our restraining order), denied me access to my children, opened new credit cards, overdrafted ever account, wrote hot checks on closed accounts, slandered me with some pretty offensive things, called my internet provider and broke into my email, and the list goes on.
The court didn't care. The police didn't care. I don't agree with men who assault their exes, and I take a dim view of being provoked to that level of response, but I can understand the frustration when the police and courts WILL NOT ACT, and a woman learns that effectively, she can violate TROs and commit as much slander and libel as she wants, make false allegations all she wants, and there will be zero repercussions. The situation is that only one person is compelled to act in good faith, and the other is encouraged to be as confrontational and antagonistic as possible.
I guess we should take Evan Stark's view that the state has actually saved this guy's life.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Our system of justice is broken, my ex found another guy while I was deployed with the military and we divorced over it. Now he is dad and I am John. It started out slowly with the alienation by my ex. I tried so hard to keep a relationship alive over the years, but over time my kids apparently stopped wanting to see me according to my ex. My ex then cut off visitation this past year and I dare not go to the courts anymore because they do not care about father child relationships. They only care about how much more I can pay in child support because they get federal money for every dollar they collect. Every time I went to court over visitation they did absolutley nothing, I have never had any charge of DV or abuse nor have I ever been arrested for that matter. But they have eagerly jacked up support obligations every time I have gone to court. Now I pay $800./mo for the priviledge to not see my kids. It is parental kidnapping with State sponsorship in my opinion.
My ex's current spouse was convicted of DV and child abuse based upon assault of my ex in front of my kids. My ex was later investigated for abuse of our kids while I was deployed overseas by duct taping their hands, legs ,and mouth's shut as punishment. Child Protective Services investigated and my ex admitted to doing it. I have the reports. But no charges were filed for abuse because she admitted to it and cooperated. It is a double standard. A man would have been crucified and on the news that evening.
I tried to get custody with that evidence of their abuse but unless you have unlimited financial resources you will never make it to the custody evaluator. The lawyers will bleed you till you run dry and leave you upside down in the end. Our courts are hostile to fathers period. I just hope that someday my kids will try and find me when they get older.