Proposed One-Year Waiting Period for Divorcing Parents

For the women we serve, a mandatory one-year waiting period for a divorce is a terrible idea.

Once women gather the courage to leave an abusive relationship, they take their first steps on what is often a very long journey before they are actually free of their former partner. That journey is longest for mothers who are leaving a husband. Divorce from an abusive partner is often fraught with complications, and men with a history of using violence are more likely to end up with custody of their children (shared or otherwise) because they are much more likely to fight for it as a way to continue contact with their former victim. Women who were married to the father of their children sometimes never truly get away, because they are forced by the courts to co-parent with their abusive former partner and, therefore, must continue to stay in contact with him. Adding another hoop, another arbitrary length of time during which he can try to convince or scare her into coming back to him, is, at best, counter-productive and, at worst, incredibly harmful.

These statutes often claim to have a domestic violence waiver, but domestic violence is often hard to prove. It usually comes down to her word against his, especially if she was never able or willing (because of fear, immigration status, or some other reason) to contact law enforcement to create a paper trail.

Whatever the reasoning behind proposed guidelines such as these, the reality is that battered women don't need any more obstacles in their path to safety.

Topeka Decriminalizes Domestic Violence

In a follow-up to a previous post, we find that Topeka, Kansas has made good on their threat to remove their domestic violence law from the books (trigger warning for photos of injuries), making DV legal in the city of Topeka. Domestic battery is still illegal in Shawnee County, the county in which Topeka is located, but the Shawnee District Attorney had previously announced that, due to budget cuts, he would no longer prosecute misdemeanors, including domestic violence, occurring in Topeka.

Topeka has had at least 35 reported incidents of domestic battery or assault since early September. Those cases are not being pursued, and as of last Friday, 18 people jailed have been released without facing charges, according to Topeka police. Prosecutors and police have refused to discuss details of the cases out of concern for victims' privacy, making it difficult to assess in what situations suspects aren't being prosecuted.

The use of a weapon in an assault or battery makes a crime a felony, which would be handled in state court.

Taylor's decision has prompted furious reactions nationwide, and county commissioners say they've received hundreds of emails in the past few days from people upset by Taylor's move and the city's response. Outside the Shawnee County Courthouse on Tuesday, about two dozen people carried signs protesting the moves.

It also doesn't help that the possible repeal comes during National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

"It can't continue like this. They have to be prosecuted," said County Commissioner Ted Ensley, a Democrat. "Supposing they're charged and they're not prosecuted and it ends up they go back and cause a death of a woman or a child."

We can only hope that officials resolve this situation quickly, and that this debacle doesn't lead to a homicide.

Topeka Considers Decriminalizing Domestic Violence

Officials in Topeka, Kansas are in the process of deciding what they feel is more important: money or women's lives.

In Shawnee County, the county in which Topeka is located, the District Attorney is facing budget cuts. He therefore decided that he would no longer prosecute misdemeanors, including domestic violence cases, that occurred within the city of Topeka. He instead would expect those cases to be prosecuted by Topeka Municipal Court.

Officials in Topeka say that they do not have the resources to prosecute the DV cases and so, in a political maneuver they hope will force the DA to rethink his position, the city is considering removing their domestic violence laws from the books, thus making domestic violence perfectly legal in Topeka. It would still, however, be illegal in Shawnee County, but they County would be responsible for choosing whether or not to prosecute individual cases.

We hope you are as appalled as we are. Women's very lives are being put in jeopardy over political squabbling. Until a decision has been made, individuals arrested for domestic battery are being released from jail with very little consequence for their actions because no one, the City or the County, is filing charges against them. We hope Topeka will come to their senses before they vote on the issue next week.

Anti-Immigrant Laws Put Women in Danger

Georgia's HB 87 immigration law is controversial for a great number of reasons, but one of the least discussed is the danger in which it places immigrant victims of domestic violence.

The delegation, led by Domestic Workers Alliance, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, and others, described the stories of women who had suffered indirect consequences of anti-immigrant policies, due in large part to the intense culture of fear that deters women from coming forward about abuse they've suffered or seeking help from public institutions. Anxieties about any contact with authorities -- even as the victim of violence -- could turn many women away from seeking law enforcement protection, which further segregates immigrants, whatever their legal status, from the rights they deserve under the law.

Already, under current immigration policies, a woman who fears getting caught without papers may often make a cruelly rational choice to stay with an abusive partner, rather than report domestic violence--in hopes of avoiding deportation or separation from her children. Many women may also forgo basic health care for themselves or their children for fear of coming under the radar of law enforcement.

Some members of Congress are trying to expand such laws, and thus such fear, to the entire nation.

According to immigrant advocates, a new immigration enforcement bill being considered in Congress would undermine existing immigration law by removing prosecutorial discretion and deferred action, two components that protect undocumented victims of domestic violence.

Michelle Ortiz — the supervising attorney of Lucha, a unit within the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center — says that Rep. Lamar Smith’s Hinder the Administration Legalization Temptation Act (better known as the HALT Act) would force immigration authorities to deport victims of domestic violence who reach out for help.
...

“Under the Violence Against Women Act, which has existed for 15 years, there have been specific protections for victims of domestic violence,” Ortiz says, “particularly for people who self-petition, who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.”

“When their self-petition is approved, and have already proven they are a victim and married this person in good faith, the Immigration Service gives them deferred action. That is not a legal status, but a protection from deportation, and provides a means to apply for work authorization.”

By ending deferred action, the HALT Act would strip immigration authorities of their authority to protect victims. The HALT Act would also affect the prosecutorial discretion memos issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which, according to Ortiz, are working.

We live in a state where nearly 100 women are killed each year in domestic violence homicides and in a country where a woman is battered every 9 seconds. We cannot afford any policies that deter women from seeking help, regardless of their immigration status. We will continue to update you if there are opportunities for legislative action on this issue.

Nicki Minaj and Fighting Back

Last week, singer Nicki Minaj was involved in an incident of domestic violence during which, according to the police report, her companion hit her with a suitcase. Minaj chose not to press charges and then denied the account to the media. Taking to Twitter, she said (paraphrasing due to the adult language in the original tweet) people are stupid to believe that a man would hit her and not leave on a stretcher.

We hear a lot of women say that. Some think that domestic violence victims are weak. Others just think that their own self-esteem (or temper) is too high to "put up with" violence used against them. Zerlina Maxwell at TheLoop21 addresses this somewhat (clicking this link takes you to Minaj's original tweet, which contains adult language):

Being the victim of violence doesn’t make you weak. It makes the perpetrator of that violence look weak. Furthermore, Minaj’s insistence that she would have retaliated against the man if she had really been hit is wholly unacceptable.

We need to have a mature conversation around gender violence. It’s not appropriate for anyone to be hit or leave in a stretcher. The automatic response from Minaj should not be one that coincides with her stage image, she is a human being after all. Even if she didn’t want to admit to being hit, a more empowering response could have been “I was not the victim of domestic abuse but if you find yourself in that situation call the police or tell a friend. Get Help!”

Of course, these kinds of comments are dangerous for more reasons than just that violence should not be met with more violence. I talked to a woman literally as I was typing this post who was struggling to admit that her partner was abusive, that it was really all that bad, despite the fact that he has choked her in front of their child and is threatening to kill her. She said that it's hard to believe that it is real because she isn't the "meek" kind of woman that she thought "usually ended up in these situations". We are stereotyping domestic violence victims so much that they now cannot recognize themselves enough to seek help!

There's another reason why this reaction isn't helpful. WRC offers two free classes every month that the local judicial districts call "anger management". Women are mandated by the courts to attend these classes because they have been arrested for family violence. Some of the women in the class genuinely have anger management issues, but most are victims of domestic violence who were arrested for fighting back. Our classes are 1/3 DV support group, 1/3 anger management, and 1/3 instructions for how to avoid future arrests and how to get this one expunged from your record.

In the class, we often show a video about the Framingham 8, a group of 8 women in Framingham, Massachusetts who were imprisoned for killing a spouse or partner after years of domestic violence. Several of those women have since won their freedom by using Battered Women's Syndrome as a defense. We had a woman in class recently, who you will recall was there because she had been arrested for fighting back, who was assaulted again by her partner a few days after the class. She called to tell us that she thinks that video might have saved her life. Instead of fighting back and possibly escalating the violence, getting arrested again, or killing her partner, she just took the abuse. For her, that was her best-case scenario.

It's not a pretty picture, but here we are. How disheartening is it that we are asked to teach classes for victims that instruct them not to fight back or they might go to jail? The unfortunate truth is that many victims of domestic violence do go to jail for fighting back, or for killing their partners, and the effects of that often last longer than the effects of the physical violence. Once you are arrested, it is harder to find a job. While you are in jail, your children might be taken from you (and sometimes even given to your batterer). You are labeled the "aggressor" by the legal system, a label which follows you throughout your interactions with the courts as you later try to press charges or file a protective order. That label also prevents you from receiving services from the court victim advocates and even some domestic violence programs (though certainly not ours). To help women have the best chance of rebuilding their lives after domestic violence, while they are in it, we are encouraged to tell them just to take it.

How can we get to the hard work of ending domestic violence when we have to tell 80ish women per month just to take it?

We are thankful to be able to offer these classes, for free, because instead victims who are arrested would have to pay a more traditional anger management program to treat them like a criminal. We are lucky to have this means of introducing our agency to women who might otherwise never attend a DV support group or hear about our services. We are also disgusted that so many women who don't belong there end up in these classes at all, and we work hard for the day when our community no longer punishes women for the crimes committed against them.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Follow-up

Since our last post, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the famous and influential French economist who was accused of sexual assault and attempted rape by a New York hotel maid, was released from house arrest after prosecutors decided that the woman's past would make prosecution of Strauss-Kahn difficult.

According to a letter filed by prosecutors in court on Friday, the housekeeper from Guinea lied about her actions right after the alleged attack, as well as on her tax returns and in an application for asylum.

So women who lie on their tax returns can't be raped?

Certainly an accuser's credibility will be in question in a crime with no witnesses, but rape cases in particular often take on the feel of a well-organized character assassination against victims. The New York Post ran a front-page story alleging the victim in this case was a "hooker". Others have called her a liar, criminal, or gold-digger. Still others have said she shouldn't be believed because she is just a hotel maid.

A poster at the Crunk Feminist Collective lays it out well:

So what’s the takeaway from this? What are we to understand about violence against women in the US?

It seems that in cases of violence against women, the burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulders of the woman who brings the case to court. And then we wonder why only 16% of rapes are reported. As noted in that same report, when survivors of sexual assault DO disclose what happened to them, they often face skepticism, blame, and further humiliation from professionals, families, and friends, amounting to what many survivors consider a “second victimization.”

Here’s why I think this:

First, as the DSK case demonstrates, in order for these cases to be taken seriously, the accusers must not have any credibility issues.

Next, people who are poor, immigrant, women, differently-abled, LGBTQ, etc. will never be able to conform to the standards of credibility – because their very identities mark them as “outsiders” or “deviants” – from the jump.

So, then, if decide to brave the inevitable challenges and try avail themselves of our criminal “justice” their “character” is attacked, cases are dismissed, an/or forgotten.

Listen up, fellow crunk feminists, it’s a legal-socio-political set-up!

Dramatics aside, this belies not just a problem in this case, but also in the way that we think about violence against women. Fundamentally, it is problem in the way that we deploy a system of justice that is, at it’s core, sexist. For this reason, it is clearly not set up to deal with the problem of violence against women. In fact, seems to consistently diminish the ability of women to find justice in cases of sexual assault.

Those accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty. Can't we extend the same courtesy toward victims? Instead of smearing them in the media and attacking their characters, can't we assume that it is possible for any woman to be raped. Trust us, there isn't much to gain from falsely accusing someone, especially someone famous and well-connected, of rape. This case illustrates that pretty well. Instead, can we assume that a possible victim has a good reason to make the report, and allow the courts to do their job in trying the case? Is it so impossible to believe that women who lie on their taxes, women who have friends in jail, women who have prostituted themselves, women who drink a lot or have lots of sex, or women who otherwise don't look like "perfect" victims can still be raped? In fact, those women are probably more vulnerable to sexual assault because they are less likely to be believed by law enforcement and judges. If only 6% of rapists ever see a day in jail, leaving 94% available to rape again, we would be better served taking women's claims seriously and making it a less traumatizing process to prosecute those who use violence against women. We may never know if DSK is actually guilty of this crime, because it may never make it to trial. For women everywhere who have experienced sexual assault, how is that justice?

DV and Custody Evaluations

The Huffington Post has an article that looks at the differing beliefs about domestic violence held by custody evaluators based on whether the individual evaluator has ever had DV training. Really, this could describe anyone:

The custody evaluators whose views tended towards viewing aggression as situational violence reported less training in domestic violence. This group generally viewed domestic violence as stress induced, normative and mutual. As a result, these evaluators minimized spouse abuse as relevant to child custody decisions. They also thought that false allegations of violence were common. In terms of custody and parenting plans, they prioritized coparenting and father-child relationships.

On the other hand, custody evaluators who characterized domestic violence as intimate terrorism took a different view of custody. They were more likely to report extensive training in domestic violence. These evaluators viewed spouse abuse as a significant factor in determining child custody. They thought that false allegations of abuse were rare. This group of evaluators distinguished between types of violence and expressed strong views that custody and parenting plans should be different for each of these types of violence. In the case of intimate terrorism, they prioritized victim safety over ongoing contact with fathers.

The summary really is this: people who know a lot about domestic violence take it more seriously. People who don't really know much about it think DV isn't much of a problem.

This is especially scary when it comes to the courts. These evaluators make decisions about custody that can put both child and adult victims at risk. Many abusers use custody exchanges (the meeting of the two parents to physically pass the children back and forth) as a guaranteed opportunity to continue harassing or abusing their former partner. Abuser parents can also bring the children back late, insist on rearrangements to the schedule, refuse to bring the children back at all, etc. as a way to continue exerting control over their former partner's life. If the parent with a history of using violence has unsupervised access to the children, they also have additional opportunities to harm their former partner by threatening to harm or actually harming the children. In addition, men who batter pass on their beliefs about women to their children and model abusive and disrespectful behavior for their children that the kids often pick up.

If custody evaluators and others with the power to make custody decisions for a family do not take domestic violence seriously, they won't understand any of these things. If they do not consider the effects and dynamics of domestic violence when making custody decisions, they are opening that family to a continuation of the behavior instead of communicating to the batterer that his controlling tactics should end. Custody evaluators have a unique opportunity to make families safer by ordering supervised exchanges, supervised visits, or no custody or visitation, but most don't do so. Keep that in mind when you hear men's groups lamenting how judges are keeping good fathers away from their children. It actually takes quite a lot for an evaluator or judge to get to that point. More often, women and children who have experienced domestic violence cannot truly end their relationship with a batterer until the children are grown.

Mel Gibson Update

Mel Gibson is expected to appear in court on Friday and plead no contest to simple battery. He will probably avoid jail time altogether.

Of course he will.

The Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that, of total calls to the police for family violence in our state, only 40% are prosecuted, and half of those are dismissed or pled down. That means that less than 20% of men in Georgia who batter their partners will ever see a day in jail. Since most women never call the police, it is probably significantly less than 20%. When did all batterers start getting the star treatment?

Guilty Until Proven Victim

We're used to using and hearing the words "domestic violence victim" and "rape victim", but when does a person become a victim under the law?

According to Georgia State Rep. Bobby Franklin (R-Marietta), a victim should not be called a victim until the person who victimized them is convicted of a crime. Therefore, you cannot be a victim of rape until a person is proven guilty of raping you.

It almost makes sense. After all, in this country, our legal system is meant to assume you are innocent until you are proven to be guilty. Therefore, until a crime is proven to be committed, there is no victim of that crime.

However, the lawmaker in question isn't applying his objection to the word "victim" to every crime. Robbery victims still get to remain victims. Trespassing victims are still victims. According to Representative Franklin, only the victimhood of rape, stalking, obscene telephone contact with a minor, and domestic violence victims should be called into question. We wonder why he chose those specific crimes.

Melissa at Shakesville has a theory.

Could it be because those are the only crimes around which we have narratives about multitudinous false accusations, despite the fact that false reports of sexual violence are lower than false reports of auto theft, and despite the fact that there is a higher threshold for convincing law enforcement to take action on reports of sexual violence and harassment than any other crime, and despite the vanishingly low percentage of reports that go to trial and the minuscule conviction rates?

Could it be because implying that people who report sex crimes and/or harassment are liars is an integral tool and prevalent narrative of the rape culture, which exists to protect rapists—a pretty significant constituency of any politician, since around 12% of men (pdf) have, by their own admission, committed sexual assault or rape, which is certainly much higher than the percentage of the population who commits auto theft, or bank robbery, or fraud?

Georgia ranks 11th in the nation for incidences of forcible rape and 10th in the nation for the number of women killed by men. We cannot afford laws that further stigmatize the reporting and prosecution of crimes against women by assuming that victims are liars. If you think our state congress should concentrate more on protecting women than on men who have been accused of committing a crime, call them and tell them so. Visit congress.org to find your representative.

DV and Other Things That Won't Get You Fired

According to an article on Gawker this week, the FBI considers domestic violence committed by its employees to be less worthy of a firing than fudging an expense report or shoplifting.

If employees of law enforcement agencies know that committing a violent crime against their spouse won't even get them fired, and we know that batterers who are law enforcement officers are less likely to be arrested, prosecuted, and/or found guilty of domestic violence, there is nothing in place that lets battering cops know that those actions are anything less than perfectly socially acceptable. And if their employers tell them that domestic violence isn't a big deal, even if they aren't batterers themselves, how might your average police officer or sheriff's deputy respond to a DV call?

If our nation's top law enforcement agencies don't take domestic violence seriously, how can we expect local officers to do so?

Man Killed in Violent Altercation

A Spalding County woman was forced to stab her husband in self-defense because he was strangling their son.

No charges are expected against a Spalding County woman who stabbed and killed her husband Sunday night as he was attempting to choke the couple's son, police said.
Investigators believe the incident began with a physical fight between Ricky Evans, 39, and 37-year-old Schmanthe Evans, said Capt. Tony Ranieri with the Spalding County Sheriff's Office. After Ricky Evans struck his wife, the couple's son, Reauarius Evans, got involved, Ranieri said.

Reauarius Evans called 911 to report the incident, and his mother called two minutes later to report the same incident, Ranieri said. Deputies found Ricky Evans dead inside the front door of the Highfalls Road home, he said. Reauarius Evans sustained a severe cut to his hand and was transported by ambulance to Spalding Regional Hospital, where he was treated and released.

Investigators believe the woman acted to protect her son's life, and charges are not expected to be filed, Ranieri said.

"This is a very tragic incident that took place and the only findings the investigators could determine were that Schmanthe Evans was trying to protect her son," Ranieri said in a statement Monday night.

Family members told deputies the couple had fought constantly over the years and that Ricky Evans had a history of violence.

It is unfortunate that many women are forced to take the life of another person to keep themselves safe. Here in DeKalb County, two women were tried in 2010 for killing a spouse who had a history of abuse against them. Thankfully, both of them escaped spending the rest of their lives in prison, but their lives were changed forever. It is vital that we provide women with whatever supports we can to help them end abusive relationships before they have to take such drastic measures.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the Evans family.

The Effects of Wrongful Arrest

The Albany Herald provided coverage this week of a Domestic Violence Awareness Month event hosted by a sister DV agency in Georgia called Liberty House. The discussion focused on an extremely important topic: the number of women whose lives are negatively impacted by calling the police because they are wrongfully arrested for using violence in self-defense.

It bothers domestic-violence survivors that victims have to fear being jailed for protecting themselves.

“My husband put a .357 Magnum to my head, and he beat me with a belt,” said Karen Lawrence, an Albany resident. “But if I hit him and gave him a scratch, he would just say go ahead and call the police. They’ll put us both in jail.”

Lawrence spoke from the audience at a Liberty House-sponsored discussion on domestic violence labeled “The Face of Domestic Violence” Thursday at Darton College.

Her experience also touched on Tuesday’s gunshot killing of Christopher Donaldson by his ex-wife Marlina Hamilton, Lawrence said.

“If the man leaves when the police were there and then he comes back, everyone I know in that situation knows that the man comes back much more mad,” Lawrence said. “Any woman will tell you that.

He is mad you called the police and he is mad you made him leave.”

Women's Resource Center offers a twice-monthly class that provides "anger management" for women who have been arrested for domestic violence. What we have observed in this class is that most of the women were arrested for using violence in self-defense. Other women were arrested for provoking a fight that they knew was coming because he had a history of using violence against her and she was tired of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Many of the women could benefit from anger management instruction, but most need domestic violence counseling and services.

The effects of these arrests cannot be understated. Many women lose their jobs, some lose their housing or public benefits, and some lose their children to their batterers or to state custody. These women also learn very quickly not to call the police ever again, meaning that they also lose the protections of the legal system. These wrongful arrests allow her to keep being victimized and are more likely to keep her in the relationship than to help her escape from it. This is an important discussion that many organizations are afraid to have and we applaud Liberty House and the Albany Herald for talking about this issue.

Firearms in the Home Make DV Murder More Likely

The Federal Way Mirror reports on a study from the New England Journal of Medicine that found that having a gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or partner.

Another study published in the Journal of Family Psychology shows a higher likelihood for children to experience behavior problems once they have witnessed firearm-related domestic violence. One East Coast state, however, did consider enacting legislation that would make it easier for domestic violence victims to obtain firearms — only to face denunciation from domestic violence victim advocacy groups that instead support stronger legislation against gun ownership for abusers and from various police agencies that were not eager to have more weapons being introduced into volatile situations that often require police intervention.

The position in a Sept. 11 Federal Way Mirror column by Mark Knapp — that since laws designed to reduce the frequency and severity of domestic violence crimes don't always work, and that potential crime victims should be trained in the use of firearms (and encouraged to get firearms by government attorneys) so that these potential victims can enact vigilante justice — is sending the wrong message to our community. This is not an issue of the proper exercise of a Second Amendment right. This is an issue of the responsible exercise of a Second Amendment right. Study after study shows introducing more firearms (by a perpetrator or a victim) into a domestic violence situation normally results in an escalation of that violence.

Many people we talk to at community education events say that if they were ever in an abusive relationship, they would get their own gun and fight back. These studies prove what a bad idea that can be. Instead of introducing more guns into homes where violence is taking place, we should support the enforcement of the guns laws we have in place to remove guns from batterers' reach entirely.

Ban on Guns for Batterers Upheld

In a follow-up to this post, a federal appeals court upheld a ban on gun possession for a domestic violence offender in a ruling that several anti-violence advocates applauded Wednesday for providing some clarity after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent landmark decision on gun restrictions.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled 10-1 on Tuesday to reinstate a southern Wisconsin man's conviction for having a gun while on probation for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction. The decision followed the high court's ruling last month that made Chicago's outright handgun ban unenforceable. The court held that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live.

The Wisconsin case was being closely watched by advocates of gun rights and domestic abuse victims, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. While the court signaled some gun restrictions may survive legal challenges, it offered assurances only on laws that bar felons from having guns.

"Even with the new definition of the Second Amendment, it (Tuesday's ruling) shows that you can still have reasonable gun restrictions," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said of the appellate ruling. "This case really reaffirms that you can have limits."

We are grateful to the Appeals Court for making what we see as a sound ruling protecting the safety of women across the country.

Help for Domestic Violence Convicts

No, you didn't read the title wrong. Yesterday, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state and local gun laws may not unconstitutionally infringe an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. NPR reports:

We have made clear, said Alito, that bans on handguns for felons and the mentally ill are permissible so, too, are laws barring the carrying of handguns near schools, in government buildings and laws that impose conditions on the commercial sale of guns.

These and other "reasonable"restrictions will be allowed; however, the amount of restriction that is reasonable is up for considerable debate. For instance, domestic violence advocates would argue that it is quite reasonable for those charged with or convicted of domestic violence, or those against whom a protective order has been granted, to have their gun rights restricted. After all, according to the Georgia Commission on Family Violence, women are more likely to be killed with a firearm than by all other means combined. This is not Georgia-specific, but is a nationwide truth.

However, other groups find this restriction less than reasonable. In fact, they find restricting the gun rights of batterers so egregious that batterers are the very first group whose gun rights they will fight to restore.

TOTENBERG: Herb Titus, counsel for the Gun Owners of America, agrees. He sees challenges as well to registration and licensing restrictions to age restrictions for gun ownership and to limits on the number of guns that can be bought at one time. But first in the pipeline of challenges, he says, will be the challenges to laws banning guns for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

Mr. HERB TITUS (Counsel, Gun Owners of America): I believe that the prohibition against people who’ve been convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence will probably be the area of litigation down the road.

Maybe you agree. Maybe you think that men who have committed domestic violence but have completed a batterer's intervention program or who otherwise have learned their lesson do not deserve to have their right to bear arms infringed upon. The US Department of Justice would probably disagree with you, given their stats on recidivism. Blue Wave News provides a summary:

According to a 2000 study which interviewed the former and current partners of male batterers referred to batterer programs by the court:

• 41% of participants reported that the men committed a re-assault during the 30-month follow-up period.
• Nearly 2/3 of the first time re-assaults occurred in the first 6 months.
• About 20 percent of the men repeatedly re-assaulted their partners and account for most of the reported injuries.

In an examination of 1,309 cases under a program mandate at the Bronx misdemeanor domestic violence court:

• 8% of the defendants were rearrested between the initial arrest and case disposition, 35% during the program mandate period, 31% during the one year following the end of the mandate and 44% during the two years following the mandate.
• Overall, from the moment of index arrest to two years post release, 62 % of all defendants were rearrested.

If the restriction of batterer's gun rights is deemed "unreasonable" by the courts, this will be a huge blow to the safety of women across the country.

Commerce Man Kills Sons, Self

Two days ago, a Georgia man killed his young son and stepson before taking his own life.

Relatives of 36-year-old Keith Jermaine Gresham found the Commerce man dead Monday afternoon inside a car parked on a remote dirt road between Commerce and Jefferson, according to Chief Deputy David Cochran of the Jackson County Sheriff's Office.

The two boys, Keionte Gresham, 4, and Keion Gresham, 7, were found shot to death outside the vehicle.

Keith Gresham was Keion's natural father, according to Cochran.

Cochran told the AJC on Tuesday that Keith Gresham had been involved in an ongoing domestic dispute with the children's mother, who had custody of the boys.

She let the boys spend the weekend with Gresham, but he failed to return them.

On Monday morning, relatives got phone calls and text messages from Gresham, who threatened to harm himself, Cochran said. They went looking for Gresham and the boys, and found them dead on Old Woods Bridge Road.

OnlineAthens has more details:

Prosecutors were attempting to revoke his probation because he had been charged with aggravated stalking in Oglethorpe County and misdemeanor marijuana possession in Jackson County.

Gresham and the boys' mother, Catrina Doster, had been separated for at least a year.

A Jackson County judge granted Doster a 12-month restraining order against Gresham in 2008 and a second 12-month restraining order in October 2009 requiring him to stay 500 yards away from her and her children, according to documents filed in the Jackson County court clerk's office.

However, she allowed Gresham to visit with the children this weekend in advance of his probation revocation hearing, Cochran said.

But when he didn't return the children, Doster, who lives outside of Jackson County, filed an interference with custody complaint with the Commerce Police Department on Monday morning.

Some women want their children to continue a relationship with their father even after they have separated, while others fear harm or an expensive custody battle if the try to keep the kids away. Unfortunately, this case is indicative of a horrifying trend:

In the nine months between June 2009 and April 2010, 75 children have been killed by fathers involved in volatile custody battles with their former partners, according to the Center for Judicial Excellence, a court advocacy organization which has been tracking news articles of such deaths around the U.S. Based in San Rafael, California, the Center focuses on strengthening court integrity as well as improving public accountability of the judiciary.

Some recent examples from the dockets of Family Courts around the country:

» Teigan Peters Brown (3 years old), shot to death by his father during a court-ordered visit. (Arizona June 2009)
» Bekm Bacon (8 months), killed by father, who then killed himself during overnight visitation. (Idaho Feb 2010)
» Janiyah Nicole Hale (1 year), father is charged with her death during an overnight visitation. He is a registered sex offender. (Alabama July 2009)

Office judges do not give women a choice, and many don't take a history of domestic violence into consideration when awarding visitation or custody to violent man.

Experts say abusers use the court system to exercise control over their former partner’s lives, manipulating the players and risking the safety and well being of the children’s lives the courts are sworn to protect.

“Family courts are trained to look for cooperative behavior,” says Rob (Roberta) Valente, general counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, which is based in Washington D.C. “When someone raises an abuse allegation, the court sees it as uncooperative behavior. The result, advocates say, is that the abuser is able to manipulate the court, while a child’s safety and well-being is placed at risk. Many judges are likely to view abuse complaints as a tactic to win custody battles. What the courts have failed to take into account but research has clearly shown time and time again, is that most of the cases that make it to trial in family court are high-risk abuse cases.

Compounding the problem is that judges, attorneys and custody evaluators have little or no training in detecting signs of abuse.

Just 20 per cent of the almost one million divorces and separations registered every year in the U.S. actually land in court. Most are settled in the pre-trial phase, according to Prof. Janet Johnston of San Jose State University, in research studies written for the journal, The Family Court Review.

But of the few who make it to a judge, over 75 percent of these cases are victims of some form of domestic or sexual abuse, according to a 1995 paper by Prof. Peter Jaffe of the University of Western Ontario, who studies children and violence in U.S. and Canadian court systems.

Today’s family courts have also been affected by the rise of the Fathers Rights movement. During the 1950s, family courts almost exclusively awarded custody to mothers. But complaints by fathers that their rights were ignored in custody battles led to a shift in the 1970s to awarding shared custody, on the grounds that it was in the best interest of the child to maintain a relationship with both parents.

Nevertheless, only a small percentage of high-conflict cases require judges to act as conciliators between parties locked in otherwise endless litigation. The majority involve mothers and children that are suffering from serious sexual or domestic abuse.

The National Father Resource Center disputes this, claiming that its member organizations report that 80 percent of mothers’ abuse allegations are false. Although Canadian research from the University of Toronto studying false allegations in U.S. and Canadian custody cases has found that between one and two percent of mothers make false allegations, the fathers’ rights argument has had a powerful impact. As shown by the Tagle case, courts don’t want to hear the mothers’ allegations.

“Historically, allegations of abuse and incest are [met] with a great deal of suspicion, and there is a tremendous resistance to hearing these types of allegations,” said Eileen King, director of Justice for Children, a national non-profit that works to protect children involved in contested custody cases.

Even OnlineAthens felt the need to sneak this comment into their article:

Watson described her cousin as a devoted father who saw his children as often as he could.

"Keith has always been a good dad," she said. "Nobody could separate him from his children. Even when he and Catrina split up, he still went to see his kids."

You know what makes a man a good dad? Not beating up mom! Even after the couple separate, the father's attitudes toward women and violence continue to shape the children's worldview. Unless he is willing to attend counseling or an intervention program to address his abusive past, judges should seriously consider whether allowing the father to parent is really in the children's best interests.

For more information, read the whole article from The Crime Report.

How to Prosecute a DV Case

A man in Athens was given a 22-year sentence for a 2006 assault on his then-wife. This is remarkable because the DA's office chose to pursue the case, and was able to do so successfully, without the victim's involvement.

Robert Lynn Jones, 45, was convicted after a weeklong trial that ended Friday, with jurors taking three hours to find him guilty of family violence aggravated battery, second-degree criminal damage and a slew of motor vehicle violations for leading police on a multicounty chase.

Judge Steve Jones ordered the defendant to serve the first 16 years of the sentence in prison and the balance on probation.

Robert Jones' conviction was significant, because the district attorney's office went forward with prosecution despite a reluctant victim, according to Assistant District Attorney Leslie Spornberger Jones.

"It's an important case for us because domestic violence is something we are pro-prosecution about," Leslie Jones said. "This was a case where (the victim) said she didn't want to be involved, and we said it's basically with the state now."

That allowed the victim to tell her abuser that the district attorney's office was pursuing charges, not her, so he couldn't retaliate, according to Leslie Jones.

Robert Jones is a classic abuser who controlled every aspect of his wife's life to make it difficult for her to break free, Leslie Jones said.

"He told her how to do her hair and what to wear," she said.

The couple moved frequently, from Alabama where they were married in 2002, to the Carolinas, and Clarke and Madison counties, so that local authorities couldn't investigate reports of abuse.

"Every time he did something to her, he would leave, they would get back together, and they'd move somewhere else," Jones said.

The tipping point came Sept. 4, 2006, when the couple argued in the yard of their Hull Road home. The fight moved indoors, where Robert Jones pummeled his wife's face with his fist.

During the trial, one of the responding officers testified it was one of the worst beatings he'd seen, according to Leslie Jones.

Robert Jones fled his home, but he returned later that day and led officers on a chase through Madison and Jackson counties, then back to Athens where he wrecked his car and ran, police said.

Officers found him two days later, holed up in a motel in Monroe where he threatened drink antifreeze and kill himself.

"That was a key issue in the trial because it described the whole cycle of violence," Leslie Jones said. "He would always get (the victim) back by apologizing, and when that didn't work, he'd threaten suicide."

The victim divorced Robert Jones after the 2006 assault, and has since remarried and lives in another state, she said.

Prosecutors often rely on victim testimony in domestic violence battery cases and many will dismiss if a victim refuses to participate. However, women who have experienced domestic violence have many good reasons to fear cooperating with prosecutors, including fear of her partner's retaliation or not wanting him to go to jail because she relies on his income. This case and others like it prove that it is possible for the state to successfully pursue charges without victim involvement. After all, these cases are Georgia v. Johnson and not A. Johnson v. B. Johnson. It is the state's responsibility to keep its citizen's safe and to hold those who commit crimes accountable for their actions.

How Many Bad Decisions Can You Spot?

Background: Baltimore police received a domestic violence call from a woman who said she was assaulted by her boyfriend. They went to the home, took the woman's statement, noticed visible injuries on her body, and made the arrest.

Fast forward to the assault trial:

Last Wednesday, Wood appeared in district court in Essex for trial on charges of assault, but when the case was called, his lawyer proposed a whole different idea.

"He's asking for a postponement so he can go out and get married, come back and resolve the case. His wife will then invoke her privilege," the defense attorney said.

The lawyer was referring to the marital privilege that prevents a spouse from being required to testify against his or her husband or wife, Miller reported.

Wood and his fiancee weren't married, but the judge stepped in to fix that.

"Well, why don't I just marry them today in court?" Russell said.

"Well, your honor, if we could go and get the license now, I think that would be acceptable to all the parties," the defense attorney responded.

The judge advised that Wood and his fiancee would have to go to Towson to the circuit court where marriage licenses are issued, but he assured the defendant that he'd be available that same day to officiate the wedding.

"I'll marry them this afternoon," Russell said.

The marriage license was issued at 11:26 a.m. Two hours later, Wood and his fiancee were back at court in Essex and were married by Russell in his office, Miller reported.

The criminal case resumed 20 minutes later.

"Your honor, Mr. Wood now has his marriage license with him," the defense attorney said.

"I can take notice of that because I just married them -- performed the ceremony -- back in my chambers," Russell responded.

Wood's new wife then took the witness stand and invoked her marital privilege, Miller reported.

The case came to an abrupt end, with the judge making a parting comment.

"Mr. Wood, I found you not guilty, so I can't sentence you as a defendant in any crimes, but earlier today, I sentenced you to life married to her," Russell said.

Nowhere on the recording of the proceeding could the I-Team hear the judge ask the alleged victim if she wanted to get married.

Ordinarily, couples have to wait 48 hours between getting a license and actually getting married. A different judge agreed to waive that requirement in this case, Miller reported.

So what we have here is a judge who decides to actively participate in the defense of a batterer and ensure that the victim has additional barriers in place (the time and cost associated with a divorce, plus possible cultural and religious values that look down on divorce) to keep her from being able to leave. How emboldened must this batterer feel to know that he was coming to be held accountable for his actions and, instead, the legal system helped him trap his victim even more soundly?

Now can you spot the good decision?

A Baltimore County judge has been reassigned following a story by the 11 News I-Team about his handling of a domestic violence case last week.

Judge Darrell Russell has been reassigned to chambers work, I-Team lead investigative reporter Jayne Miller said. He will not be hearing any cases for an indefinite period of time.

Too bad the damage to this woman's life has already been done.

Safety of Custody Exchanges Questioned

The AJC ran a fantastic follow-up article on their Monday story, which we posted about here. The article reiterates many of the points we made about the dangers of custody exchanges when the fathers have a history of domestic violence. Go read the whole thing!

Women Stabbed to Death During Custody Exchange

The man accused of stabbing his wife to death during a custody swap in a Walmart parking lot, then stabbing himself, has been released from the hospital and taken to jail on murder charges.

Phillip Chad Dunn, 28, of Lawrenceville was released from Gwinnett Medical Center on Sunday night. He is being held in the Gwinnett County Jail on charges of malice murder and felony murder.

The couple's daughters, ages 6 and 8, were present during the attack around 4 p.m. Sunday.

Suwanee Police responded to a call about an argument between a man and a woman in a Walmart parking lot. When police arrived, they found both had been stabbed, Capt. Cass Mooney, a Suwanee police spokesman, told the AJC.

Shelley Dyan Dunn, 27, of Buford, was pronounced dead at Gwinnett Medical Center.

“The meeting was a custody exchange between the husband and wife,” Mooney said. “At some point, the husband pulled out a knife, stabbing the wife and then himself.”

It is unclear if the girls witnessed the stabbing, Mooney said.

After reporting this story, the AJC immediately posted on their parenting blog, wondering why on earth these parents were meeting in a parking lot, as if meeting at one of their homes would somehow have made a stabbing less likely. The reality is that lots of custody exchanges happen in public places like fast food restaurants, stores like Walmart, even the local police station. If the parents have gone through a bad divorce they may not welcome their ex to their home and shouting matches are less likely to occur in public. Or the couple may have a history of domestic violence.

According to the American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic Violence, abusive parents are more likely than non-abusive parents to seek sole custody of children and abusive fathers win joint custody and unsupervised visitation at the same rate as non-abusive fathers. While non-abusive fathers may simply want to be with their children, abusive fathers are motivated by a desire to continue controlling and harassing their children's mother. If they are granted visitation or custody, they are guaranteed to see their victim regularly when they swap the children. In these cases, it is not safe for mom to allow dad to come to her home, or to go to his, because of the risk of further violence. Highly populated areas were once thought to provide some safety during exchanges but, as this tragic incident illustrates, safety is not assured.

If you are a woman who fears for her safety during the exchange of children for custody or visitation, please contact your attorney or your local domestic violence agency (1-800-799-SAFE) to discuss your options for supervised visitation or safe exchange. If you live in the Atlanta area, contact Nia's Place.

Update: Dunn had been arrested just two weeks before for choking his wife, but she was still under custody order to meet him to exchange the children.

Update: Another follow-up article detailing the couple's recent domestic violence history.