Tag Archives: failure to protect

No Way Out But One

No Way Out But One is a feature length documentary currently in post-production. It tells the story of an American woman accused of kidnapping her own children, a woman who fled the country and became the first American to be granted asylum by the government of the Netherlands on grounds of domestic violence. The 13-minute version presented here serves as a trailer for the feature and a documentary short.

Failure to Protect: The Crisis in America’s Family Courts

Source: Inside Criminal Justice

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

When a mother’s bitter custody battle ends with the death of her child, something has gone terribly wrong with the system.

Wyatt Garcia was born in April 2009. Nine months later, he was shot and killed by his father, who then turned the gun on himself.

It might have turned out differently—if a family court judge had listened to Wyatt’s mother.

Stephen Garcia, 25, a Pinon Hills, California contractor, had been allowed unsupervised visits with his son only a few days earlier by San Bernardino County Superior Judge Robert Lemkau, who was adjudicating a bitter custody battle between Garcia and the boy’s mother, Katie Tagle. The judge had refused to take seriously her repeated warnings of her ex-boyfriend’s violent and abusive behavior.

Shortly after Wyatt was born, she left Garcia after he hit her so hard during an argument about his video-game addiction that “he knocked me out” Tagle said. After she moved home to her parents, her ex-boyfriend began harassing her and her family when he learned she was dating again, and he filed a motion for custody of little Wyatt. In turn she filed three motions for an order of protection against Garcia, which were ignored: in the last motion she charged that he had threatened to kill her and their baby.

Judge Lemkau, however, chose to believe her former boyfriend’s denials rather than the evidence she supplied of Garcia’s threats―including e-mails, text messages and voice messages. Although no extenuating circumstances were raised in court transcripts of the case, the judge simply accused Tagle of lying, and ordered that she turn Wyatt over to his father—with fatal results.

Tagle, 23, believes the odds against her and Wyatt were stacked the moment her case entered the emotional, chaotic world of the family court system.

“I was treated like a criminal, like a complaining woman,” she says.

The story of baby Wyatt Garcia is, sadly, not unusual.

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)

How did a system set up to protect families and children allow this to happen?

An investigation by The Crime Report shows such tragedies are the consequences of family court procedures that allow abusive spouses to manipulate the system and leave at-risk children at the mercy of prolonged, expensive court battles over custody. These battles end all too often with a parent forced to share unsupervised custody with an abusive spouse.

The problems have been complicated by systemic flaws in the nation’s family courts that have gone unaddressed far too long.

A Broken System

Lawyers, judges, psychologists and representatives of women’s groups interviewed by The Crime Report describe a broken family court system that is already burdened with a heavy caseload and too few judges—many of whom are forced to rotate between cases—and in which serious criminal allegations of domestic or sexual abuse are routinely ignored. The crushing financial costs of pursuing long custody battles is an additional burden on indigent mothers, who get little or no legal support. The odds are particularly stacked against children at risk when the court battle revolves over “he said, she said” arguments.

The system has particularly failed parents―usually mothers―whose efforts to protect their children collide with an approach to custody issues that is based on narrow legal concepts of balance and fair treatment rather than psychological or medical evidence.

“Courts assume mothers are orchestrating misinformation, instead of trying to protect their children,” said Kathleen Russell, director of the Center for Judicial Excellence.

The idea of family courts or dockets began with the best of intentions. Established in the early nineteenth century, they were designed to protect the equitable rights of both parents and children and protect the family. Too often, however, that creates a built-in conflict. Judges, as in the case of Katie Tagle, adopt a skeptical attitude towards abuse charges, which most often come from the mother, on the grounds that it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction in arguments between quarreling parents.

“The problem is that family court is not set up to protect children,” says Joyanna Silberg, PhD,Executive Vice President of the Leadership Council. “It is set up with the intent of equitable division for families. And this presents an overwhelming paradigm: how can you equitably divide a child?”

And while the deaths of children are the public face of family court tragedies, the daily reality is that thousands of parents are trapped in prolonged court battles where they either lose their children to their alleged abuser, or are forced to share unsupervised custody.

Advocacy groups interviewed for this story reported receiving between 450 and 1,000 requests for help in contested custody battles this year. The National Network to End Domestic Violence, a prominent national not-for-profit, says it is the biggest problem they are now facing. And the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence, an independent scientific organization, estimates that each year more than 58,000 children are ordered by family courts into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States

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. When someone raises an abuse allegation, the court sees it as uncooperative behavior.”

“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.

He Said, She said

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.

Such resistance has already cost Deborah Hicks, 46, a former New York City television editor, six years of pain. In 2003, she filed for sole custody of her son, then three years old, when he came home from a visit to his father with suspicious signs of sexual abuse. There was reason to be worried. Her ex-partner had already been convicted of molesting a two-year old boy in Florida for which he served eight years in prison, and he was a registered sex offender in New York City. Despite her ex-boyfriend’s record, the judges who heard the case (there have been two), decided they had to give a fair hearing to his denials.

She has already spent almost $100,000 on the case, with no end in sight. Nevertheless, she still shares custody with her ex, and says, “I am not about to give up on my child.”

Even for those mothers who can afford it, the battle can take a psychological toll. Even when the evidence of risk to their children seems impossible to deny, the family court system that has proven incapable of treating these high-conflict cases with the serious attention and professionalism they require.

Moreover, courts are now often swayed by a concept called “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS), coined by the late psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Dr. Richard A. Gardner in the 1980s to describe situations in which one parent is trying to turn the children against the parent during a divorce process. Dr. Gardner, a former professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University, testified in more than 400 child custody cases about its effect on children.

PAS has been seized by the Fathers Rights movement as a way to defend husbands and other male partners from what they consider unjust accusations, and it has received support from other psychologists, who deny that it allows genuine child abuse to go unpunished. “If attorneys, child care evaluators, and judges were all doing their job, protective mothers wouldn’t have anything to fear,” says psychologist Amy J. Baker, author of Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties that Bind.

The concept has made little documented headway in the professional and legal field, and the syndrome has been used very rarely in legal precedent. PAS is not included in the most recent American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, although the association is currently weighing whether to include it in the 2013 issue of the manual.

It may be ironic that efforts to give fathers more rights in custody cases have increased the odds against victimized mothers and children,

“When the pendulum swung to shared custody somewhere in the midst of that (fathers) movement, the safety of children was compromised,” argues Helga Luest, founder of Witness Justice, a group that helps heal victims of violence.

A Complex Web

Tears fill Amy Leichtenberg’s voice as she recounts the horrible months before her two young boys, Duncan and Jack Connolly, ages 9 and 7, were killed by their father last March. “I felt like I did everything right, I sat there, I didn’t speak out of turn,” she said of her courtroom experience. After a 20-year abusive relationship with her ex-husband Michael Connolly, she finally gathered the strength to leave him. But he wouldn’t let her go. . Each time she moved her address, he showed up at her house. She got numerous orders of protection; he violated them repeatedly.

Every six or seven weeks, the couple was back in court, following a motion filed by Connolly for one reason or another. Representing himself, he would badger Leichtenberg on the stand. Yet despite his behavior, the court allowed him unsupervised access to his young sons.

“The ball was dropped in so many places,” said Leichtenberg. “Court was just one of them.”

Child protective services (CPS), which investigate allegations of child abuse, usually close or suspend a case if the child is involved in a custody battle.

That points to another problem. Once a family enters the family court system, other forms of protection of women and children often fall by the wayside. Typically, law enforcement agencies are reluctant to investigate abuse charges if they learn that the parties are involved in a custody battle, said Karen Borders, a former police officer and victim of a contested abuse case, who now runs an forensic risk assessment company called Borders McLaughlin. Orders of protection that are filed in criminal court often don’t make its way over to the civil system. Child protective services (CPS), which investigate allegations of child abuse, usually close or suspend a case if the child is involved in a custody battle, she said.

In the 450 high-risk custody evaluations her company investigated over the past five years, almost 90 percent of the children were abused.

“One of the things you see very often is when there is a custody case pending, child protection services, prosecutors and law enforcement will not take the charges seriously or be willing to investigate because they think it is about custody instead of a crime,” says Barry Goldstein, author of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues.

Decision-making in these highly volatile cases are left to an army of custody evaluators, guardians ad litem (volunteer lawyers who are assigned by the court to represent the child), and other members of the court who may not have experience in domestic violence issues.

Custody evaluators can be assigned by the court or hired by one of the parties. The cost, which can run from $5,000 to $20,000, can be picked up by the parent who hired the evaluator, or it can be split by both parties. The custody system is beset by charges of cronyism―arising from evaluators’ employee relationship with the court―and incompetence. Advocates charge that evaluators are often poorly trained on how to handle or detect an abuser.

There is scant research on decision-making by custody evaluators and how they effect their cases. “Many child custody evaluators are not comprehensive (and ) their work is not buttressed by collateral evidence,” says psychologist Eugenia Patru, who has worked as a custody examiner in Louisiana and Michigan for the past 30 years.

According to Patru, the difficulty of custody cases increases when domestic violence is an issue. “Most (evaluators) are not educated enough and just in for the money,” she says.

Thirty-five percent of mothers who alleged abuse got primary custody, while mothers who said nothing got custody 42 percent of the time.

In the saddest irony of all, attorneys have learned to caution their clients not to reveal abuse allegations in custody cases since research suggests that such allegations can work against mothers fighting for custody. A National Institute of Justice-funded study found that 35 percent of mothers who alleged abuse got primary custody, while mothers who said nothing got custody 42 percent of the time.

Moreover, when abuse allegations are raised, judges tend to suppress or not enter the abuse into evidence, making it harder to try these cases at the appellate level. “Family courts don’t adequately deal with abuse by refusing to hear the evidence,” charges Joan Meier, director of the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, which provides legal representation at the appellate level, trains trial lawyers and has represented the domestic violence advocacy community in Supreme Court briefs.

Meier, a professor at George Washington University Law School who has been appealing contested custody cases for the past decade, says such suppression of evidence makes it very hard to overturn bad case precedent on appeal. Additionally, cases tend to be an intense financial and time drain, with the average case running over $100,000 in costs and lasting eight years.

Signs of a Shift?

“There are thousands of good decisions being made by judges each day who err on the side of safety,” says Judge Janice Rosa, who sits on New York Supreme Court in the 8th Judicial District and is chair of the Family Violence Department Advisory Committee for National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Judge Rosa points to New York’s practice of appointing a separate attorney for the children as a best practice in sorting out custody cases. Another breakthrough idea has been integrated domestic violence courts. There are approximately 40 such courts in New York State, which has become the trendsetter in this area. These courts, which have civil and criminal jurisdiction, could offer women and children a way to get the protection they need.

In 2002, the Office of Violence Against Women developed and implemented a four-year demonstration initiative to examine promising practices in the field of supervised visitation and safe exchanges called Safe Haven.

Grants were awarded to four demonstration sites: the Bay Area, California; the City of Chicago, Illinois; the City of Kent, Washington; and the State of Michigan for four years. Praxis International, a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children, and oversaw these projects still offers technical assistance and advice for visitation centers.

Praxis International also partnered with The Battered Women’s Justice Project starting a two-year research project to determine a best model and legislation for Family Courts.

But the resources are not in place now for children and mothers who need a way to safety now. One of the more promising projects The ABA Child Custody and Adoption Pro Bono Project ended in August, 2008.

“For the moment, abused mothers who are trying to protect their children through the overworked family court system have the cards stacked against them,” says Silberg of the Leadership Council.

“I did everything right, and my children are in a cemetery now right now,” said Leichtenberg, who founded “In Loving Memory” to in order to lobby for changes in legislation relating to the response of family court and law enforcement to abuse cases. “I have a lot of ‘what could have, what should haves’ every day. But with my last breath, I will make sure they did not die in vain.”

Cara Tabachnick is news editor of The Crime Report. Additional reporting by John Jay Center on Media, Crime and Justice researcher Daonese Johnson-Colon


Battered women charged with “failure to protect”

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence
Article: The Nicholson Decisions

New York’s Response to ‘Failure to Protect’ Allegations

“it became abundantly clear that the Nicholson, Udoh, and Tillet cases were not aberrations but rather the result of a burgeoning City policy of removing children from battered mothers and prosecuting the mothers for child neglect—a policy that was based on a misguided interpretation of state law and an indifference to federal constitutional law.”

. . . . The City claimed . . . that the potential for emotional harm to a child from witnessing domestic violence was so high, that ACS could do away with the requirement of a court order—that is, the requirement of due process—and simply remove children wherever domestic violence was found. Unfortunately, in a series of decisions containing nothing more than a few sentences, other New York appellate courts appeared to adopt the per se standard as well.

At this time, battered mothers in other states were facing the same problems, biases, and punitive practices as faced by battered mothers in New York City. In other jurisdictions, these were called “failure to protect” cases. Battered mothers were charged with failing to protect their children from the potential emotional or physical harm of being exposed to violence. But New York City phrased its neglect charge in a different way: a battered mother is per se neglectful because she is “engaging in domestic violence in the presence of her children.” In choosing the language “engaging in domestic violence” to describe a victim’s role in an assault upon her, the City said very clearly what many other jurisdictions were saying obliquely: that the victim was equally responsible for the violence in the home. The City used this approach to justify removing children from victim-mothers Nicholson, Udoh and Tillet, and hundreds of other mothers similarly situated. . .

[Lawsuits were filed and]. . Plaintiffs alleged that they were being deprived of both substantive and procedural due process, and that their children were being removed based on constitutionally inadequate investigations, without probable cause and absent training and supervision. Plaintiff-mothers alleged violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, with the children suffering additionally from a deprivation of their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful search and seizure.

. . . At the conclusion of trial, the District Court held that the City’s practices and policies were unconstitutional. Shortly thereafter, the District Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, explaining the court’s reasoning underlying the preliminary injunction. Harshly criticizing the City’s practices, the court noted that “children’s welfare, the state interest which is so often the great counterweight deployed to justify state interference in family affairs, has virtually disappeared from the equation in the case of [the City’s] practices and policies regarding abused mothers.” The court made specific factual findings with regard to the City’s current policy and practice in child welfare cases involving domestic violence:

  • ACS regularly alleges and indicates neglect against battered mothers;
  • ACS rarely holds abusers accountable;
  • ACS fails to offer adequate services to mothers before separating them or removing their children;
  • ACS regularly separates battered mothers and children unnecessarily;
  • ACS fails to adequately train its employees regarding domestic violence;
  • ACS’ written policies provide insufficient and inappropriate guidance to employees.
  • As a matter of law, the Court held that the City’s actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, by intruding upon the liberty right to familial integrity enjoyed by both mothers and children without substantive and procedural due process. The City’s actions also violated the children’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, and the Ninth, Thirteenth and Nineteenth Amendment rights of all parties. The court held that a battered mother is entitled to equal protection of the law and that “separating her from her children merely because she has been abused—a characteristic irrelevant to her right to keep her children—treats her unequally from other parents who are not abused.”

    The article discusses the appeal and outcome of the case and summarises implications of the case in other jurisdictions:

    “Failure to protect” cases rest upon a tacit assumption that somehow battered mothers consent to being beaten, assaulted, and injured in the presence of their children.

    CPS also may presume that a battered mother who does not enter a domestic violence shelter or otherwise relocate is failing to exercise a minimum degree of care. However, relocating is frequently not in the best interests of the child. Even in cases where relocating is in the child’s best interests, there is a critical shortage of domestic violence shelters. Further, many women who try to relocate cannot find permanent housing, and there is “no guarantee that there may be adequate resources available to meet the needs of her children.”

    CPS and courts also frequently consider, as a litmus test for neglect, whether a battered mother successfully ended the relationship. As the District Court found, “the process of extrication from a violent relationship often takes time, through a series of separations and ‘seeming’ reconciliations.” A battered mother engaged in the process of extrication cannot be said to have failed to exercise a minimum degree of care.

    Moreover, separation does not equal safety. Leaving is not an appropriate safety plan for many mothers because it actually may increase danger to the mothers and children. As the District Court found, “even if a battered mother wants to free herself from the abusive relationship immediately, this is not always a viable option. The most dangerous time appears to be immediately after she leaves the batterer. His threats will make her aware of this jeopardy.” The media is replete with examples of cases in which a battered mother was killed after she left or because she left.

    In Nicholson, both the federal and state courts wrote excellent decisions analyzing and dispelling many of the myths that inform child protective services intervention in child welfare cases.

    The best way to use Nicholson in other jurisdictions is to use it. Cite to it. Examine the reasoning and adopt it!

    Complete article

    Woman killed after police failed to arrest man who violated restraining order

    One day before Andres Vargas shot his wife Bonnie with an assault rifle, San Antonio police contacted Vargas and told him to leave his wife alone, but did not arrest him for violating Bonnie’s protective order.

    Last year, all officers were told to secure arrest warrants immediately for most family violence suspects, including those who commit an assault or threaten to commit an imminent one. Yet each time that Bonnie Vargas called police to report that her ex-husband had violated the protective order — filed as a condition of the couple’s divorce Aug. 6 — police did not arrest Andres Vargas.

    Police spokesman Gabe Trevino said he did not know why officers had not sought the arrest but drew a distinction between violating a protective order and committing family violence.

    “A violation of a protective order is not necessarily family violence,” Trevino said. “It’s a disturbance that needs to be followed up on.”

    Marta Pelaez, president and CEO of Family Violence Prevention Services Inc., which runs San Antonio’s battered women’s shelter, disagreed.

    “When a protective order has been issued, any attempt to get close to the victim can be taken as a threat, yet another threat,” she said. “If an order has been issued to protect a victim from domestic violence, (then) absolutely” any threat is an instance of family violence.

    She added: “It makes me so angry to know that sometimes it’s one step forward and three steps backward. I don’t think that (signs of family violence are) very clear to all the policemen in the force, and some don’t understand what’s at stake for themselves or the victim.”

    Complete story: Warning Signs Missed?

    Law enforcement response after Macias

    The Purple Beret web site has a story on what, if anything, changed in Sonoma County, California, after the Maria Teresa Macias case

    In October 1996 the Macias civil rights lawsuit was filed against the Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Ihde. The suit claimed that the Sheriff’s Department repeatedly denied Maria Teresa Macias’ constitutional right to equal protection in its response to Teresa’s more than 20 calls for help before she was finally murdered by her violent husband. The suit claims that the Sheriff’s Department discriminated against Teresa as a woman, a Latina, and as a victim of violence against women by never once arresting or even citing her husband despite a county mandate to do so, by failing to write reports, failing to investigate, ignoring evidence, and discouraging Teresa from calling.

    In a unanimous, 9th Circuit Court Appellate  decision, Macias established women’s constitutional right to hold law enforcement legally accountable for failing to provide equal protection of the law. Then, in June, 2002, an unprecedented million dollar award marked the first time police have been ordered to pay the family of a domestic violence homicide victim for failure to properly protect.

    Purple Beret reports:

    In the Wake of Macias:
    How Does Law Enforcement Respond to Domestic
    Violence Today?
    More than three years after Teresa Macias’ murder put the lie to local law enforcement’s claims that they take domestic violence seriously, a host of new programs and people have been put in place to improve the county’s handling of this deadly violence against women.

    But just how differently is a domestic violence victim today treated by police, sheriff’s deputies and the D.A.’s office? Before you get ready to congratulate us on a job well done and move on to other things, get a load of this:

    Restraining Orders
    Although changes mandated by the state make it more likely that police can verify that a restraining order is in force, local changes have made the process of obtaining a restraining order even more difficult — and less certain — than when Teresa Macias got her court orders in 1995 and 1996. It now takes two days and two trips to the courthouse instead of one; and even at that, judges refuse to sign the orders more often than in the past. Emergency Protective Orders, which should be issued routinely on the spot of any domestic violence incident, are becoming more and more rare.

    But what killed Teresa Macias wasn’t that she couldn’t get a restraining order, it was sheriff’s deputies’ utter refusal to enforce it. And that hasn’t changed one bit.

    To this day, we have never seen a perpetrator arrested if his only crime was a restraining order violation. Both of the other victim advocates in the county report the same. Often an arrest isn’t made even after 10 or 15 violations are reported; and the victim is more than likely to be told that she is somehow to blame. No doubt, as with Avelino Macias, perpetrators are only emboldened by this failure to enforce the law.

    Mandated Arrests
    In January, 1996, our local police protocols changed to include a mandated arrest policy in domestic violence incidents where there is visible injury. This was a big step for a county known for its law enforcement officers’ failure to even write reports, much less make arrests to protect women from their violent partners.

    Unfortunately, the most striking result we’ve seen of the mandated arrest policy is a dramatic increase in retaliatory arrests of women for domestic violence. In some police jurisdictions, as many as 1 out of 3 domestic violence arrests are of women, with even more women reporting they were threatened with arrest if they insisted on reporting the violence against them.

    With California Department of Justice statistics showing that only 6% of all domestic violence convictions involve a female perpetrator, these alarming rates of female arrest are retaliation, pure and simple. And the message they send is not lost either on women victims or on their batterers.

    Women who’ve been arrested or threatened with arrest are far less likely to call law enforcement the next time. And the men, seeing the cops will let them get away with it, only escalate their violence and control. It’s a potentially lethal one-two punch, and a cruel perversion of laws intended to protect women, not to sink them deeper into despair.

    Domestic Violence Court
    The designation of a special court to handle all misdemeanor domestic violence cases has been lauded as evidence the county is finally taking this violence seriously. Instead, it seems to be just one more fancy way to ghetto-ize violence against women, lumping it once again with victimless crimes (see footnote 1 *) and sentencing batterers to counseling instead of jail.

    In fact, all modern (read NOT Sonoma County) domestic violence policy is based on the fact that the only thing that has been proven to stop the violence is swift and early intervention by law enforcement, with incarceration each and every time while the violence is still at the misdemeanor level. Otherwise it surely escalates, all too often into homicide.

    In fact, as it stands now one judge is handling all misdemeanor domestic violence and drug cases, which means he must be handling the majority of all criminal cases in the county! That’s what they call giving domestic violence the attention it deserves.

    DV court also creates an easy way to blow off serious domestic violence without creating any of those pesky jail inmates. We continually see cases of repeated and potentially lethal domestic violence charged as a misdemeanor and shuffled off to DV court, rather than correctly charged as multiple felonies and taken to trial. In short, DV court is a dog-and-pony show that creates a gold mine for counselors, a stroke fest for batterers, and a dead end for victims.

    Victim Services
    Both outside investigations sparked by Teresa Macias’ murder severely criticized the way victims are treated by county agencies. In response, a gaggle of “domestic violence counselors” have been added to the D.A.’s office and the larger police departments. While victims are led to believe these women are there to fight for them, the truth is the counselors can do little more than act as a referral service and as mouthpieces for their law enforcement bosses, creating yet one more level of bureaucratic sugar-coating in the continuing practice of dumping or minimizing these cases.

    Lest you think this is a personal attack on DV counselors, there’s a reason these women won’t fight for prosecution. While ostensibly hired by the YWCA (which runs the domestic violence program in our county), the counselors work directly with police and district attorney staff. If they were to actually stand up and demand police and prosecutors do their jobs, the counselors would soon find themselves without a job. And if the YWCA were to back up a counselor in a demand that police and prosecutors do their jobs, they would soon find themselves without funds. We know that’s true, because that’s exactly what happened to Women Against Rape.

    The Cops’ Predictable Response: Retaliation
    When the results of our Macias investigation began rumbling through the press, it didn’t take law enforcement long to respond in their all-too predictable way: Sonoma County’s ten police chiefs and the District Attorney set out, not to correct the problem, but to silence and strangle the messengers.

    Most people don’t know that the core grant money for rape and domestic violence centers requires the annual signature of approval of all the county’s police chiefs and the District Attorney. Since at the time of carrying out the Macias investigation, Marie De Santis worked at the county’s rape crisis center, Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association retaliated by refusing to give their signatures to Women Against Rape’s annual grant application unless De Santis’ access to the press was curtailed by the agency.

    For awhile, Women Against Rape held to principle and stood up to this extortion by law enforcement. But finally, unable to survive without the funds, they caved in to the police chiefs’ threats. (Later they even went so far as to change their name to “United Against Sexual Assault,” banishing both the words “women” and “rape” from their masthead!) Soon thereafter, De Santis went on to establish Women’s Justice Center, a women’s rights organization which, like the Purple Berets, is completely independent of government funds.

    Silencing the Purple Berets was a little harder — first of all, we didn’t have any funds they could grab. Instead law enforcement employed the age-old tactic of divide and rule. Using whisper campaigns, disinformation and outright lies, they sought to divide the “good girls” from the “bad girls” (us).

    Fortunately most women aren’t fooled; still, we must be vigilant and support those who still provide truly independent advocacy for victims. Otherwise, we are literally condemning our sisters — and particularly poor women — to an early death.

    (Footnote *) Only drug offenses are similarly treated with such paternalism (periodic check-in with the daddy-judge) and diversion into “programs” instead of jail cells. While completely appropriate in non-violent drug offenses, such handling of society’s most deadly violence once again sends the message that domestic violence isn’t a crime, but only a counseling problem. Women’s rights groups fought hard to end this “diversion” in the wake of mounting evidence showing that such counseling completely fails to stop the violence. (Back)

    © Tanya Brannan, Purple Berets