Preach on Sister Amy! Right proud to hear you testify!

When exactly did we forget the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Before someone can be denied access to their home and their family criminal conviction should take place.

-Julie

Dranginis said if women knew they would have to face their abuser in court a day or two after an arrest, that would have a “chilling, deterring effect” on abused spouses and partners bringing charges.

Sounds good to me. There should be a chilling deterring effect.

Sounds good to me. There should be a chilling deterring effect.

More specifically, a person making an accusation should have to evaluate whether the risk to then is worth the justice they will receive. When the accuser has no risk, there can be no justice.

I don't want to torment victims, but if you favor them too much there is always some person of questionable morals that will take advantage.

-Julie

Dranginis said if women knew they would have to face their abuser in court a day or two after an arrest, that would have a “chilling, deterring effect” on abused spouses and partners bringing charges.

In most cases, these women have been facing their abuses every day in their homes, they can't do it in the safety of a court room?

It should be 'risk to them' not 'risk to then'.

Typing with a migraine coming is stupid!

-Julie

What Fink-Nottle said.

To change the subject, Fink-Nottle, how are the newts?

"Before someone can be denied access to their home and their family criminal conviction"

Conviction? Really? So someone who really does beat the crap out of their kids should still have free access to them for the months to years a trial can drag out? That doesn't make much sense.

Seems to me a claim of abuse made only with a divorce filing, never any police calls involved prior, needs looking at. The usual evidentiary rules need to apply.

Conviction? Really? So someone who really does beat the crap out of their kids should still have free access to them for the months to years a trial can drag out? That doesn't make much sense.

In this case we are talking about spousal abuse. Why should someone be able to make a single claim of abuse and force a person out of their home, away from their family with no hope of seeing any of them until the case is resolved? By then it is too late.

If someone is being beaten, s/he should be willing to leave and seek shelter else ware until the case is resolved. It sounds shitty, but the defendant is INNOCENT until proven otherwise. CPS should treat these cases like they do any others. If they see imminent danger the kids should be removed.

By forcing the defendant out with no recourse and little evidence, we are creating a situation that rewards lying. That is what needs to be overcome.

-Julie

"Dranginis said if women knew they would have to face their abuser in court a day or two after an arrest, that would have a “chilling, deterring effect” on abused spouses and partners bringing charges."

Personally, I think Dranginis is full of shit.

My sister and several of my friends have been involved in abusive relationships.

Their years usually went like this:

1. She didn't call anyone for help. The situation escalated.

2. She called for help, but didn't want to file charges. The situation escalated.

3. She filed charges, but as days went by, would drop the charges before court was involved. The situation escalated.

4. She didn't drop the charges. By then, she knew she was going to die if he wasn't put away.

Which brings me to my point. If she survived that long, facing him in court was no longer all that scary.

I agree with previous commenters that the history of domestic abuse calls should be taken into account. However, I think any parent willing to slander their spouse just because they are going through a divorce should have their custodial rights questioned. What kind of parent would want to put false fear into their children?

I agree, MizB. There never seems to be consequences for these liars when they're shown to be lying...if anyone bothers to find out the truth. If you're so messed up that you do something like that, you're too messed up to be raising children.

And the newts are splendid, what, what, Janet C.

SO a woman or woman with kids should have to pick up, leave, even hide their whereabouts, change schools, etc etc even if there's documentation of a history of abuse, until the offender goes to jail, whenever that may be?

I have no problem with people having to face the abuser in court in a timely manner, but they shouldn't have to live with them. Rape vics don't have to continue to associate with their offenders, why should felonious physical assault be different, whether or not you're married to the offender?

And yes, there should be consequences to false reports, just like there should be with false rape, or false anything, if you know it's false.

Oh come on now. Ex-parte hearings are the norm for a reason. How dare a judge make a judgment based on evidence presented (often pure hearsay from one party only no less). Someone might be killed in the mean time while they debate issuing said restraining order! Ignore the idea that someone wanting to kill another isn't likely to be impressed with a piece of paper saying, "no don't do that".

Hell, just ask David Letterman how much fun restraining orders are, especially when you have to fight them from across the country. That gal filled out the paperwork just fine and so was granted her restraining order. Letterman was a threat to her via the messages sent to her over the airwaves doncha know. He loved her and wanted her to smite their enemies or something.

On a non sarcastic note, it does sadden me somewhat that even as a comedian Letterman hasn't woken up to the realities of our current society after that travesty of a case (he got it lifted a couple of weeks later IIRC).

"SO a woman or woman with kids should have to pick up, leave, even hide their whereabouts, change schools, etc etc even if there's documentation of a history of abuse, until the offender goes to jail, whenever that may be?"

I think that having a history of documented abuse should immediately put the accusation into another category ie treated immediately and taken more seriously.

Kids shouldn't be forced to move no matter what.

I have no problem with people having to face the abuser in court in a timely manner, but they shouldn't have to live with them. Rape vics don't have to continue to associate with their offenders, why should felonious physical assault be different, whether or not you're married to the offender?

How do you reconcile turning someone out of his/her home, ruining his/her reputation, risking his/her job over an accusation of abuse? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the person accused of abuse is innocent why are we creating a financial incentive for the accuser?

No one is forcing the accuser to stay in a bad situation...if an adult is abused, they have the option of leaving. And let's be honest, if a parent is being abused by a violent psycho, the parent and kids are going to have to leave the vicinity to get away anyhow. Once you report it you are going to have to go into hiding to keep yourself safe. So, why would you want the house? Frankly the idea that the accuser would want to stay in the house makes them suspect in my eyes.

-Julie

Tried to tell victim #3 about my daughter's mom.
He fell for her B.S.

He called and told me they were getting a divorce. He said she went into a rage and he didn't feel safe even staying ther. I've seen it, so I know exactly what he was talking about.

Because he didn't feel safe he moved out and filed for divorce. She promptly changed the locks and filed a restraining order on him saying she fears he would sexually assault her.

Later he asked her why she did this. She said she didn't know what he was talking about, it must of been something her lawyer did.

She is now living in their $250,000 property and driving his loaded chevy suburban with dvd and video screens, while he has to pay for both pending their divorce.

Since he isn't allowed on the property she has taken the liberty of selling some of his personal belongings.

What is he guilty of? Trying to get away from her.

What is he guilty of? Trying to get away from her.

And this is the point I'm attempting to make. If someone beats me in a bar, I can file a report and that person will likely be arrested. I might be able to get a restraining order, but depending upon the severity of my injuries, that person will be able to post bail and be back to on the streets within 24 hours. I can't take that person's car/house/reputation. I can't force that person to pay my expenses...all before having even been convicted. Why is that allowed in many DV cases?

-Julie

In the middle ages, they had trial by combat. You would try to pay or otherwise get someone to fight on your behalf, or if you were strong, you would fight.

Whoever could hire the better fighter, won.

I'm glad we've evolved so much since then.

"I can't force that person to pay my expenses...all before having even been convicted. Why is that allowed in many DV cases?"

Because, Julie, it's MEN who are getting screwed -- tossed summarily out of their families -- for WOMEN'S benefit. Welcome to our feminist paradise! Fathers no longer required, nor desired! Check your due process and equal protection at the door; you won't be needing them here ....

"And this is the point I'm attempting to make. If someone beats me in a bar, I can file a report and that person will likely be arrested. I might be able to get a restraining order, but depending upon the severity of my injuries, that person will be able to post bail and be back to on the streets within 24 hours. I can't take that person's car/house/reputation. I can't force that person to pay my expenses...all before having even been convicted. Why is that allowed in many DV cases?"

But this is a divorce case, involving children. The children live in that home. Plus, if you're attacked in a bar, there'd likely be witnesses, but if you're attacked at home, in front of two toddlers, who is going corroberate your story? No one. Either way.

CPS and the courts are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they allow the potential abuser to be around the other partner and children, and any of them are harmed, it's their fault. If they make the potential abuser leave, they are also at fault.

Everyone knows abuse tends to escalate when someone is leaving the relationship, so there may not be any prior reports, as the victim could have been covering up the abuse for years.

I agree an evidentiary hearing should be held, and it should be expedient, but the unfortunate thing, especially if abuse really has occurred, is that this may prove nothing. The reality is that when DV takes place behind closed doors, it really is a he-said/she-said situation.

To believe it didn't happen means risking lives, and to believe it did happen means possibly ruining lives. It's really a nighmare for the court, but they tend to lean towards protection, which of the two bad options, makes the most sense.

To believe it didn't happen means risking lives, and to believe it did happen means possibly ruining lives. It's really a nighmare for the court, but they tend to lean towards protection, which of the two bad options, makes the most sense.

But why does protection mean kicking a man out of his home and making sure that he can never see his kids? He is innocent until proven guilty, right? Is this how you would expect an innocent person to be treated?

Why can't the woman go to a shelter with the kids and the man get supervised visitation with a protection order and a halt to all divorce proceedings until the DV issue is resolved? That isn't perfect, but it doesn't give the accuser a financial reward for making an accusation.

-Julie

JulieW - that's because "lovelysoul" wants the current system exactly the way it is - designed to screw the men. Is it any wonder men commit suicide at 100x the rate of women?

This sucks all around, but I see why the courts would side on the children staying in the house: Whoever is at fault, no one wants to see children who had nothing to do with the situation forced out of their homes, forced to leave behind all of their toys and friends and everything they take comfort in, and possibly even have to change schools.

I have a question for the bitch in question here: where's the hospital report? Where's the evaluation? You don't throw someone down the stairs and kick them in the head without leaving some serious injuries - injuries that can be forensically damning.

If she didn't have any injuries when she filed that restraining order, she should have been arrested on the spot and charged with making a false accusation, submitted for psychological review, and had the results submitted to the family court for consideration in the divorce/custody proceedings.

But, since she's a woman, we have dozens of alphabet soup organizations (government and not) who spend all their time and money positioning things so that nobody ever questions the veracity of a woman's story.

Until there's three men looking at a certain death sentence in prison who's families have the financial wherewithal to force the evidence into the public eye.

This is where "feminism" made its fatal mistake -- and it's causing the unraveling of the entire feminist movement. Women are either people equal to men under the law, or they are perpetual victims who require supervision and protection. It is not possible for both to be true.

"Why can't the woman go to a shelter with the kids and the man get supervised visitation with a protection order and a halt to all divorce proceedings until the DV issue is resolved?"

I think MonicaP answered that well, Julie. Why would we make the kids leave their home? They're already in a traumatic situation, and that would only make it worse. And why would be put a halt to divorce proceedings until the DV issue is resolved? IF there is abuse going on, the last thing we want is for this couple to be together, especially when at least one of them is against it. The abuse allegation can be investigated while the divorce proceeds.

I agree an evidentiary hearing should be held, and it should be expedient, but the unfortunate thing, especially if abuse really has occurred, is that this may prove nothing.

They're using the civil standard, which is a preponderance of evidence. And this applies to the necessity of the order, not the claims.

So the standard in these situations will provide a lot of leeway to judges. They'll be able to maintain the order even in the absence of definitive proof. It's the probability of the necessity of the restraining order that's being determined.

What it does establish though is that there needs to be some basis for the order.

That's the root of the controversy surrounding ex parte restraining orders. Studies by state courts and bar associations have demonstrated that less than half even involve allegations of physical abuse. Many jurisdictions grant them as a matter of course.

I agree, the woman is obviously a loon and laws do need to change to protect men (and women) from false accusations. However, the main point of the article "His lawyer, Steven D. Ecker, of Hartford's Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, asked for an evidentiary hearing after the arraignment, but Superior Court Judge James Bingham denied the request." is being missed. The judge just out and out denied the guy an evidentiary hearing, she was just willy-nilly given the restraining order while this guy had to spend years fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Because, Julie, it's MEN who are getting screwed -- tossed summarily out of their families -- for WOMEN'S benefit. Welcome to our feminist paradise! Fathers no longer required, nor desired! Check your due process and equal protection at the door; you won't be needing them here ...."

But who is doing the screwing? Judges at all levels are overwhelmingly male. Legislators too. Most of them look at DV cases/protection orders and see a poor helpless woman who needs to be protected. Sexism sucks, but you can't go around blaming feminists just because the sexist attitudes of a group of powerful males happen to disadvantage men in the specific context of family court.

Incidentally, I fully agree that protection orders have gotten out of control since the 90's; apparently the OJ case really sparked a massive increase in the frequency with which they were issued and enforced. Also, denying anyone an evidentiary hearing when his or her rights are affected is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm fairly sure that the appeals court who hears Fernando A.'s case will agree.

This is not just true in family court. Almost everywhere, entities have to cover their asses in case "the worst" thing happens. That's because when the worst thing does happen, they can be sued or lose their jobs. The public demands accountabilty when abusive tragedies occur.

The courts and CPS are in an awful position in this regard - believe the charge, and risk ruining an innocent person's life, or dismiss the charge and possibly lose a life (or more). The worst is deemed to be loss of life, so that's why they're going to lean towards protection, even when it may seem like overprotection.

This isn't something that's directed at screwing over males, but an unfortunate bi-product of a system mandated to protect lives, particularly those of children.

But everyone deserves a fair, expedient hearing on charges like this. Thank you, Mike, for your explanation.

"No one is forcing the accuser to stay in a bad situation...if an adult is abused, they have the option of leaving. And let's be "honest, if a parent is being abused by a violent psycho, the parent and kids are going to have to leave the vicinity to get away anyhow. Once you report it you are going to have to go into hiding to keep yourself safe. So, why would you want the house? Frankly the idea that the accuser would want to stay in the house makes them suspect in my eyes"

I'm a parent. I'd go through a LOT to keep my kids with their friends/school/etc. A LOT. So yeah, let's require people making an abuse claim to pull stakes and move out and into hiding with the kids. Why not?

Kids are special, and deserving of more protection then adults who CAN fend for themselves. The law recognizes this and so do most humans. If a child is at risk, one must er on the side of caution, even if it mans stepping on an adult.

I might recommend reading This.

Ben Stone applied for a restraining order, against himself, and it was granted. This is the type of idiocy that drives the TRO/OOP juggernaut.

Judges are more concerned with covering their asses than the truth, which makes a complete mockery of what our judicial system is supposed to be about.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Except in the case of a TRO/OOP. Then it's guilty until proven innocent, oh, and we aren't really going to allow you to prove your innocence.

It's sickening.

Accusations of rape and accusations of domestic violence are the only two crimes where a man can be put in jail without one bit of fact or evidence. Unbelievably stupid, but maybe some states will start catching on to this.

If I murder someone, there has to be facts and evidence to put me in jail. If I rob someone, there has to be evidence that I did that. In both these cases there is absolutely noone getting convicted unless there is a fingerprint, a witness, some DNA, a murder weapon. So, the question is, why why why can a woman simply say that she is afraid of the husband and they lock him away and kick him out of his house and take his kids???

There should be automatic penalties such as fine and jail time for false accusations. But things are coming around since the Duke case, the other false rape case recently, and more men winning custody of children despite these outrageous claims.

lovely soul, you hit the nail on the head: If it is a he said/she said situation there should be NO CRIME!

If there is no pictures, blood, bruises, pulled hair, broken bones, or any other type of PROOF, EVIDENCE, or FACT there should be no crime.

And sorry, mean looks and angry words are not a crime. If they were Nancy Pelosi would be in jail right now...

what if - and this is a random idea because i'm bored - we continue to remove the abuser immediately in an effort to protect the victims. BUT, if the abuser is found innocent, the 'victim' who falsely accused (unless it's a child, who would in that case receive counseling or something age-appropriate) has to pay the room and board - in a decent hotel - for the abuser. and make a public statement of apology. might satisfy the need to both protect the victim, in the event that it IS real despite it being the first report (sometimes it doesn't start until the stress of the divorce), and still have consequences in the event that the accuser is a big fat liar with pants on fire. i just felt the need to say it like that just to be silly. sorry.

In other news Vern Troyer has a restraining order filed againts him by his ex girlfreind.

Deos anyone really thing that guy is even tall enough to hit is ex above her knees?

> this is a random idea because
> i'm bored

No excuse. Liberal daydreams have a way of turning into bold new government initiatives. This morning a dear friend cited today's WSJ piece on the Speaker:

Ms. Pelosi, however, apparently thinks the moment is ripe to use sheer political muscle to pass legislation reordering one sixth of the economy, with zero Republican support. The right mixture of "incentives" and Rahm Emanuel-style pressure, she believes, will bring enough Democrats to heel to vote for the bill.

> if the abuser is found innocent, the
> 'victim' who falsely accused (unless
> it's a child, who would in that case
> receive counseling or something
> age-appropriate) has to pay the room
> and board - in a decent hotel - for
> the abuser. and make a public
> statement of apology.

There are at least four things to hate about that passage. Maybe more. Fuckit, let's all count together:

1. 'Victim' in quotes. What irony are you trying to invoke with watery punctuation? Is someone a victim or not? Either way, why are you holding your own hypo-fucking-thetical judgment at arm's length?

2. Counseling or something? Like, y'know, what else are we talking about here? What other options are you going to deliver?

3. Is there any circumstance for which society might ever intrusively respond to an interpersonal crisis within a family in a manner that isn't age appropriate? I mean, how did that come to mind for you?... Are you living your life through the execution of an imaginary middle-manager's checklist?

4. What's the fuck's up with the decent hotel? Is there going to be a government functionary (unionized; subsidized health insurance; retirement bennies) who makes sure that people accused of family violence have fully stocked minibars, two packets of coffee for the little brewing pot, and complimentary HBO and Cinemax?

(By the way, do they still have Cinemax? You used to see lotsa Reagan-era titty flying around on there during quieter dayparts. The movies had small, slow-moving plots, but big, fast-flying nipples.)

5. And what's with the public apology? Why is it that liberals think everything will be duck feathers 'n sunshine if only people can be forced to say just-the-right things, and to honor each other's emotions in just-the-right way? Have you ever seen a forced apology that ever meant a good God Damn to anyone? Like, ever?

5a. Isn't the fascination with forced emotional posturing, as in your apology, much like the compulsory love demanded of religious flocks, whose Creators already know what terrors are in store for the prayerful, even before the little pew-weasels are born? (Our God is a jealous god: He says 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'.) Is liberalism not often just an authoritarian faith with different rituals?

6. And what's with having to do this apology in public? Are you really so certain that you can make the whole society work better if you can just stage-direct the dramas which we witness?

Seriously, dude.... Some things that go wrong with human life –and human character– are not policy problems. And they're not going to be fixed by elaborate policies, either.

1: in this particular instance, 'victim' is in quotes because if you could read, you would have already noticed that the accusations would have been proven false by the time we get to this point. notice it says 'victim' who falsely accused, meaning supposed-victim of supposed-abuse. sheesh. i thought that one was obvious.

2: counseling or something age appropriate. a 17 year old, for example, might require something more punitive than say, a 9 year old coached by mommy. for example, the 17 year old may require probation. or time in a juvenile facility, i don't know. the 9 year old needs some help.

3: what?

4: as opposed to a cheap rat-infested hotel. which would be easy. and cinemax still exists.

5: so sue me for trying to get the liar to feel some sort of shame. it would also establish, publicly, that the liar is, in fact, a liar.

5a: not worthy of a response.

6: no. public, so there is a public record of the liar being a liar, which would hopefully affect the individual's ability to keep a job, sign a loan, etc. because they're a liar. the same way an arrest record is public.

what's your method to try to deter false reports? you're generally very quick to criticize other peoples' thoughts, slow to offer solutions, so let's hear it.

> i thought that one
> was obvious.

Your thinking never is... By the way, which "whatever" are you? (OK, duzzenmadder.)

> time in a juvenile facility, i don't
> know. the 9 year old needs some help.

If you don't know, go easy on the "apology" thing.

> what?

Put down that Pabst and concentrate.

> as opposed to a cheap rat-infested hotel.

So you were serious. You got it all worked out...

> so sue me for trying to get
> the liar to feel

The feelings of criminals aren't of interest. Y'know, the criminal elements of the world are not your little brothers and sisters, intimate plaything personalities for your manipulation and emotional tomfoolery.

> not worthy of a response.

Busted. You got nuthin'.

> public, so there is a public record
> of the liar being a liar

ADULT LIFE IS NOT THE SCHOOL PLAYGROUND. 'K? This is not about calling the other kids "liars" and getting even at recess. This is a continuing theme in these comments. It cements my belief that lefties are undercooked personalities, endlessly reworking the unfairnesses of their childhoods. But adulthood is about nuance and recognizing the power of perspective, not slam-dunk rhetorical calculations.

> what's your method to try to
> deter false reports?

Jail. I think it's interesting that you want the punishment to include enduring unemployment— I reflect on your comments about families, and wiping Afghanistan off the map, and now this, and conclude that you're a vindictive little guy: Things get very personal for you.

i can go with jail. i thought it a bit extreme, but i can go with it. i was trying to come up with a compromise so that if the accusation was true, the victims were protected and if not, the false-accuser was punished, but maybe we don't care in the event that they're not lying.

a lot of people are more threatened by consequences to their pocketbooks than by the possibility of jail time. so i thought i'd hit there.

i find it deeply amusing that you still can't tell me apart from the other Whatever. apparently you can't see capital letters. i've never said anything about wiping afghanistan off the map. or anyone else, for that matter.

Last year, my friend was accussed of molesting a young boy, the daughter of his girlfriend. The boy, age 9, told his father, as well as a counselor at school. His mom and my friend had only been dating a few months and she had recently moved in with him.

So, she immediately moved out, and my friend got a very good lawyer. The ex-husband was really enraged, and kept asking for the cops to do more. They came to my friend's house with search warrants, took his computer, etc. I don't believe he spent any time in jail. If he did, it may have been only one night.

Amazingly, he was quite calm through the whole ordeal. Perhaps, he was unaware of what terrible things could happen, but he believed, "I'm innocent, so I don't need to worry".

Gossip flew all over town. People asked me if I thought he "did" it. I said, "No." But I'd be lying if I said that even I didn't have momentary doubts. How well did I really know him? Over 8 years of friendship, could I have missed the fact he was a child predator? He never seemed to even like children or enjoy being around them much. It didn't fit the profile.

He passed a polygraph, which he voluntarily took. This went a long way with CPS, and they expressed belief in his innocence and doubts about the boy's story. It also helped that he had a clean record. In the meantime, the child underwent counseling. The mother was torn between believing/supporting her son and her boyfriend.

This all went on for about 3 months. Then, the boy confessed to his dad that he'd made it all up because he was jealous of his mom's new relationship and wanted his mom and dad to get back together.

The dad brought the boy to my friend's house and they both apologized. Charges were dropped. The mom and my friend got back together (though not living together, as he naturally didn't want the child back in his home). They've since broken up, as it was just too difficult. The boy remained in counseling.

I tell the story just to demonstrate how tough the situation is for everyone. The reality is that no one knew what to believe. But I'd suggest a polygraph is a good way to quickly clear your name and change the tone of the investigation. This situation is stressful, but it doesn't have to ruin a man's life.

A nitpick: Being proven not guilty is not the same as being proven innocent.

What happens when we have people issuing public apologies and making financial reparations to people who really did abuse them and got off?

"What happens when we have people issuing public apologies and making financial reparations to people who really did abuse them and got off?"

Sometimes Scots Law has its bright points. One of them is the option for a third verdict: "not proven". When there just is not enough evidence one way or the other to definitively decide a case - it seems particularly appropriate here. "He said, she said" - without any physical evidence, there is no way to fairly judge who is telling the truth. "Not proven".

Great post!

We actually wrote about this a month ago. "A Guy gets Screwed."

Men have been given an advantage when it comes to the workforce in this country. That's not fair. BUT, when it comes to divorce, generally men get screwed. Abusers deserve everything they have coming to them, but the the law is so weighted on the woman's side that she can say almost anything and the man has almost no recourse.

Glad to hear things are changing....at least in some places.

To lovelysoul: What many people don't realize is, even 3-year-olds are smart enough to lie about FAMILIAR subjects, especially when driven by greed, fear of punishment - or, of course, anger. I've seen a 3-year-old lie (about spilling food) even though he knew his mother was sitting right there and saw every detail.

I.e., we have to start teaching kids at younger ages that some lies deserve far harsher punishments than others. Oh, and as Dr. Rosemond said three days ago, it's often a bad idea to ask questions:

"The old adage 'Ask them no questions, and they will tell you no lies' means that when parents know or are reasonably certain they know what has happened, they should make STATEMENTS, as in, 'You broke the window.' Period. If the child still denies, pay no attention to the denial. Simply say, 'Because you broke the window, you will stay indoors for a week.' Then, ignore protests. Refuse to discuss it. Simply enforce, and repeat as often as necessary.

"Will that stop the lying? I can't guarantee anything. I do know that it takes very little time for a child to become hooked on lying and that the demon of this particular addiction has to be starved for a long, long time before it decides to leave its host and move on."

We h

Why would we make the kids leave their home? They're already in a traumatic situation, and that would only make it worse.

That sucks...and I'm not in any way minimizing that fact, but:

A)The accused is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

B)If the accused is an abuser, leaving the wife and kids in a place where the abuser can reach then is a sure way to get all of their blood running down the walls of the 'family home'. This is for their protection too. Do you want the possible victims safe or in their home? You generally can't have both.

And why would be put a halt to divorce proceedings until the DV issue is resolved? IF there is abuse going on, the last thing we want is for this couple to be together, especially when at least one of them is against it. The abuse allegation can be investigated while the divorce proceeds.

Because decisions in the divorce will be impacted by the results of the criminal proceedings. If the accused is found guilty of abuse, that should effect custody arrangements, but not one second before then...because the accused is INNOCENT.

It is possible to be separated from someone and not have them know where you are while still being married to them. This doesn't put anyone in danger, it gives the accused a fair shake.

-Julie

Lenona, it's a good point. Three year olds do lie - but they usually can't lie consistently.

One of the things that bothered me in my friend's situation is that the therapist specifically avoided asking the child questions about the alleged abuse, and instructed the parents not to either.

That's why months went by before anyone (the father) really questioned him enough to determine he was lying. I'm not sure why therapists do this, but it crossed my mind that it was about money. "Oh, we need to let him tell us at his own pace" means more sessions and a bigger paycheck for the counselor - and, unfortunately, a much longer ordeal for anyone accused.

There may be some valid psychological reason for this, but it seemed wrong to me. The whole thing could've been cleared up much quicker if they had only asked the boy more questions. Children lie, but they tend to get tangled up when trying to consistently describe details that didn't really happen.

I'm a parent. I'd go through a LOT to keep my kids with their friends/school/etc. A LOT. So yeah, let's require people making an abuse claim to pull stakes and move out and into hiding with the kids. Why not?

If you are in a truly abusive situation to the point where you are filing restraining orders, you NEED to go into hiding! Allowing your kids to hang out with their friends and sleep in their beds is small consolation when they come home from school and find you bleeding out on the floor. To paraphrase Sam Kinison: If you aren't worried enough to go into hiding, you don't have a problem yet!

Kids are special, and deserving of more protection then adults who CAN fend for themselves. The law recognizes this and so do most humans. If a child is at risk, one must er on the side of caution, even if it mans stepping on an adult.

But I'm saying that we should preserve the rights and safety of both the children and the adults. It is remarkably stupid to put children at risk so that they can sleep in their own beds. It is also a violation of constitutional rights to allow a spouse to steal your home and family without due process. Why can we not protect both parties while things work through the courts, while at the same time stop the financial rewards that come from false claims.

-Julie

A)The accused is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

In the awful case of two innocent parties suffering, the courts should rightfully come down on the side of maintaining the children's quality of life. If the father is wrongfully accused, that's an issue that needs to be addressed in court, but his welfare is not nearly as important as that of the small, helpless people he created.

B)If the accused is an abuser, leaving the wife and kids in a place where the abuser can reach then is a sure way to get all of their blood running down the walls of the 'family home'. This is for their protection too. Do you want the possible victims safe or in their home? You generally can't have both.

It's not that hard to track someone down, even if they're hiding in a shelter. An abuser can find his family through friends, by breaking into email, following the kids home from school, etc., so why make the children suffer if it's not going to protect them?

Unless the abusive parent is a truly murderous psychopath, children are safer in an environment in which they are familiar and comfortable. People in the neighborhood know them. They have established patterns. Someone will notice if one of the kids doesn't show up for baseball practice. They are more secure and confident because they're not thrust into an alien situation with people they don't know or trust.

In addition, not all abusers are psychopaths who will hunt down their families in the dead of night. Sometimes it's just a matter of being there.

To add: Many of these shelters are filled to capacity. Are we prepared to pour more tax dollars into building more shelters? Where does that money come from?

It's generally easier for one person to relocate temporarily than it is for multiple people to relocate.

Sometimes there are just no solutions that work for everyone.

It's not that hard to track someone down, even if they're hiding in a shelter.

You would be surprised. I'm in hiding from an abusive family member. That person has no idea where I am and hasn't for about 15 years. It is more than possible to hide if you are in fear for your wellbeing.

In addition, not all abusers are psychopaths who will hunt down their families in the dead of night. Sometimes it's just a matter of being there.

Either the spouse and children need to be protected from the abuser, at which point they need to pull up stakes and protect themselves, or it is 'abuse'. 'Abuse' is generally an affectation in the head of the 'victim'. Anything from taking control of the finances to getting in a heated argument is 'abuse'. I reiterate, unless someone is fearing for their life and able to provide evidence why, they should not be able to get a protection order. If an accuser feels comfortable staying at home and continuing on with life either:

a)The accuser is stupid/delusional or

b)There isn't a real problem. It is 'abuse'.

Protection from 'abuse' comes when you grow a backbone, start speaking up for yourself, and refuse to be treated poorly. Being treated poorly isn't real abuse!

If you want to protect victims and children, then do it...but kicking the accused out of the house and getting a protection order won't stop a real abuser and it is a violation of the accused constitutional rights.

-Julie

Many of these shelters are filled to capacity. Are we prepared to pour more tax dollars into building more shelters? Where does that money come from?

I suggest that we use old schools. Most schools have locker room facilities, kitchen facilities, and the ability to secure the perimeter. I can think of 3 or 4 older school buildings in my general location that are in reasonable condition and could be easily converted.

-Julie

I agree, MonicaP. It's unrealistic - and usually unnecessary - to expect a mother and children to move to a shelter while this all plays out, which could take months. Shelters are intended for emergencies, not long-term living.

They can get a big dog, an alarm system, ask for an extra patrol at night. But, really, all she can do is lock the doors and hope he won't violate to protective order, which would be very damaging to him in court. Some abusers are that psychopathic, so if she's really in fear, she would have to move to a different location. That would really be a last resort though.

The home is also a point of contention in the divorce. Whoever leaves the home can be at a disadvantage in the proceedings. This is why some women lie about abuse - to make the man be the one to leave the home. So, it could also work against her to leave.

Whoever leaves the home can be at a disadvantage in the proceedings. This is why some women lie about abuse - to make the man be the one to leave the home. So, it could also work against her to leave.

So it is better that the woman should be allowed to lie about abuse to force the man out of the house to get the upper hand than the woman be forced to follow through on the allegations she is making? That really doesn't make any sense.

-Julie

I suggest that we use old schools. Most schools have locker room facilities, kitchen facilities, and the ability to secure the perimeter. I can think of 3 or 4 older school buildings in my general location that are in reasonable condition and could be easily converted.

Converting them is one thing. Supplying them with food and other supplies of living is another, in addition to staffing them, running background checks, providing security, etc.

Abuse is a weird thing. I'm glad you found safety from your family member. My brother would be unlikely to track his family down if they left or if they stayed. He can occasionally be a good father, but he also has no problem with bashing his wife's head into a wall or tossing his kid down a flight of stairs. He gets angry and snaps, but he doesn't really have a plan to hurt them. I think his family would benefit from making him leave. But this is why having blanket policies for things usually fails.

Monica P writes: "What happens when we have people issuing public apologies and making financial reparations to people who really did abuse them and got off?"

Making a false charge is itself a charge, and should be subject to the same standards of evidence. It's quite possible that neither the original accusation nor the false-charge counter-accusation is provable at the standard required for a criminal trial. That's one reason that it doesn't do to take punitive action, against either party, simply on the basis of an accusation.

Whatever writes: "what if we continue to remove the abuser immediately in an effort to protect the victims. BUT, if the abuser is found innocent, the 'victim' who falsely accused has to pay the room and board - in a decent hotel - for the abuser. and make a public statement of apology."

The problem is, that doesn't cover the territory, in terms of making the falsely accused whole (to use the insurance term). In addition to this, at a minimum the accused will have legal expenses which may be substantial. There will be lost wages due to time spent in court, and possibly other expenses incurred if the accused has to travel for court hearings.

Worse is the potential damage to the victim's reputation. He may lose his job if the employer finds out about the accusation, or because of time spent away from the job, in court or in jail. From that time on, every time he applies for a job or for any of the many government licenses/privileges which require a background check, he will have to disclose that he was once arrested for abuse or molestation. That will be a show-stopper for many employers and licensing bodies. And this is without even getting into the social consequences. Chances are that the damage to the accused's reputation will be irreversible, and he will be paying both monetary and social costs for the rest of his life.

M4 writes: "I'm a parent. I'd go through a LOT to keep my kids with their friends/school/etc. A LOT. So yeah, let's require people making an abuse claim to pull stakes and move out and into hiding with the kids."

But what about the case when the person making the accusation is actually the abuser? It happens sometimes that abusers make false charges against their spouse when they think they're about to get caught. If we immediately removed the accused from the household, now all of a sudden we've put the children in far worse danger -- the person who might have been protecting them has been removed, and they are alone with the abuser. Removing the accused from the household is not the "safe" course at all; it's every big as big a gamble as the other course. As such, it does not in any way justify violating the civil rights of the accused.

M4 writes: "If the father is wrongfully accused, that's an issue that needs to be addressed in court, but his welfare is not nearly as important as that of the small, helpless people he created."

Is that because he's male? What if the mother is falsely accused? Should she be made to move out and leave the kids with the father? Or in that case, should the father be made to take the children and go to a shelter? Oh gosh darn it, there are no shelters for men! Not only that, but if the father take the children away from the mother, then that's kidnapping! Oh heck, let's just throw the man out no matter what the circumstances. He's a man; he should quit whining and man up.

Julie, for the sake of argument, I was assuming the allegation was true and was just pointing out that if she left, it would make things even worse for her, as far as possibly losing the house.

I'm glad you were able to get away from your abusive family member. My impression of most divorce-related abuse is that it's generally temporary. People go through all sorts of emotions during a divorce - jealousy, dispair, anger. They may want revenge or feel suicidal, and this can result in behaviors that they wouldn't normally have. That time can be particularly dangerous, but it often passes once the reality of the divorce sinks in. A little distance between the parties can help calm these tensions.

It's different from the kind of consistent, menacing abuse a sociopath would employ. Besides, sociopaths are usually types who know how to play the system. If there are children involved, they will make it impossible for their spouse to leave the state, and demand information that would lead to them being more easily found. All you need is a school address, and a parent can't usually be denied that if they haven't abused the children, just the spouse. They can sit in the parking lot and wait for the ex to drop off the kids, then follow him/her home. Sociopaths are a whole different breed of danger than what is typical in divorce-related situations.

Got a couple of cases for you. One is the sensational kind: Jesse James is in court vs. ex-wife Janine - addict, tax evader, married to another felon. Somehow there's still a question about custody.

The other is simple hearsay from a friend at work. In Barnwell County, SC, a friend's sister was struck several times when her husband of three months came home drunk. There were marks on her. Her brothers came over to reason with him. He has not touched liquor, or her or the baby except with the greatest tenderness, since he left the hospital. Six years ago.

I know - that's just one story - but it illustrates a great truth you cannot change: there are some things the justice system just cannot do. Yes, you can go on about how things should be. They aren't that way. They're not going to be that way.

Listen: every time you set up a public agency with the power to interfere in people's lives, you set them up to interfere in your life -- and the agency's goals are NOT THE SAME AS YOURS. If you would look around yourself, you would see this.

Again: if you don't know who you're sleeping with, you have set yourself up!

Julie, for the sake of argument, I was assuming the allegation was true...

This is the problem. When someone is accused they are supposed to be viewed as innocent until proven otherwise. You are assuming that the accused is guilty until proven otherwise, and therefore advocating violating that person's civil rights by penalizing them before it is proven that the deserve it.

-Julie

M4 writes: "If the father is wrongfully accused, that's an issue that needs to be addressed in court, but his welfare is not nearly as important as that of the small, helpless people he created."

No I didn't. At least argue the right person!

Julie, you are arguing that unless a guy is so hell-bent on killing you that he'll track you to the ends of the earth, it's not abuse? Ever hear of kick-the-dog syndrome? You a have bad day and take it out on on whoever's littler than you at home. Doesn't mean you'll track them down, or break back in to get at them. I still say, that an adult who may be a threat should have to leave, not the kids. Whether it's dad or mom doesn't matter.

And false accusations should have stiff consequences.

Julie, you are arguing that unless a guy is so hell-bent on killing you that he'll track you to the ends of the earth, it's not abuse?

I'm saying that unless the accuser is fearful enough to go into hiding to protect themselves that no one is in so much risk that it is valid to deny someone due process and access to their home and family.

That a spouse being mean and nasty doesn't mean that they are illegally abusive.

That we shouldn't reward someone financially for making an accusation of abuse...that will just lead to more accusations, whether valid or not.

That allegations of abuse should not be used in divorce proceedings until someone has been convicted.

If the accuser is unwilling to do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant to protect themselves, then they aren't really scared. They may have more than a good reason to divorce, but not enough of a good reason to ruin someone's life. We are all innocent until proven guilty for a reason. If someone accused you of beating your children as an act of vengeance, how would you want to be treated?

-Julie

So Julie, if I went to work and most days the guy down the hall popped me one when no one was looking, by your logic I should quit my job and go find another, rather than the other person having to leave?

They shouldn't HAVE to do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant to protect themselves, THEY aren't at fault. Neither are the kids.

If someone accused me of beating my kids, I would hope someone else would make damn sure I wasn't doing so before leaving me with them again. I would not expect to be left alone with them for weeks or months while the justice wheels grind slowly on.

Oh, and while I'm glad you seem to be safe, you COULD be found, Anyone can be, even people in witness protection, if someone wants to badly enough. It's more a matter of making it just a little harder than the effort they're willing to put in. Sometimes, there is no effort they won't go to, and you're dead. Most times, you can make them give up.

Oh, and while I'm glad you seem to be safe, you COULD be found,

This is a particularly heinous strawman you erected. You don't like my position and cannot argue against it so you attack me through the attacks of others. You don't even have to know what that family member did to me or mine, or for how long and what measures I've taken to attempt to find safety...as long as you can make me think of it and cause me fear. I'd assumed that was beneath you, momof4. Apparently I was wrong. I will treat you accordingly in the future.

So Julie, if I went to work and most days the guy down the hall popped me one when no one was looking, by your logic I should quit my job and go find another, rather than the other person having to leave?

Why wouldn't you start looking for anther job the first time someone hit you? Why is it everyone else's responsibility to ensure your safety and the safety of your offspring?

By your standard you should be able to make an accusation of a coworker hitting you with no evidence, simply because you wanted his job, and have your employer take his job, his house, his kids, his car and give them all to you even before anyone determines if he actually did what you accused him of. By your standard that coworker should have to spend years fighting to get his reputation back, attempt to gain employment, rebuild connections with his family...all because you are a nasty bitch who wanted to take a short-cut to the end goal of personal advancement. Your position isn't about saving anyone...it is about degrading that which you think is beyond your ability to control.

They shouldn't HAVE to do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant to protect themselves, THEY aren't at fault. Neither are the kids.

We don't know who is at fault when an accusation is made. That is the point. WE ARE ALL INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY You are assuming that all accusations are true. I'm assuming that some are true and some are bullshit. I also know that we are all responsible for our own safety and need to be smart enough to remove ourselves from dangerous situations. If someone refuses to do that, they cannot expect the police to act as ever present bouncers when the ex keeps coming back to the house.

-Julie

M4 (yes, I checked this time) writes: "They shouldn't HAVE to do anything uncomfortable or unpleasant to protect themselves, THEY aren't at fault. Neither are the kids."

So instead, someone else should be forced, at the state's gunpoint, to do something not just uncomfortable and unpleasant but potentially life-destroying -- for no good reason at all! And this is based entirely on which set of hormones they have running around in their bloodstream! Now I understand. As a male, I must accept second-class citizenship because, you know, I'm a potential abuser. That's common sense, isn't it?

Cousin dave, I went to very, very great pains to be gender neutral and state that the mom or dad should have to leave, whoever is abusing. But yeah, restart the cry-me-a-river-I'm-male pity party again.

Julie, i was making no comment on your particular safety or fear, merely that anyone can be found. Period. Don't act like women can just go running off to a shelter, leaving the man in the house, and live happily ever after. Not everything is about you, but when you bring up your personal experience to back your claims, people are going to comment on them and how they aren't true for all.

"Why wouldn't you start looking for anther job the first time someone hit you?"

Why on earth do you victim-blame? The guilty party should have no consequences? The vic should have to be unemployed and job-searching while the perp continues on as normal? The vic should be homeless? Do you blame yourself that much? WHen someone's safety is at stake-esp kids-a grown-ups rights get trumped. Deal with it.

Momof4 if some guy just off and pops you in the face at work you scould immedatly stop what you are doing

1. find your boss and report it
2. find someone in the area to take pictures
3. go to the hospital tell them you were assulted and have them take pictures and get a medical file to give to the police. (even a slap leaves brusing)
4. leave the hospital with your medical file and go to the police
5. file an assult charge, give them your statment and the medical file - when the photos come in turn those over as well
6. the next day at work go to human resorces file an offical complaint and fill out the proper paper work

If you're really serious about being attacked you'd be willing to do all of this right?

So why do you defend a system where a victim of asult doenst need to contact the cops or provide evidence by just stand in front of one person and say "because" and never have to defend their accusations against any rebul from the person they are accusing?

I would, in fact, do all of that. But, I wouldn't have the knowledge that he will be back in my house in 24 hours, looking to hurt me worse, either. And you can betcha the workplace is going to ban the offending employee. So that, you know, I would not have to face him daily in the arena in which he'd been attacking me. Hmmm, sounds familiar?

The workplace would not say "oh, he's not convicted yet, he can still work here with you". Why should one's home be any different?

momof4,

Muddled vocabulary leads to fuzzy thinking.

There can be no "victim" nor any "perp" until there is a determination that a "victimization" actually was perpetrated. Until then, there is only an accuser, and an accused, who (except in your world) is presumed innocent, and is not yet subject to punishment.

"Sentence first, trial later!" works with you?

Well momof4 with a police report photos and a medical report is seems to me that you would have plenty of EVIDENCE(which is the point of this entire post incase you forgot) to support your request for a restraining order.

If you just show up pay a round of - "Yes You Did!! No I Didnt!!" or as is more comom "Yes He Did, and he isnt here to defend himself becuase seeing him speak to you is far more hard on me then the time he threw down a flight of stairs your honor"

- why shoud you get a restraining order if you arent willing to show you have a reasonable fear?

Why on earth do you victim-blame? The guilty party should have no consequences? The vic should have to be unemployed and job-searching while the perp continues on as normal? The vic should be homeless?

I don't victim blame. If someone has been hurt I want to protect them to the greatest ability our society has. However, that doesn't mean that someone should be able to level accusations and not have to attempt to ensure their own safety. This is about two things:

1)Ensuring that no civil liberties are violated.

2)Ensuring the safety of the victims in times of crisis.

If the accuser is unwilling to make adjustments for his/her safety one would start to question the truthfulness of their story. Are these things easy? No. Are they traumatic? Yes! But they must be done to hedge as many bets as possible and to provide validity to the story.

Do you blame yourself that much? WHen someone's safety is at stake-esp kids-a grown-ups rights get trumped. Deal with it.

Your argument amounts to WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!. It is equally invalid and histrionic. I know alot about these situations. I know that when the sun is dark, and the weapons are cleaned, and the alcohol has been drank and the hour is none that you never know when someone will just FUCKING SNAP and when that happens a restraining order and 911 on speed dial won't ensure your safety.

The goal should be to make it as difficult as possible for the accused to reach the victim while allowing the accused to retain their rights until the law has determined they are guilty. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you think it is valid to convict someone just by leveling an accusation?

-Julie

lovelysoul:
CPS and the courts are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they allow the potential abuser to be around the other partner and children, and any of them are harmed, it's their fault. If they make the potential abuser leave, they are also at fault.
The problem is the system has looked at this and has decided that the potential abuser and any suffering they may go through does not matter. No one wants to talk about what a person goes through when accused and people (namely the courts, media, and feminsits) have set up the image that a person accused of either suffers no ill effects or the ill effects are so minute that they should just suck it up.

CB:
But who is doing the screwing? Judges at all levels are overwhelmingly male. Legislators too. Most of them look at DV cases/protection orders and see a poor helpless woman who needs to be protected. Sexism sucks, but you can't go around blaming feminists just because the sexist attitudes of a group of powerful males happen to disadvantage men in the specific context of family court.
So does this mean that the next time feminists help push through a piece of pro-woman or anti-male legislation it means they had nothing to do with it? No I'm sure they will right there to claim that they influened it. Its funny when something good happens they are there to share the credit but when someone gets hurt suddenly they don't have any power in influence.

And considering how the courts act on family matters now which is the bigger influence? Appeasing feminist lobbying or sharing gender with male constituents?

This is a worn excuse that sounds like every male in the country has the personal cell phone numbers of everyone on Capital Hill and we can just call them up and get things changed.

E. Steven Berkimer:
Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Except in the case of a TRO/OOP. Then it's guilty until proven innocent, oh, and we aren't really going to allow you to prove your innocence.
And if you do somehow manage to prove your innocene we will still treat you like a criminal and offer you no compensation for your suffering.

And for all the people that are bringing up children. If the children's best interests are the top priority wouldn't it make sense to NOT make decisions such as tossing one parent out of the hom based on only the accusations of the other parent? Wouldn't it make sense to give the other parent at least a fair chance to respond to the accusations before something as serious as ripping said parent away from a child is done?

The argument is coming down to "innocent until proven guilty" versus "won't someone think of the children!?"

Which should be favoured? i don't know... maybe the law?

If the abuse is bad enough to be complained about, it is bad enough to escape from.

To put it another way, if someone stabs you. What would you do? Sit there and demand they leave? or run to the hospital and call the cops?

It is up to everyone to assure their own safety to a degree. If leaving your home is too harsh for you, when compared to the abuse (being stabbed *hint hint*) then the abuse is obviously not that bad, or you're a weak willed fool.

You can't help those that won't help themselves.