We've often talked about the Batterer's Intervention Program (BIP) as being the appropriate counseling for perpetrators of domestic violence and that an Anger Management class is not recommended. The following information from the November 2009 Office of the State Courts Administrator highlights the differences between the two programs. For more info, click here.
Experts in the field of domestic violence have long considered BIPs to be best equipped to handle the needs of batterers. Anger management programs are sometimes utilized in place of BIP. While excellent at what they are designed to do, anger management programs do not generally meet the needs of most batterers. The following chart was provided by Department of Children and Families (DCF) as a helpful reminder of the differences between anger management and BIP.
Anger Management (AM) vs. Certified Batterer Intervention Program (BIP)
Are programs state certified?
AM: No
BIP: Yes. Certification is granted by the Florida Department of Children and Families, Domestic Violence Program Office.
Who is served by the programs?
AM: Perpetrators of stranger or non-intimate violence
BIP: Specifically designed to work with perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
How long are the programs?
AM: Usually 6-20 sessions, with an average program lasting 10 sessions (Typically Orange & Seminole courts order an 8-hr anger management class).
BIP: Mandated by Florida Statute at 29 weeks which includes a minimum of 24 sessions, assessment, intake/enrollment and orientation.
Do programs contact victims?
AM: No
BIP: Yes. By letter when the batterer enrolls and is discharged from the program. If the offender makes known threats toward the victim, the program will contact the victim and the proper authorities. The victim is provided with local referral information.
Are programs monitored by a state agency?
AM: No
BIP: Yes. By the Department of Children & Families, Domestic Violence Program Office.
Are programs linked with a battered women's agency?
AM: No
BIP: Not directly. Letters to victims contain contact information for local certified domestic violence centers. Certified batterers programs are encouraged to establish relationships with their local certified centers and many have fostered that relationship.
Do programs assess batterers for lethality?
AM: No
BIP: Yes. While not a prediction model, certified assessors conduct an assessment which includes questions which reveal how potentially lethal a batterer may be - such as if he owns a gun, has a history of intimate partner violence or has been convicted of other violent offenses.
What is the emphasis of the intervention?
AM: Violence is seen as a momentary outburst of anger.
BIP: Physical violence is seen as one of many forms of abusive behaviors chosen by batterers to control their intimate partners. Other behaviors include physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. Batterer intervention models hold batterers accountable for the violent and abusive choices they make. They teach batterers to recognize how their abuse affects their partners and children and to practice alternatives to abusive behaviors.
Are group facilitators trained about domestic violence?
AM: Subject to agency discretion
BIP: Yes. State standards require that facilitators receive an initial 21 hours of state approved basic facilitator training, 8 hours of substance abuse as it relates to domestic violence, 4 hours of attendance at domestic violence court hearings, 40 hours of victim centered training and 84 hours of co-facilitating with a certified program (may not be completed in less than six months). Twelve CEU's in DV/batterer intervention are required annually thereafter.
How would I address grievances with this type of program?
AM: Talk to the director of the program
BIP: First, talk to the director of the program and second, notify the DCF, Office of Domestic Violence Programs, (850) 921-2168.
For more info, see What Batterer Programs Can & Cannot Demonstrably Do
Showing posts with label BIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BIP. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Last 10%
In monitoring Judge Theotis Bronson's injunction court this morning, I was pleased to see him do about 90% of what needed to be done. But the last 10% was sadly missing.
When the hearing began, the Respondent (Alton Bell) initially agreed to have an injunction placed on him. As Judge Bronson was telling him that the order would last 12 months he had no objection. Once the judge told him he would be required to complete BIP, he objected and a hearing was held.
The Petitioner and the Respondent have a 1-yr old child together. After her testimony about his assaults and harrassment, the parties accused one another of lying and Bell stood up to walk out of the courtroom (this is a big "no no" - deputies don't take too kindly to this sort of thing). He was admonished by the judge and two heavily armed deputies to sit down. When the judge ordered temporary child support, Mr. Bell was even less inclined to remain in the courtroom and he attempted to walk out a second time. He complied with the judge & deputies' instructions to sit down again.
Judge Bronson ordered a 6-month injunction but neglected to do something that is crucial to solidify its chances of success. He did not take the time to work out a temporary visitation schedule for the child, nor did he work with the parties to designate a friend or family member as the go-between for scheduling visits or monitoring the child while mom & dad exchange her. Usually a third party's home serves as the drop-off / pick-up when the child is not in school or a daycare facility. The judge never inquired about whether she was in daycare or who might be a suitable facilitator.
Judge Bronson and the deputies in the courtroom did a good job in getting the Respondent to sit down and be quiet. But I suspect that Mr. Bell's belligerence is the reason the Court ended the hearing before visitation matters were addressed. Thankfully, he did order BIP, although he did not tell either party he did so in open court. It was attached to the paperwork that was given to the parties at the end of the hearing.
When the hearing began, the Respondent (Alton Bell) initially agreed to have an injunction placed on him. As Judge Bronson was telling him that the order would last 12 months he had no objection. Once the judge told him he would be required to complete BIP, he objected and a hearing was held.
The Petitioner and the Respondent have a 1-yr old child together. After her testimony about his assaults and harrassment, the parties accused one another of lying and Bell stood up to walk out of the courtroom (this is a big "no no" - deputies don't take too kindly to this sort of thing). He was admonished by the judge and two heavily armed deputies to sit down. When the judge ordered temporary child support, Mr. Bell was even less inclined to remain in the courtroom and he attempted to walk out a second time. He complied with the judge & deputies' instructions to sit down again.
Judge Bronson ordered a 6-month injunction but neglected to do something that is crucial to solidify its chances of success. He did not take the time to work out a temporary visitation schedule for the child, nor did he work with the parties to designate a friend or family member as the go-between for scheduling visits or monitoring the child while mom & dad exchange her. Usually a third party's home serves as the drop-off / pick-up when the child is not in school or a daycare facility. The judge never inquired about whether she was in daycare or who might be a suitable facilitator.
Judge Bronson and the deputies in the courtroom did a good job in getting the Respondent to sit down and be quiet. But I suspect that Mr. Bell's belligerence is the reason the Court ended the hearing before visitation matters were addressed. Thankfully, he did order BIP, although he did not tell either party he did so in open court. It was attached to the paperwork that was given to the parties at the end of the hearing.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
I spent most of the morning today in Judge Michael Murphy's specialized misdemeanor DV court for the VOP (violation of probation) pretrial conferences, hearings and pleas. VOP hearings are important to monitor because it's really where the rubber meets the road. Is the Court going to hold the defendant accountable (post-conviction) if he/she fails to comply with the terms of their probation? Or will they get a "slap on the wrist" and suffer no real consequences?
A defendant can be violated by their probation officer for several reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the original offense. They might fail to keep appointments with their probation officer, pay the costs associated with supervision, test positive for drug usage, etc. Or they might not do what they were instructed to do when sentenced: successfully enroll in and complete classes, evaluations, or treatment programs. Or they might be arrested for new offenses. Additionally, defendants in DV cases will sometimes violate "no contact" or "no hostile contact" orders that were part of their sentence.
Most of the defendants in court today had failed to either enroll in BIP (Batterer's Intervention Program) or had been dismissed by the BIP for reasons that weren't given in open court. Judge Murphy does an excellent job of "selling" defendants on the merits of BIP - explaining that many people benefit from having participated in the program. He even offers defendants the opportunity to avoid jail by revoking (cancelling) their probation, putting them back on pretrial release (which requires weekly supervision), and giving them time to enroll and complete the BIP program - but he hangs a 365 day jail sentence over their head if they fail to comply. CourtWatch would like to see this suspended sentence be a part of their original sentence instead of giving them the opportunity to not comply for several months before having to come before the judge again. Additionally, the defendant is required to come to court every 60 days for a status hearing until they've complied. If they're found to have not complied, the cuffs are slapped on and it's off to 33rd Street they go.
UNFORTUNATELY, it doesn't always work out that way. In State v. Mark William Alvarado (2008MM2643), Judge Murphy only slapped the cuffs on the defendant for 90 days for his repeated failure to comply. Alvarado was adjudicated guilty in May, 2008 of two counts of violating an injunction, got 7 days jail with credit for time served, was ordered into BIP and told to have no contact with the victim. He was also to have a psych evaluation & counseling. Nearly 10 months later, in February 2009, he got another chance to enroll in BIP (having previously failed to do so). In April, another violation was recorded and subsequently amended the following month. Alvarado then failed to appear for his June hearing, so a capias was issued. He appeared 2 weeks later and the capias was quashed (recalled). His July 1st hearing was rescheduled to July 29th when he admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced to 365 days with today being his "turn in date." I learned that the judge had told Mr. Alvarado that if he showed up today, he would give him 90 days instead of the 365, which is what happened.
Judge Murphy does a very good job on the "front end" of his cases - setting terms of pretrial release, bond, etc. CourtWatch would like to see him follow through with more "rubber on the road" in the VOP hearings.
A defendant can be violated by their probation officer for several reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the original offense. They might fail to keep appointments with their probation officer, pay the costs associated with supervision, test positive for drug usage, etc. Or they might not do what they were instructed to do when sentenced: successfully enroll in and complete classes, evaluations, or treatment programs. Or they might be arrested for new offenses. Additionally, defendants in DV cases will sometimes violate "no contact" or "no hostile contact" orders that were part of their sentence.
Most of the defendants in court today had failed to either enroll in BIP (Batterer's Intervention Program) or had been dismissed by the BIP for reasons that weren't given in open court. Judge Murphy does an excellent job of "selling" defendants on the merits of BIP - explaining that many people benefit from having participated in the program. He even offers defendants the opportunity to avoid jail by revoking (cancelling) their probation, putting them back on pretrial release (which requires weekly supervision), and giving them time to enroll and complete the BIP program - but he hangs a 365 day jail sentence over their head if they fail to comply. CourtWatch would like to see this suspended sentence be a part of their original sentence instead of giving them the opportunity to not comply for several months before having to come before the judge again. Additionally, the defendant is required to come to court every 60 days for a status hearing until they've complied. If they're found to have not complied, the cuffs are slapped on and it's off to 33rd Street they go.
UNFORTUNATELY, it doesn't always work out that way. In State v. Mark William Alvarado (2008MM2643), Judge Murphy only slapped the cuffs on the defendant for 90 days for his repeated failure to comply. Alvarado was adjudicated guilty in May, 2008 of two counts of violating an injunction, got 7 days jail with credit for time served, was ordered into BIP and told to have no contact with the victim. He was also to have a psych evaluation & counseling. Nearly 10 months later, in February 2009, he got another chance to enroll in BIP (having previously failed to do so). In April, another violation was recorded and subsequently amended the following month. Alvarado then failed to appear for his June hearing, so a capias was issued. He appeared 2 weeks later and the capias was quashed (recalled). His July 1st hearing was rescheduled to July 29th when he admitted to violating his probation and was sentenced to 365 days with today being his "turn in date." I learned that the judge had told Mr. Alvarado that if he showed up today, he would give him 90 days instead of the 365, which is what happened.
Judge Murphy does a very good job on the "front end" of his cases - setting terms of pretrial release, bond, etc. CourtWatch would like to see him follow through with more "rubber on the road" in the VOP hearings.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Shannon Burke Gets Bond
It's puzzling to me that the two other women who filed injunctions against Burke after he shot his wife were not contacted by the State's Attorney, nor were they consulted about the agreement made at today's hearing in Seminole County that allows Burke to get out on bond. Even though his wife Catherine is the victim in this case, their safety (and that of their children) should not be disregarded.
In fact, the most serious charge of Aggravated Battery w/Deadly Weapon was changed to Shooting Into Occupied Dwelling. An inch or less in the wrong direction, and Mrs. Burke would be just another name on CourtWatch's DV Fatality List for 2009. It sounds to me as if the State believes Burke's story that it was an accident (even though it is alleged in his wife's petition for injunction that he replaced the magazine in his pistol after it failed to fire the first time). Or maybe they think they can't prove more than that. In any case, I'd be surprised if he gets any real jail time after this.
Perhaps his wife has caved in to pressure from Burke and isn't prepared to participate in prosecuting her husband criminally. Perhaps, as is often the case, she just wants him to get the alcohol/drug counseling/treatment that she hopes will "cure" him. I sincerely hope that the treatment that was ordered today helps. But he still needs counseling about his need to exert power and control over his partner. The State should have made a BIP (Batterer's Intervention Program) after he gets out of the the in-patient program part of the deal .
Video of Burke's appearance before Judge Marlene Alva may be viewed at http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/5/27/shannon_burke_returns_to_court_today.html
His wife's Petition for Injunction may be viewed at http://courtwatchflorida.org/uploads/Burke_Petition_for_Injunction.pdf
In fact, the most serious charge of Aggravated Battery w/Deadly Weapon was changed to Shooting Into Occupied Dwelling. An inch or less in the wrong direction, and Mrs. Burke would be just another name on CourtWatch's DV Fatality List for 2009. It sounds to me as if the State believes Burke's story that it was an accident (even though it is alleged in his wife's petition for injunction that he replaced the magazine in his pistol after it failed to fire the first time). Or maybe they think they can't prove more than that. In any case, I'd be surprised if he gets any real jail time after this.
Perhaps his wife has caved in to pressure from Burke and isn't prepared to participate in prosecuting her husband criminally. Perhaps, as is often the case, she just wants him to get the alcohol/drug counseling/treatment that she hopes will "cure" him. I sincerely hope that the treatment that was ordered today helps. But he still needs counseling about his need to exert power and control over his partner. The State should have made a BIP (Batterer's Intervention Program) after he gets out of the the in-patient program part of the deal .
Video of Burke's appearance before Judge Marlene Alva may be viewed at http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/5/27/shannon_burke_returns_to_court_today.html
His wife's Petition for Injunction may be viewed at http://courtwatchflorida.org/uploads/Burke_Petition_for_Injunction.pdf
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Kudos to Judge LeBlanc
Last week I saw a no contest plea in the case of State v. Eberson Florial (2009CF960) in front of Judge Bob LeBlanc. Florial was initially charged with Domestic Battery by Strangulation, but the formal charge was Felony Battery - Great Bodily Harm. Florial was sentenced to 2 days in jail with credit for time served (the Statute requires 5 days), enroll in a Batterers' Intervention Program (BIP), and 18 months probation.
I am delighted to see the State include BIP in the sentence (it's not often we see this in felony court). The kudos to Judge LeBlanc are because he asked the State if there was also to be a no contact order or, at a minimum, a "no hostile" contact provision added to the sentence. The State admitted that it wasn't part of the plea negotiations, but the judge included a "no hostile" provision in the sentence.
If the judges begin to hold the State accountable for negotiated sentences according to what Florida Statute requires, I think the judicial system will begin to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes more effectively than it sometimes does now.
I am delighted to see the State include BIP in the sentence (it's not often we see this in felony court). The kudos to Judge LeBlanc are because he asked the State if there was also to be a no contact order or, at a minimum, a "no hostile" contact provision added to the sentence. The State admitted that it wasn't part of the plea negotiations, but the judge included a "no hostile" provision in the sentence.
If the judges begin to hold the State accountable for negotiated sentences according to what Florida Statute requires, I think the judicial system will begin to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes more effectively than it sometimes does now.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Misdemeanor DV Court Gets "It"
In 2007, Orange County implemented at specialized misdemeanor domestic violence division. Court personnel received training about the dynamics of DV as well as knowing what the Statute requires. Judge Jerry Brewer presided over this division until Dec 2008 (except for 4 months in 2008 when budget cuts caused it to shut down). He did a phenomenal job of running this division and CourtWatch was disappointed when he was reassigned to traffic court in January.
Because of their specialized training, the prosecutors and judge in this division routinely include BIP (the 26 week Batterer's Intervention Program) in their plea agreements and sentencings. I spent a lot of time in Judge Brewer's courtroom in the early months of my courtwatching career and learned a great deal from him.
Once I began to monitor the felony courts more often, I was astonished to see the prosecutors and judges rarely, if ever, order BIP for domestic violence offenders - either in their plea agreements or when they'd been adjudicated by a jury. I can only assume that because their divisions handle a wide variety of offenses, that they didn't know that the Statute says:
Because of their specialized training, the prosecutors and judge in this division routinely include BIP (the 26 week Batterer's Intervention Program) in their plea agreements and sentencings. I spent a lot of time in Judge Brewer's courtroom in the early months of my courtwatching career and learned a great deal from him.
Once I began to monitor the felony courts more often, I was astonished to see the prosecutors and judges rarely, if ever, order BIP for domestic violence offenders - either in their plea agreements or when they'd been adjudicated by a jury. I can only assume that because their divisions handle a wide variety of offenses, that they didn't know that the Statute says:
- if a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a crime of domestic violence, even if adjudication is withheld, Florida Statute requires they be receive 1 year's probation and be ordered into BIP - if the Court finds BIP is not appropriate (which would be the case in non-intimate partner violence), it must state on the record why it is not
- if a defendant is adjudicated guilty of a crime of domestic violence and they've intentionally caused bodily harm to the victim, they must be sentenced to a minimum of 5 days in jail
Last fall we presented our concerns to Chief Judge Belvin Perry about our findings that sentencings in felony divisions were not in accordance with statutory requirements. After researching the Statute, he agreed and issued a memorandum to the judges to make them aware of what the law requires. This memorandum was sent by CourtWatch to Lawson Lamar, the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit (Orange/Osceola) in February.
In State v. Steven Piantieri 2008CF16896 (about which we previously blogged), the defendant was charged with felony battery and pled to misdemeanor battery on 3/31/09. He was ordered to complete 1 year of probation; have no contact with the victim (yet he was ordered to write her an apology letter!); 1 day jail with credit for time served (where is our 5-day jail term?); complete 35 hours of community service; continue with anger management counseling on a weekly basis with his existing counselor and provide proof to his attorney.
Orange County Probation's specialized DV unit asked for a hearing this week to clarify the sentence because there is no such program as Domestic Violence Anger Management. You can order either Anger Management or BIP (which is geared toward counseling batterers about issues of power and control - not anger). The victim definately wanted BIP ordered. The judge was inclined to agree. HOWEVER, the Assistant State Attorney handling the case, Diane Murphy, said that anger management was acceptable. BIP was not ordered for Mr. Piantieri.
For CourtWatch, and for the victim, this is unacceptable! We need the State Attorney and his Assistants to do their best to enforce the law. That is what we as citizens should expect from our prosecutors.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Injunction Dysfunction
I spent about 2 hours monitoring 4 injunction hearings in Judge Sally Kest's courtroom this morning. Typically, when an Injunction (also known as an Order for Protection or a Restraining Order) is granted, the Respondent is not permitted to contact the Petitioner at all. "No contact" means no emails, phone calls, texts or even messages relayed by a third party (unless one is designated by the Court to handle communications with respect to any children). However, when children are involved, parents often need to communicate with each other about visits, emergencies, etc. In most cases, another family member's home or the child's school/daycare can serve as the drop off and pick up point for the child so mom & dad don't have to see one another. And in most cases, this is a satisfactory solution for the parents.
Injunctions provide that the Respondent is not permitted to come within 500' of the Petitioner's residence or other prohibited place (e.g., Petitioner's place of employment). Nor is the Respondent allowed to come within 100' of the Petitioner's car (I'm not sure why the Statute doesn't say the Petitioner instead of their vehicle, but I digress).....
Only one case (the first one) involved a couple that had been married. The other three had children together. No paternity actions had been filed (see blog entitled "Paternity 101").
Case #1 [6 month injunction granted]: The parties were divorced some time ago. Petitioner (dad) had a cast on his hand as a result of his having punched a kitchen cabinet while on the phone with the Respondent. The Respondent (mom) admitted to having later touched the Petitioner first - sparking the violence that was the subject of this case. In her ruling, Judge Kest initially said that pick up & drop off for the children (ages 6, 12 & 17) at each others' houses was permitted. She then said the school would be the location, but that when school is closed, they could go to each other's homes. The Respondent (mom) then advised the judge that the younger children were already enrolled in a summer camp daycare program. In what appeared to be an effort to wrap up the hearing as quickly as possible, Judge Kest neglected to verbally indicate the camp as the pick up / drop off location during the summer and she failed to tell the parties the length of the injunction (although this is found in the paperwork each one receives).
Case #2 [12 month injunction granted]: The Petitioner alleged that her child's father, in addition to being violent, has alcohol problems and has driven their child while intoxicated. She requested supervised visitation and was denied. The judge prohibited both parties from consuming alcohol while caring for the child, and stated that if they were using a babysitter for 5+ hours while they were the custodial parent, the other parent was to take the child. Additionally, Judge Kest ordered "no hostile contact" for school events. She ordered the Petitioner to contact dad to advise him of any doctor appointments so that he would have the option to attend. This was ordered to be a "no hostile" scenario as well. She permitted email communication between the parties. In what was a gross oversight, there was testimony that this Respondent had a previous 1-yr injunction against him by the same Petitioner and allegedly violated it before it expired last year. Judge Kest failed to order him into Batterers' Intervention Program (BIP) as required by Florida Statute.
Case #3 [3-yr injunction granted]: The Respondent failed to appear for this hearing. The Petitioner advised the judge that the Respondent had served time in prison several years ago for an assault where she was the victim. The judge told her it was foolish of her to try to go back to him when he was released (in spite of the Petitioner's agreement with this assement, we belive that blaming the Petitioner under these circumstances was inappropriate). The Petitioner also advised that her child's father engaged in several power & control tactics with the child - taking away toys and blaming mom, verbally & emotionally abusing the child, verbally abusing mom in front of the child, etc. Judge Kest recommended the Petitioner seek counseling for herself to understand why she makes the decisions she's making (still appearing to blame the victim). She failed to order BIP in this case as well. It is also within the realm of the judges to order drug and/or alcohol evaluation/treatment. The Respondent's record includes numerous drug charges and assault offenses (12 cases in Orange County dating to 1998 when he turned 18). There was no testimony about the Respondent's drug convictions, nor did the judge inquire about his history.
Judge Kest did order supervised visitation through Family Ties but left the mother in tears because she is still terrified for the safety of her child. Unfortunately, this specimen of fatherhood, who didn't bother to come to court today, still has parental rights unless terminated by court order. No explanation of how the Family Ties program works was provided.
Case #4 [4 month injunction granted]: This was a case of apparent "mutual assault." The Respondent (mom) admitted to first grabbing the Petitioner in an attempt to get him to talk to her as he walked up some stairs with his back to her. He confirmed that he ripped her shirt off and tore off a necklace she was wearing. From the testimony I heard, it appeared to me that the Petitioner was the aggressor. Judge Kest would not accept police reports as evidence because they are considered hearsay. However, we believe that a law enforcement officer's observations about the parties' demeanor should be reviewed if available. This information would be found in a police report. Once again, the judge allowed "no hostile" contact when exchanging the child - asserting that mom and dad will have to have contact even though the paternal grandparents' home was designated as the exchange location. To imply that mom and dad will be required to come into contact with one another is to invite additional hostilities and create confusion about how to enforce the court order.
In all cases, no explanation of what "no contact" entails was attempted by the Court. In spite of the fact that both parties receive a copy of the court order, an explanation of the terms and conditions is critical. DV perpetrators and their victims often misunderstand the paperwork they're given - sometimes interpreting through their own biases. Harbor House advocates are available to explain the process and the rulings to petitioners. The repondents are on their own to figure it out.
Finally, I'll say it one more time, "no hostile contact" is not an enforceable ruling in cases where one person abuses their partner by perpetrating power and control over them. A certain glance, or a veiled threat that only the victim understands, would not be viewed as "hostile" by anyone outside of the relationship. Shouldn't the parent who is violent with his/her family be the one to have to abdicate their "right" to attend the school play while an injunction is in effect?
Injunctions provide that the Respondent is not permitted to come within 500' of the Petitioner's residence or other prohibited place (e.g., Petitioner's place of employment). Nor is the Respondent allowed to come within 100' of the Petitioner's car (I'm not sure why the Statute doesn't say the Petitioner instead of their vehicle, but I digress).....
Only one case (the first one) involved a couple that had been married. The other three had children together. No paternity actions had been filed (see blog entitled "Paternity 101").
Case #1 [6 month injunction granted]: The parties were divorced some time ago. Petitioner (dad) had a cast on his hand as a result of his having punched a kitchen cabinet while on the phone with the Respondent. The Respondent (mom) admitted to having later touched the Petitioner first - sparking the violence that was the subject of this case. In her ruling, Judge Kest initially said that pick up & drop off for the children (ages 6, 12 & 17) at each others' houses was permitted. She then said the school would be the location, but that when school is closed, they could go to each other's homes. The Respondent (mom) then advised the judge that the younger children were already enrolled in a summer camp daycare program. In what appeared to be an effort to wrap up the hearing as quickly as possible, Judge Kest neglected to verbally indicate the camp as the pick up / drop off location during the summer and she failed to tell the parties the length of the injunction (although this is found in the paperwork each one receives).
Case #2 [12 month injunction granted]: The Petitioner alleged that her child's father, in addition to being violent, has alcohol problems and has driven their child while intoxicated. She requested supervised visitation and was denied. The judge prohibited both parties from consuming alcohol while caring for the child, and stated that if they were using a babysitter for 5+ hours while they were the custodial parent, the other parent was to take the child. Additionally, Judge Kest ordered "no hostile contact" for school events. She ordered the Petitioner to contact dad to advise him of any doctor appointments so that he would have the option to attend. This was ordered to be a "no hostile" scenario as well. She permitted email communication between the parties. In what was a gross oversight, there was testimony that this Respondent had a previous 1-yr injunction against him by the same Petitioner and allegedly violated it before it expired last year. Judge Kest failed to order him into Batterers' Intervention Program (BIP) as required by Florida Statute.
Case #3 [3-yr injunction granted]: The Respondent failed to appear for this hearing. The Petitioner advised the judge that the Respondent had served time in prison several years ago for an assault where she was the victim. The judge told her it was foolish of her to try to go back to him when he was released (in spite of the Petitioner's agreement with this assement, we belive that blaming the Petitioner under these circumstances was inappropriate). The Petitioner also advised that her child's father engaged in several power & control tactics with the child - taking away toys and blaming mom, verbally & emotionally abusing the child, verbally abusing mom in front of the child, etc. Judge Kest recommended the Petitioner seek counseling for herself to understand why she makes the decisions she's making (still appearing to blame the victim). She failed to order BIP in this case as well. It is also within the realm of the judges to order drug and/or alcohol evaluation/treatment. The Respondent's record includes numerous drug charges and assault offenses (12 cases in Orange County dating to 1998 when he turned 18). There was no testimony about the Respondent's drug convictions, nor did the judge inquire about his history.
Judge Kest did order supervised visitation through Family Ties but left the mother in tears because she is still terrified for the safety of her child. Unfortunately, this specimen of fatherhood, who didn't bother to come to court today, still has parental rights unless terminated by court order. No explanation of how the Family Ties program works was provided.
Case #4 [4 month injunction granted]: This was a case of apparent "mutual assault." The Respondent (mom) admitted to first grabbing the Petitioner in an attempt to get him to talk to her as he walked up some stairs with his back to her. He confirmed that he ripped her shirt off and tore off a necklace she was wearing. From the testimony I heard, it appeared to me that the Petitioner was the aggressor. Judge Kest would not accept police reports as evidence because they are considered hearsay. However, we believe that a law enforcement officer's observations about the parties' demeanor should be reviewed if available. This information would be found in a police report. Once again, the judge allowed "no hostile" contact when exchanging the child - asserting that mom and dad will have to have contact even though the paternal grandparents' home was designated as the exchange location. To imply that mom and dad will be required to come into contact with one another is to invite additional hostilities and create confusion about how to enforce the court order.
In all cases, no explanation of what "no contact" entails was attempted by the Court. In spite of the fact that both parties receive a copy of the court order, an explanation of the terms and conditions is critical. DV perpetrators and their victims often misunderstand the paperwork they're given - sometimes interpreting through their own biases. Harbor House advocates are available to explain the process and the rulings to petitioners. The repondents are on their own to figure it out.
Finally, I'll say it one more time, "no hostile contact" is not an enforceable ruling in cases where one person abuses their partner by perpetrating power and control over them. A certain glance, or a veiled threat that only the victim understands, would not be viewed as "hostile" by anyone outside of the relationship. Shouldn't the parent who is violent with his/her family be the one to have to abdicate their "right" to attend the school play while an injunction is in effect?
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Kudos to Judge Roger McDonald
CourtWatch monitored the plea & sentencing yesterday of Steven Joseph Piantieri, who was charged with Felony Battery (3rd Degree) which has a maximum possible penalty of 5 years in prison. The defendant pled to a lesser charge of simple battery and received 1 year probation, was ordered to have no contact with the victim, have mental health counseling and attend an anger management class (more about that later).
Our volunteer in the courtroom was impressed with the extreme care that Judge McDonald showed the victim and with the fact that he refused to withhold adjudication after she requested his record not be able to be sealed or expunged (despite his attorney's argument that a conviction could hurt his client from renewing his business license). He also, after learning that the victim had not requested restitution for medical bills and counseling, encouraged her to request compensation to cover these costs.
With respect to anger management class, CourtWatch believes that the plea offer should have insisted upon Batterer's Intervention Program (a 26-week class that counsels batterers about power & control issues) instead of the 8-hour anger management class. Florida Statute requires BIP in these types of cases. This was the responsibility of Assistant State Attorney Murphy to enforce. The judge should have asked why the agreement didn't specify BIP instead of anger management. Florida Statute also requires 5 days in jail when someone is adjudicated guilty of a crime of domestic violence. This is also the responsibility of the Assistant State Attorney to treat as non-negotiable. (see Florida Statute 741.281 and 741.283)
All in all, however, our volunteer was pleased with Judge McDonald's demeanor toward the victim. And we hope to see the State Attorney's Office be more vigorous in holding perpetrators of domestic violence accountable for their actions when negotiating plea agreements.
Our volunteer in the courtroom was impressed with the extreme care that Judge McDonald showed the victim and with the fact that he refused to withhold adjudication after she requested his record not be able to be sealed or expunged (despite his attorney's argument that a conviction could hurt his client from renewing his business license). He also, after learning that the victim had not requested restitution for medical bills and counseling, encouraged her to request compensation to cover these costs.
With respect to anger management class, CourtWatch believes that the plea offer should have insisted upon Batterer's Intervention Program (a 26-week class that counsels batterers about power & control issues) instead of the 8-hour anger management class. Florida Statute requires BIP in these types of cases. This was the responsibility of Assistant State Attorney Murphy to enforce. The judge should have asked why the agreement didn't specify BIP instead of anger management. Florida Statute also requires 5 days in jail when someone is adjudicated guilty of a crime of domestic violence. This is also the responsibility of the Assistant State Attorney to treat as non-negotiable. (see Florida Statute 741.281 and 741.283)
All in all, however, our volunteer was pleased with Judge McDonald's demeanor toward the victim. And we hope to see the State Attorney's Office be more vigorous in holding perpetrators of domestic violence accountable for their actions when negotiating plea agreements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
