How to re-victimize a victim, Part 1

Last month, the mother of a 15-yr old girl filed a petition for injunction for protection against sexual violence on behalf of her daughter. The respondent was their 16-yr old next door neighbor and his father, appearing on his son's behalf. The teens had never dated. They do not go to the same school. She is home schooled because of physical and mental issues.

After reviewing the explicit allegations in the petition, Judge Keith White granted a hearing which was held earlier this month. So far, so good.

As you might imagine, anyone who has been forcibly raped - orally, vaginally and anally -  would be terrified to be in the same room with their perpetrator. To force a teenager (or anyone for that matter) to testify for over an hour about the ordeal because your mother cannot corroborate the actual incident (having not witnessed the crime personally) goes beyond the scope of what is necessary for a civil injunction. Judge White required this girl to go into excruciating detail in spite of the comprehensiveness of the allegations that were in the written petition (caution: graphic language).

Remember, the burden of proof in civil cases is a "preponderance of the evidence," and not "beyond a reasonable doubt," as is the requirement for criminal cases.

To make matters worse, the Respondent's father & the perpetrator laughed at the victim's allegations and claimed that the sex was consensual (not at all uncommon in these cases).  The victim denied consent.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge White told the Petitioner that the her job was to meet the burden of proof necessary for him to be able to grant an injunction.  You could almost see her holding her breath in anticipation of being denied the order for protection that she so desperately sought.

Judge White, however, did grant an injunction to the girl.

A six month, "no hostile contact" injunction.

So this perpetrator is currently not in violation of the court order if he chooses to contact her, as long as he's "not hostile" towards her.

For six whole months.

After that, the injunction expires. Unless of course she wants to go back before the same judge and request an extension.  How likely do you think she'll be to do that?

Judge White failed this girl. And he failed to do much to hold the perpetrator accountable for his actions.

Let's hope that law enforcement and the State Attorney's Office are able to prosecute this sex offender to the fullest extent possible.

We have more to report about Judge White in upcoming days.

Fast food & fast justice

Approximately one year ago, CourtWatch began a letter writing campaign to specific locations of the above fast food restaurants in our community because Judge Sally Kest was ordering unmonitored exchange of children between parents in domestic violence injunction cases at their locations. We dubbed these "McDonalds Exchanges" because the golden arches was overwhelmingly ordered by the judge as the site for these potentially dangerous encounters.

To understand how risky this practice is, we have only to remember the case of Emmanuella Biziyaremye, age 28, who on May 6, 2007 had a copy of her final injunction in hand when she went to meet her estranged husband to retrieve her children from their visit with him.  This injunction, granted by Judge Janet Thorpe only 17 days earlier, designated the parking lot of the Walgreens store at East Colonial Dr & Bumby Rd as the place where the parents would meet. This site was selected because there were video surveillance cameras that covered the parking lot.

Mrs. Biziyaremye was shot twice in the head by her husband, Anselme, who then fled to Jacksonville where he was killed a few days later in a shootout with law enforcement after threatening suicide.

The couple's children had been left with a friend in Orlando by their father before the shooting of their mother.  Another child, whom the victim was babysitting, was present in her car and was unhurt.

Judge Kest did this so frequently that her injunction paperwork has the instructions pre-printed on it.

How is it that the other two judges in the Injunction division manage to order only monitored exchanges in the cases they hear? The options are:

• via school, daycare or babysitter where one parent drops off in the morning and the other picks up in the afternoon
• via a family member or friend who is agreed upon by the parties (either at that person's home or that person does the transporting of the children)
• via Family Ties at the courthouse during regular business hours or at a downtown location on weekends.

CourtWatch recognizes that the Domestic Violence with Children injunction hearings can be the most difficult ones to conduct. The parties can be acrimonious and unwilling to negotiate with one another.  Their geographical and/or work schedule differences can make it nearly impossible to work out an arrangement that will be satisfactory to both parents. But the other judges seem to have it figured out. They seem to be more willing to take the time needed during these hearings to broker an arrangement between the parties.

A minor victory
Shortly after our first letters landed on the desks of fast-food restaurants around Central Florida, we received a call from McDonalds asking how they could have their restaurant removed from an injunction.  Rather than provide their attorney with the case number (because we wanted to avoid having the parties yanked back into court, thus inconveniencing them and potentially inflaming their situation further), CourtWatch recommended they write to Judge Kest and copy Judge Perry on their request.  I since learned they did exactly that.

A short time thereafter, we watched another hearing where Judge Kest was ordering unmonitored exchange, but this time said "Pick a family-friendly restaurant that's convenient to you both.... anyplace but McDonalds."

It's interesting to note that McDonalds recognizes the potential for danger. Not only does this practice jeopardize the safety of the victim and children involved, but also the restaurant employees and its patrons. Just because a court order spells out how to "safely" conduct the exchange, there is nothing to prevent a violent abuser from arriving early and doing what Mr. Biziyaremye did.

It's also interesting to note that none of the other letter recipients, to our knowledge, acted upon the information we provided to them.

We wonder why Judge Kest doesn't seem to, in spite of the specialized training that is available to judges, understand the danger as well. Nor does she seem to recognize that it is against the law for her to order that a business be mandated to conduct commerce (specifically the unmonitored exchange of children) for which it is not designed.

Last month, Judge Kest transferred to Domestic Relations division where she hears divorce cases. Unfortunately, she is still in a position to order the unmonitored exchange of children while in a courtroom that CourtWatch does not traditionally visit.  We can only hope the practice ceases.

How many more stalking victims must die?

This weekend's murder of Loni Amber Turner at the hands of her suicidal ex-boyfriend, Erin Ross, highlights a couple of very serious concerns that CourtWatch has with the justice system.

We've previously featured our concerns about judges who set hearings without providing temporary injunctions while the parties await their day in court (which are scheduled 2 weeks after the petition is filed). See our blog about the Alissa Blanton murder earlier this year. So I won't rehash that issue.

The second concern we have is that many judges and law enforcement personnel just don't "get" how lethal stalking behavior can be. Alissa Blanton had not been in a romatic relationship with her stalker. Perhaps the judge felt she wasn't really at risk of violence. Perhaps he just didn't want to read the 70+ pages of her petition. As we now know, her stalker/murderer, Roger Troy, was extremely lethal. But her death should have been a wake up call to every judge in this State to review what the Florida Statutes say about stalking.

From what has been reported in the media, it would appear as though Ms. Turner was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend. As reported in the Sentinel,

Loni Amber Turner was afraid. An ex-boyfriend she'd met online wouldn't leave her alone. He sent her text messages. He watched her apartment. He showed up at the trade school where she was a student. "I am really afraid to come out of the apartment, …" she wrote in a domestic violence petition last week.

Even though the judge set a hearing for September 3rd, her request for a temporary injunction was denied, mostly likely because she did not state that there had been any acts or overt threats of violence. Or perhaps it was because she had tried to remain friendly with Mr. Ross after the relationship was officially over.

If stalkers aren't stopped, their behavior can escalate and become violent. Ms. Turner's effort to stop her tormentor was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Circuit Judge William A. Parsons said that Turner had failed to prove she was in danger. By issuing a summons, without a temporary injunction at the same time, the judge put her at a higher risk for victimization.

What Judge Parsons tragically did not seem to understand is that Mr. Ross' behavior was indeed dangerous, even though he did not physically assault Ms Turner.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of fatalities occur when the relationship is in the process of ending or has recently ended. By putting Mr. Ross on notice that his victim wanted him to stay away from her, and by not issuing a court order telling him to stay away, Judge Parsons' Order Setting Hearing (OSH) may have been the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back in this situation.

OK, I know, I said I wouldn't rehash the OSH issue. I just couldn't stop myself.

The US Department of Justice Stalking Victimization Study (Jan 2009) estimated that 3.4 million persons were victims of stalking during a 12 month period. Stalking is a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear. Individually, the acts that were measured are not criminal in nature. But when done repeatedly and collectively, they may cause the victim to fear for his or her safety. The behaviors measured in the study are:

• making unwanted phone calls
• sending unsolicited or unwanted letters or emails
• following or spying on the victim
• showing up at places without a legitimate reason
• waiting at places for the victim
• leaving unwanted items, presents or flowers
• posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth

From the following chart, it looks like the criminal justice system has a lot to do in order to be perceived as helpful to victims of stalking:

The number of cases where criminal charges were not filed is disgraceful:

Stalking is a potentially lethal crime. It's time for EVERY member of law enforcement (cops, prosecutors and judges) to treat it seriously.

To everyone in law enforcement: If Alissa Blanton's death didn't wake you up, Loni Amber Turner's death certainly should.

Stalking Resources available online.

Injunction Denied to Victim of Stalking - Stalker/Arsonist Granted Bond

With all the media attention focused on Judge Moxley's denial of an injunction request by Alissa Blanton and her subsequent murder earlier this month, I monitored a criminal case in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today that is equally frightening.

On December 1, 2009 19-yr old Tameka Hibbler requested an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against her ex-boyfriend, Tommy Lee Knight. Her petition noted five different instances of stalking behavior during the previous 4 days:

11/27/09: At her place of work, Mr. Knight was there from 7:00-9:45pm, crying and making a scene. He refused to leave after she asked him to leave her alone.

11/28/09: At the home she shares with her mother and 16-yr old brother, Mr. Knight repeatedly knocked and yelled  at the front door from 11:45pm until 2:00am.  When the Petitioner opened the door, he grabbed her by the arm and insisted she listen to him. He left after her mother threatened to call the police. Ms. Hibbler indicated that for the prior two days he had been repeatedly called her personal, as well as employer's, phone.

11/29/09: Mr. Knight followed her to her church and refused to leave her alone. She asked him to sit in another location, but he refused.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight waited at her place of employment for her to appear. Petitioner's co-workers advised her that he was there from 10:30am until 1:00pm.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight followed Petitioner to her friend's apartment and watched them from the bushes at the apartment complex. Her friend called the police to report Mr. Knight's behavior because they were concerned he might harm one or both of them.

On 12/1/09, Judge Theotis Bronson denied Ms. Hibbler's petition, stating "the allegations are not sufficient for a domestic violence injunction." They certainly seem sufficient to CourtWatch. Actual physical assault is not the sole thing that can be considered when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.

Click here for the Statute definition of stalking and tell me if you don't think the above allegations support a temporary injunction and a hearing.

It should be noted that Mr. Knight lived in the Petitioner's home with her mother and brother after his parents kicked him out of their home. Mr. Knight is 22-years old.

 

Mr. Knight was in Judge Lubet's courtroom today for a Bond Hearing.

The charges?

Arson 1st Degree of Dwelling/Building w/People Present (a felony) & Stalking (a misdemeanor).

Mr. Knight allegedly doused the doors and windows of the victims' home with gasoline and ignited a blaze at approximately 4:00am on December 2, 2009 - the day after Ms. Hibbler's injunction was denied.

Earlier that evening, some neighbors alerted the family to the defendant's presence in the neighborhood. His bike was seen nearby. The main breaker to their home had been turned off. According to the mother's testimony, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said there was nothing they could do unless someone witnessed a criminal act. This was not the first time they heard that from law enforcement.

Thankfully, Ms. Hibbler's younger brother was unable to sleep as a result of the events earlier in the day, heard and saw the defendant through the front door peephole with a gas can, and got the family out of the house safely when he realized it was on fire.

All three family members testified today that they are terrified that Mr. Knight will return to "finish the job" if he gets out of jail. The defendant's family and friends are allegedly pressuring the victim to drop the charges against him.

Judge Lubet commented that he was surprised that the State Attorney's Office had not filed 3 counts of Attempted Murder charges against Mr. Knight. Assistant State Attorney Shannon Corack indicated that it was being reviewed for possible upgrade. Had that been done, Judge Lubet indicated he probably would not have granted a bond at the hearing today. However, because Arson and Stalking are both bondable offenses, he was obligated to set a bond and conditions of release that accomplish two things:

1. Ensure the saftey of the community, particularly the victims.
2. Ensure the defendant's presence in court.

Considering the fact that Mr. Knight scores 46 months as a minimum in the Department of Corrections, with a maximum of 30 years, it is entirely possible that he would be tempted to flee. He has demonstrated by two earlier Violation of Probation charges that he has a problem with complying with court orders.

Ultimately a bond in the amount of $26,000 was set with the following conditions of release:

• Ankle monitor
• Home confinement - may only leave home go to work, school, meet with his attorney, or seek medical attention
• No contact with any of the victims - either directly or indirectly
• Stay 1000 feet away from the victims' home
• Possess no weapons or firearms
• Possess no flammable liquids

At this time, the family is in a confidential location. But my gut tells me they are far from safe, even with the conditions placed upon the defendant if he does manage to make bond.

"Order Setting Hearing" (OSH) Endangers Lives

by Carol Wick, CEO of Harbor House

Monday's murder-suicide was tragic on so many levels. One that truly strikes home is that Alissa Blanton was not granted an emergency injunction when she requested it. Instead of denying the injunction, the judge issued an “Order Setting Hearing.” This is a process where a judge, who does not feel that there is enough information to give an injunction, sets a hearing date for both parties to appear, plead their cases and then decides whether or not an injunction should be granted.


What is the concern?

In these cases, an already terrified victim is left legally unprotected for 14 days while their alleged perpetrator, be it a stalker or batterer, is given not only notification about their action to end the relationship, but has14 days to continue the behavior that caused the victim to seek the injunction in the first place. The most dangerous period for a victim is when they attempt to end the relationship. An injunction is frequently the perpetrator's first notice that such a decision has been reached.

Harbor House survivors have reported coming home (if they live together the abuser would still be allowed to live in the home during the 14 days) and being beaten because the OSH had been served. This is extremely dangerous and, as we saw on Monday, often deadly practice that need not ever happen.


What could be done differently?

Harbor House has repeatedly requested that judges either grant or deny injunctions but to never choose OSH because of the vulnerability of the victim. When an injunction is denied, the batterer is unaware of the action and the victim can then amend and resubmit their petition. The practice of OSH became such a serious concern in Orange County that Harbor House began tracking the outcomes of cases based on how high the victim’s score was on the danger assessment (which tells us how likely they are to be killed). Ideally, we would like to see those scoring low on the assessment (although that is not a guarantee of safety) as the ones denied and those scoring high as the ones granted.

For various reasons, judges often have no choice but to dismiss because a form is filled out incorrectly or not completely or there really is no legal basis for the injunction. Removing those situations, we would like to see about an 85-95% granted rate on highly dangerous cases. Due to the specialized domestic court here in Orange County, our judges are some of the best in the state at identifying what is really serious and what may not be. There is still room for improvement. Below is our latest report on how cases are doing here in Orange County. You be the judge.

As you can see in the table (left), sixty-three petitioners who were assessed by Harbor House as having a high likelihood of being killed or severely injured had their injunctions denied. Twenty-nine had an Order Setting Hearing where the batterer was notified of their action and they were left without protection. It is important to be aware of this practice, the danger in which it puts the victim, and that it is easily preventable.


WFTV has a copy of the petition for injunction available here.

Best of Blackwell

It was with a bit of melancholy that I monitored Judge Alice Blackwell's injunction hearings this afternoon. At the end of each year, a bit of judge-shuffling is done and Judge Blackwell will be moved from her position as Administrative Judge for the Domestic Court to the felony Violation of Probation division in January.

I first became acquainted with Judge Blackwell in 2006 when she and Dick Batchelor co-chaired the Orange County Domestic Violence Commission's Implementation Group. Her leadership and passion for victims of domestic violence, and for making the injunction court more effective and compassionate in its handling of DV cases, was pivotal to the creation of the much-improved injunction court that Orange County has today.

Prior to the creation of this specialized court in 2007, seven judges would serve one week out every seven as they rotated through the division. Injunction hearings were held in a large, impersonal courtroom on the 4th floor where petitioners would sit on one side of the aisle and respondents the other. It was not uncommon for petitioners and respondents to encounter one another in the halls outside the courtroom, in spite of Harbor House's best efforts to escort petitioners to court.

As one who obtained an injunction in this enviroment several years ago, I can tell you that the process was both terrifying and embarrassing. There could be 2-3 dozen spectators waiting for their own hearings while they watched yours. Nobody wants to have their personal business aired for all to know - particularly when it relates to their intimate relationship.

With the help of Judge Blackwell's leadership on the Commission, Orange County now has a model Injunction Court that other jurisdictions have come to observe. There are separate waiting rooms for the parties and smaller, more intimate courtroom where only the participants involved are present.

Three judges rotate the three main functions. On any given day, 50-75 people file petitions for an injunction in Orange County. A "signing" judge reads those petitions during the day and if they grant a hearing and temporary injunction, they will be the judge to conduct the "return" hearing when it comes to court two weeks later. Their third week is spent doing follow-up hearings (hearing allegations of injunction violations, assuring that respondents have complied with court orders, etc.) and handling any overflow from the "return" hearings.

Because she is so good at what she does, CourtWatch has used Judge Blackwell as the benchmark for all the other injunction judges we monitor. From setting the stage for each hearing (providing the participants with a thorough explanation of the "ground rules" relating to how the hearing will be conducted before it begins) to using excellent fact-finding questions to elicit relevant testimony, to addressing the pertinent concerns of time-sharing of children, the parents' financial obligations and other issues, and doing an excellent job of explaining her ruling, Judge Blackwell consistently scores Above Average to Superb with CourtWatch volunteers.

Her feathers rarely get ruffled and she treats everyone in her courtroom with dignity and respect. Her demeanor sets the tone for everyone in the courtroom, and in spite of the contentious nature of injunction hearings, the parties seem to be better behaved when she is on the bench.

Today was the sort of bittersweet experience for me that one has when you know you won't be seeing someone you respect and admire as often as you're accustomed to seeing them. We wish her well in her new assignment.

Best of Kest

In spite of an earlier disastrous injunction, Judge Sally Kest's manner of conducting injunction hearings has not improved. With several new volunteers doing their "on the job" courthouse training, I've had several opportunities to observe Judge Kest this week.

Click here to view what CourtWatch looks for when monitoring an injunction hearing.

Disclaimer: The written word inherently has its limitations when one tries to convey another person's demeanor and tone of voice. However, I'll give it my best shot.

The new volunteers, none of whom had observed an injunction hearing before today, thought that Judge Kest was rude and condescending to both petitioners and respondents - particularly when they failed to grasp what the proper protocol is for testifying, eliciting testimony from witnesses or the other party, or for introducing evidence. They were astounded that the judge resorted to raising her voice (some called it yelling) in order to command attention. Some remarked that she frequently interrupted when someone attempted to answer her question. She rolled her eyes and was impatient.

In addition to the above, there were several issues (from these hearings and from previous weeks) that CourtWatch believes are indicative of an immediate need for correction:

• Failing to "set the stage" for explaining the process to the participants.
  [Another judge, after explaining the process and assuring the Respondent that issues of child visitation and the return of personal property will be addressed, frequently avoids an evidentiary hearing because the Respondent doesn't object to the injunction]
• Expecting the participants to understand what hearsay testimony is and why it is not admissable - and then yelling at them after they've been told they can't testify about what someone else told them
• Calling witnesses into the courtroom before the parties have laid any foundation for their testimony
• Expecting the participants to ask questions of the other party that will get to the heart of whether or not their situation meets the legal requirements for an injunction
  [All communication should be between the judge and the parties - they should not be permitted to directly address one another. Additionally, the judge should not expect them to know what elements need to be proven - she should ask the questions]
• Frequently specifying an agreed upon McDonalds or other restaurant for the exchange of children
  [I wonder how thrilled McDonalds' attorneys are about the potential liability if an "incident" occurs]
• Failing to designate a third party to serve as go-between for child-related communications
• Sometimes permitting direct contact via text/email between parties if it relates to children
• Failing to set up visitation schedules and/or temporary child support
• Interrupting people when they attempt to answer questions she has asked
• Interrupting the interpreter when he/she is attempting to do their job
• Lapsing into "legalese" which most participants do not understand

Injunction hearings, because the parties have a great deal of "baggage" with one another, are without a doubt one of the most challenging hearings to conduct. It is not unusual for people to want to tell the entire tale of their relationship, going back to the day they met. They are wounded and they come to the courthouse seeking a cure to their situation.

Many are terrified to be in the same vicinity of the person against whom they've sought an injunction. They shouldn't have to be terrified of going before a judge. For some, I suspect that being in Judge Kest's courtroom rises to the level of traumatic.

Imagine for a moment if the judge who was hearing your case raised their voice and said "This is a court of law . . . rules apply . . . does everybody understand that?!?!?" I imagine it feels like you've stepped into the middle of a football field without ever having seen the game before or been told how it's played, been given the ball, and told to run (and then getting tackled when you try to do what you're told).

Or imagine, as you try to answer a question posed by the judge with a loud and sharp tone, being interrupted with "Ma'am. . .  ma'am" or "Sir . . . sir" and then being admonished about the fact that there are these "rules." The judge then refuses to listen to your reply because you don't abide by the "rules" that you've never been taught.

If Judge Kest treated the parties with more respect and took 2-3 minutes at the beginning of a hearing to coach everyone about the "rules," I daresay the process would be much less painful for everyone in the courtroom.

Mis-Match.com

Online dating sites can be a great way to meet people. But caution must be taken when you decide to go this route.  Eleven years ago, I met the man against whom I have an injunction online. And 7 years ago I met my wonderful husband in cyberspace. So I tell anyone who is considering this avenue to meet people to take precautions to be safe. More about that later....

I had occasion to monitor a Dating Violence injunction hearing on Wednesday in Judge Theotis Bronson's courtroom that emphasizes the need for caution in using these sites. I also found it difficult to suppress my laughter at the end of the hearing because the Respondent tied a noose around his own neck and even his attorney couldn't rescue him.

The parties met on match.com in early September and went on four dates over the course of the month. Both individuals are well-educated and professional. The Respondant became angry that the Petitioner was not yet willing to have an exclusive relationship with him and he texted her 18 times in just a few hours once he knew she was going on a date with someone else. She described his behavior as erratic, fanatical and obsessive. After receiving the texts, she told him the relationship was over. She "unfriended" him in cyberspace later that night.

The morning after her date with someone else, he called her and asked if she had spoken with her best friend and her ex-husband yet. She had not. Within a few minutes her friend, who is a teacher at a local high school, contacted her because the Respondent had sent a defamatory email to the principal and the admistration of her school (addresses which he gleaned from the school's website). The email anonymously claimed that she (the friend) regularly smoked pot, which would be grounds for dismissal from her job. The judge, who is very low key and not given to emotional displays in the courtroom, was obviously appalled. After the friend testified, the judge questioned the Respondent extensively, who admitted to sending the email, about his motives for doing so. Ultimately, the Respondent said he regretted sending it.

I sensed that the judge was ready to sign the paperwork after the first email, but the Petitioner had mentioned at the beginning of the hearing that her ex-husband had received an email too. After establishing that her divorce had been fairly lengthy and the issue of child custody had been contentious, the judge asked to see that email. I was on the edge of my seat as I watched the judge's expression change to a look of incredulity. I wished I could see what he was looking at. I didn't have to wait for long.

The Respondent alleged in the email that the Petitioner had been having sexual relations with black men. Judge Bronson, an African-American, asked him what would be wrong with that? I could almost see the beads of perspiration break out on the Respondent's forehead as he fumbled for an answer. The attorney tried to salvage the situation as best he could, but when your ship is sinking quickly, a small bucket won't help much.

In his closing argument, the Respondent's attorney admitted his client had behaved foolishly and despicably by anonymously emailing unfounded and slanderous accusations designed to cause problems for the Petitioner and her best friend. He tried to convince the judge that an injunction was not needed because the Respondent has not contacted the Petitioner since the day of the emails (neglecting to mention that she had received a temporary injunction the following day).

Ultimately, the judge granted a one year injunction against the Respondent. I only wish he'd included an impulse control class.

Here are some tips for online dating that you might not have seen before:

• Most websites have a section about being safe - read what they say!
• Don't give out a home phone number (which can easily identify your address with a reverse lookup website). Communicate by cell phone or email until you feel comfortable meeting with the person.
• Protect information about your employment location - this includes the name of your company, a work phone number, etc.
• Use an email address on a free provider like yahoo or gmail that doesn't indicate your complete name. I didn't tell my now-husband my last name until after we met face-to-face and I learned that he had security clearances to go into nuclear sites (Uncle Sam saved me the step of doing a background check on him!)
• Find out where your prospective date has lived so you can check those jurisdictions' Clerk of Court websites to see if they've been involved in any legal action (this can be tricky if you're checking out a woman who has had more than one last name in her lifetime). Make sure you have their full legal name and check variations. If you know their date of birth, that helps, especially when they have a fairly common name.
• When you finally decide to meet someone, pick a place that offers valet parking. This helps that often awkward end-of-evening moment when having someone you don't really know walk you to your car can make you feel uncomfortable. A side benefit is that the valet attendants will usually get the lady's car first, thus giving her a slight head start out of the parking lot. It's worth paying the tip to do this.
• If possible, make a note of the type of car your date drives so you can determine whether or not you're being followed.

Paranoid? A bit perhaps. But once you've been stalked, you need to be. Someone who is willing to wait for you to feel comfortable disclosing personal information is someone who is probably worth your attention. Someone who pressures you before you're ready is not.

Still Looking Over My Shoulder

In 1999 I obtained a lifetime Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against someone I nearly married. After having watched hundreds of injunction hearings, I am aware of how unusual this is (most injunctions are granted for 12 months). I am very fortunate that Judge Jeffords Miller recognized the potential lethality of my situation and did not designate an expiration date.

In the months immediately following the issuance of the injunction, I was called by an acquaintance of the Respondent (whom I'd never met) who told me he had admitted to her that he had driven past my house and poured paint thinner on a car that my neighbor was storing in my carport. I also had a suspicious flat tire, but no real evidence against him. He married someone else in 2000 (they divorced in 2004) and left me alone.

In April, 2006 I bought a security camera to monitor my front door because someone left items anonymously on my doorstep on two separate occasions that were a bit odd (a side benefit of having the camera was knowing if my teenager was observing her curfew!). After a while, I didn't always activate the camera, but while we were on vacation in July 2008, I did. And I caught the Respondent standing at my front door - violating the injunction that had been issued nearly 9 years earlier.

If someone threatens to kill my child and commit suicide, I take that threat very seriously. Even 9 years after it was made. Sarah (pictured here just 2 months before she was murdered by her father) is the reason why. All the old fears of being stalked resurfaced. I began looking over my shoulder again, gathering intel on the Respondent, and decided to fight back by filing a complaint that he had violated the injunction (a very confusing process that can involve both the criminal and domestic relations courts).

A warrant was issued for his arrest and since he has no fixed address, the waiting game began. Until last week when I received a call from the State Attorney's Office that he had been picked up in Lake County last month. Once again, the anxiety returned. The thought of having to go court and be in the same building with him has the potential to be paralyzing - even though I am more familiar than most victims are with the process. I am torn between wanting to stand up and tell him to his face to leave me and my family alone vs. letting the State Attorney handle it for me.

Since 1986, five women (including me) have had injunctions against this man. He's been arrested for stalking two of them (both cases were dropped). So I'm torn between a desire to make sure the judge understands my concerns and sending a message to the Respondent that I will not be intimidated vs. wanting to avoid being anywhere near him.

A pretrial conference is scheduled for tomorrow. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he fails to appear. I'll let you know what happens.

A Different Sort of Independence Day

Another attempted murder, this one in Sanford, ended with the suicide of Gary Adams, 59. His estranged wife survived the attempt on her life . In spite of the injuries she sustained, one might see this event as a different sort of independence day for her. Her abuser can no longer abuse her. See the Fox 35's coverage at http://tinyurl.com/ohov8m

It was reported that Mrs. Adams had received an injunction for protection against him. However, since he had not been officially served with the paperwork, he was not legally in violation of the court order. Whether or not he knew it existed is unknown by me at this point.

Too often, people think that an injunction will keep their abuser away from them. We need to emphasize that this piece of paper is only as binding as the Respondent's respect for the law (or their fear of jail). I urge victims to have a comprehensive safety plan in place before they take this important step to protect themselves. Because once those papers are served on an abuser, they may attempt to exert more control over their victim. Seventy-five percent (75%) of all DV-related fatalities occur when a victim has left, or attempts to leave, their abuser. An injunction cannot make you safe by itself. It is merely one component of a safety plan. There are numerous other factors that must be considered before taking this step. Because every situation is unique, it is crucial that victims consult with a trained advocate to prepare themselves to end the relationship. Call 1-800-500-1119 to be connected with your local DV Shelter for assistance in preparing a safety plan.

Sometimes it takes months for a victim to prepare to leave (saving up money for an apartment, finding a job, childcare, etc.). It's for that reason that those of us on the "outside" of the relationship should never question a victim's reluctance to leave - nor should we make them feel guilty for staying. In fact, it is sometimes safer to stay until all the steps necessary to leave safely are in place. If you know someone who is in an abusive relationship, please do not tell them what they need to do (their abuser has likely been telling them what to do for years). Do not badmouth their abuser either. Because victims will often defend them. It's much better to offer assistance and encouragement rather than sounding judgmental about their partner, their choices, or their situation.

I suspect it will take a long time for Mrs. Adams to recover from this assault. I hope her friends and family provide the support she needs to do so. And if additional support is needed, I hope she finds it from Safehouse of Seminole or other well-trained counselors.

Recipe for Future Conflict

I monitored several injunction hearings today in Judge Theotis Bronson's court, and one struck me as headed for disaster. The participants are currently married to one another and have a five month old child. The judge did grant a 6-month injunction, but then failed to work out all the issues that need to be addressed so that the Respondent (dad) could visit his child without having to come into contact with the Petitioner (mom).

Judge Bronson, although doubtful about its accuracy, accepted the father's representation that the Ocoee Police Department would serve as a monitored exchange location (from his testimony, it sounded as if the patrol officer who responded to the 911 call told him they would do it - I'm not familiar with any police department serving in this capacity on a regular basis, though it would be wonderful if they did).

The judge failed to fully explain what "no contact" means. In addition to not going near the Petitioner's home/workplace, the Respondent is not permitted to call/email/text her nor is he to have someone contact her on his behalf. The only exception is to have the judge designate a third party for them to communicate about their child. Judge Bronson did order child support, but failed to work out a schedule for visits with the child. After the hearing had concluded and the mother had left the courtroom to wait for her paperwork, the father asked the judge when he could see his child. The mother had to be brought back into the courtroom and a schedule was arranged. The judge even commented that he was doubtful the police would monitor the exchanges and that if it needs to be changed, the parties will have to come back to court to do so.

The judge also did not remind the parties that the injunction is only a temporary order. For these issues to be fully addressed until their child is 18, they need to file for a dissolution of marriage. He failed to ask if either party has done so. What happens in six months?

It seemed to me and the volunteer I was training that Judge Bronson was rushing through this case (it lasted about 20 minutes). In addition to only granting the injunction for 6 months (most other judges grant them for a year), his expectation that they'll come back to court if it doesn't work out with the police department is unrealistic. Most people are not able or willing to take half a day off from work to attend a hearing for which they have to wait 2 weeks. The likelihood is that they'll violate the "no contact" requirement of the injunction in order to take care of visitation issues.

As I said, this case is a recipe for future conflict which will serve to victimize all parties, but most especially the child.

Media Coverage of Burke Didn't Tell the Whole Story

Since posting my thoughts about Burke's bond hearing on this forum, I've come to the conclusion that there are two things out there re-victimizing Shannon Burke's victim in this situation. The Court System and the Media.

My conjecturing about Mrs. Burke's apparent approval of the deal was based upon her presence in the courtroom. I see victims endure tremendous pressures in these situations, and they very often refuse to participate in the prosecution. Many victims attend these hearings to be a witness on behalf of their abuser. Sometimes they want the relationship to work out and are willing to give their partner another chance. Sometimes they're so intimidated that there will be future retribution that they do "cave in" to their partner's pressure. Sometimes they just want their partner to get help (psych, drug, alcohol, etc.) in the hopes that he'll get better & will be the charming, loving man they know he is capable of being. There are as many reasons why a victim doesn't vigorously work to put her batterer in jail as there are victims. It's not our place to criticize the victim's decisions. We should, instead, focus our attention upon the perpetrator's behavior.

Only WFTV aired a (too) brief comment that Mrs. Burke was not in favor of the stipulated agreement. I don't know if her attorney provided an on camera interview to any of the reporters there, but Catherine Burke's voice (either directly or through her attorney) was not heard on Wednesday - either inside or outside the courtroom. It should have been. And it should have been emphatically reported that she was opposed to her husband's release from jail.

Which brings me to the State's role in re-victimizing this woman who almost lost her life. If she was opposed to the "deal," they absolutely should not have struck it with Burke's attorney. In this era of huge budget cuts, our prosecutors are at a distinct disadvantage when dealing with private attorneys. In addition to concerns about the expense incurred in keeping someone incarcerated, they simply don't have the time/resources to always involve all the parties concerned. In this case, neither of the other women who filed injunctions against Burke immediately after this crime were notified, much less consulted, when the State was negotiating with Burke's attorney. Their lives, and those of their children, are also potentially at risk. Legally speaking, they were not victims in this case and therefore the State is not required to contact them. But an adequately funded prosecutor's office that has sufficient advocates to keep victims safe would (hopefully) be concerned about their well-being too. Because an Assistant State Attorney's pay is often not sufficient to pay student loans and keep a roof over one's head, many of our best young prosecutors and public defenders quickly move into private practice, leaving a new crop of young, usually inexperienced lawyers to keep our community safe. The defense attorneys know this and work it to their advantage.
Catherine Burke had a right to address the judge at the bond hearing. In reviewing the video footage, I did not hear the prosecutor mention that she wanted to address the Court. I did not hear Judge Alva ask if she wanted to address the Court. She was available in the courtroom. I do not know if she wanted to say something, but she should have been asked.

To reduce the charges to "Shooting Into Occupied Dwelling" from Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon (when it possibly could have been charged as Attempted 2nd Degree Murder) is an insult to Mrs. Burke and to domestic violence victims everywhere. It minimizes her husband's behavior and sends the message that what he did wasn't worthy of more vigorous prosecution. I will be surprised if Shannon Burke sees the inside of a jail cell again as a result of this incident. I fear that another, more violent one, is in his future.

Click here to see what rights the Florida Statutes afford to victims of crime.

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?

Paternity 101

There are countless cases in our court system that involve disputes between two people who have a child together but were never married. Most of the time, the children are very young preschoolers or infants who often witness arguments and/or violence between their parents when being "exchanged" for a visit. Issues of child support (or its absence) and visitation can become explosive when Mom & Dad can no longer agree on money or weekends. Add in to this mix the new boyfriend/husband or girlfriend/wife who resents or dislikes their new partner's ex and it's only a matter of time before things heat up and people are getting arrested for assault or coming to the courthouse to file an injunction.

Married people have a mechanism to deal with these issues. It's called a dissolution or divorce case. Unmarrieds also have a mechanism where the Court has jurisdiction to resolve these matters. It's called a paternity action and it can be done without an attorney. It benefits fathers because it gives them legal rights to be involved in visitation & decisions relating to their child (school, medical, etc). It benefits mothers, who typically have primary responsibility for the child, to receive financial support from the father. And it benefits the community because it provides a case for the Court to have jurisdiction to resolve disputes - instead of someone ending up in jail when they try to resolve a dispute with violence. Most of all, it benefits the child, who will (hopefully) be spared the trauma of seeing Mom and Dad verbally and/or physically assaulting each other.

"No Hostile Contact"

In monitoring injunction hearings this afternoon, I witnessed a petitioner requesting an injunction against a former boyfriend with whom she now has a roommate relationship (and a joint apartment lease that doesn't expire until August). The Respondent admitted to withholding Petitioner's cell phone from her in order to check her text messages because he alleged that she was intimate with someone else and he had a right to know the details (withholding someone's ability to call for help & violating their privacy is a common power & control tactic of abusers). He claimed the injunction was only a tactic she was using to get out of the lease. The Petitioner stated that her 9-yr old sister was present in the apartment when the Respondent pushed her.

Judge Sally Kest, after stating that both parties were involved in hostilities (I don't recall testimony that the Petitioner had been violent - other than trying to grab her phone from the Respondent), granted a 6 month "no hostile contact" injunction. She then stated to the parties that they could both live in the apartment (at which point the Petitioner became panicky) and said the parties would have to work together to resolve the lease. The judge subsequently told the Petitioner that she wasn't requiring her to live in the apartment, just that she (the judge) wouldn't order one of the parties to leave. She then told the Respondent he could return to the residence, from which he'd been excluded when the temporary injuction had been served, and admonished him that it was his responsibility to leave if there was an argument.

"No Hostile Contact" orders are essentially unenforceable, unless there are eyewitnesses to an event. They give victims a false sense of security in believing that they can/will be enforced. Many abusers are very adept at threatening their victims with simple gestures or even an intimidating look that nobody else would recognize as a threat. It is rare for law enforcement to arrest someone for violating this type of court order unless there are injuries they can document or unless a third party witnesses a verbal assault. If judges are going to order "no hostile contact," they ought to grant permission for victims to record phone conversations without the abuser's permission. At least the victim will be able to provide evidence should the abuser violate the court order.