What is wrong with this picture?

Subtitle: The blame game, part 2

It's ironic to me that little Triumph Alexander Skinner's mother, who has a black eye in her mugshot picture, was arrested for Child Neglect today. 

The comments from Sentinel readers, for the most part, show little or no understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

Most of the writers expect the victim to be able to just walk away from their abuser. Most of them don't realize how extensively an abuser controls their victim.

It is not uncommon for a victim to enable their abuser to avoid having to suffer any consequences for their behavior.

Per the Sentinel:
"She told investigators that Skinner abused her in the past and she feared him. Investigators noticed bruises on Ford's face, neck and throat. Deputies arrested Skinner later that evening at the family home."

And just a few days later, they arrest her. Michelle Marie Ford has a black eye visible in this mugshot. A bruise is visible on the front of her neck.

This woman is supposed to be able to protect the baby? From the man who gave her a black eye and left bruises on her neck?

What's wrong with this picture?


Suggested Reading:
Love and Stockholm Syndrome: The Mystery of Loving an Abuser (Part 1) (Part 2)
Dr. Joseph M. Carver, PhD

The blame game

Seven month old Triumph Alexander Skinner died, allegedly at the hands of his father Keith Skinner, this past weekend. In reading and watching the media coverage of this tragedy, people want to blame somebody for what went wrong.

The candidates for the blame game in any family violence related fatality are (in no particular order):

• Department of Children & Families (DCF)
• Law enforcement
• The court system
• Advocacy organizations
• The child's mother

Did I leave anyone out?  Oh yeah. What about the guy who beat his child to death?

Having been a member of the Domestic Violence Task Force for the past 5 years, I can assure you that everyone will pull their records and try to determine if there was something that was missed somewhere along the line. And if a deficiency is found, steps will be made to correct it.

But the reality is that Mr. Skinner, and only Mr. Skinner, is (allegedly) responsible for his son's death.

Many would argue that the mom is just as culpable as he is because she lied to investigators. But once you understand the dynamics of an abusive relationship, it's not so clear-cut.  Take a few moments to review the Power & Control Wheel if you're not familiar with it.

Try to put yourself into the shoes of a victim who has been abused verbally, physically, emotionally, and/or financially by their partner for years. Try to imagine what it's like to know in your gut that nobody else would want you, that the violence is all your fault, and that you have nobody to turn to for help. These are the things you know so deeply in your gut that it's no different from knowing what your eye color is.

Try to imagine what it's like to be so afraid for your child's safety that you stay in the relationship to protect the child, because you know that the courts will most likely order unsupervised visitation with the offending parent and you can't be there to protect your baby (whether that baby is an infant or a teenager doesn't matter).

Now try to understand that the perpetrator isn't always violent. Sometimes they are wonderful to you. Sometimes they are a terrific parent. Sometimes the relationship seems as though it's worth saving.

THIS is the victim's reality. And a victim believes this is the way life is and there's nothing he or she can do about it. Advocates try to help them see that they do have options and work on steps to pursue those options. But until a victim is ready to throw in the towel on the relationship, and seek alternatives to their situation, there is only so much that the community can do.

However, the community (that's everyone - friends, neighbors, employers, strangers, government, etc.) can do a lot to help victims and perpetrators in these situations. But for lasting change, the individuals have to want it badly enough to work at it. The victim might not be able to say "I deserve better" because he/she doesn't truly believe they do. But when a friend or co-worker repeatedly tells them so, after a while, the thought takes root and begins to blossom.

When you suspect someone is being abused, the best thing you can do for them is tell them you're concerned about their safety and try to convince them to call their local DV shelter to develop a safety plan with a trained advocate. Be supportive (not just in word, but also in deed - offer to watch their children, give them a ride if they need transportation, etc) and don't badmouth their abuser.

When you witness violence, the best thing you can do is call law enforcement and record (if possible) the incident. Many cell phones today have video and/or audio capabilities. Be willing to be inconvenienced by serving as a witness for the prosecution, even if the victim does not want to testify.

Skinner and his victim reportedly had numerous contacts with the criminal justice system, the injunction courts, and DCF. He had a history of violence and was even sentenced in 2005 to 4 years in prison for a 2004 child abuse charge. His wife had filed injunctions against him in 2001 and 2004.

And yet a 7-month old child lies in the morgue, after having sustained heinous injuries that included a perforated bowel, a severely fractured skull, and numerous fractured ribs. His 7-year old sister (the 2004 child abuse victim) was removed from the home, even though she is now safe from her father because he is in jail. She undoubtedly thinks she is being punished for having done something wrong.

When my estranged husband killed our 2-year old daughter, I was terrified that my 8-year old would be taken away from me for my "failure to protect" her baby sister (thankfully that never happened, although I did have to submit to an interview with DCF a couple days after the funeral).

Please don't blame the mother until you've walked in her shoes. Try to remember who is at fault here.

Judicial benchmarking

Earlier this week, I monitored a VOP (Violation of Probation) hearing in Judge Alice Blackwell's courtroom. I first met Judge Blackwell in 2006 when she and Dick Batchelor served as co-chairs of Orange County's Domestic Violence & Child Abuse Commission Implementation Team. She served as the Administrative Judge for Domestic Relations from 2006-2009 and was a crucial player in efforts to improve the way injunction cases are handled. In October, 2009 the Orange County Domestic Violence Task Force recognized her for the outstanding contributions she has made to improving the court system's handling of domestic violence cases.

Judge Blackwell's handling of domestic violence cases is the benchmark for CourtWatchers.  If you're familiar with the Power & Control Wheel, which details the different tactics that abusers use to maintain control over their victims,  you might like to take a look at the corresponding wheel for Judicial Responses to Domestic Violence.  This judge consistently exhibits the criteria  listed in that wheel.

At the beginning of this year, Judge Blackwell rotated out of the Domestic Relations division into the felony VOP courtroom. Even though we miss her presence in the Injunction Court, it's been a pleasure to see a judge who doesn't hesitate to hold offenders accountable for violating conditions of their probation or community control. The defendants in her courtroom have already been convicted of some very serious crimes. Some of them were given the opportunity to avoid incarceration and ordered to probation. Some were given probation after a period of incarceration.

Richard Brace (2007-CF-018059-A-O), age 68, was in her courtroom on Monday for having violated the "no contact" provision of his probation from a 2007 charge of Aggravated Assault w/Deadly Weapon (an automobile) & Battery. Assistant State's Attorney Robert Westmoreland was playing audio recordings of several threatening telephone messages left on the victim's voicemail when we arrived in the courtroom. From our vantage point, it was difficult to discern all that was being said in the recordings, but some of what we could hear was reminiscent of the rage in Mel Gibson's rants against his ex-girlfriend.

Judge Blackwell later characterized his comments as despicable and abusive.

The parties were allegedly permitted by the judge in their divorce case to have contact with one another in order communicate about issues relating to the child.

One of the defendant's messages to his victim indicated that he knew who her new boyfriend was and where he lived.

Lesson #1: Domestic Relations judges need to assign a third party to handle communications regarding children when domestic violence is an issue in their case. Or only permit them to email or text message one another, thus creating evidence that can be used in court.

When the defendant's ex-wife was testifying, Mr. Westmoreland seemed ill prepared as he attempted to put some anonymous letters into evidence (they were not admitted, nor was the victim permitted to testify about their content). Judge Blackwell concluded the victim's testimony with additional questions to obtain facts that the prosecutor did not.

After the State rested its case, Defense Counsel Thomas Matthews elicited testimony from his client that the probation officer, Mr. Wilson with the Florida Department of Corrections, gave him permission to have contact with the victim. Upon hearing this testimony, the prosecutor asked to reopen his case, called the probation officer to the stand (something that should have been done earlier), and asked him about the contact issue. Mr. Wilson testified that he never gave the defendant permission to speak with the victim. Wilson also never contacted the victim to ascertain if his client was telling him the truth about the contact they were having. Wilson stated that he knew, from his client, that the victim had helped take care of the defendant as he was recovering from a heart attack earlier in the year.

Lesson #2: Probation Officers need to maintain communication with the victim when a crime of domestic violence is involved.

Judge Blackwell grilled the probation officer about why he didn't file a violation of probation affadavit a year and half ago, when the contact began. The judge also learned that even law enforcement officers told the defendant that he could have contact with the victim if he only spoke about visitation issues with her.

Lesson #3: When the messages that people receive from those in authority conflict with one another, they will ignore the orders they don't like and abide by those that they prefer.

Mr. Brace admitted that not knowing where his child was every moment made him very frustrated. He became visibly agitated as he told the judge that when his daughter is visiting him, he contacts the victim to advise her of their whereabouts several times during the day (e.g., we just left the bowling alley and we're going to Subway to get something to eat; we just left Subway and we're going to the mall, etc.). He felt that he deserved the same kind of "courtesy" from his ex-wife when their daughter was with her. And he expressed great displeasure that there was a new man in the picture, not knowing what sort of influences to which she might be subjected.

See "Using Children" on the Power & Control Wheel.

The defense attorney argued that there were no threats in the voicemails, to which Judge Blackwell countered that "I know who your boyfriend is and where he lives" is an implied threat.

The judge found that the defendant had willfully violated his probation and sentenced him to an additional year of community control (a more restrictive type of supervision than probation), to be followed by another year of probation. She also ordered he complete the Batterer's Intervention Program. Judge Blackwell took several minutes to explain to the victim why she did not sentence the defendant to prison (the defendant has no prior criminal history aside from this case, had major health issues, and believed that adding 2 more years of supervision to his sentence would be a better way to protect her for a longer period of time than putting him in prison).

Judge Blackwell also expressed great concern for the victim's safety and encouraged her to contact the local domestic violence shelter to develop a safety plan. She also told the parties to set up monitored exchanges with the court for their daughter.

Finally, she emphasized to Mr. Brace exactly what "no contact" means and that she is the only judge that can modify the order. All contact with the victim, outside of a courtroom or legal deposition, was prohibited. She warned him not to try to modify contact provisions with their divorce judge in another county.

Lesson #4: When judges take the time to listen, ask questions, and explain their rulings, treating all parties with courtesy and respect, justice happens.

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.

Beware . . . You may not be as protected as you think

Two weeks ago I was in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom when I heard something that left me somewhat stunned. An alleged sex offender, who was released prior to trial with GPS monitoring through a private company, Court Programs, fled to Honduras in March. As I inquired further, I learned that another alleged sex offender who was awaiting trial with GPS monitoring fled to Turkey in July.

Court Programs uses state-of-the-art technology from SecureAlert to track their clients. The units enable the SecureAlert monitoring center to verbally communicate directly with the client and establish a three-way call with the defendant's local officer. An exclusion/inclusion zone can be programmed, and real-time details about an offender's location delivered. The daily cost to the defendant ranges from $8 to $15.

GPS monitoring can be a win-win for all parties involved. The defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty, can maintain his/her job while awaiting trial. The victim is assured that the defendant's movements are being monitored. The taxpayers avoid having to pay approximately $85/day to house them at the jail.

But it's not a win-win if the monitoring company doesn't do its job and notify law enforcement and the Court when a defendant violates their conditions of pretrial release (or probation).

In talking with members of the court system, I received almost overwhelming approval of the job that Court Programs does. With the exception of occasional concerns about slow service in getting inmates set up with their devices on weekends, they do a good job in providing this much needed service.

The following two Orange County sex offenders have fled this country to avoid prosecution:

Lewis Lopez-Moya [Honduras]
2009-CF-016563-A-O
Lewd/Lascivious Battery (2 counts)
Lopez-Moya's victim, whom he admitted to sexually assaulting, was 14 years old when the offenses occurred in November, 2009. He was granted bond in the amount of $10,000 by Judge Marc Lubet on 12/17/09, put on GPS monitoring through Court Programs, ordered to turn in his passport (which he did on 12/18/10), restricted to Orange County, ordered to have no contact with the victim, and had a curfew imposed. His conditions of release were modified in February, 2010 to permit daytime travel to surrounding counties for work purposes only.

On March 15, 2010, Lopez-Moya's defense attorney was permitted to withdraw from the case. "Irreconcilable differences" was cited as the reason.

On or about March 24, 2010, Court Programs lost contact with the defendant.  That same day, an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had knowingly or intentionally altered or tampered with the device. The bond was forfeited.

On March 25, 2010, the bondsman filed a motion to have the bond forfeiture rescinded, citing the failure of Court Programs to adequately notify the bondsman and the Court of defendant's having violated the terms of pretrial release as follows:

Pursuant to the CPI FL [Court Programs Inc, Florida] tracking records, for weeks upon weeks, the Defendant did not reside at [address], Orlando and had been breaching his curfew.  CPI never informed the surety [bondsman] of these breaches and never provided notice to this Honorable Court. As such, the Court's directed program in which the surety had to utilize and rely upon was in breach (emphasis mine).

Pursuant to the CPI FL tracking records, for long periods of time the Defendant's GPS tracker showed that the monitoring was "UNAVAILABLE." The signal for "UNAVAILABLE," usually signifies that the Defendant is or has been tampering with the GPS monitor. CPI FL and Court Programs Inc failed to not only inform the surety, but failed to take appropriate action against the Defendant in which they had been secured by this court to secure.

Attached to the motion was dozens of pages of tracking data, together with two maps that showed that the defendant traveled to Brevard County and was last "pinged" suspiciously close to the Melbourne International Airport.

A hearing was held in July and Judge Lubet granted the bondsman's motion to return the money to him.

Selami Duman [Turkey]
2010-CF-008400-A-O
Solicitation of Minor via Computer; Travel to Meet Minor for Unlawful Act; Lewd/Lascivious Exhibition Using Computer (2 counts)
Duman is a Turkish citizen and was granted a $30,000 bond on June 16, 2010 by Judge Jeffrey Arnold. He was released two days later on GPS monitoring through Court Programs after surrendering his passport.

On July 1, 2010 a hearing on the defendant's motion to have his passport returned was denied. He faced deportation because his employment had been terminated as a result of the arrest and he was unable to obtain a new visa in order to seek employment.

On July 4, 2010 the GPS device either malfunctioned or it was disconnected.  It took Court Programs four days to notify the bondsman that they had lost track of the defendant.

On July 8, 2010, an order was drafted to have the defendant taken into custody.

On July 12, 2010 an Order to Take Into Custody was entered, citing that the defendant had allowed his device to power down on June 18th [this must be a typo on the paperwork - other documentation says it was July 4th] and that all attempts to contact him had failed.

The monitoring device was mailed back to Court Programs with a return address in Turkey.


These defendants either traveled on someone else's passport, used a forged a passport, or managed to secure a duplicate from their governments. We are curious to know how they got out of this country.



Conclusion

Chief Judge Belvin Perry issued Administrative Order 2008-27 on 12/31/08 that governs the use of GPS and SCRAM (alcohol) monitoring devices.  It does not specify a provider for these services.

Court Programs is a privately held company that provides the majority of GPS monitoring services in the county for the Ninth Judicial Circuit. A search of Orange County's Contracts & Purchasing Division records turned up no formal contract. CourtWatch has also been unable to locate a formal Memorandum of Understanding between them and the County, the Court or the Corrections Department.

We are concerned that there is little to no oversight of this company as it is tasked with monitoring some dangerous offenders in our community. While Court Programs has been very successful with nearly all of their clients, even being accused at times of being too aggressive in reporting infractions, two individuals accused of sex crimes against children will most likely never be held accountable for those crimes.

More attention to this matter is needed. Some believe that the Ninth Circuit is responsible for overseeing this matter. Others believe that the County Corrections should handle it. There is a gap somewhere that needs to be plugged. The citizens need to have more leverage and the ability to impose sanctions upon GPS providers when things go awry and our defendants go astray.