Today's SWAT Standoff & Another "Injunction Dysfunction" Are Related

Last month, Judge Sally Kest presided over an injunction hearing that ended in the SWAT shooting of one of the parties, Palin Perez, today.

In her Petition for Injunction, the mother of his two children (ages 2 and 3), alleged Perez (Facebook photo below) had been abusive throughout their 4-yr relationship.

She wrote:

Mr. Perez has been violent, mentally, emotionally, verbally, and sexually abusive throughout our relationship. He has raped me . . . at least 4 times, laughing and calling me a whore. Also asking if I liked it. I cried the whole time. He has called me a slut, [expletive], whore, n . . .loving whore and bitch. He has threatened to take my life and even told me he would "cut my throat."

He has given me multiple black eyes and punched me in my head so hard and so many times I have migraine headaches. He has choked me and hit me during my pregnancy of my 3-year old.

I am in fear of my life scared that Mr. Perez will find me. I am afraid to go anywhere especially alone. I have a 911 phone, but I do not feel safe.

He was my boyfriend for the last 4 years and we have 2 children together. During the course of our relationship I wasn't allowed (per order of Mr. Perez) to leave the house at all! I wasn't allowed to have any communication with anyone. I wasn't allowed to have a phone or seek therapy. I could not look at any men, even on TV that made Mr. Perez feel [indecipherable] about himself.

Soon (2 months) after Mr. Perez and I began our relationship I found out that Mr. Perez had Domestic Violence issues (pending) with his ex-wife. I then found police reports and other papers explain what he did to her and realized he was doing the same to me. He was arrested and charged with Attempted Murder and Assault on his ex-wife, but it appears that it was continued without a finding.

CourtWatch monitored the first hearing over which Judge Kest presided on Wednesday, October 7, 2009. The Respondent (Perez) failed to appear when the case was called at 10:09 AM (it was on the docket for 9:30 AM). After the Petitioner briefly testified about the situation, Judge Kest granted a 6 month injunction, ordered $362/mo in temporary child support, and supervised visitation through Family Ties. The hearing concluded at 10:17 AM and the Petitioner left soon thereafter, with her injunction paperwork in hand.

At that point, the only fault we could possibly find was that the injunction was only granted for 6 months.

Fast forward to later that morning.

Mr. Perez arrived about an hour later and claimed he had been present but had not been called for his hearing. As one who has spent many hours on the 16th floor of the courthouse, I find his claim to lack credibility. If he had reported to the room he was instructed to, and at the time he was instructed to arrive, court personnel would have made certain he was in the hearing.

Here's where Judge Kest blew it.

Instead of telling Mr. Perez to file a motion to request a re-hearing, she cancelled the injunction she had just granted to the Petitioner and told him to return the following afternoon at 1:00 PM for a hearing.

When the parties returned the next afternoon, they had to wait for all the other cases to be heard first (Thursday afternoon is devoted to hearings that require Spanish interpreters). When the case was finally heard at 4:21 PM, the Petitioner's attorney attempted to introduce testimony about Perez's attempted murder case from another jurisdiction, but Judge Kest refused to consider it. Perez allegedly got those teardrop tattoos on his face while serving time in prison for that assault.

In addition to the above petition  against him, Mr. Perez (6'1" and 280 lbs) had filed an injunction a few days earlier on behalf of his two children, claiming that Ms. S (5'2" and 130 lbs) had been behaving erratically, had physically assaulted him, broken things, and threatened to kill him and to commit suicide with a knife. Police were called and she was Baker Acted. Her petition was filed after her release from Lakeside.

At the hearing on October 8th, Judge Kest granted a 1-year injunction, but no longer required supervised visits through Family Ties. In fact, Judge Kest also granted custody of the children to Mr. Perez  and only weekend visits for the mother.
 
Three weeks later, Perez filed an affadavit stating that Ms. S had violated the injunction by driving by his home, making harrassing phone calls, and alleged that his 3-year old daughter had been exposed to improper sexual behavior by her mother and her new boyfriend.
 
At the hearing for the alleged violations on November 20, 2009 Judge Theotis Bronson dismissed the charges.
 
Mr. Perez apparently realized he was not able to control the situation further, the Court system having thrown gasoline on the fire, and he took Ms. S and the children hostage shortly thereafter - holding them for 4 days until she was able to escape this morning.


The act of a desperate man? Undoubtedly.

Suicide by Cop? Maybe.
 
Whether or not this situation could have been averted will be the subject of a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by law enforcement, court personnel, DCF, and domestic violence advocates. I'm just relieved that the children and their mother were not injured or killed.

Now for our two cents about Judge Kest's performance on the injunction court bench:

CourtWatch has sent our concerns about Judge Kest to her and to those above her in the past. Our concerns, thus far, do not seem to have been addressed. So we'll share them with you.

CourtWatch volunteers have consistently noted that Judge Kest is often disrespectful to the parties in her courtroom, speaks condescendingly to them, and seems to expect them to know the legal procedures for presenting their case (in spite of the fact they rarely have an attorney to represent them).  She conducts hearings in a manner that suggests that getting it done fast is more important that getting it done thoroughly - often failing to to elicit additional testimony that would be pertinent to the case and failing to cover all the issues (child support/visitation, property retrieval) that need resolution.

After 11 months hearing injunction cases, she should be doing a better job for the citizens of Orange County.

12/11/09: More information in the Sentinel about this case.

The Price of Pretrial Freedom

I attended a Motion to Remove GPS Monitoring Device in Judge F. Rand Wallis' courtroom Friday. The defendant, Charlie Anthony Jackson, has a degree from FSU and works in a high paying MIS job that requires him to travel often. He is now living at a hotel in Jacksonville (previously having commuted to his job from Orlando), and claimed that the GPS monitoring device provided by Court Programs has malfunctioned in the past, once causing him to have to return to Orlando from a job in Arkansas to be replaced. In addition to claiming financial hardship (having to pay $84/week for the privilege of not being incarcerated while awaiting trial), Mr. Jackson expressed concern that the monitoring company could call him at an inopportune time, for example while he is conducting a training session or in an important meeting, that might cause him a hardship (though I guess embarrassment is more the issue).

I suppose that Mr. Jackson believes that the judge should try to minimize any potential for awkward situations he's made to suffer while awaiting trial.

The defendant's wife, the victim in this case, was assaulted so severely in August that she literally thought her eye had come out of its socket when blood squirted from it during the attack. She has two facial scars and suffered facial fractures.  She testified that this was the fourth physical assault by her husband during their nine year marriage.  She obtained a 3-yr injunction immediately after the offense and the defendant was granted only supervised visitation with his child through Family Ties, which he has not yet exercised, even though it was ordered two months ago. She told Judge Wallis that knowing his movements are monitored is the only thing that has provided her with any peace of mind since the attack.

Jackson is charged with Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Harm) and Domestic Battery by Strangulation. Defense Attorney Charles Willits did a good job of pleading his client's case, but Assistant State Attorneys Christopher Pasquale and Michelle Latham countered every argument with convincing testimony by a representative from Court Programs and the victim herself.  Additionally, Court Programs told the judge that if Mr. Jackson cannot risk being disturbed during an important meeting, they will refrain from contacting him during that pre-arranged time.

In the end, Judge Wallis denied the motion, finding that the defendant's concerns did not rise to the level of a hardship and that his issues had been alleviated by a newer device that does not have the same battery problems the older device had. 

CourtWatch commends Judge Wallis for maintaining this level of protection for the victim and accountability for the defendant while awaiting trial.

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?