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.

Whatever happened to. . . ? #22

Robert James Markward
2009-CF-005220-A (Seminole)
Promote Sexual Performance by Child (50cts); Possess Material Depicting Sexual Conduct by Child (28 cts)
Defendant is an Orange County firefighter who pled guilty to 10 counts of Promoting Sexual Performance by Child. All other counts were dropped. Defendant was sentenced to 5 years sex offender probation. It is unknown if he is still employed by Orange County.

John Allen Murphy
2006-CF-016074-A-O (Orange)
1st Degree Murder; Aggravated Child Abuse; Sexual Battery Child<12 (2cts)
Defendant admitted to slamming his 15mo old daughter into the side of shower stall, tried to revive her & then took her to hospital where she was pronounced dead from blunt force trauma. Defendant pled to 1st Degree Murder and was sentenced to LIFE. The other charges were dismissed.

Robert Ratliff
2010-CF-000348-A-O (Orange)
1st Degree Murder w/Firearm
Defendant initially told deputies his wife had been killed in a home invasion, but later admitted shooting her accidentally after an argument. The couple's two small children were in the residence at the time of the shooting. Defendant pled no contest to 2nd Degree Murder and was sentenced to 30 years in DOC.

Gabriel Castro
2010-CF-004342-A-O (Orange)
Aggravated Stalking w/Credible Threat (5cts)
Victim received several anonymous notes outside & inside her home that the writer was watching her, & threatening to sexually assault her. Defendant is related to victim & allegedly confessed to sending the notes. Victim's request for an injunction was denied by Judge Sally Kest in April, 2010. Defendant pled to 2 counts and was sentenced to 9 months in jail, 4 years supervised probation, to have no contact with the victim, undergo psychosexual evaluation/treatment, 200 hours community service and to complete the following classes: impulse control & anger management.

Otis Gary Ford
2010-CF-007287-A-O (Orange)
False Imprisonment; Battery; Resist Officer - Interfere w/LEO
Defendant allegedly beat the mother of his 4 children so badly that there was bloodspatter on the walls, and threatened to kill her & cut off her head. He has been arrested twice for homicide and pled to battery & aggravated assault. He has twice escaped in the past. Defendant pled to misdemeanor battery and was sentenced to 68 days in jail with credit for 68 days time served, 297 days of probation, Batterer's Intervention Program, and to have no hostile contact with the victim.

Robert Lee Hart
2010-CF-000607-A-O (Orange)
Neglect Child Causing Harm/Disability; Possess Firearm by Convicted Felon; Culpable Negligence
Defendant's son allegedly used defendant's weapon to accidentally shoot his 10-yr old cousin in the mouth. A jury found Hart not guilty of Child Neglect but convicted him of the other two counts. He was sentenced to 8 years in DOC.

DV = Domestic Violence = Deputy Villella

CourtWatch monitored the Villella injunction hearing held on March 2nd, which involved a lengthy conference at the bench so the press could not hear. What wasn't reported in the media is that the "no hostile contact" was the Judge's idea!

In spite of having his own attorney, it appeared to me that the petitioner in this case was intimidated into acquiescing. I hope the petitioner doesn't get a false sense of security thinking that this injunction has any teeth.

There is no wiggle room in Florida Statute 741.31(4)(a)5 for "no hostile contact." Intimate partners have numerous non-verbal ways they communicate with one another. In a healthy relationship, these might constitute an "inside joke" or word/gesture of endearment. In an abusive relationship, they engender fear.

An abuser can be very crafty about the methods they use to intimidate their victim. For example, one woman's husband routinely removed his wedding ring and set it upon the fireplace mantel before he beat her. The gesture terrified her. When she finally had the courage to seek an injunction, and they were in court, he calmly removed his wedding ring and set it on the table.

Needless to say, the meaning was crystal clear to his wife. It was a hostile gesture that communicated his intention to do violence. Yet no one else in the courtroom even realized the implication of his action.

Therefore, the concept of a "No Hostile Contact" order is ridiculous. Imagine the wife in the above scenario attempting to convince a law enforcement officer to arrest her husband because he removed his wedding band. No officer would. And the abuser knows it.

Non-hostile contact orders simply empower an abuser to continue abusing - albeit in a less overtly "hostile" manner than before.

They are simply not enforceable.

Orange County deputy accused of domestic violence

Orlando Sentinel (2/24/10): Ex-boyfriend accuses Orange deputy of domestic violence

While it is always distressing to see a member of law enforcement allegedly engaging in domestic violence, the story told by Deputy Bryan Villella's ex-wife and subsequent partner are frighteningly similar.

What is most concerning is that the judge in this case, Judge Sally Kest, read this injunction request and despite there being a prior history, use of a weapon and physical violence, she merely granted a hearing, without an accompanying temporary injunction. I have been told that the victim is terrified and is currently in hiding.

In his petition dated 2/18, Mr. Carrion alleged that during their 4 year relationship, Deputy Villella battered him numerous times, held a gun to his head while forcing him to clean up his own blood, tased him, coerced him into group sex, dislocated his shoulder, threatened to kill him and his daughter, and threw him out of the home.

And Judge Kest set the case for a hearing on March 2nd WITHOUT granting a temporary injunction?

It appears as though there is a bias of some sort at work here.

Because it is a same sex relationship? Or because it involves a member of law enforcement? Or perhaps because the petition did not allege exact dates and times of the incidents, but was submitted as nearly 7 pages in a narrative fashion, rather than in a more orderly fashion? Judge Kest's response:

The Court finds that the facts, as stated in the Petition alone and without a hearing on the matter, do not demonstrate that Petitioner is a victim of domestic or repeat violence or that Petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence. Therefore, there is not a sufficient factual basis upon which the court can enter a Temporary Injunction for Protection Against Domestic or Repeat Violence prior to a hearing. . . . Petitioner may amend or supplement the Petition at any time to state further reasons why a Temporary Injunction should be ordered which would be in effect until the hearing scheduled below.

Mr. Carrion submitted a supplemental affadavit on 2/22 to his petition in an effort to secure a temporary injunction pending his hearing. It was trimmed to 2 pages and included dates of some of the offenses, the most recent one being May, 2009. It was denied. I would assume because it has been several months since the last physical act of violence.

While it has been 8-9 months since he was physically attacked, the Petitioner wrote that he is terrified because Deputy Villella's conduct is finally being investigated by the Orange County Sheriff's Office as a result of an unrelated incident in June 2009 (see Sentinel story). And Deputy Villella knows about Mr. Carrion's attempt to get an injunction - something that could result in Villella losing his job.

Mr. Carrion is wise to remain in hiding.

It is more than disappointing that his allegations, when presented to OCSO last year, were not thoroughly investigated. Mr. Carrion wrote "I cannot count on the police. I went to them for help and got nothing but a reprimand for shaming one of their 'valiant.' After all I told them and proved to them, Bryan was given an award....He is Deputy of the Year.....I am terrified."

And Judge Kest found that Mr. Carrion didn't demonstrate that he had reasonable cause to believe that he was in imminent danger?

Mr. Carrion is very wise to remain in hiding.

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.

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.

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?

"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.