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.
Showing posts with label non-hostile contact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label non-hostile contact. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
A "Non-Hostile" murder-suicide
It's stories like this one that explain why domestic violence advocates don't like to see judges award "non-hostile" contact injunctions: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/lake_news/051209_Two_dead_in_murder_suicide
The tragedy in this case is that Tonya Warren probably thought she was "safe" because other family members were present. And even more tragically, their very own child witnessed the most unspeakable act any child could witness. This case is also a reminder that the most lethal time for victims of DV is when they're trying to leave the relationship. That's when 75% of the fatalities occur.
"Non-hostile" injunctions are essentially unenforceable by the justice system. They give Petitioners a false sense of security. After all, the judge told the parties that the Respondent, at the victim's say-so, is supposed to leave the premises if the Respondent behaves in a hostile manner (for example, yelling at the victim). What's a victim going to say to the 911 operator if they want to try to enforce the order? The other person yelled at me?
Abusers often have several tactics in their arsenal that they use to convey threats to their victims - and bystanders in the same room don't even realize that a subliminal message has transpired. For example, one abuser would ritually remove his wedding band and place it on the fireplace mantel before beating his wife. When she petitioned for an injunction and they were in court for the hearing, he calmly removed his wedding band and set it on the table in front of him, making certain he generated enough sound for her to hear and to get the message.
The message? You're going to be beaten up after this is over.
Law enforcement isn't going to arrest someone because they took off their wedding band, are they?
Judges need to stop putting victims at risk by issuing "non-hostile contact" injunctions. I know they're done to permit both parents to attend school functions and the like, but maybe it's more important for the children and the victim to be safe while the perpetrator has time to (hopefully) cool down and adjust to the separation.
The tragedy in this case is that Tonya Warren probably thought she was "safe" because other family members were present. And even more tragically, their very own child witnessed the most unspeakable act any child could witness. This case is also a reminder that the most lethal time for victims of DV is when they're trying to leave the relationship. That's when 75% of the fatalities occur.
"Non-hostile" injunctions are essentially unenforceable by the justice system. They give Petitioners a false sense of security. After all, the judge told the parties that the Respondent, at the victim's say-so, is supposed to leave the premises if the Respondent behaves in a hostile manner (for example, yelling at the victim). What's a victim going to say to the 911 operator if they want to try to enforce the order? The other person yelled at me?
Abusers often have several tactics in their arsenal that they use to convey threats to their victims - and bystanders in the same room don't even realize that a subliminal message has transpired. For example, one abuser would ritually remove his wedding band and place it on the fireplace mantel before beating his wife. When she petitioned for an injunction and they were in court for the hearing, he calmly removed his wedding band and set it on the table in front of him, making certain he generated enough sound for her to hear and to get the message.
The message? You're going to be beaten up after this is over.
Law enforcement isn't going to arrest someone because they took off their wedding band, are they?
Judges need to stop putting victims at risk by issuing "non-hostile contact" injunctions. I know they're done to permit both parents to attend school functions and the like, but maybe it's more important for the children and the victim to be safe while the perpetrator has time to (hopefully) cool down and adjust to the separation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
