Posted on 01/03/2002 8:22:18 AM PST by MrCraig
Domestic violence activists are unhappy with a Fayette District Court judge who has held women in contempt of court for returning to their alleged abusers after winning protective orders.
Judge Megan Lake Thornton issued fines of $200 to Robin Hull, 37, and $100 to Jamie Harrison, 20, during hearings Nov. 28 and Dec. 12, respectively.
Domestic violence experts said it's rare in Kentucky for judges to issue fines in such cases. But in court, Thornton explained that ``it drives me nuts when people just decide to do whatever they want.''
``In my experience on the bench, I have found that there has been a number of petitioners who have chosen to come and get an order, and then ignore the order,'' Thornton said at Hull's hearing, according to a tape of the hearing.
``I think that both parties are obligated to follow through with the order,'' Thornton said. ``You can't have it both ways.''
The judge's frustration is understandable, but she's making a terrible mistake, said Lisa Beran, an attorney for the Kentucky Domestic Violence Association. Beran attended the Dec. 12 hearing.
Abused women might flee their attackers several times before they leave for good because they can't afford a new place to live, or they're still in love with the man, Beran said.
Punishing abused women for going home -- however unwise their decisions appear to be -- creates ``a chilling effect'' that can discourage other women from seeking protective orders, said Sherry Currens, executive director of the association.
``The risk here is that women will be discouraged from asking for an order if they think it can get them into trouble later, or if they think a judge is going to chastise them in a courtroom,'' Currens said.
The facts were similar in the Hull and Harrison cases: The women said they were abused by men, and they asked the court for emergency-protective orders that forbid future contact.
But the women returned to the homes they shared with their alleged abusers before the follow-up hearings typically held two weeks later in such cases.
At those hearings, Thornton said she's offended by women who ask the court for protective orders, then invalidate them by contacting the men themselves.
A no-contact order is mutually binding, Thornton said, so neither the man nor the woman should contact the other. Thornton cited both women and their alleged abusers for contempt.
``When these orders are entered, you don't just do whatever you damn well please and ignore them,'' the judge said at Harrison's hearing, according to a tape.
``They are orders of the court,'' she said. ``People are ordered to follow them, and I don't care which side you're on.''
The women were stunned by the judge's harsh lecture and the fines, said their lawyer, Cindra Walker of Central Kentucky Legal Services. The women could not be reached for comment.
``They were in shock,'' Walker said. ``They didn't understand. They hadn't received any warning on the orders that said they could be held in contempt of court.''
The women might appeal the contempt citations and fines to circuit court, Walker said.
Yesterday, Thornton said she can't discuss cases that might be appealed. But this is the first time she's heard people complain about her contempt rulings, she added.
``If somebody has a criticism about something that happens in my courtroom, they ought to call me instead of complaining to the Herald-Leader,'' Thornton said. ``That's just common courtesy.''
Thornton is usually a good, strong judge, but she's wrong this time, said Carol Jordan, who runs the governor's Child Abuse and Domestic Violence Services office.
``The message to the women here is that the court is not here for your protection,'' Jordan said.
``These are terribly complex cases, and I certainly would not want to dismiss the frustrations of the court,'' Jordan said. ``But the primary concern here needs to be protecting the women. If you start throwing up roadblocks, you erode that protection.''
If the primary concern is to protect the women, doesn't it make sense to fine them for actions that nullify the protection? People are paying hard earned dollars to support a system that is charged with putting in place protection at the request of these women. It makes perfect sense to me that they have been held accountable for this waste.
This woman MUST be a Dimocrat!
In this case, the women asked the government for an order....and then didn't obey it themselves. This is not a government abuse problem. If you don't want government in your life, don't involved them voluntarily. (I realize some government intrusion cannot be avoided....it does not apply here.)
This woman is a JUDGE who expects the ORDERS of her Court to be obeyed.
Apparently, "they" want it both ways. "They" petition for a protective order to invoke the power of government (about which you are rightfully suspicious), but "they" can keep doing whatever "they" want, include hanging out with the person "they" want controlled. The good judge, it seems, is right in this case. You might do well to analyze a little more deeply and knee-jerk a little less.
They should be fined. They waste the time of the cops who have to go out on domestic violence calls just to hear the pleas of the person who called, "Don't arrest him! Don't arrest him!" Then these women tie up the courts getting protective orders that they blow off a day later. It's a waste of time and taxpayer money. This fine is a way of billing them for court costs.
Is English your first language or is ADD the problem?
She requested the restraining order, the court does not volunteer it.
When somebody demands the protection of government with the associated threat of violence and death attached (enforceable by LEOs), they damned well better be serious about it.
I personally think its a great move. Its about time these women learnt not to jack around the police and judicial system.
Virtually every reliable study ever published shows so-called "domestic violence" to be pretty much a two-way street when it comes to gender.
So what would you have done differently? Issue orders purporting to control others' actions, and then let the petitioners do what the other party is restricted from doing? Please explain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.