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.''
No victicrat, the message is stop playing games.
These women are lucky that it was just a fine. I think they should be subject to the same penalty as the man if he had violated the order, with a fine treble all costs involved with the order.
Abused women and their attorneys are idiots.
Being a moron and in love does not entitle losers to trivialize the court and justice systems.
It is an expensive and pointless abuse of taxpayer expense and resources. It should carry jail time.
There's plenty of help available for them, but they don't want it and won't accept it until forced to do so.
Abused women and their attorneys are idiots.
Being a moron and in love does not entitle losers to trivialize the court and justice systems.
It is an expensive and pointless abuse of taxpayer expense and resources. It should carry jail time.
Virtually every reliable study ever published shows so-called "domestic violence" to be pretty much a two-way street when it comes to gender.
You have this totally backwards. The judge did what they asked him to do: issued restraining orders. When they decide not to abide by their own request, then they should pay a fine to reimburse the court for the wasted time. It's no different than filing frivilous lawsuits.
To characterize this as a judge, out of the blue, ordering a woman to stay away from someone is nuts. Restraining orders have to be requested.
Got it now?
Absolutely. Considering that those under "protective orders" are immediately relieved of all firearms, the stakes are higher than many realize.
Such orders are sometimes necessary, but all need to be taken with utmost seriousnes.
One nit to pick: I strongly suspect that Judge Megan Lake Thornton is not a "he"...
Punish them for misusing the courts. They can go home if they don't have a valid restraining order prohibiting contact that they themselves requested. It's like littering.
Women don't have to fear going after the restraining order.. they have to be afraid of crying wolf
Both points well put! Some form of punishment must be metted out for wasting the Courts time and Taxpayers money. If these women dont take the orders seriously, how can they expect anyone else to?
LOL.....and you would be right in your suspicions.
This statement is ludicrous.....I know first hand, the biggest fear a beaten woman has is going home or seeing the abuser at her house in fact she will invite him inside to diffuse the situation...and ultimately be beaten...court order or not.
With, that said, This judge is right put some exterior force in her to keep him out.
How can I say this as a male, I'm engaged to a woman that was beaten for longer than i care to state...and I can tell you what her now adult daughter told me at 16.
The piece of sh*t showed up ready to storm in and take out his anger i looked at him and said through the glass door i just dialed 911 its jail or you go home.
The coward left and told his daughter he knew I meant what I said..no gun no fist the power of locking up a coward is whats needed.
Amazing what good a strong just judge can do and the power a piece of paper can sometimes wield.
This judge also said he knows of one instance where the parties were out on the town together, and were pulled over for some traffic offense or the other. The officer arrested the man on the spot because he was violating the order, even thought the parties had "made up."
Plus, I'm getting tired of this misuse of the word "love." There's nothing in these relationships that even faintly resembles love.
I tell my children that love isn't an emotion; it's a conscious decision about how to act towards another human being. What most of these women call love is a sad combination of dependence and infatuation. We've simply got to do more to educate young women that they should choose husbands and boyfriend with their heads, not their easily mislead and hormonally charged emotions.
I personally know a guy who got in trouble after the female who filed an order against him violated it herself.
Such blinkered gender-bias is the real key to most of what's wrong with the so-called "family" courts.
If there's anything a criminal p.o.s. might understand, it's the threat of a judicial order that will extend to both parties. When the jerk calls her up to beg his way back in, she can say "no, I'd like to, but the judge will lock us both up if I did."
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.