Judge fines women who return to their alleged abusers

Lexington Hearld-Leader ^ | 01/03/2002 | John Cheves

[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.''

[StriperSniper]

``The message to the women here is that the court is not here for your protection,'' Jordan said.

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.

[geaux]

I used to be involved with issuing these court orders. I saw two legitimate cases of abuse. The rest of the women, and occasional man, were there for spite. The busiest times were about two-three days before payday; money was short; tempers would flare; there would be a fight; and the women would claim they wanted a restraining order. 10 days later, at the hearing and after payday, they would show up seeking to dismiss the action.

[Publius6961]

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.

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.

[livius]

Agreed! My daughter is a police officer who spends a great part of her time being called to domestic violence cases - where the woman has not only been abused repeatedly by the current man, but has also gone through about five other abusive men, usually leaving them only when they end up in jail. These women are dangerous to themselves and others and irresponsible and cost the justice system a fortune. TO say nothing of their medical expenses, foster care for their children, etc.

There's plenty of help available for them, but they don't want it and won't accept it until forced to do so.

[Publius6961]

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.

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.

[GMMAC]

The next logical step would be getting really tough on false "abuse" complaints which are often encouraged and abetted by professional radical-feminist "advocates" merely to forward their anti-male/family agendas and ensure on-going publicly-funded "job security" for themselves.

Virtually every reliable study ever published shows so-called "domestic violence" to be pretty much a two-way street when it comes to gender.

[Exigence]

They should do what the good judge tells them. Government knows best.

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?

[JD86]

The domestic violence orders from this Court are mutual restraining orders. Both parties are ordered to have no contact until the date of the Court Hearing. If they have children the Court makes arrangements for visitation with third parties being the transfer point. These orders are also filed with the Police Department....so the Judge expects them to be honored.

[LJLucido]

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.

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.

[TN Republican]

People who run to the law can't realistically expect the law to stay out of their lives. The judge expects her court to be taken seriously; wouldn't you, if you were in her position?

[ArrogantBustard]

The judge did what they asked him to do

One nit to pick: I strongly suspect that Judge Megan Lake Thornton is not a "he"...

[a_witness]

Punishing abused women for going home

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.

[End Times Sentinel]

”…most of them are playing the game of being a victim which has more reward in our society then ever before.”

”…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 Court’s time and Taxpayers’ money. If these women don’t take the orders seriously, how can they expect anyone else to?

[JD86]

I strongly suspect that Judge Megan Lake Thornton is not a "he"...

LOL.....and you would be right in your suspicions.

[Kakaze]

" ``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. "

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.

[Freemyland]

I remember one time when I was in court and the judge issued one of these on the wife's petition. The judge explicitly warned the husband that even if the wife wanted to meet, or come home, or get together, or whatever, he was to stay away. He said he has seen many instances where a petitioner gets an order and then makes up with the respondent before the order expires. They then get into another argument, and the respondent is then screwed because he has violated the order.

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."

[Exigence]

Being a moron and in love does not entitle losers to trivialize the court and justice systems.

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.

[Tauzero]

Finally is right!

I personally know a guy who got in trouble after the female who filed an order against him violated it herself.

[GMMAC]

Are you implying that young men shouldn't be told the same thing when choosing wives?

Such blinkered gender-bias is the real key to most of what's wrong with the so-called "family" courts.

[TN Republican]

Good point about having a piece of paper to back the victim up. Vulnerable people sometimes need a reminder to keep on the straight and narrow.

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."