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.''
I had a similar situation with a student once. The boyfriend showed up at class and the girlfriend begged us to hide her. All of us were put in the middle of an ugly situation. As per school policy, she got a restraining order for the protection of us all. A week later, I saw them out together.
This twit put us all at risk and then put us back in this same situtation a week later. I saw this happen again and again. Another friend had one of her students shot to death in front of her and the rest of the class. This is no joking matter and this judge is justified with his fines. It's a waste of the court's time and it endangers innocent people on the periphery of the situation, not to mention the law enforcement officers who are put at risk on every call.
We've had enough of the "victim mentality." It serves no one except to be political fodder for nutty feminists and kooky social science professors.
Nope.
But I'm also not foolish enough to go around with the "men and women" are the same blinders on. The genders are "wired" differently and typically react differently, despite what the (usually childless) liberal scholars claim.
An ex-cop friend of mine told me that by far the worst part of his job was showing up time and time again at the same houses on domestic violence complaints. The women almost always returned to their abusers. Some died.
That's a good nit to pick. :o)
Thanks for setting me straight. I'll clean up my pronouns on future posts.
Even worse, there are often children involved -- either by the abuser or from future relationships. Even if they are not being directly abused, they are forced by their dimwitted mothers to witness this violence.
AB
From your post I can't tell for sure if it was you or the daughter who told the abuser to leave. But, in any case, it is not a smart idea to answer the door and think the threat of jail will stop someone, or that an abuser will respect a restraining order. If this cretin was at the front door, chances are that he was already in violation of any restraining order. Lots of people have died in the mistaken belief that a restraining order will somehow protect them. A woman's best defense is to be armed and to be prepared to shoot. If a woman doesn't have the fortitude to do that, then she will remain in peril and her life will continue to be controlled by her abuser. But never open the door to an abuser. Tell him to go away and be prepared to defend yourself if he doesn't.
I think intelligent women (who have succumbed to the feminist rhetoric) have less patience with these "victims" than most men. They realize that not calling them on their dumb behavior makes all women look inconsequential and foolish.
The part I bolded/underlined above pretty much sums up the whole thing.
By the way, your FreeRepublic profile page is hilarious.
The part I bolded/underlined above pretty much sums up the whole thing.
By the way, your FreeRepublic profile page is hilarious.
I think the judge is right !
She is trying to prevent a re-occurance of a dangerous cycle of violence, bravo !
The " Kitties " should stop playing games and save the court's time and taxpayers money.
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.