Monday, June 20, 2011

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence? Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders.

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?

By Barry Goldstein

Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders. It is not like cancer or heart disease which would require some fundamental changes in human behavior to achieve massive reductions. We could easily put together a change in laws, policies and practices and quickly end the danger of domestic violence for most women and children. If we could as readily prevent most of the deaths from earthquakes, tornados, cancer or terror attacks, we would not hesitate to do so. Why should we continue to tolerate the enormous harm caused by abusers? Many of our leaders have spoken of and dreamed of a world without domestic violence. This is a worthy goal, but I am not naïve enough to believe we can end all domestic violence in our lifetimes. We can, however create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes. I say let’s do it.
Background
Our publisher asked Mo Hannah and I to prepare a second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. I decided to write a chapter for the book of a modern tale of two cities comparing Quincy, Massachusetts with Poughkeepsie, New York. I selected Quincy, Massachusetts because they had developed the Quincy Model which had resulted in a drastic reduction of domestic violence homicide. I selected Poughkeepsie, New York because they had been severely criticized for using approaches in custody court that strongly favored abusive fathers. The court system and particularly the judges reacted to the criticism in a defensive and retaliatory manner. Dutchess County has now had a series of domestic violence homicides including the last crime in which the abusive father also killed a police officer. The County Legislature created a committee to study and respond to the series of domestic violence homicides and I am interested to see if they make a connection between the murders and the pattern of mistreatment of protective mothers in the custody court system.
In the late 1970s around the start of the modern movement to end domestic violence, approximately three thousand domestic violence homicides were committed each year in the United States. The frequency of domestic violence homicides did not change significantly until society adopted policies and practices to hold abusers accountable, particularly with pro-arrest policies. The timing of the increased accountability with the reduction in domestic violence homicide supported the belief that these policies led to the reduction, but perhaps what was most convincing was the results in communities that were especially strict in enforcing domestic violence laws. Communities like Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California saw even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide as a result of strong programs to prevent domestic violence. Quincy, Massachusetts adopted its model in response to a series of domestic violence homicides and for many years they had no domestic violence homicides in Quincy.
Achieving a Massive Reduction in Domestic Violence Crime
As part of the research for my chapter I have had the opportunity to read about the practices that were so successful in Quincy and elsewhere. I have also read some of the ideas for improving the conditions in Poughkeepsie. We also have the research to establish improved practices in the custody courts. This is particularly important for reducing domestic violence crimes because abuser rights groups have been particularly successful in using common mistakes and flawed practices in the custody courts to undermine the progress society had made elsewhere in reducing domestic violence. The result of the failures in the custody courts has been that more battered mothers are staying with their abusers because they are afraid of being separated from their children and some of them do not survive this decision. Although some have attributed the recent rise in domestic violence homicide after many years of reduction to the bad economy, I believe the problems we see in the custody courts is the more likely explanation. Based upon the research and experience, I believe it would be easy for a group of domestic violence experts to create a best practices model that would result in a drastic reduction in domestic violence crimes.
The basic reforms that would create a massive reduction in domestic violence crime should not be in dispute. Experts may differ about some of the specifics around the edges, but the decisions on those issues would not affect the positive outcome if we included the practices that have been shown to work. We are working on a more complete and detailed agenda for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, but we already know the basics of what is needed. Here is what any reform agenda would include:
1. Coordinated Community Response: The communities that were most successful in reducing domestic violence homicide developed a coordinated community response in which all parts of the community came together to do their part in ending domestic violence. The professionals worked together to coordinate their response and included the domestic violence community as a key resource in the response to domestic violence. The communities had regular meetings to monitor how the campaign to end domestic violence was going and to make adjustments as needed.
2. Make it Easier for Victims to Obtain Protective Orders: Some people disparage protective orders as not worth the paper they are printed on and sometimes it is true, but women with protective orders are safer than those without. Society needs to make it less of a burden on battered women to obtain needed protection by having specified times when the court handles only protective orders so women can get in and out of court quickly. At other times judges should take protective orders before other cases because of the safety concerns. This is important because women may have work or family obligations that make it difficult to wait around the court in order to see a judge. Many judges get frustrated when women seek a protective order and then don’t return for the next court date. Reducing the burdens on victims will encourage them to follow through. At the same time there should be special clerks that help women fill out the forms and prosecutors’ offices should brief victims on the procedures they can expect. Finally judges should take domestic violence allegations more seriously, receive better training and make sure women who need protection can obtain the orders.
3. Strict Enforcement of Criminal Laws and Violations of Protective Orders: The heart of the programs that created a substantial reduction in domestic violence homicide was taking domestic violence seriously. This requires strict enforcement of domestic violence crimes and protective orders. Research demonstrates that abusive men tend to use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners. That is why accountability and monitoring are the best ways to prevent domestic violence. The strict enforcement not only sends a message to the men held accountable, and their children, it sends a message to the entire community. The programs are often launched with important media coverage and those involved in the coordinated community response also help spread the message.
4. Lethality Assessment: The most important purpose of the laws, programs and practices designed to prevent domestic violence is the safety of victims and their children. One of the first things domestic violence advocates learn is safety planning and how to assess the danger. There are several common behaviors of abusers that have been shown to be related to an increased level of danger that domestic violence experts look at in making lethality assessments. These behaviors include choking, strangling or putting his hands around his partner’s throat, assaulting her while pregnant, raping or attempting to rape his partner, killing or hurting family pets, availability of guns, threats of suicide, homicide or kidnapping and a belief she has no right to leave. Incredibly, court professionals rarely use risk assessments or even understand the significance of these behaviors in making judgments about alleged abusers. Criminal courts should be using risk assessments to inform decisions about bail, protective orders and sentencing. Custody courts should use this information in determining custody and visitation arrangements that are safe for the victim and children.
5. Give Domestic Violence Cases the First Priority: Communities that reduced domestic violence crimes gave these cases the first priority. As discussed earlier this means making sure victims can get access to judges quickly so they don’t lose jobs or have to spend a lot of money on child care in order to protect themselves. It means local judges coming to arraignments after hours rather than releasing alleged offenders with an appearance ticket, but no protective order. It also means that custody courts must recognize most contested custody cases involve domestic violence and place a priority on the safety of the children and alleged victims.
6. Best Interests of the Child Should Mean Safety is the First Priority: The most important issue in deciding custody should be the safety of the children, but states usually have a list of factors to be considered and shockingly courts often focus on other less important issues. The second priority should be arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential.
7. Use of Current Scientific Research: When domestic violence first became a public issue there was no research to inform professionals about the best way to respond. When professionals modified their practices based on new research it has helped protect victims. Police departments went from practices of separating the parties and having the abuser walk around the block to cool off to a pro-arrest policy. Communities that created more accountability for abusers saw domestic violence crimes reduced. Child protective agencies that have partnered with domestic violence agencies and consulted with their advocates on potential domestic violence cases have been better able to recognize domestic violence and forge arrangements that protect children better. Police and prosecutors need to be aware of the frequency in which abusers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations and avoid wasting their resources persecuting their victims before fully investigating the allegations and speaking with the real victims. Custody courts have been particularly slow to modify practices based on current scientific research. They need to recognize most contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to maintain their control. They need to limit the role of mental health professionals to their area of expertise which is mental health and not domestic violence. They need to avoid inadequately trained professionals who continue to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations particularly in sexual abuse cases. The court must also stop permitting unscientific theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome.
8. Retraining Court Professionals: A lot of unfortunate events have combined to create widespread beliefs in a wide range of misinformation about domestic violence. Domestic violence is often counterintuitive which leads to misinformation. The lack of research when court professionals started responding also contributes to the problem. The widespread use of unqualified professionals has encouraged an undeserved confidence in false notions that make them harder to challenge and correct. The media has done a lousy job of covering domestic violence and often fails to understand who the experts are. Accordingly we need to retrain court professionals both to prevent the use of misinformation and to help the professionals learn about current scientific research, domestic violence dynamics and best practices. The training must have the active participation of genuine domestic violence experts such as dv advocates. Professionals working in criminal court must learn the importance of taking domestic violence seriously, prioritizing domestic violence cases and holding offenders strictly accountable. They should particularly learn how communities have dramatically reduced domestic violence homicide. Criminal court professionals must learn that accountability and monitoring are the only approaches shown to reduce domestic violence. Domestic violence is not caused by substance abuse, mental illness or anger management issues. Some offenders may have mental illness or substance abuse and domestic violence issues and each problem should be responded to separately. Custody court professionals must unlearn the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. They need to look at the motivation of alleged abusers and understand the harm to children. They must learn that allegations of child sexual abuse have been totally mishandled and learn best practices to respond to these painful allegations. They also must learn that the way to include both parents in children’s lives that most benefits children is to require abusers to stop their harmful tactics instead of asking their victims to get over their fear and concern.
9. Use of Domestic Violence Experts: We now have a substantial body of specialized knowledge about domestic violence. Courts must stop relying on “experts” unfamiliar with this research and ignorant of domestic violence dynamics and instead listen to genuine domestic violence experts. Courts must stop refusing to listen to these genuine experts and especially until this information is better known to court professionals allow these experts to testify in order to educate the judge and other professionals.
10. Early Domestic Violence Hearings in Custody Cases: A large majority of contested custody cases are actually domestic violence cases. The research is very clear that unless the victim is unsafe, she should have custody and the abuser supervised visitation because that is what works best for children. Accordingly, custody courts can schedule an evidentiary hearing at the start of the case on the domestic violence issue. There is no need for evaluators or GALs as it is a factual issue. This will permit courts to resolve cases in a few hours or less that otherwise would take months or years and provide a huge savings in money and court time. Children also benefit because they don’t have to spend years worried about where they will live. This also avoids less important and distracting issues that only make it more difficult for the judge to understand the issues. This practice is likely to help courts make better decisions as well as quicker ones.
11. Use of Victim’s Advocate: The advocates are used by law enforcement to help and support the victim and provide information and training for law enforcement personnel. They are used in the prosecutor’s office for similar purposes and to acquaint the victim with the procedures. These practices should make survivors more comfortable and thus more likely to cooperate and press charges. In the court clerk’s office the advocate can help victims fill out forms and documents and explain the procedures. These procedures will help provide law enforcement and the courts with needed evidence while encouraging the complainant to continue to participate.
12. New Approach to Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Cases: Although most allegations of child sexual abuse made by mothers are true and deliberately false allegations are rare, 85% of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases result in custody for the alleged abuser and frequently little or no contact with the mother who sought to protect her child. This is a result of the difficulty in proving abuse of very young children and deeply flawed practices. Based especially on the new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders, we should start by eliminating court professionals who believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Professionals should be trained in best practices that would include understanding why a child might be reluctant to reveal sexual abuse or recant truthful allegations, use of play therapy for young children, avoid giving abusers additional opportunities to silence children and give children a chance to develop trusting relationships with therapists or other investigators before expecting them to discuss the abuse. We particularly need to abandon approaches that retaliate against mothers for good faith allegations.
13. Limit Role of Mental Health Professionals to their Area of Expertise:Mental health professionals are routinely used for evaluations and other services in domestic violence custody cases despite limited and often distorted information about domestic violence. This has contributed to the frequency in which courts place children in jeopardy. Mental health professionals have a role to play when a parent has a serious mental disorder that interferes with the ability to care for the children or other issues related to their field of study and practice. They should be limited to roles they are qualified for and at the very least consult with domestic violence experts on cases involving possible domestic violence.
14. Gender Bias: Over forty states and many districts have conducted court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias. Other scientific research supports these findings. Women who kill their partner receive seventy percent longer sentences under similar circumstances as men who kill their partner. Women are given less credibility, higher standards of proof and are blamed for the actions of their abusers. Courts cannot do an effective job of responding to domestic violence as long as it continues to unconsciously favor male litigants. Court professionals must be trained about gender bias, attorneys and litigants must be protected and encouraged to raise concerns about gender bias, judges and other court professionals should be transferred, retrained or otherwise disciplined for continued gender biased practices and appellate courts must reverse cases based on gender bias.
15. Improved Police Role in Ending Domestic Violence: Police should make domestic violence cases a high priority and conduct an evidence based investigation instead of just relying on the victim’s testimony. Police must be trained to understand fathers involved in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. This means they should take complaints from mothers seriously despite ongoing litigation, but have some skepticism of father’s allegations. They should always speak with the mother to understand the context before making a decision to make an arrest or bring charges. The police must also be aware that abusers tend to be very manipulative, but sometimes the police can use abusers’ sense of entitlement to encourage them to make statements that are actually admissions. Police departments must take precautions to respond to male officers who abuse their partners and particularly use their influence and relationship with other officers to undermine any investigation. There should be no tolerance for domestic violence or covering up domestic violence complaints. Departments should have a procedure for women to have someone in the department they can safely complain to about their partner’s abuse and any assistance other officers provide him.

Can Society Afford to Continue to Tolerate Domestic Violence?

Politicians sometimes justify their failure to do more to stop domestic violence by citing the costs, but the reality is the costs are much greater by tolerating domestic violence. In reviewing a report about the response to domestic violence in Dutchess County, New York, I noticed how often they undermined substantial parts of the plan to prevent domestic violence in order to save small sums of money. The problem is when they are budgeting; they fail to consider the extra money that will be expended as a result of the increase in domestic violence encouraged by the cutbacks.
Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful and costly behaviors including crime. Large majorities of the prison population were directly abused as children or witnessed domestic violence. This creates huge added expenses in police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys and prisons. It also creates more expenses in substance abuse treatment. This is in addition to the extra similar expenses in directly responding to domestic violence crimes and custody cases based on domestic violence.
An increase in domestic violence crimes also increases health care costs. Not only is the health care system used to heal the immediate physical wounds, but it leads to other medical problems based on the stress of living with domestic violence as well as emotional and psychological difficulties. If the woman has medical insurance his abuse is paid by all of the policy holders through higher premiums. If she does not have insurance she may not be able to pay for the care so that the rest of the public and the government ultimately pays. Many of the health costs are borne directly by various governmental entities.
When victims miss work it harms the economy thus reducing tax revenues. The same is true when women lose jobs because of injuries or repeated court dates. Government programs like unemployment insurance and crime victim compensation may also be triggered. Significantly domestic violence interferes with the ability to reach their potential. It is hard for women to reach their potential when dealing with domestic violence even if the injuries do not prove fatal. Men who commit domestic violence crimes can’t reach their potential if they are in jail and even if they are not jailed the time they waste abusing and harassing their partners can interfere with the ability to reach their potential. Children who witness domestic violence are significantly less likely to reach their potential and if the children grow up to hurt others these third parties also lose the ability to reach their potential. We don’t know if society will miss out on someone who would have discovered a medical cure, developed a patent, created a major new business or is just a productive member of society. All of this represents a massive loss of economic activity that translates into a huge loss of tax revenue.
While the proposal described above would include some additional expenses, it also includes plans that would save substantial tax dollars. Conducting early evidentiary hearings on domestic violence would help courts make better decisions, but also save substantial sums of money and judicial time. A large majority of contested custody cases which are the cases that take most of the court’s time are domestic violence cases. Since mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse, a hearing for an hour or two will avoid cases that often take many months or years. There will be no need to spend money on evaluators, GALs or other professionals who provide no help in recognizing or responding to domestic violence. Furthermore, as the practices outlined in this article become better known, abusive men will be less likely to commit domestic violence crimes and children will be sent an important message that domestic violence will not be tolerated. This will save significant sums initially and much greater amounts over time as the message resonates.
We don’t have figures on the full cost of domestic violence or the amount of money this proposal would save, but it has to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In that context attempting to save thousands of dollars by cutting local programs or a few million on programs nationally is counterproductive based on the financial costs and insane based on the human costs.
How to get Started Ending Domestic Violence
It is common rhetoric to say we should end domestic violence. We may not be able to prevent all domestic violence tactics or even all domestic violence crimes, but we know how to quickly create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes and especially domestic violence homicide. How do we get from here to there?
Just as people in Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California came together to make ending domestic violence the leading priority other communities can do the same and it is easier because they have the successes of those communities to look at and a lot of additional research. Individual states can take the lead by adopting the needed law changes and provide funding to implement a program like the one discussed in this article.
This can also be done on a national basis. The President can announce that we will no longer tolerate domestic violence and create a program to encourage communities to implement the practices that work. Grants and other support can be provided to set up pilot projects around the country to demonstrate that these practices will work. Eventually the federal government can make implementation of these practices a requirement if states wish to receive any federal funding for law enforcement and the judicial system. This should be done on a non-partisan basis. Democrats claim to be supporters of women so they should certainly wish to free women from the fear and risk of domestic violence. Republicans regularly propose spending millions of dollars to promote abstinence for children. If they don’t want children having sex with their peers they certainly will wish to protect them from sex with adults. The bills to end domestic violence should be House 1 and Senate 1 to make them the first priority.
Several years ago I gave a presentation with Mo Therese Hannah at the NCADV Conference in Atlanta. I spoke about the success of Quincy, Nashville and San Diego in implementing these practices. After the workshop, a woman came up to me and told me what I said was no longer true. It seems a new administration took over in Nashville, dismantled the successful program and the domestic violence homicide rate went back up. This was disappointing news, but it also confirmed that it was these practices that are the difference between a substantial reduction in domestic violence crime and requiring women’s lives to be impacted by men’s abuse of their intimate partners.
Domestic violence is not inevitable. It can be prevented. Our daughters and granddaughters can grow up in a world in which domestic violence crimes are rare. The worst crime would be if we take the knowledge, research and ability we have to substantially reduce domestic violence crimes and instead find some excuse to force women and children to continue to suffer.
Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Documents submitted to the Blue Ribbon Commission suggesting possible improvements in the Kansas Court system “Are Not Open Records’’- Guess they missed the whole ‘Transparency’ thing..

Suggestions about court improvements are not open records

By Earl Glynn On June 16, 2011

Statue of Justice at Kansas Judicial Center

Documents submitted to the Blue Ribbon Commission suggesting possible improvements in the Kansas Court system are not open records.

The public may only view summaries prepared by the Blue Ribbon Commission.

In January Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss announced the appointment of the 24-member “Blue Ribbon Commission” to conduct an intensive review of the state courts.

The BRC held 19 regional public hearings from April 18 to June 6 and asked the public for feedback verbally or in writing to four questions:

  • Are there things the courts do locally that could be performed regionally or at one central statewide location to improve their efficiency?
  • How could the courts use technology to make their operations more cost-effective or improve access to the courts?
  • How can the courts become more flexible in the use of people and facilities as workloads and funding fluctuate?
  • What other ideas, issues, or concerns do you want the BRC to consider?

The public was also invited to submit written comments via the email address KSCourtStudyBRC@kscourts.org.

 

The BRC published online a summary of verbal and written feedback from each of the 19 meetings as well as a consolidated summary.

After the hearings completed on June 6 in Topeka, Kansas Watchdog sent an email to the above address asking two questions:

  • Are the written statements submitted to the BRC open records that can be reviewed by the public?
  • What other information collected by the BRC will be put online for review by the public?

Steve Grieb, general counsel to Chief Justice Nuss, responded Tuesday via email:

“The documents submitted to the BRC are for the BRC.”

Grieb gave no other answer or explanation, except that summaries would be put online.

Apparently, the public can read the online 56-page summary with 1,237 comments but cannot review the original documents.

The tentative timeline indicates a final report for presentation to the Kansas Supreme Court will be ready in late December 2011.

Kansas Watchdog reviewed the online 1,237 comments and selected some representative comments below.  Follow the link below to read the complete summary document.


Selected comments from 1,237 comments in the Blue Ribbon Commission’s Feedback from Community and other Meetings and directly-received Documents (56 pages), updated June 15, 2011.
Q1. Are there things the courts do locally that could be performed regionally or at one central statewide location to improve their efficiency?  (64 comments)

a. Regionalize (27 comments)

10. Probably don’t need 31 judicial districts.

14. Having a courthouse within 70 miles would be fine if they close some courthouses.

26. Why is technology not being used to bring urban work to the rural areas? That would save jobs and keep services intact.

b. Keep at local level (37 comments)

11. Take the state out of the courts, and let each county have its own court, as it was before 1977.

28. When the state collects taxes, there is a promise of a certain level of services, and public safety is a promise.

32. Criminals come from the cities to prey on the elderly in the rural counties. The counties need more help, not more of a burden.


Q2. How could the courts use technology to make their operations more cost-effective or improve access to the courts?  (334 comments)

a. A/V Technology (134 comments)

11. Allow W. KS judges to hold hearings in E. KS through audio/ video conferencing.

54. Skype or other internet-based appearances should be fine for technical witnesses in particular, should be mandated statewide, and should be admissible in jury trials.

123. Could see benefits such as safety to video conferencing by not having face-to-face confrontations to further the intimidations and could see advantages as far as transportation and travel.

b. E-everything (97 comments)

3. Put records online so that one can see what is filed without having to go to courthouse.

7. More information s/b available on the web. A manual search for records in many places is still necessary.

22. Court rules require paper records to be kept, so E-filing could be more useful if the rules were changed to not require retention of paper records.

42. Making computers accessible to the pro se public will be necessary with e- filing.

c. Anti-technology (100 comments)

3. Juveniles need face-to-face contact with a judge. The nervousness of going in front of the judge impresses upon them the seriousness of the situation and their offense. Relationships can be established through face-to-face contact. Interacting with judge solely through monitor is too close to a video game.

23. There is a difference between appearing in court personally or over a camera. There is a stronger impact when the person appears personally before the judge, especially with juveniles.

49. Technology is not optimal for reading facial expressions.

96. If video conferencing is used for domestic violence hearings, the perpetrator will have the edge.

d.  Other (3 comments)

2. An automated call system to remind defendants/respondents of upcoming hearings may help reduce failures to appear.

3. Cameras and better acoustics in the courtrooms are necessary to hear all individuals, including jurors.


Q3. How can the courts become more flexible in the use of people and facilities as workloads and funding fluctuate?  (194 comments)

a. Consolidate/Share (57 comments)

14. Consolidation will not necessarily save any money, and could cost money through re-modeling, travel, etc.

20. Caseloads do not justify the number of judges in each district; they should be used in other districts also.

54. The Commission should remember that it’s hard to have centralization when there isn’t centralized funding: salaries are paid by state, but everything else is paid for by the county.

b. District Magistrate Judges (DMJs) & District Court Judges(DJs)  (113 comments)

39. We use DMJs here; some have law degrees, some don’t. We have very good DMJs in this district. Other districts that don’t use DMJs should consider using them.

41. The bar will usually say that they favor retention; the public will usually say that they prefer elections.

60. The public doesn’t really know what judges do. They react only to a few high profile opinions or cases.

79. Appeals from magistrates to district judges are a problem. Things should not be tried twice.

101. We give up some accountability when one switches from elected to appointed judges.

113. We owe it to the accused, particularly those who are innocent, to be able to get a judge in the middle of the night, if necessary.

c.  Other (24 comments)

7. Poverty in this area is a predominant issue, a real consideration: not having a car to get to hearings, no public transportation. One attorney has clients who walk to Chanute to make meetings. He has clients who remain married, although completely out of touch, because they don’t have the money for a divorce.

16. The chief judge position should rotate among the judges in a district.

24. We need to look outside the box for ways to do more with less.


Q4

4. What other ideas, issues, or concerns do you want the BRC to consider?  (645 comments)

a.  Access to Justice/Timeliness  (149 comments)

3. Government is saying please come to western KS, but don’t expect any services here.

26. A domestic violence case deserves to have immediate access to judge. We’re all Kansas people; we all deserve access to justice. The only reason not to have access to justice is political expediency.

30. Removing judges from our rural areas will increase lawlessness and create a lack of access to justice.

93. There needs to be a more strict and literal interpretation of constitution provisions, both the US and Kansas – due process, speedy trail, no double jeopardy, trial by jury, etc.

144. There is a real concern about access to justice in rural areas. How far can we ask low income persons involved in child in need or care or protection from abuse cases to drive?

b.  Process change (74 comments)

7. Docket fees are too high and some people can’t afford it.

23. Judges should explain how expensive cases will be if they go to trial, and attorneys should do the same.

48. It seems like there is a lot of wasted time while serving jury duty.

62. The Court of Appeals should schedule cases from western Kansas in the afternoon instead of at 9:00 AM, so we would not have to spend the night at a motel.

c.  Money/Vacancies (173 comments)

1. Counties are full of unfunded mandates.

10. Professors and superintendents of schools make more than judges.

18. Finney Co. pays $500,000 for interpreters; can this expense be paid by someone else?

32. Increase court costs. The court costs in Kansas are much lower than many other states around us.

51. To save money, the state would have to merge counties, not just courthouses.

151. County budgets are tight.

d.  Legislature  (57 comments)

7. The fight between the legislature and the supreme court over school finance and death penalty is a problem.

8. More authority should be given back to the counties. They are losing local representation. We need to stop that.

11. The judicial branch is an equal branch of government; Legislature should act like it knows that.

28. The Legislature should not micro-manage a co-equal branch of government by allocating positions, including judges, to particular districts. The Supreme Court should be given the ability to allocate resources, both personnel and financial.

e.  One judge per county (35 comments)

2. Must protect the one judge per county law; it allows access to the judicial system. Local judges should deal with local issues.

16. When politics gets involved in the judiciary, you’ve got problems.

30. It is critically important for a community to have a judge that lives in the community. A judge that resides in a community is more important to the community than one that travels in for court proceedings.

f.  Blue Ribbon Commission (25 comments)

5. This commission was established to take more things away from western Kansas and give to eastern Kansas.

9. Don’t want the BRC to make recommendations that will disenfranchise rural Kansas to take care of the problems in more urban areas.

11. Take a bold proposal back to the Supreme Court – equal access to justice.

g.  Furloughs/staffing (40 comments)

3. The furloughs did tremendous harm: they denied access to the courts, injured the clerks because their work piled up; a good clerk quit because of the furloughs. Furloughs absolutely should not be done. Most harm is done to the people who do the most work for us. More people will quit if the furloughs happen again this year.

11. No incentive to remain on the job given furloughs and low pay.

15. With reduced budgets, there is more cross training underway in the urban districts at least.

h. Other (92 comments)

7. Commission should return the courts to the local people and decentralize the court system. Local decisions need to be respected. Local control is essential.

9. Sedgwick County appoints people to hear some types of cases; these people are neither appointed through a district court nominating commission nor elected by the people.

10. Court re-distribution will cause further population declines in Western Kansas.

21. Need to look for cuts in other areas besides the judicial system which has a huge impact on our quality of life.

29. Pro se litigants need assistance.

33. Rules about published opinions of the Supreme Court of Kansas are not being followed by that Court.

41. Public education about the court system is needed.

56. Look at actions of attorneys and parties. There needs to be more accountability and fines for frivolous lawsuits. The system is bogged down by cases that shouldn’t be there.

85. We feel like we cannot trust Topeka.


Related:
Contact: Earl F Glynn, earl@kansaswatchdog.org, KansasWatchdog.org
Reprinting: Kansas Watchdog is a free wire service and we welcome reprinting and only ask for attribution and notification. If you’d like to reprint this story we ask that you e-mail the author with the date the story will run and the outlet name.

ShareThis

Posted under Accountability, Column A, Constitution, Judiciary, Kansas Government, Transparency.
Tags: Blue Ribbon Commission, Kansas Supreme Court, Lawton Nuss, Open Records, Steve Grieb

One Comment For This Post So Far
  1. Claudine Dombrowski
    12:04 Pm On June 16th, 2011

    This is so wrong. I guess they missed the whole ‘transparency’ thing?
    Thanks Kansas Watch Dog and Earl for posting all this information.

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Kansas Blue Ribbon Commission - Testimony of Claudine Dombrowski, June 6th, 2011-Washburn University - Robinson Courtroom. Topeka, Kansas

 

This was the last public meeting in Topeka. There will be three more in the State. However, Kansans can always submit comments via electronically to the Commission at: KSCourtStudyBRC@kscourts.org

The Commission will put together its investigative report  from the public meetings which is scheduled to be submitted in July 2011. You can follow along the process of the Blue Ribbon Commission through their website.

The Monday June 6, 2011 evening panel was held at Washburn University, Robinson Courtroom. The three Commission Panel Consisted of: Chair: Reggie Robinson, Mike Padilla and Senator John Vratil. Lisa Wilson of the Office of judicial Administration took the meeting minutes.

One important and positive topic of discussion of the use of technology was very easily made by a Court reporter- video/audio specialist.  It is inexpensive to implement at every level of the judiciary, it is cost effective, secure, factual, ensures transparency of court proceedings, pro se litigants having access to their court files and documents electronically would be an incredible asset – again at all levels. As we all know- technology rules the world. it is time for that technology to be used to ‘access justice’ at every level in our Kansas Judiciary.

I sincerely thank the commission for their appeared genuine sincerity in changing the current system, to one that works. The panel, was receptive, respectful, patient and very kind. Further comments were just as sincere. In all the years I have done public speaking or testimonies, I have never felt so ‘at ease’ as I did with the audience and the panel. For myself, this gives me hope that lady Justice can and will rise out of the ashes of the broken unjust system. it will entail a complete overhaul – but it can be done.

Testimony of Claudine Dombrowski

Listen to  Claudine Dombrowski

Kansas Blue Ribbon Commission Panel

June 6th, 2011 Washburn University, Robinson Courtroom

Testimony by Claudine Dombrowski

www.KansansForJudicialAccountability.com

www.KS-FCRC.com

www.AngelFury.org

Email: AngelFury@AngelFury.org

 

Summary: Introduction, Personal and Professional Experiences and Solutions

Dear Panel Members, my name is Claudine Dombrowski,

I am a Survivor /Advocate and Activist for Domestic Violence Victims and their Children. I am on the Kansas Secretary of State’s, Address Confidentiality Program - Safe At Home for Victims of Domestic Violence. I bring to this panel both Criminal and Family Court Failures.

I have been beaten with crowbars, thrown out of moving vehicles, have had both wrists and several ribs broken, thrown through plate glass windows, tied up, raped and sodomized then left in a crawl space for several days. Just to name a few of the Criminal Assaults-by an already 8 (Eight) time criminally convicted perpetrator to include but not limited to: (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana, Violation of Open Container law, Violation of Restraining Orders, Domestic Violence and Terroristic Death threats)

I am on 100% physical Disability related to the injuries.

See: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/outrage/

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas.

Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vacuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see : www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

I want to share a few key points of information that caused the complete ‘Failure of Justice’ for myself and for my daughter, that can assist you to enable ‘Access to Justice’ for other’s who enter the Judiciary, not being the current state of the Courts, the lawyers and Mental Health so called experts known as Therapeutic Jurisprudence- a lucrative business that denies access to justice to society’s most vulnerable victims, battered mothers and their children and only for profit. It’s monetary, it’s all about the money and it can be prevented.

I have provided extensive links for further information than my short statement could possibly provide today. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

In the few handouts that I have given out as well- I have already emailed the long version with links intact to the Blue Ribbon Commission KSCourtStudyBRC@kscourts.org

Briefly:

I am the lead Plaintiff at the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Known as “Dombrowski et el v US” which was filed on behalf of all battered mothers and their children Nationally for the Policy and Procedure’s of Family Courts routinely placing battered mothers children with the abusers and pedophiles. Abuse Continued via Judicial Abuse and Coercive Control that entraps women and their children and denying them their basic ‘human rights’ to be free from torture and abuse. www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas.

The State of Kansas Law Enforcement and the Kansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (KCSDV Press Statement here: (http://www.kcsdv.org/psmothers.html) are hard copy signors to the petition (http://www.scribd.com/doc/39685724/kcsdvhardcopy-iachr).

The petition can be viewed in its entirety on the Stop Family Violence web site. www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308 Court’s Order and Sanction Abuse, for perpetrators of family violence, by the Courts, through the courts while corruption, collusion and cronyism run rampant in “the best kept dirty little secrets of our family courts.”

I have been an outspoken advocate for victims of domestic violence since 1995. I have worked with experts and victims nationally and internationally, I have been an honored speaker for the past 6 years at the battered mother’s conference (www.BatteredMothersCustodyConfrence.org) in Albany New York. An annual Conference that brings advocates and professionals from around the Nation, including attorneys, Judges, Coalitions, Advocates and mother victims to address the issues of battered mothers loosing custody of their children to convicted batterers and pedophiles, KCSDV has attended the conference yearly since its inception.

I was ‘appointed’ by Attorney General Carla Stovall to serve on the ‘Violence Against Women and Children Committee’ in 1998 after I founded Rikki’s Rights” – The Childs Best Interest in Domestic Violence Homes. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/38276495/1-20-1998-KS-AG-Letters-and-Appointment-to-Comittee-Claudine-Dom-Brow-Ski)

My case has been referenced in several scholarly articles, journals and research for up to date practices on access to justice for battered mothers and their children. I have done several media and news interviews (http://www.scribd.com/collections/2725388/Media) and participate in events by promoting the awareness of Domestic Violence and Child Custody in Kansas and Nationally since 1996 . http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=claudine+dombrowski&aq=f

I have been to the Kansas Appellate Court twice 1997 and 1998 and the Kansas State Supreme Court twice 1999 and 2000 http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2728794

The Family Court and Criminal Court Overlap

While the Perpetrator of my assault and battery was still on probation for his Domestic Violence conviction against myself—he filed for full custody of my daughter—and he got it.

The last time I held my daughter she was 6 years old – July 31, 2000. I told her she had to go be with her dad, and she cried “Noooo mommy…. please,” In her broken small voice, as she courageously fought back the huge tears that had welled up in her eyes. Rikki my baby girl was taken from her mother and given to her admitted and criminally convicted father, she was never again to have any meaningful contact with her mother.

Although we held hope and believed that one day justice would prevail, it did not. Justice has been denied. My daughter, now age 16 ½ - I have no idea where she is, I have not been allowed any access or contact with her, I have been denied information to her school, her medical records (contrary to FERPA Law) nor have I been allowed to have a single photo of her in this past 11+ years. I have never been alleged to be a threat or harm nor have I been charged or convicted of any crime-contrary to that of the well documented history of violence of her father to which the Courts have placed her in.

I have testified several times at the Kansas State Legislature, most recently the Kansas legislature’s Joint Committee on Children’s Issue’s an excellent article of these testimonies are published at Kansas Watch Dog.org http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

As well as lobbying and passing into law a mandate that judges must follow the law- a result of Judge Dowd departing from sentencing guidelines.) http://blip.tv/wwwkansansforjudicialaccountabilitycom/august-2007-convicted-child-rapist-seeks-custody-of-his-children-776865 More by Kansans For Judicial Accountability Judge Dowd KFJA Video Media: http://blip.tv/wwwkansansforjudicialaccountabilitycom

Only to have the same judge break that law two days after the Governor signed it into law. Instead of being charged with a crime of ‘breaking a law’ like any other non ‘just-us’ person would be—Judge Dowd was rewarded for his unethical and illegal actions, by being appointed to Washburn Law school to ‘teach’ law. Criminal Rewards start with the Judiciary and follow into the pandemic failure of all who enter the Judiciary seeking ‘Justice’. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_BZmOX_YN8&feature=player_embedded

As you know, and have heard by many, all Judicial Complaints of Judges come back ‘rubber stamped’ no ethics violations, Judge Dowd was no exception to the rule. The Kansas Attorney Disciplinary Board is no better. Clear legal and ethical violations of an attorney GAL- Guardian ad Litem violating confidentiality rules, assaulting parties in the Courthouse halls, Police Reports and audio recordings- all come back rubber stamped ‘No Violations’, http://www.scribd.com/doc/56251013/2011-May-6-M-Jill-Dykes-Gets-Again-Rubber-Stampped-No-Violations whilst they still get paid monthly from county tax dollars for being on a case that that they never work.

Originally, this case was presented at the 1997 and 1998 Kansas Judicial Initiatives Commission Hearings by three different organizations. The Kansas Justice Commission in 1997. news articles published the case as a “judicial outrage” when presented at the Commission Hearings. The Judiciary has only gotten worst since those late 90’s ‘hearings’ not unlike what the current Blue Ribbon Commission is charged with now.

1997 Judicial Initiative Commission hearings by

 

SOLUTIONS:

I strongly urge that if you do nothing else that you watch these three documentaries that detail the family court corruption and the genocide of battered mothers and their children when they dare to leave a violent relationship with her children and enter Family courts thinking mistakenly that the courts would protect. That they had the human ‘right’ to be free of violence, when they do not.

    1. 2005 PBS Documentary: Breaking The Silence; Children’s StorieView in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/3314727-8-2008-bts-wmv?u=ampp&c=ampp
    2. 2008 Family law Documentary by the www.CenterForJudicialExcellence.org Crisis in the Family Courts; Our Children at Risk - View in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/3586260-family-court-crisis-our-children-at-risk-silent-no-more?u=ampp&c=ampp
    3. 2010 Domestic Violence Continued: High Conflict Child Custody Litigation View in its entirety here: http://vodpod.com/watch/4904503-dr-sharon-k-araji-talks-about-domestic-violence-in-contested-child-custody?u=ampp&c=ampp
    4. 2011 No Way Out But One is a documentary currently in post-production http://nowayoutbutone.com/index.html

 

By eliminating the “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” you will have cut the high cost of family Court and help to ensure ‘equal access to justice’ under the constitution. Technology is ‘key’ to all realms of the Judiciary. Publicizing and e filing is the best way to cut costs and ensure pro se litigants have equal access to their own court documents. It as well opens up the closed doors and shines a light giving less opportunity for corruption to grow.

There MUST be Transparency and accountability and consequences for derelict Judges and renegade Attorneys, Mental Health side kicks and other ‘friends of the courts’- known as (3rd party profiteers) They are why the system is so corrupt and they alone are causing the increased costs of running courts because after all is “Just-Us” and they line their pockets well.

REMOVE all ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ which denies access to justice. Remove the mental health so called professionals , mediators, case managers, co-parenting, shared parenting and high conflict - shared parenting programs, who make a fortune by doing custody evaluations and taking a high conflict case’s translates into DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and ABUSE—‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ workers who by keeping high conflict -as such--- so that they can guarantee a continued payout from that case for the entire life of a childhood whom they claim to be working for the ‘best interest’ for many years, until age 18 when the children finally age out or die. Whichever comes first.

Judicial enforcement of Criminal laws into Family Court. Criminals should not be allowed to be sole custodian of small children period.

As Americans For Prosperity recently posted article--about this case and other outrageous cases by Kansas Judges: http://www.patrioticthunder.com/localissues.html

“Common sense says if you rape a little girl or beat the hell out of your wife you shall get punished for that in a severe matter. However, the list of outrage goes on. We believe at Patriotic Thunder that a Judge should have the ability to "depart" from the traditional sentencing, but dammit, use some common sense in ALL your cases and throw out the absurd ones, don't entertain this crap.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Shawnee County Courthouse Eight Criminal Convictions of Battery Violence, Domestic Battery—While on Probation for DV conviction He sues custody of his victims infant daughter…… and gets it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXZJd3Th37U

INJUSTICE IN OZ-- ARE JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM AND GAL M. JILL DYKES ACTING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD OR ENGAGED IN A COVER-UP?

Ms. Dombrowski isn’t Mr. Richardson’s only crime victim.  Somehow he cons, manipulates, badgers, and bullies his way into walking away with just a little slap on the wrist:  

  • April 4, 1984:  guilty of misdemeanor ~ 6 years probation and $50 fine; discharged from probation on July 18, 1984.  (82 CR 01860)

  • October 20, 1989:  guilty of battery against a law enforcement officer ~ 1 year supervised probation; charges of DUI and obstruction of justice were dismissed; $75 fine; discharged early from probation on July 24, 1989.  (89 CR 01537)

  • March 28, 1991:  guilty of attempted battery on August 13, 1990 ~ $283.66 victim compensation for medical costs; no contact order to protect Jon Rayls; no alcohol or drugs; 1 year supervised probation; discharged early on April 29, 1991.  (90 CR 1308)

Richardson Was on Supervised Probation When He Petitioned for Custody

Mr. Richardson petitioned for custody on March 4, 1996. . .three months before he was expelled from the batterers group for being a disruptive lost cause.  He was released from probation on June 13, 1996.  

Yet, the GALs and the court-appointed child psychologist perceive Ms. Dombrowski as the dangerous party.  In fact, GAL Dykes asked for an escort to protect her when she left the courtroom on Friday.  

You’d think with all the convictions, blood, cuts, and bruises they would be deeply concerned for the safety of the minor child and do everything possible to protect her from her criminal father.  Nope.  They’ve forced her to reside with a convicted criminal, his coffin coffee table, and the gun on the wall.  The courts have failed to protect her every day of her life. 

http://www.shawneecourt.org/doe/search.jsp?last=RICHARDSON&first=H&ALL=Y&close=&location=internet

New Search

Home

Case

Name

Role

92CV000432

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1P

92LA000089

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1D

95D 000419

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1P

95D 000419

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1OR

95LA014502

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1P

96CV000937

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1P

96D 000217

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1P

96D 000217

-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)

 

1OR

96D 000217

-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)

 

2OE

96LA012692

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1D

97LA009121

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1D

97LA017898

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1D

98LA006122

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,

 

1D

97U 000055

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,

 

1D

90LA007629

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,

 

1D

97LA018158

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,

 

1D

96LA003402

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,

 

1D

98U 000141

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,

 

1D

04SC000200

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,

 

1D

03C 000086

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,

 

184D

03L 010117

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,

 

1D

05L 001833

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,

 

1D

95LN000161

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,

 

1OP

95SC000448

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,

 

1D

95U 000500

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,

 

1D

05C 001464

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)

 

133D

94SC000355

-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,

 

1D

89CR 01537

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)

 

1D

90CR 01308

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)

 

1D

08SC000096

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

1P

11SC000113

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

1P

96LA000348

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

1D

96LA019246

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

1D

97CV000960

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

1D

97LA011585

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,

 

2D

05C 001464

-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)

 

133D

96D 000217

-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)

 

1OR

96D 000217

-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)

 

2OE

97CV000778

-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

 

2D

82CR 01860

-RICHARDSON,HALE,G,

 

1D


90CR 01308

-RICHARDSON,HALL,, (aka)

 

1D

80CR 02333

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,,

 

1D

04TR006740

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,,III,

 

1D

99TR006118

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,,III,

 

1D

03P 000633

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,G,

 

1IMO

89CR 01537

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,GEORGE,JR, (aka)

 

1D

95CR 00836

-RICHARDSON,HALLECK,GEORGE,JR,

 

1D