Address Inefficiencies to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence

Transcription

1 Virginia Policy Review 31 Address Inefficiencies to Protect Victims of Domestic Violence Kelly Connors One in four American women has been a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. i Although American women have come a long way in promoting gender equity, the statistics concerning domestic violence against women continue to be appalling. U.S. public policy has been insufficient in protecting women from violence. The most public example is Congress s failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which provides federal funding for assistance and support programs for victims of domestic violence. The federal inattention to domestic violence trickles down, as seen through the inefficient implementation of domestic violence programs on the state and local level. I will highlight how this lackadaisical attitude has trickled down to my hometown of Fairfax, Virginia in the form of three major inefficiencies in the system to grant protective orders to domestic violence victims. First, I lay out the legal definitions of domestic violence and protective orders in the state of Virginia, providing appropriate context. Then, I detail specific inefficiencies in the implementation of policy to grant protective orders in Fairfax. Lastly, I contend that, if local policy makers can address these inefficiencies by mandating implementation changes, Fairfax can improve protections for domestic violence victims and prevent future violence. Background: Domestic Violence Policy in Virginia Legal definitions of domestic violence vary from state to state. Virginia law names domestic violence as family abuse and defines it as any act involving violence, force, or threat including, but not limited to, any forceful detention, which results in bodily injury or places one in reasonable apprehension of bodily injury and which is committed by a person against such person's family or household member. ii The state and local legal systems protect victims of domestic violence by providing recourse through protective orders and legal services, helping victims regain power over their lives. It is extremely important for victims to obtain protective orders because not only does it forbid their abuser from continuing the abuse and contacting the victim, but also the victim receives temporary possession of their house and any jointly held motor vehicles. Protective orders also provide other measures to keep the victims safe and away from the abuser. iii

2 32 Virginia Policy Review Until recently, women s access to protective orders in Virginia had been limited to the criteria of family abuse or stalking protective orders. iv The tragic murder of University of Virginia student Yeardley Love, however, prompted the proposal of new legislation that would increase access to protective orders. v The Virginia General Assembly passed bills HB 2063 and SB 1222 in February 2011, creating a single standard for victims to obtain protective orders. Protective orders could now be issued for an expanded list of reasons, which include family abuse and other acts of violence such as dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault. This legislation also expanded access to protective orders to any act involving violence, force, or threat that results in bodily injury or places one in reasonable apprehension of death, sexual assault, or bodily injury. vi Although these laws represented a monumental step to expand protection for women in Virginia, Fairfax policymakers faulty implementation of policy to grant protective orders prevents many victims from achieving the protection they need. Here, I outline the following three inefficiencies in Fairfax Virginia s implementation to grant protective orders and how addressing these efficiencies will result in more protection for victims of domestic violence. First, Fairfax County should improve record keeping and analyze the rate of filed protective orders that are granted. Second, Fairfax County should amend the policy of granting preliminary protective orders. Third, Fairfax County should increase the number of legal aid services available to victims of domestic violence. Using Records to Track Success First, the Fairfax County record keeping system lacks the process and structure to effectively measure the success of domestic violence reforms. In 2009, the Fairfax County Magistrate s Office issued 1,939 emergency family abuse protective orders, but it did not record how many applications were filed. Also in 2009, Fairfax County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court filed 829 petitions for preliminary family abuse protective orders, but did not track the number of protective orders granted by the court. vii A Bilingual Domestic Violence Advocate at the Fairfax Women s Center explained that 800 to 900 domestic violence victims apply for protective orders each year, but there is no record of the success rate of women obtaining these orders. viii Fairfax County needs to improve its record keeping so it can identify if its policies are effective. Improved record keeping can then result in improved policies.

3 Virginia Policy Review 33 A Protective System for Filing Protective Orders Second, Fairfax County must adjust the policy of filing preliminary protective orders. Currently, preliminary protective orders offer protection for at least 15 days, or until the hearing for the two-year protective order. ix For example, if a woman applies for a preliminary protector order in Fairfax, she is required to file a petition at court for a two-year protective order. An affidavit is then sent to her alleged abuser stating the accusations and the date of the hearing. If the court denies the applicant a preliminary protective order, the court does not put anything in place to prevent the accuser from harming or contacting the victim before the hearing. x This process can aggravate the abuser, further endangering the victim. Other states and localities have enacted a safer alternative. In the Minnesota system, women have the ability to speak directly to a magistrate when applying for a preliminary protective order. If the magistrate denies the preliminary order, the woman can stop the process there. Thus, her abuser would never know she filed for a protective order and she could avoid potential violent reciprocations that result from her accusations. The Women s Center in Fairfax stated that Fairfax County courts deny many preliminary protective orders. Fairfax County places these domestic violence victims in dangerous situations in which their abuser knows of the victim s accusations and knows that the victim is not protected. Fairfax should enact a policy similar to that in Minnesota s that allows the victim to decide if she wants to pursue a two-year protective order after she is denied a preliminary protective order. Therefore, the victim can decide if she wants to take on the risk of retaliation from her abuser before the hearing. Improved Access to Legal Services Lastly, if Fairfax County hopes to protect more victims of domestic violence from continued abuse they should increase the availability of legal services for domestic violence victims. Currently, only one non-profit organization, the Legal Services of Northern Virginia (LSNV), regularly provides pro-bono legal services for domestic violence victims in Fairfax County. The LSNV obtains funding from the federal government, local government, philanthropic foundations, and other donors to provide their services. LSNV has a small permanent staff, with only three to four lawyers who can only take a small number of cases. Additionally, LSNV provides an Attorney of the Day Program, in which other lawyers in the community can volunteer time to provide pro-bono work. These

4 34 Virginia Policy Review lawyers do not need experience in domestic violence or protective order law, and there is no required training. Occasionally the LSNV will offer optional training to volunteer lawyers but it is at the volunteer s discretion to attend. Therefore, even if a woman has a lawyer from the Attorney of the Day Program, if the lawyer is not trained in protective order law, this representation may not be as effective. xi Thus, the Attorney of the Day Program does not mitigate Fairfax s lack of pro-bono legal services. As a result, some domestic violence victims represent themselves at their protective order hearings. This places traumatized victims at a great disadvantage, as they often forget important information in court, especially when they are facing their abuser. The abuser, on the other hand may obtain a public defender under the 6 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, it is also common that the abuser has more disposable income and can afford a qualified private attorney to defend them in court. Fairfax County needs to provide increased legal services for victims of domestic violence by providing more funding to LSNV to increase the number of prosecutors that are trained in protective order law and can provide pro-bono representation for domestic violence victims. More knowledgeable legal service providers will give victims an equal opportunity to obtain protective orders. It will also provide for more accurate representation of domestic violence cases because the victim s lawyer will be able to gather evidence and make a better case against the victim s abuser than the victim will be able to create herself. Conclusion I have spoken with many concerned citizens whom work or volunteer in Fairfax with domestic violence victims and they acknowledge that Fairfax is not doing enough to protect victims of domestic violence. Fairfax policymakers should take a stand and address the inefficiencies in our system of granting protective orders to prevent the continued abuse of domestic violence victims. Policymakers must change Fairfax s current system by (1) improving the record keeping for both filed and granted protective orders, (2) ensuring that the victim s safety is the priority in all policy options, and (3) increasing women s access to legal services, so they can make stronger cases for their protective orders. Kelly Connors is a second-year student at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. She has a B.S. in Commerce from the University of Virginia. She served in the Peace Corps for two years as a community economic development volunteer in the Dominican Republic and also served a third year as a volunteer manager. This summer

5 Virginia Policy Review 35 Kelly interned with Deloitte Consulting LLP. At the University of Virginia she is the Student Council Representative from the Batten School, Managing Director of the Formative Change Group, and member of the Raven Honor Society. i Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, July 2000, pdf. ii Va. Code Ann (2012). iii Ibid. iv Amy Weiss, How House Bill 2063 and the Expansion of Access to Protective Orders Could Have Saved Yeardley Love s Life, Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest 15, no. 1 (2011): 77. v Mary Pat Flaherty and Jenna Johnson, "Lacrosse player George Huguely charged in fellow U-Va. student Yeardley Love's death," The Washington Post, May 4, 2010, accessed January 4, 2012, pdyn/content/article/2010/05/03/a R _pf.html. vi 2011 General Assembly Update, Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, accessed January 4, 2013, vii Fairfax County Virginia, Domestic Violence Data in Fairfax County, xcounty.gov/dsm/dviolence/dvstats local.htm. viii Elizabeth McCarthy, Bilingual Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, Fairfax Women s Center, in discussion with author, November 14, ix What You Need to Know About Protective Orders, Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, accessed November 14, 2011, va.us/forms/district/protective_ord er_information_sheet.pdf. x Elizabeth McCarthy, Bilingual Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. xi Ibid.