Family Violence Solutions Can Be Adaptable

I remember how my grade school girlfriend and her sisters cowered from their father. Sometimes there were bruises. Always there was a reluctance to bring friends to the house when he was home.

As a student nurse in Philadelphia, I treated a man who had been painted from head to toe with lye by his wife after he came home drunk, beat her and fell into a stuporous sleep. Later, as an Army nurse in Vietnam, I saw the black eye of one of the civilian women who worked on the base.

Now, as a Superior Court judge, I regularly preside over domestic violence matters in criminal, civil and family cases. As chair of the Orange County Family Violence Council, I grapple with how these matters are handled within the court system.

It has been about 25 years since feminists protested the treatment of battered women by the police and the courts. They charged that the common law “rule of thumb” was alive and well. That doctrine permitted a man to chastise and discipline his wife so long as the stick he used to beat her was no thicker than his thumb.

That got our attention. In the last few decades the “system” has responded. Many are now protesting we have responded too much. Communities have formed groups to share expertise on domestic violence.

Police training procedures, which formerly were either nonexistent or limited, now require that officers take these matters seriously.

Judges now understand the concept of shelters and no longer order child visitation there. Terms of probation do not include orders that domestic violence defendants are confined to the house. Judges now freely grant restraining orders. Some say too freely.

Police and prosecutors, once reluctant to do anything, are now frank supporters of the present aggressive approach to family violence.

When domestic violence matters are in the family law courts, judges are concerned with maintaining the family structure, if possible. Restraining orders and counseling are readily dispensed.

A judge in family court may order that a batterer stay a certain distance away from a victim. If that restraining order is violated, it may be prosecuted criminally.

In the criminal courts, the priorities are different. Judges are concerned with the safety of the public, the protection of victims, maintaining constitutional rights, and the punishment for crime.

Critics of the present broad approach have to get in line.

Many claim that the accused becomes so ensnared within the system that he (and it is almost always a “he”) cannot extricate himself short of a batterers’ treatment program, extensive counseling, probation or jail time. Others allege that single incidents, even minor ones, are treated the same as chronic wife beating situations.

Commentators argue that society has bought into feminist politics, lock, stock and barrel. There are other causes for family violence besides the power and control of men over women, they claim. For example, some families have the habit of screaming, arguing, throwing things and hitting each other to settle disputes. Others have a family member with some type of disease, injury or syndrome that results in the person’s resorting to violence.

Perhaps surprisingly, the feminists are also critical of what has progressed from their initial complaints. Victims lose control of the situation once they call for help. Victims are being punished for making the 911 call, they claim. Even women who are not avowed feminists complain that the system treats women like children who must be protected.

Criminal defense attorneys claim that statements used by men in family law court are then used against them in criminal court. They see this as a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Would some changes be appropriate? Probably. Our courts could sort out domestic violence cases so that families are salvaged when possible and appropriate. Courts could condition the lifting of restraining orders on the victim’s taking classes, such as the Personal Empowerment Program (PEP), which teaches victims about the cycle of domestic violence.

The Orange County Family Violence Council recently informed all judges in the county of the availability of this option. While this might not always be best, it would at least provide some assurance, short of the total destruction of families, prosecution and imprisonment, that reasonable steps are taken to prevent further violence.

We may need new laws that would allow the batterer and the family law judge to speak frankly about the problem and the approach to be taken, yet not permit the man’s statement to be used against him should the matter end up in our criminal courts. This procedure would encourage honest and forthright approaches and provide an element of fairness.

There are other innovative approaches that could be taken to assure we do not destroy families in attempting to protect them.

Whatever we do, however, we must keep in mind the primary lesson we have learned over these 25 years. Violence within the family can be devastating for children.