Protective order was issued prior to Quadruple homicide
Domestic protection orders are not things I tend to think very highly of. For the people who need them the most, they offer little protection:
A woman who was killed with her two children and boyfriend in a weekend shooting rampage by her estranged husband had gone to court to keep him away after their separation turned violent last fall.
Such court-issued protective orders, however, cannot deter someone bent on committing violence that can become as extreme that on Sunday that left five dead in a murder-suicide, authorities said.
Alicia Smith sought the court order for Arthur Lee Smith, 36, to stay away from her in November after he smashed a car window at her trailer, Police Chief Kelly Rayhill said.
. . . .
The Martin County court order gave police authority to arrest Lee Smith if he showed up at Alicia Smith’s home for up to two years.“For the most part, that protective order is just a piece of paper, and there is no guarantee that protective order will protect the person,” Ringle said. “A person who has a protective order out against somebody has to be very careful.”
Women who are granted the orders are sometimes in the most danger, said Ann DeLaney, executive director of The Julian Center, a battered-women’s shelter in Indianapolis.
“A lot of people assume that if they’ve got a protective order and made a break (from a relationship), they’re safe,” she said. “I don’t think they realize that’s when they’re the most vulnerable.”
Other get such orders to manipulate their former lovers. A protective order is obtained, sometimes for violence that is years old and even “mutual” (there is no time limitation in the act), primarily to make it harder for one parent to make efforts to see their kids. Since the legislature decided to gut the protective order statute and implement the domestic protective order provision, I have have seen a share of both: People scared to death, clutching a piece of paper for protection, and people almost completely locked out of their kids lives by a hastily issued order. I have also seen the police grow increasingly complacent with these orders. If a complaint of violation is made to the police, the protected person is often told “Hey, that’s a civil order, go file a contempt citation with the court.”
February 23rd, 2005 20:50
Thank you for shining a light on a dark and troubling subject. We all (legislators, lawyers, judges, and citizens alike) want to feel that we are doing something to make victims of domestic violence safer. Whether a piece of paper can truly do that is subject to debate. What is not debatable is whether such orders are capable of being abused.
In 25 years of practicing law in Indiana, I saw Protective Orders, and their criminal case cousin, the No Contact Order, abused repeatedly. Too often they were sought in order to bludgeon the other parent into concessions regarding child custody, visitation, or even property division. It was too often used as a sword rather than as a shield.
That experience is what has shaped my reticence as a judge to enter No Contact Orders automatically in domestic violence cases, as our local Prosecutor insists that I should do. I have told him that I will do it on a case by case basis, but that to issue them automatically, based solely on the charge filed, will cause more harm than than it will prevent. The court-mandated disconnect of a child from a parent, expense of maintaining a separate residence, and delay in initiating counseling often complicate efforts to move the parties involved to a safe and healthy future.
I rely on the regular input of the staff of our Women’s Shelter, who interview victims and provide recommendations. Our Prosecutor doesn’t like this procedure because more often than not, their recommendation is to not enter a No Contact Order. It sure is a nuisance, I suppose, to actually expect evidence to be presented before an Order is entered.
If one of your readers has suggestions that would make this process more effective, I would love to hear them. I suspect I am not alone.