This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 3 — Domestic Violence |
| Next — Domestic abuse and violence defined |
Story from Down Under shows why things are upside down here
An Australian separation story
The following story was forwarded to us from Lindsay Jackel in Australia.
Bob was an average Aussie bloke. He was proud of his wife and children, and generally happy with his life. Then, one day, Bob went to work and...
Unknown to Bob, Mary decided to end the marriage and sought help from the local women's centre (typically feminist and funded by the government with taxpayers money). She received free advice about how to end her leave and end her marriage, in particular about financial matters, emotional counselling, court support, free legal advice, the availability of emergency housing for women, and what Social Security and Centrelink benefits were available.
After advice, Mary went to the local Magistrate's Court and got an on-the-spot (ex parte) interim Intervention (Domestic Violence) Order. She had alleged that Bob had threatened her and the order was issued automatically. This Order prevented Bob from entering his own home, collecting his own personal property, and from talking to or being anywhere near Mary. Mary then went to the bank and removed all the funds from their joint account.
A policeman went to Bob's work and served him with the Intervention Order. Bob thought the policeman must have made a mistake. How could he have been found guilty of being violent when he had never been violent in his life? He hadn't been arrested, hadn't been to court, and didn't know anything about it. But the policeman explained that Bob couldn't go home and couldn't see or speak to his children or his wife, or he would go to jail. He had to go to court about it in a few days.
Bob hurried to the bank before closing time to withdraw some money for food and a place to stay, only to find there was no money in the account. What was going on? Had the world turned upside down? Bob needed help but where could he go? There is no Men's Centre. No free legal advice. No counselling. No emotional support. No emergency housing. Bob couldn't even get fresh clothes because he couldn't go home.
A few days later Bob went to court thinking he could sort all this out. After all, he had never been violent, it just wasn't in him. The magistrate would fix up the mistake. But when he arrived, he found he was facing the police prosecutor, not Mary. Bob, unaware of court protocols and judicial bias, was told by the magistrate to sit down and be quiet, whenever he stood up to say anything. The magistrate satisfied himself that Bob was guilty based solely on Mary's allegations and on what the police prosecutor said, and granted the Intervention Order for a two year period. No evidence was presented or proven that Bob was violent and that Mary needed the order. When Bob left the court he was shocked and stunned, wondering what had happened to justice.
Weeks later, unable to afford a solicitor, Bob, still unaware of judicial bias, appeared alone before the Family Court. Figuring he had always been a good husband and father, always supported his family, and he and his children loved each other, Bob looked forward to being granted shared custody and a fair share of the property the family owned. What he found was that Mary was present with a $2,000 a day barrister, a solicitor, a legal assistant and emotional support from the Women's Centre, all of which she got for free, via government-provided, taxpayer-funded legal aid. Bob was not eligible for legal aid and felt intimidated, vulnerable and alone. He now realized one purpose of the Domestic Violence Order was to prevent him from having any hope of shared custody or substantial contact with his children. What he got was supervised access for 2 hours per fortnight.
The next week, Bob excitedly attended the arranged supervised meeting, with the supervisor, to see his children for the first time in many months, but Mary didn't show up with the children. Bob went back to the Family Court to seek justice, but the first available hearing was in 8 months time.
Then, one day when Bob collected his weekly pay he found $160 missing. The paymaster explained to him that the Child Support Agency had deducted his weekly child support and the first installment for back support of $1,400. After paying for rent, utilities, food and clothing Bob was sliding into poverty. He certainly could not afford to ever remarry.
Mary now receives the sole parent pension, child support, parenting payment, rent assistance, a concession card and other benefits, and she finds she has much more money coming into the house without a husband than she ever did with one.
Eventually, not having been able to see or talk to his children for nearly a year, Bob attends the Family Court alone. Still unaware of judicial bias, he believes the court will enforce justice and the access order to see his kids. The Court doesn't, because the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Alastair Nicholson, has instructed Family Court judges not to jail or fine mothers even when they flout Court orders. There is nothing that can be done. If Mary won't allow it, Bob cannot see his children again, and if he tries to, he will be jailed and have a criminal record.
In later dealings with the Family Court, Mary was given their house and most of what other assets remained, including a cut of Bob's superannuation, which he had to pay then and there, with what little the court had given him, plus a bank loan.
As a result, Bob is absolutely devastated and shattered and in such a state of depression that he loses his job. He finds he has no children, no assets, a reduced motivation and capacity to earn and no income, and he sees no future. Bob also sees the grief in his children's grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, who have been cut off from the children they've grown to love. This story sounds unbelievable, but these and worse things happen every day to fathers all across Australia.
Things are no different in America. Take the following scenario that might happen on any summer weekend in Colorado as you are out cruising the local scene. This hypothetical situation is perfectly reasonable under current laws in the State of Colorado.
She was all over you almost as soon as you walked in the bar. She couldn't keep her hands off you, and when you danced she got you so hard you had to hide it on the way back to the table.
Naturally you take her to your house. A warm summer evening, the windows are open, and she is, shall we say, audible. This woman loves it! She is panting and moaning, yelling “Stop! Stop! I can't stand any more!” “Oh please don't do that!” as she grabs you and pulls you into her, and then climbs on top of you. You finally collapse from exhaustion planning on how you are going to brag to your buddy next door, who must have heard this.
She wakes you in the morning, screaming and tearing up the house. You grab her and try to control her. She is berserk. You are scratched up and she is looking the worse for wear. Neighbors call the police, or she does. Obviously “domestic violence” when they get there. Arrest is mandatory C.R.S. § 18-6-803.6 and you are taken off in handcuffs. You protest you've never seen this woman before but it is obvious that you have been intimate with her C.R.S. § 13-14-101.
You make bond eventually and sign the mandatory restraining orders or you don't get out of jail. Maybe you don't notice that one of them says you will vacate the premises C.R.S. § 18-1-1001. Hell, you never saw her before last night, and you head back home. She is still there and starts screaming again as soon as she sees you and hysterically calls 911 (see Davis v. Washington).
You've violated the restraining order to vacate, harassed and intimidated her, and would obviously like to retaliate against her. You probably also shout at and threaten her. Three months later, when you get out of jail again, you are a little more cautious but she is still in your house. She has told the victim's assistance program that is where she is living. You have no options, the female district attorney assures you that you are an unspeakable beast, the judge is bound by the laws and judicial bias is a reality. Obviously, innocence is no defense.
The rent is way past due. Best if you pay it or the landlord will take you to court!
You'd like a drink but consumption or possession of alcohol is prohibited. No guns, any other weapon, or explosives either or you will violate Federal law and be up on a felony charge. You are also ordered not to contact, or directly or indirectly communicate with the 'victim.'
Any minor infraction of these restraining orders and you get another reunion with all those great people down at the county jail. Unless you like tending the Sheriff's flower garden you obey the restraining orders. However, by court order, you are a street person, and have probably lost your job, so maybe the jail looks good to you during the winter months.
You will also be made to take domestic violence counseling run by rabid feminists where you are made to admit that you are a “batterer” and swear to forsake the patriarchy forever. Before this started you probably hadn't even heard of the patriarchy but you are still inherently evil because you are male.
Because you haven't learned your lesson, you plead innocent at the hearing. This is a free country, right? Justice will be done and within 6 months your case comes up for trial on Fast Track. In Colorado Springs, defense attorneys refer to Fast Track as a railroad.
How's the house looking now? Did her boyfriend move in with her? How does it feel when you make the house payment? Anything left of your possessions? Were they doing drugs, and when the police broke in, she blamed them on you? Does RICO now have a whole new meaning to you? Or maybe you live in Denver and they've taken your house under municipal ordinance 37-50, et seq . as a “public nuisance” because of the loud parties she was having. 1
Well, likely she won't show up for the trial, and eventually you think you will get to go back home. But you end up convicted of domestic violence anyway after the cops testify what they saw when they arrived. Anything the neighbors may have heard or thought they saw is also admissible together with any other hearsay the prosecutor can dig up.
In San Diego, California, and elsewhere, prosecutors found they got a higher conviction rate if the alleged “victim” didn't testify. The approach is to try the case in the same fashion they would a murder case using evidence-based prosecution, with no victim present (if the defense doesn't subpoena her). Statements made by the woman during the 911 are recorded. Videos and photographs from the arrest are used as evidence against you. Police officers also testify and their notes are admitted.
Boulder is now using the same approach with the same results. If, as you should, you carry the issue to trial, you must be sure and subpoena the “victim.” Dismissal of the charges should be demanded if she fails to appear as she is very likely to be the best witness in your defense.
Conviction carries a lifetime sentence, no weapons, you are listed in a national database, the restraining orders are permanent , and you've earned the contempt of your neighbors. Every time a cop stops you the restraining order will come up.
When you do check out the house after the trial, she is still there. Please don't be so foolish as to go in, or anywhere near your house if she is.
If there is anything left of your life, home, job, savings, or children after having been accused of domestic violence, you will be hard pressed to recognize it, and innocence is no defense.
Can't happen? You haven't looked at the domestic violence laws now on the books in many states, including Colorado, under the umbrella of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed by Congress in 1994.
1. In the summer of 2000 Colorado Springs passed a similar 'public nuisance' ordinance allowing the city to take your property for trivial offenses.
Perhaps the above scenarios don't fit your circumstances? In your nightmare the wife wanted to keep the house, kids, and all your possessions as happened with Rikki's Dad in Minnesota or to Bob in Australia. It seems unlikely that she will get everything she wants in a simple divorce. Instead she dials 911, scratches herself up, maybe she has a bruise from a fall and goes to the hospital, or police station, with a story that her husband abused her. Maybe her new boyfriend roughed her up, or you threaten the guy like Dr. Emerson alledgedly did.
In any case, the law requires that you be arrested, evicted from your home, and have no contact with her or your children. Mediation is rarely an option when domestic violence or abuse is charged and was forbidden prior to July, 1999. Months will go by before the case comes to trial. Meanwhile, you are on the street. All of this on the unsupported word of a woman seeking gain, revenge, playing games, or simply wanting to get rid of you so her new boyfriend can move in.
If you have children in the home, and she has filed domestic violence charges against you, there is also a very high probability that she will, at some point, charge you with abuse of the children as well. Defending yourself against the domestic violence or abuse charges raises the probability of her charging you with abuse of the children. The process she is going through is known as the divorce-related malicious mother syndrome. It may help to look at that Web site to prepare you for what might be coming next. You will need a lawyer!
The Reverend Dennis Austin has looked at the allegations of child-abuse under current laws and finds that:
“Before 1973, child abuse was rarely reported to authorities and often it was covered up. In 1963, reports of suspected child abuse was 160,000 but between 1976 and 1993, the total yearly number of child abuse reports grew from 669,000 to over 2.9 million after the child abuse protection legislation that Senator Mondale sponsored.
The passing of this legislation has also resulted in the increase of allegations of child abuse in divorce battles. In 1975, thirty five percent of all child abuse reports were unsubstantiated, but by 1993, that percentage sky-rocketed to sixty-six percent. In divorce, when allegations are made and the police conduct investigations, ninety seven percent of these claims are unable to be substantiated.
It is obvious that many allegations of abuse which are reported in divorce situations are false and ninety five percent of those accusers are women. With the high amount of divorces, the percentage of those divorces which abuse is reported, and the percentage of which are unsubstantiated, it shows that children are being used as pawns to hurt or destroy the other parent. These false allegations of abuse, even if proven to be false, can ruin someone's life and have a devastating effect on the children.”
Or another scenario, one where you quarrel with your wife or lover. The next day she calls work and says: “Sam and I had a fight and I don't feel well.” Perhaps she has a visible bruise where she bumped into something entirely independent of your disagreement. When she shows up for work, company guidelines, or an overzealous feminist co-worker, get in the act. The police are notified by her company or the co-worker. As hearsay is admissible, arrest and a restraining order are mandatory. Under current law the charges cannot be dropped no matter what she says. As a result, you are homeless, and the only way to clear your name is a jury trial months later. If you plead guilty, or no contest, the restraining order becomes permanent and you are under a lifetime sentence.
Many other possibilities can be easily imagined where a woman can abuse the current laws to their advantage if they are seeking financial gain or revenge against any male they have been intimate with.
A common tactic is to claim you are a “trained killer” because you served in the military and that frightens her. Or the woman is simply mentally unstable or going through the change of life. Perhaps she is violence prone.
Remember, she doesn't have to prove anything, all she need do is claim she is in “fear” of you, you “threatened her,” you “shouted at her,” or she can claim “emotional harm” if you remain in your home. For example, you object to your wife's new boyfriend.
Whatever the circumstances, without question, you, as a male, will be presumed guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. In addition, you will be punished for the crime while trying to prove yourself innocent.
In her book, When She Was Bad, Patricia Pearson points out (p. 142-143) that:
“With mounting pressure on North American police forces to disavow misogynistic attitudes and take the word of a woman over a man, female psychopaths and other hard-core female abusers have an extremely effective means to up the ante and win the game. It isn't what abusive men do, the robbing of breath, but it is as surely the ruin of a life. The most common theme among abused men is their tales not of physical anguish but of dispossession — losing custody of children due to accusations of physical and sexual abuse, and having criminal records that permanently shatter their integrity as loving men and decent human beings.”
After proving yourself innocent of domestic violence you may be further charged on a civil basis with domestic abuse, and she may do that many times in multiple jurisdictions without fear of punishment C.R.S. § 13-14-102. She needn't even invent new charges. She can make the same charges repeatedly in different venues even though you've proven yourself innocent of those charges.1
And everyone you know, or discuss the issue with, will assume you are guilty even after you have proven your innocence.
If you do prove yourself innocent, and don't take extraordinary steps, your name remains on Federal and state databases as having been arrested for domestic violence, or charged with domestic abuse. The database will probably indicate you have restraining orders against you even if they have been lifted. Despite having cleared the record, if you need a security clearance or a financial bond for a sensitive position, the arrest will count against you in and of itself.
| EJF Home | Join the EJF | Comments? | Get EJF newsletter | Newsletters |
| DV Home | Abstract | Contents | Tables | Index | Bibliography |
| Chapter 3 — Domestic Violence |
| Next — Domestic abuse and violence defined |
This site is supported and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.
1. Section 14-4-102 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) regarding restraining orders to prevent domestic abuse, formerly referenced here, was repealed effective July 1, 1999. Virtually the same provisions are now found in C.R.S. § 13-14-102.