Back in June, a New Jersey judge declared the state’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act to be unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz, of the Superior Court in Hudson County, determined that it was too easy for someone who claimed domestic violence to get a restraining order.
The ruling was controversial. When I first read about the case, I was astounded that a court would take such a stand against domestic violence victims. Sandy Clark, associate director of the New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, considers New Jersey’s law to be among the best in the country, according to NJ.com.
New Jersey’s law
The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is strict. Some of its provisions include:
- Police must respond to calls of domestic violence victims.
- If there are any signs of physical injuries the police must arrest the abuser.
- Police may also arrest the abuser without witnesses or signs of physical injuries.
- Police are required to give victims information about their rights and to help them.
- Temporary restraining orders (TRO) may be issued by the superior court or a municipal court.
- A domestic violence hearing must be held within 10 days of issuing the TRO.
At the domestic violence hearing, the judge may grant substantial relief to the victim, including:
- Temporary custody of children
- Monetary compensation
- Barring the defendant from the home, regardless of who owns or leases it
- Prohibiting the defendant from any oral, written, personal or other form of contact with the victim and others, including children
Violating due process
The law allows the judge in the domestic violence hearing to make his or her decision based upon the “preponderance of evidence.” That’s where Judge Schultz had a problem. He wrote that this violates the defendant’s right of due process, and that the standard should be “clear and convincing evidence,” which is more difficult to achieve.
In his 21-page opinion on Crespo v. Crespo, Judge Schultz wrote, “It is well-established that a parent’s right to the care and companionship of his or her child is so fundamental as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
He continued, “That a fundamental right could be forfeited as a result of a rapidly calendared, summary hearing without discovery, where the only protection afforded the defendant is the ‘mere preponderance standard’ clearly offends the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Quite frankly, given that there are people who falsely accuse their partners of domestic violence, the judge’s arguments make sense.
Battle of the sexes
According to NJ.com, women’s rights groups and the Attorney General’s Office are preparing to challenge the ruling. It appears that the case may be headed for the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Others considered the ruling a victory for men. An article posted on the DailyRecord.com declared that Judge Schultz should be considered an American hero.
“He stood up against the powerful feminist-controlled domestic violence machine and ruled that the New Jersey domestic violence statute is unconstitutional, and that people’s 14th amendment rights were being violated. Judge Schultz could have taken the politically correct route; he did not.
“The state Attorney General’s Office, in league with the battered women’s groups, has come out against this ruling and plans to appeal to the state Supreme Court. These two ‘partners in crime’ are yelling that the sky is falling because a court ruled that the standard of proof is unconstitutionally too low.”
The issue is being cast as today’s battle of the sexes. Unfortunately, people on both sides are fighting the wrong battle.
Men and women perpetrators
Battered women’s groups argue that female victims, and their children, need to be protected from abusive men. Father’s rights groups argue that women file false abuse complaints simply to be vengeful, and get away with it. They both accuse divorce and child custody lawyers of using abuse allegations as a strategy to win their cases.
They’re all right some of the time. None of them are right all of the time.
Lovefraud has heard from plenty of women who were seriously abused by male partners. And we’ve heard from plenty of men who were abused by female partners—including physical violence.
We’ve heard stories of abusive men manipulating the legal system to get children taken away from battered mothers. And we’ve heard stories of men fighting to get custody of their children from abusive mothers, facing judges who believe that mothers simply do not harm their children.
Sociopaths and domestic violence
Dr. Liane Leedom says that half of domestic violence perpetrators are sociopaths, and the other half have sociopathic tendencies.
Sociopaths, as Lovefraud readers well know, are both men and women. And whether male or female, they are equally vicious and destructive.
So this is not a battle of the sexes. The real struggle is between sociopaths and their victims; between people who have a conscience and those who do not.
If you’ve been a victim of domestic violence, or have been falsely accused of domestic violence, please tell Lovefraud about your experience with law enforcement and the courts. Did the police and/or courts act appropriately? Were they able to determine who was telling the truth? Why or why not?
Please don’t use any names, although you may identify the jurisdiction (county or state) if you want.
Henry: Now that was surreal … in a good way.
Hey, ups and downs in life … let’s just hope it turns around again for all of us.
Peace.
When (it) attacked me and beat me the police where compleetly indifferent ! they said they could do nothing ! I left that night and slept in my Jeep. When the y would’nt help I had to leave my house and camp in the woods in a tent ! I was arrested for trespass even after I had gotten a emergency injunction granted before my arrest ! I spent 5 days in jail under the best of conditions of course ( sarcasim) They the police checked to see if I was alive but did’nt do anything to (it) when I got out (it)) had fled to adjacent county and my county could’nt find (it) I went to court 4 times and he was never found to serve injunction too!
I took (it ) back in after 6 months this is unconcievable !??:
See how easy it is to blame ourselves? at that time I only knew he had problems and I did’nt know about PSY?SOC I thought it was bi polar add ! you can see why my folks have had it ! and I do to now
LOVE jere
indigo I kicked my x too the curb 5 times took him back four – each time my family – friends -and co-workers were less sympathetic .. The last few times I took him back I tried to keep it a secret – I was embarrassed. I no longer talk about spath’s to anybody – just you good folks here.
One of the reasons why this is seen as a feminist issue and a gender war is because males are not allowed in DV shelters. There are almost ZERO shelters that will accept men. Even though men and boys are also victims of DV they are turned away. Here is one example of the issue:
A volunteer who presents about male victims was presenting to a police department. She had 200 law enforcement personnel present. At the end, she got a police officer to volunteer a call to a shelter, posing as a male victim. He called a hotline for a battered womens program and asked about services for men, explaining that he was experiencing violence at the hands of a female. The hotline worker said, “You should be in jail.” The officer restated that he needed help because his wife was violent. The hotline worker hung up on him.
Many DV shelters refuse to hire men or accept them as volunteers also. And trainings on DV are always about the male doing the violence. It SHOULD be about helping anyone but the reality is something different. Here is what one shelter said in a recent (2008 Feminist Criminology article) research article:
We don’t really take male volunteers. It is tricky because we technically can’t say no to them because it is discrimination. So we say we don’t have any room or maybe it would be uncomfortable for a man to work here because of these issues. It is a feminist organization, and can men really fall underneath that feminist ideology? If you look at the survivors themselves, whether they are male or female, they would rather talk to a woman than a man. People always say that men would rather talk to a man, which is a common misconception. They would rather talk to a woman because they are more understanding.
So hopefully that gives just a little idea why this is such a “gender” issue for some folks.
Only after my injunction had made it to the Sherif’s Dep.
Did the Sherif and my city police come to my house to see if I was alive ! I was and I was safe from (it ) because I was in jail arrested by a different city.
You might imagine that communication between dep.and addjecent Police dep. county to county , Sherif/police would be happening in 2008 ? It’s Not!
I have a question which is off-topic. I met a woman tonight who was definitely a victim of a S…beatings, complete control, isolation, and perhaps he even tried to poison her (insisted on preparing her food, which he would not eat and did not allow her son to consume).
My initial reaction was that he had a life insurance policy on her and asked if she had signed anything to this effect. She said she had not, but that her understanding is that anyone can take out a life insurance on a another person (perhaps not a huge dollar amount?) and it does not require their signature nor knowledge. This sounds scary to me. I have been very concerned about my ex-S’s life insurance policies on his ex-wife, attempts with me, and perhaps with new SO. Does anyone know about this?
In googling, here was a response.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_you_take_out_insurance_on_your_spouse_without_their_knowledge
In my former city/state there was a mandatory arrest/ no drop policy, rather than leaving it up to police discretion as to whether to make an arrest. My understanding of it is this was a law pushed by feminist, but there is now alot of controversy about the effectiveness of it. There is a backlash in the sense that both innocent men and innocent women are being arrested sometimes on next to nothing (like a pissed off woman who is not actually being abused, but calls the police during a fight, OR a woman who IS being abused and her abuser has a minor injury, whereas she has no visible one).
I was told the O.J. Simpson/Nichole Brown case started it. Now if they come out to your house on a domestic call, they pretty much have to arrest somebody.
Police have to determine who the primary aggressor was and what that ends up often meaning is that if one party even has a MINOR injury such as a tiny scratch, THAT party is the one arrested regardless of what happened and what the other party did, or if the police have conflicting stories of what happened, the one with the obvious injury is the one going to jail. This mandatory arrest law is just a dream come true for some psychopaths who are clever. And if I sound bitter, it is because this is the one area where I am VERY bitter.
And when dealing with a psychopath, don’t make the mistake of expecting them to play fair and don’t make the mistake of assuming all policeman have what even could pass as a smidgeon of a brain. When you dial 911 and you have a psycho on your hands who has not only consumed a ton of beer, but has managed to damage property, not to mention slam you around a bit, and you call 911, then the psycho goes out on the porch, sits down, and CALMLY waits for the police …….do NOT assume that by the time police get there, that even though there are NO injuries on your S or P prior to the call, that there won’t be some sort of injury by the time the police get there.
And don’t assume the police are bright enough to see the damage and that your s or p or to even notice your is or p is double your freakin size and drinking (actually still holding a beer in his hand) and says YOU are the one who slapped him (and while doing that the scratch occured, even though the slap NEVER happened) and you say that if the s or p has any sort of injury it was accidentally done during the scruffle and even tho there was NO blood prior to the call, the P now has blood smeared all over his jawline………dont’ EVEN make the assumption that at worse case scenerio you BOTH will be arrested…….cause you may very well may be the ONLY one arrested and be told something like “That’s what you get for staying with him”, and “he’s the one with the scratch” (which was TINY btw but with tons of blood on his face, but oddly none on his collar or shirt)….and you ask (while in the back of the squad car) “So, you mean to tell me he could have me down on the floor with a knife to my throat and if I fought to get away, I would be the one arrested?” Reply: “That’s right.” ….Then you’ll really be delighted to spend 12 hours in a holding cell (now required as a cooling off period), then be given a TRO and told by the magistrate that she can’t make you leave your own home since you are the one who OWNS the house, BUT if the police come out for any reason whatsoever you will be the one automatically arrested regardles of the situation due to that TRO.
And then be told the only way you can get him out of YOUR house (even though he has friends and family in the area and you have NO ONE in the entire state and nowhere else to go) is to go thru formal eviction procedures. Not to mention you are NOW prohibited from leaving the state until the court case is over.
Then you come home and while cleaning find blood all over the place–including the air vent beside your desk and you just can’t figure out where all this blood came from. THEN the psychopath, nice guy that he is, makes it all clear when he casually starts messing with his finger and you ask what is wrong and he sly smiles a little knowing smile and shows you this deep gash on his index finger and says he cut it during the fight. Then it dawns on you so that is why he had that paper towel wrapped around that beer he was holding onto for dear life that night and it really hits you just how bad you’ve been HAD. You got nowhere to go, a guy refusing to leave, and you can’t call the police even if you wanted to or you’ll be the one arrested again–not to mention that also even tho you haven’t had so much as a speeding ticket in over 20 years, you NOW have an arrest record. *SUCKER*
Jen:
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. And your story sounds entirely feasible to me. NOT reasonable, but certainly possible. Unbelieveable (to a rational person) but entirely believeable (knowing as we do that there are wacko’s in the world). So did this actually happen to you (and if so how long ago) or is it a possible scenario?