In May we covered the story titled “Kernville man dies after stabbing in child-custody dispute” which discussed a “fight [that] broke out at a home on the 200 block of Bodfish Canyon Road in Bodfish. Crystal Lee Parker, 29, lives at the home and had armed herself with a large knife after people arrived because of the child-custody dispute, according to the sheriff’s office.” The victim in this case was a man that died after the stabbing had occurred within the child-custody dispute.

Just yesterday another case of family court violence broke out on the campus of UCI in California and was covered by The OC Register and also covered by the updated article written by Lary Holland: Family Court is Deadly Business. In the report a UC Irvine graduate student is accused of shooting his ex-wife to death outside on-campus housing Sunday night during a custody exchange of the couple’s 4-year-old son, police announced this morning. The title of the article in the OC Register was UCI slaying suspect had been ordered to double child support which was determined better for the child than the father being able to finish his PhD in particle physics.

The adversarial process seems to be the most prevalent method of divorce, despite many peaceful or “less-adversarial” processes that are available, but not widely understood. For good reason, lawyers certainly make more money on the adversarial process and that seems to be what divorce is all about nowadays, who has the best lawyer.

The Wall Street Journal had a reasonable and well-thought opinion piece on the issue of divorce titled Separate Peace by Stephanie Coontz. In the article she went over the various avenues and costs for different divorce methods that are currently available. The most interesting aspect of the article is that an adversarial divorce is the worst or most expensive avenue to seek a divorce, but the one most pursued.

Hugh McIsaac, a retired director of Family Court Services in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., advises divorce attorneys to represent their clients’ long-term interests, not their short-term anger. The average cost of a mediated divorce is less than $7,000 and of a collaborative divorce less than $20,000. This compares with nearly $27,000 for a divorce negotiated by rival lawyers and about $78,000 for a fully litigated divorce.

Just looking at the numbers, you can tell which process would drive a person to family court related violence, because many people are pushed to the hilt with debt and stress of the adversarial process.

If we can learn anything from the information shared today, it is that serious considerations need to be reviewed for possible reforms to limit the number of adversarial proceedings in the family court, divorce, and child custody type proceedings. If nothing else it will save parents, save children, and provide a safer outcome of all involved.

Last week in the Detroit Free Press, L.L. Brasier, contributed the piece “P.P.O. requests, petty spats clog up courts” which opened up “A rift between two neighbors over grass clippings, a potty-mouthed text messenger sending notes to a woman he barely knows and a squabble that began four years ago with an empty pizza box — all seemingly bad behavior by people who, it could be argued, should just learn to get along.”

The article also discusses that it has been 15 years since the legislature last acted on the issue of personal protection orders as a tool “against domestic violence.” In Michigan Domestic Violence “Personal Protection Orders” are found in the following sections of law for spouses, ex-spouses, and individuals engaged in stalking or other prohibited conduct beginning at MCL 600.2950 and then continuing sections MCLA 600.2950a-j.

With some jurisdictions claiming 25% and higher increases in personal protection order claims and orders, it may be time to look at their effectiveness and how they are being applied. In some jurisdictions it had been found that evidentiary standards were too low in civil restraining order cases because an individual that is claimed to be violating such an order is subjected to “immediate arrest.” This certainly raises certain constitutional issues with an individual being arrested without probably cause, and raising the evidentiary standard might definitely weed out the more silly claims.

The other issue is federal funding awards to states for the issuance of orders, which seems to cause a rush for judges to err on the side of caution rather than erring on the side that may be right. Federal funding awards to the states and subsequently to the courts seems to place prosecutors and judges in control of their own budgets and how they rule. Constitutional protections were put into place to prevent unnecessary intrusions into the peoples’ lives by their government and ultimately when followed prevents the courts from being clogged with frivolity in the first place.

A final note: Courts currently are performing under contracts rather than remaining impartial arbiters, and when over participation clogs our courts like what you see here, the time for reform to limit the number of cases is necessary. Limiting the caseload starts by increasing the burden of proof to a reasonable standard.

Ted Sullivan reported in his article Wasteful Restraining Orders Clog Rock County Courts that in their  “analysis of court data indicates nearly 70 percent of requests for restraining orders in 2008 were quashed because petitioners failed to appear in court, asked for their case to be dismissed or couldn’t prove they were in danger.”

The finding of this community’s court house has been reasonably suppressed in other areas throughout the Country that have alluded to Domestic Violence laws being abused in various jurisdictions. In one response an attorney said that domestic violence allegations and personal protection orders are used as a form of “hillbilly child custody proceeding” to gain a quick result involving divorcing or separating parents and the need for courts to divide the time of children between the two. Domestic violence allegations are often used to create an inequality of that division of time according to statements made.

One organization that we have solicited comment from is Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting on the article’s finding, to see if R.A.D.A.R. has come up with similar findings. I have also requesting information from one other organization to see if the findings concur with their findings and general opinions. Their commentary will be included in a subsequent addition to this article if received in time.

One special report that seems to concur with the findings of the article is the waste of taxpayer resources involving this area of law. To read the R.A.D.A.R. report $1 Billion for DV Programs That Misuse Taxpayer Money and Place Victims at Risk, click here.

One thing is clear, that many of these special interest programs need to be scoured for gender bias results and abuse/misuse stemming from the massive amount of taxpayer money that is being funneled to the programs. The question that becomes apparent is the government driving a solution or rather … are they producing the result.

Original Article Source for Comments Located: http://gazettextra.com/news/2009/jul/12/wasteful-restraining-orders-clog-rock-county-court/

This particular headline is interesting because the father brought the issue of threatening voice mails and the resulting outcome is that the mother obtained a restraining order against him.

In the second voice mail message Ms. Simone pretty much states that there could be a conspiracy through the use of her office by threatening “There are several investigators who will be more than happy to let certain people know you are cooperating with the Feds — do you understand?”

There are significant threats possibly going in both directions in this case, but where a government official is allowed to abuse such authority and power it warrants a greater scrutiny than just some random member of the public making threats against another.

Daly said the state’s attorney could still bring “disciplinary or criminal” charges against Simone over the voice mail messages.

Simone works in Alvarez’s narcotics unit. She has continued to work at the Criminal Court building since the tapes surfaced. She is the daughter of Palos Township Democratic Committeeman Sam Simone.

Although a protection order was granted to Simone against Rosales, and the attorney for Simone is stating that she is right because one was issued, it is a far cry from seeing all the facts. The Chicago Tribune didn’t cover the fact that restraining orders are issued with little to no evidence based on low evidentiary standards and that each time an order of protection is handed down that the states receive a bonus stipend in civil or criminal proceedings.

It will be interesting to see how more of these “high-profile” personal custody cases play on public perception of divorce and separation cases.