The misuse of orders of protection by women when going through a divorce is one of the more prevalent and unfortunate trends in family law. A system that was designed to protect against abuse is itself being abused.
The terminology of orders of protection varies by state (they can be called protection from abuse orders, domestic violence injunctions, etc.), but to me they are better known as tactical nuclear weapons.
A Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) report published earlier this year estimated that 85% of protective orders are entered against men. I believe that upwards of 90% of those orders are products of tactical divorce considerations.
In fact, many people are encouraged by their lawyers to seek this protection without cause because of the beneficial position gained by this strategic move.
These orders are easy to obtain -- all a woman has to do is say that she is in reasonable fear for her safety. Documented evidence of abuse is not required.
Protective orders are often entered on an "emergency" basis without notice to the defending party and then set for a full hearing date several weeks out. Courts will do this in order to maintain the status quo until proper notice can be given to the now restrained party and a hearing can be held.
With a small statement, the accused (again, the man in about 85% of the cases) can be forced to stay out of the home, barred from parenting time, and prevented from any contact with his children, including through phone and email. In an instant, his house and kids can be taken away from him.
In effect, the order becomes a de facto sole child custody order.
These hearings, and the resulting orders, can be arbitrary at best. At Cordell & Cordell, we once had a case where the wife petitioned for a domestic abuse restraining order.
The wife made various false allegations, and we disproved or showed how she did not meet her burden on all of them. The judge found that nothing in the petition was credible or amounted to abuse or threats of abuse.
However, the judge said he watched our client's behavior and found that during the hearing, the client was glaring at his wife. The judge found that behavior to be intimidating to his wife and granted the injunction based on that courtroom behavior being a threat.
Time and time again, I have seen orders of protection treat the man like a criminal when there is no basis for the endangerment claims. These men are law-abiding citizens and great fathers who see their rights challenged or completely vanish in court.
Even if the allegations of abuse are found to be false and the protective order is dismissed at the full hearing, these men are still victimized by the stigma that they are abusers.
Having an order of protection entered against you may affect your criminal history record and many times protective orders are visible on background checks for employment.
So the unnecessary or false orders entered result in persistent damage to the innocent dad's reputation, career prospects, financial status, and his standing in the eyes of his children.
Of course, orders of protection have their place when protecting someone against abuse; no individual, man or woman, should be subjected to this in a relationship. However, this protection is abused and mostly to the benefit of women.
Joseph Cordell is the Principal Partner of Cordell & Cordell, a nationwide domestic litigation firm focused on men's family law matters. Cordell & Cordell also provides a website dedicated to informing men on the divorce process and the challenges they face. Visit http://www.dadsdivorce.com for more information.
Also, the Huffpo moderators are very heavy handed it seems. I've made countless postings that don't even come close to breaking any of the rules and they don't make it on.
this one probably won't either.
In addition the number of single-time claims increased compared with multiple claims. Comparing men and women, there was also a difference in the qualitative nature of the claims. "Interestingly, false abuse claims by wives declined mostly because the plaintiff failed to appear at court, while most false claims by husbands are declined for lack of evidence."
Douglas Allen and Margret Brinig, "Bargaining in the Shadow of Joint Parenting", October, 2005.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=820104
My ex sought one of these at the advise of her attorney. I spent time in the hospital as a result. Is the ex or her lawyer responsible for my hospital fees?
It seems strange that I can't find any data on the number of men who kill themselves after having been served with restraining orders. The suicide experts seem to agree that divorce and separation are on the short list of major risk factors for suicide. But what are the actual numbers?
If we had better information on the topic, we could start deciding whether, in fact, these restraining orders are destroying more lives than they save. Then we could decide whether someone who falsely or frivolously obtained a restraining order could be held responsible for the outcome.
If a person can go to jail for posting mean things on a myspace page, this seems like a slam dunk.
You can direct your praise or ire to me on Twitter @kepanislaw
1) How many men commit suicide after being evicted from their homes and separated from their children by one of these nearly automatically granted restraining orders?
2) How does this figure compare to the number of women who die as a result of homicides performed by their husbands in the absence of any restraining order?
In short, I'd like to compare the death toll of restraining orders, or the lack of them. There's no question that men are much more dangerous to themselves than to women, as evidenced by the 25,000 American male suicides annually compared to 600 women killed by husbands and about 400 killed by boyfriends. That's a 25 to 1 ratio. Please explain to me why there is a moderate-sized federal bureaucracy exclusively devoted to protecting women from male violence while there is no "Office for Preventing Male Suicide" or anything like. Gender bias? What else could it be?
Given that divorce and separation are major risk factors for male suicide, I hypothesize that women kill more men through the medium of divorce than men kill women. Restraining orders that evict men from homes and separate them from children are central to divorce tactics today, as Mr. Cordell has noted.
Dear U.S. Military Command,
My most sincere thanks for your heroic service.
Unfortunately, I must write you here because your service record and you have been slapped in the face by the CORRUPT CLEPTOCRATS in our U.S. government. Many of these CRIMINALS are CORRUPT attorneys who have created a multi-generational profit machine on the backs of the American family.
[NOTE: This posting was shortened to fit here. To HuffPost leadership, please goto my FB pages or contact me directly for full scoop.]
Please help.
Thank You & God Bless America!
Ted
Ted Palmer
P.S.: To the US Military Command, our troops and all patriotic Americans who are fighting to regain the justice, family based economy and dignity of our great nation ... Speed of The Flash (Yes, the comic book hero - He was awesome) to you, and may this song dedication strengthen your resolve ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwNvwIPvJbs
So size is the determining factor? Even if the husband never did anything threatening?
Many of my clients have been abused physically and emotionally but have been unable to obtain protection from abuse orders in their states because there have been no black eyes or broken bones. These women are terrified because they can't prove that there is a real danger for them because there is no visible evidence. They are helpless in their states to obtain protection for what "might" happen. Husband's who make veiled threats tend to cause the most fear. These women can't obtain any support or help in many states until they actually end up in the ER which happens more often than not.
I can't tell you the numbers regarding how many of the PFAs are products of tactical divorce suggestions but I can tell you that most of my clients have not found that the orders are easy to obtain, quite the contrary.
Your post reinforces my opinion that our system needs a major overhaul.
I believe the question should be, "How do we change a system that is so obviously not working?"
Claudia Broome Divorce Coach
Wow so they need real evidence in order to have their husband removed from his home without any belongings and kept away from his kids except for brief supervised visitiation? What is this, the Dark Ages? Why should he have any right to due process?
Possibly you misunderstood my words. I said specifically that there were no black eyes or broken bones. There are many types of abuse that do not show visible evidence. I have had some of my clients who have been held at gunpoint or knife point and told they would be killed if they tried to leave or told anyone. Obviously, this kind of abuse has no visible evidence but it certainly is abuse as I hope you would agree.
I'm not sure where your information regarding a husband who was removed from his home without any belongings and kept away from his kids except for brief supervised visitation came from, certainly not from my comment.
I do agree with you that it appears we are living with an antiquated system that does not work. When the wrong people try cases or defend them or preside over them, there is injustice. Thus my previous question, "How do we change a system that is obviously not working?
Claudia Broome
She may try to provoke/bait.
But if the divorcing husband can't be provoked/baited into doing something stupid, then both the divorcing wife and her plan to use an accusation of abuse to misappropriate/control the children from their father will be frustrated.
There isn't going to be evidence of abuse that hasn't happened. That is going to be a problem for divorcing wife who as part of her divorce strategy wants to characterize her divorcing husband as an abuser.
In such a situation the divorcing wife has limited options: (a) accept that her husband is not abusive and proceed with the divorce in a sensible manner; (b) make up a false accusation of abuse against her husband and see if it will work; (c) claim that her husband "might" do something; and/or assert that some (benign) statement made is a "veiled threat".
---
Abuse is real and it happens. People -- women and men and children -- who are actual abuse victims need protection. Abusers need to be brought to justice.
But false accusations of abuse made in divorce cases are a disservice to the women and men and children who are actual victims of domestic violence/abuse.
False accusations of abuse should be ticketed and referred for criminal prosecution.
Your point, I believe, is that we don't want to punish people who have clearly broken the law because it might scare people who haven't broken the law? A proven false-accusation is just that, proven, not just a belief. That's my complaint with this situation, it seems the individuals acting the most unethically are the ones the system seems to be rewarding for their ill behavior.
Shhe dropped that 5 minutes before the hearing 3 weeks later
Then went to Children's services... claimed a bunch more crap... after almost 2 months of supervised visits once a week, the lady said to me "Why are we here?" And recommended normal visitation.
Then my ex tried to claim se xual abuse of my eldest daughter. Poor child had to have a 'forensic exam'.... which found nothing because it wasn't true... At that point the case worker said to me "Off the record, I think she needs a hobby!"....
And then she decided maybe she wanted to reconcile... because her car died and she wanted me to pay for the replacement....
And she STILL says I don't take responsibility for MY actions?
When I hear another father (or sometimes mother) had to spend $50,000 just to see their kid(s), get joint custody, raise/lower child support, etc...it makes me physically ill. That amount could send two kids to college, start a business, difference between retiring at 60 or 80.
The Family Court/Divorce Industry needs to be scrapped or have the money aspect taken completely out of it...I said I was dreaming...I might as well wish for Public Campaign financing, eh?
In Massachsuetts we campaigning to repeal the MGL 209A (so-called 'Abuse Prevention' law).
If you are a Massachusetts voter your help is needed to end this draconian and discriminatory law.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Repeal-MGL-209A-so-called-Abuse-Prevention-Law/194231560645622
My earlier comment here came down in favor of the system and the women since 3 times as many women than men are killed by angry spouses. This male, divorced twice with no TRO's ever, stands by that - especially since I was accidentally shot by an angry male spouse trying to kill his wife. She had refused my professional advice to get a TRO since she and her family were certain that her husband would never try to harm her.
Although the law (justice) should be blind, I prefer that it not also be stupid.
"Of course, the system should not be so weighted and the men should not be seeking therapy for their abuse through a blog."
You may be right, but what makes you think any of us abused men have a dime left to our names for mental health after years of dealing with divorce,TROs, false accusations of child molestation, alimony, and child support?
As for the RO's, my guess is that they keep law abiding men away from their ex-spouses, but if a guy is really crazy enough to shoot his ex, then no RO will stop him.