Fri
Feb 23 2007
01:34 pm
Stacey X in the House: Wife beater protection act?
By: R. Neal

Stacey X has introduced a pair of interesting bills.

HB995 (PDF format) would require the petitioner (i.e. the person seeking an order of protection) to pay all legal costs if the order of protection is denied.

HB990 (PDF format) would give the respondent (i.e. the person the petitioner is seeking protection from) the right to conduct discovery and to depose the petitioner (the person seeking protection).

Does the second one open up fishing expeditions into matters unrelated to the order of protection and create an opportunity to intimidate the person seeking protection? Does the first one also introduce an element of financial risk that, say, a battered spouse might not be willing or able to take?

Just asking, because I don't know and I haven't studied the law these bills would amend or what problem with the law they are trying to fix.

UPDATE: It occurred to me that the first one might actually be an improvement if the petitioner currently always pays, and this would make it so the respondent has to pay if an order is granted. But I don't know how it works now. Can any lawyers out there explain what this is all about?

UPDATE: Checked the existing law. It says:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the petitioner shall not be required to pay any filing fees, litigation taxes or any other costs associated with the filing, issuance, service or enforcement of an order of protection authorized by this part upon the filing of the petition. The judge shall assess court costs and litigation taxes at the hearing of the petition or upon dismissal of the petition. If the court, after the hearing, issues or extends an order of protection, petitioner's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the respondent.

Here's what Stacey X's bill would make it say:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the petitioner shall not be required to pay any filing fees, litigation taxes or any other costs associated with the filing, issuance, service or enforcement of an order of protection authorized by this part upon the filing of the petition. The judge shall assess court costs and litigation taxes at the hearing of the petition or upon dismissal of the petition. If the court, after the hearing, issues or extends an order of protection, then the petitioner's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the respondent. If the court, after the hearing, dismisses the petition, then the respondent's court costs and attorney fees shall be assessed against the petitioner.

So it looks like under the old law the petitioner only had to pay their own costs if the petition was denied. Now the petitioner would have to pay their own AND the respondent's costs, which could now be even more if they hired expensive lawyers to do $50,000 worth of discovery and depositions.

UPDATE: The third semi-related bill (PDF format) in this trifecta would assess all legal fees of the accused to an accuser if the court finds that the accuser "knowingly" makes false accusations of sexual abuse and the accusations are thrown out, and would also hold the accuser in contempt of court. I suppose "knowingly" is the key here, but again this is a bill that could give an accuser and/or their lawyer pause. And what "the court finds" is a roll of the dice sometimes.

UPDATE: CE Petro already covered this last week. I'm a little behind sometimes.

Topics:
SayUncle's picture

As much as I enjoy picking

Submitted by SayUncle on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 1:54pm.

As much as I enjoy picking on Stacey's bills, I think these don't suck. Orders of protection are given out like matchbooks to anyone who wants them, with little evidence, and mostly based on he-said/she-said nonsense. When couples get divorced, first one to file an order wins.

There are problems with the system and there are legal consequences without due process of law (loss of right to own a firearm, a blip on a security check for a job, etc.).

I'm all for having the respondent be allowed to defend himself. Currently, the system works like this:

Petitioner: i want an order of protection.
Judge (or more commonly some counselor): OK. Sends letter or makes call to respondent who then has to prove he's not a wife-beater.

---
SayUncle
Can't we all just get a long gun?

CE Petro's picture

OP's given out like

Submitted by CE Petro on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 5:20pm.

OP's given out like matchsticks? Bull crap. As I pointed out last weekend, on this bill, the person seeking an OP must produce evidence and witnesses before the OP is granted. Before the court date, an ex parte OP is ordered. At the court date, it is determined if an OP is warranted.

This bill is an attempt to further brutalize women trying to escape an already abusive relationship. that includes emotional and financial abuses as well as physical abuse.

A number of the bills Stacey X filed are part of the "Father's Rights" movement. Trish Wilson has written quite a bit about the Father's Rights movement, (hell, I turn to her when I want to know more about them) and it 'ain't pretty.

R. Neal's picture

Sorry, CE, I missed your

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 6:39pm.

Sorry, CE, I missed your post about that. Thanks.

CE Petro's picture

R. I made the mistake of

Submitted by CE Petro on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 7:00pm.

R. I made the mistake of posting it on a Saturday afternoon.

You hit on several bills I hadn't finished checking into. (making my life easier!)

cdthomas23's picture

995

Submitted by cdthomas23 on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 2:18pm.

I don't know about 990, but 995 seems to make sense to me. For instance, if you for not valid reason (ultimately determined if judge dismisses the petition) drag me to court, then I am forced to pay my legal fees. Now the petitioner would have to pay these costs. Hopefully this would lessen frivilous suits.

The only thing that worries me is that truly battered women may see this as another obstacle in filing.

Craig Thomas
(link...)

talidapali's picture

As a former battered woman...

Submitted by talidapali on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 3:32pm.

if this bill had been in existence as law when I was trying to get free of my abuser...rather than risk the financial burdens if I got a judge that felt I didn't need an order of protection to keep my ex-boyfriend from beating the daylights out of me anytime he felt like it, I would have just used the "frying pan method"...i.e. waited til he was asleep and bashed his brains in with an iron skillet.

Better to spend a ton of money defending a murder charge and KNOWING that he would never beat me again, than to have to fork over a ton of money because I got a judge that believes a woman's place is in the home with her mouth taped shut. And if you think judges like that don't exist, I have some prime land in the extreme southern region of Florida that you might want to take off my hands for a song.
SmileyCentral.com
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"

"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

DavidLeeHiker's picture

Or deposition would expedite the process

Submitted by DavidLeeHiker on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 9:36pm.

Think about this: with a quick deposition, a respondent's lawyer could assess the petitioner's credibility and avoid a trial, avoid the fees if the respondent loses, and submit to the OP without wasting court time.

And with the costs of frivolous OPs being borne by the petitioners with no real case, the courts and police have more time to devote to real victims like yourself.

I'm sorry for your experience. I'd like to use that frying pan for you, as I once broke my hand on a guy's face after he knocked him girlfriend out cold. I'm sorry and no one should go through what you went through.

redmondkr's picture

I would have just used the

Submitted by redmondkr on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 4:00pm.

I would have just used the "frying pan method"...i.e. waited til he was asleep and bashed his brains in with an iron skillet.

There is just one more in a growing list of reasons to love that cast iron.

Come See Us at

The Hill Online

ultron's picture

But who will protect the

Submitted by ultron on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 6:29pm.

But who will protect the dingy white T-shirts?

DavidLeeHiker's picture

Statistics

Submitted by DavidLeeHiker on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 9:27pm.

Here's the situation: Knox County has as many OPs as all other counties in the state combined in a some years, and have averaged about 42% over a 6 year period, according to the Administrator Office of the Courts (AOC). Is Knox County the Wife Beater capital of Tennessee? Is there any evidence that our domestic violence rate is any different than the rest of the state?

These numbers put a huge strain on the police who must serve each warrant, and on the clerks office who rarely collects the costs from usually broke respondents. This costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions. (This would be a great investigative story, if one could get the data from the Knox County clerk's office.)

And then there are stories, such as the wife who got an OP because because her husband wouldn't have sex with her. The 2 year old girl who got an OP against her mom. (I defended that Mom, successfully, as the Grandmother abused the OP system to avoid juvenile jurisdiction by taking out the OP in the name of 2 year old.) Or the "female impersonator" kicked out of his muscular boyfriend's home on the same day the ex parte OP was signed. Was the muscular boyfriend really afraid of the "female impersonator"? (At trial, he admitted he wasn't.)

Let's be honest. Abusers need to be "hit hard." (I guess that's a bad pun.) "Hit hard" is what the OP statutes contemplate by giving the plenary powers to Judges. There is no excuse for any violence, any threat, any imtimidation. None.

Likewise, there's no excuse for abusing the system. If Representative Campfield's intent is to limit the abuse, and give some due process rights to respondents, then I applaud him.

OPs are used in Knox County in lieu of eviction actions, in lieu of "dependency and neglect" petitions, in lieu of custody actions, and in lieu of child support actions. Just file it, and you've got the kids, child support, the house, and all you did is get to the court house first. Thus the "first to file wins" rule of Knox County domestic practice.

Often, spouses each file OPs against the other and both get granted. Neither pays court costs.

As I read bill giving the right to discovery in an OP, the lawyer (not the respondent) asks the questions, via telephone.

Another problem not addressed by any of these bills is the pecular practice in Knox County making the petition for the OP secret. By law, the petition is a public document, although the subsequent documents are not public. I've tested this by visiting all the surrounding counties and asking to randomly see the OPs. Try that in Knox, and you will find that you can't. (Very embarrassing if the 'denial of sex' OP saw the light of day.)

I respect Rep. Campfield for trying to make the system better.

PS: This discussion does not benefit from name calling. One blogger called him "A misogynist miscreant who would rather have living children suffer while promoting barbaric male domination." (That makes me laugh, because I know Stacy and know that he is a nice guy.) He is also a tireless campaigner who has listend to far more people complain about OPs in Knox County than anyone else.

CE Petro's picture

Fathers Rights

Submitted by CE Petro on Sat, 2007/02/24 - 10:37am.

The Fathers Rights movement has been pretty strong in a number of countries: UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Canada and the US. At least one group in Australia is considered terroristic in nature, using para-military tactics, and the UK group was basically forced to disband due when some of their harrassing tactics were brought to the forefront (the plot to kidnap Blair's son). It's my understanding that the movement has been around for more than 30 years in the US (and the rest of these countries).

CE Petro's picture

Abusing the system is a

Submitted by CE Petro on Sat, 2007/02/24 - 9:56am.

Abusing the system is a subjective assessment. Is a woman that _feels_ threatened abusing the system when she asks for an OP? The feeling of being threatened is considered abusive. After the ex parte OP is granted, the petitioner and respondent must appear in court to determine if the OP should be granted. There, the petitioner must provide evidence and witnesses to substantiate the claim. Deposing the petitioner looks (and reads) to me to be a tactic meant to further intimidate someone that is trying to escape intimidation.

Like it or not, Stacey X is a public figure. Being in the state legislature, he will be judged by the bills he promotes, ie files. When one promotes legislation that is designed to intimidate, denigrate, and otherwise treat one segment of the population differently than the rest of the population at large, he will be assessed thusly. That's part of politics. I could care less if you think he is as cuddly as a teddy bear...his record (filed bills) tells me otherwise. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion.

DavidLeeHiker's picture

What if women wanted due process?

Submitted by DavidLeeHiker on Sat, 2007/02/24 - 1:33pm.

Most of my domestic clients are women. (I have about 10 domestic clients, 6 women, and am in touch with about 5 more women who can fill your ears with stories.) If you would like to learn about how OPs are abused, I can and will gladly introduce you to WOMEN who were victimized both by controlling husbands and OPs.

I want to tell three stories, all of this is from PUBLIC sources.

For example: Mother A is the secondary parent of 4 kids. When she wishes to have her kids pursuant to the Permanent Parenting Plan (PPP), ex-husband takes out an OP and she is threatened with jail if she comes to the house to get her kids. She has not seen kids for 5 years. This is gut wrenching. (You can sit down and quiz her, and I will personally buy lunch for you two as a peace offering.)

Mother B has two kids from a prior marriage that she is raising. Second husband gets an OP because 'he felt threatend' during an exchange of their baby girl at the park. During mediation with second husband, Mother B was told she was going to jail if she didn't agree to be secondary parent and pay support on the baby. She consented as she is raising two other kids, and ex-husband then refused any coparenting for a year, in violation of the PPP.) Mother B employed me (the meager retainer was given back to her, and I've worked on her case for two years thereafter without pay) and we filed for contempt. Second husband then proceeded to file THREE bogus sex abuse juvenile petitions, all of which were investigated and thrown out. Mother B spent $500 on a lie detector at one point. (Again, you are encouraged to sit down, and listen to this story. I can not do this situation justice.)

Mother C had four kids with a Muslim man who routinely beat her. She was not allowed out of the home. Finally, she broke free. He beat each of the children, and I've personally seen the scars on one child. She went to school and started working, and thus didn't need support which he will never pay. During the divorce, he got an OP. He would call her, and she would call him back - a violation of the OP. He prosecuted her for contempt. She was sentenced to 40 days in jail, but served 11 or so until another judge let her out when the first judge went on vacation.

Eventually, even the original judge refused any more crap from this guy, and they started to get along after about two or three years. She was let into his home by their mutual son, and she put food in his refrig so her boys would have food. His power was cut off, and she let him stay on her couch. They were getting along, but he listened to her voice mail messages and learned she was dating. So he got her indicted on burglary and theft charges. (She entered his home to put the food inside the refrig at the invite of their son.) I tried the felony criminal charge for her (without payment), and she was acquitted. Luckily, we got discovery in criminal court. Again, you can sit down with her.

Frankly, this is not a man against woman thing. It's about manipulators and con-artists against people who are more naive and trusting. And I've said many times that reform will come to the domestic courts when women (not men) speak out about the abuse of the system.

Have you heard of 'hospital acquired pnuemonia'? It's the most deadly pnuemonia because the bacteria are resistant to antibiotics. There is new sub-group of abusers (men and women) who are immune to the abbreviated and streamlined checks of the OP system. This new sub-group (a minority of the OP petitioners) is eroding the system.

The petitioner NEED NOT produce witnesses to justify an OP. Most domestic violence is hidden, and why should a victim have to produce witnesses? It would be more humiliation, and would make burden greater.

For the record, there's a Senate Bill #1100 that also would grant limited discovery, via telephone, by a lawyer, of an OP petitioner, so this isn't only Campfield's idea. It's a broader idea.

Treehouse's picture

Stacey the girl hater

Submitted by Treehouse on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 9:35pm.

I don't know how Stacey "X" came about but I do know he must be so traumatized by his girly first name that he now hates all women. Knox County government and Tennessee state government are already so embarassing that it's hard to top, but Stacey X is dangerous. His swagger and macho bill-proposing are real threats to women and children in this state. He has no understanding of reality for abused women, children and their mothers, nor the fear of men like him and the powerful legal and government systems. This is not funny. We all need to stand up and call bullshit on his efforts at intimidation.

Andy Axel's picture

I guess he has a

Submitted by Andy Axel on Fri, 2007/02/23 - 10:55pm.

I guess he has a mandate....

Mandates will be outlawed soon enough.

____________________________

Recursive blogwhore.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives