Without looking at evidence judge accuses mother of lying, court won't uphold restraining order, man murders son
feministing.com/archives/019920.htmlPosted Feb 9, 2010, 12:06 AM UTC
424
feministing.com
- Why did I have to click through feministing.com --> curvature.com --> Hi-Desert Star to get the story? Can we please direct link to sources instead of useless inflammatory blog spam.
-
Restraining orders are always going to be a tricky problem. There is no perfect solution. Particularly in multiple issue cases like this. Custody disputes are ugly, messy affairs. The judge's likely did the best they could with the information they had before them. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight isn't.
-
I don't really have a problem with this submission, but this isn't strictly an equality issue. I do however take issue with the submission title - it is factually inaccurate and needlessly inflammatory.
9
This is bordering on mbb. If you want to discuss sexism in the courts, it is best to post to a discussion. overview, or study of sexism in the courts, or other evidence. One instance tellls us nothing.
There will always be two types of error in any system: false positives and false negatives.
9
False accusations hurt real victims.
1
I get concerned when there's a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there's some violence in between. It raises the court's eyebrows because based on my experience, it's a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other
At least he acknowledged this. Its a lot better than just blindly upholding a restraining order during a custody dispute.
This would have never happened had their been a 50/50 split with no child support (no one needs to pay because we are all equals)
This is a very sad story. Sadly the guilt will probably lead him to blindly uphold all restraining orders going forward
1
"the larger issue of a system that perpetuates the notion that women simply can't be trusted."
FAIL.
The reason this happened is that women so routinely claim domestic violence that judges can no longer rely on it. The justice system has so long perpetuated the notion that men simply can't be trusted that judges are finally starting to wake up.
This happened because of female privilege.
-3
The reason this happened is that women so routinely claim domestic violence that judges can no longer rely on it.
You make a good point, and get downvoted for it. Are females downvoting you so fucking dumb that they can't see how false allegations harm real victims?
-1
waiting for the comments "this doesn't belong to Equality" and "men are victims of domestic violence too!"
because obviously, men are victims here. and them feminists are EBIL! /sarcasm
-10
I have to admit, it's refreshing to be re affirmed that it's not only men who get screwed over when it comes to courts and children, as someone who reads reddit may be lead to believe.
Im sure the judge was just trying to do what he thought was fair for an innocent father, but he should have looked more into the situation. His mistake cost a child's life.
7
Yes, I think that there is a serious case of confirmation bias going on with the "men are treated unfairly by the courts" belief. You can find examples of men and women being screwed over by the courts. Individual examples don't tell us much.
We can see that the criminal system favors women, because there's lots of data and levels of crimes and strictly defined statutes make it easy to compare the oranges to the oranges.
Family court is another matter. There is not a lot of data. We know that men who bring custody cases are self selecting: only 10% of cases are contested and in most uncontested cases wife takes custody. We don't know exactly how they are selecting and what effect this should have on outcomes. This makes it difficult to look for sexism in family court outcomes. I think the first step is to study these fathers that are not contesting custody, so we have a better picture of this group and how it is self selecting. This will not only allow us to better study sexism in the family court, but will lead to better understanding of the largest barrier between fathers and custody: their reluctance to contest.
Another complicating factor to such a study is that laws vary by state, so any national study would need to be conducted state by state. This makes it more difficult to collect a good data set.
6
Pre-emptive complaining really doesn't help anything.
5
I think this tragedy could have been avoided if the process for granting restraining orders was fair (and constitutional).
I think this is one of those cases where both MRA's and feminists can agree: the judge probably has seen so many bogus restraining orders that he got used to ignoring them.
Sadly, I have the feeling that this incident will be used to justify granting even more restraining orders without any (due) process at all, making them even more meaningless, and depriving even more children from their loving fathers.
I don't think that's the problem. Throughout most of the civil system judges see mostly "bogus" claims.
Judges are good at looking for the one out of forty or twenty claims that are legitimate.
This was just a case of error in the system. Errors will happen, in any system.
FTA:
Yes, but I disagree. I think the judge is rationalizing the mistake. It is easier for judges to accept such mistakes if they can point to a cause, here the common dilemma of persons using restraining orders as tools in custody cases.
He said that before the incident.
I'd say it's pretty fair until you get other people into the mix. Honestly, I think that if a single person wants a single person to stay away from them, they have every right to get a court order to do so, but when it effects kids and the like, things get complicated.
Yes. Or a house or a job...
That's why I never date anyone from work, or let a girlfriend move in with me. All it takes is one fight, one call to 911, one automatic arrest, one automatic restraining order and bam: you're homeless!
Same for your job: if you get slapped with a restraining order , you can't work in the same company any more...
I say, better be safe than sorry! (and yes, it's pretty sad that it has come to this)
Dude, does your tinfoil hat protect you against the voices trying to get inside as well?
Few people realize that a 911 DV call triggers a chain of events that, due to "zero tolerance" laws leaves officials very little flexibility to handle the situation:
the police officers are required to arrest someone when responding to a DV call ("mandatory arrest" laws)
the alleged "victim" is required to testify
the judge is required to issue a "no-contact" order, at least until the case is heard (which can take several months)
Here is a newspaper article describing how it works out in real-life:
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-10-31/news/how-the-cops-and-courts-turn-abused-spouses-into-voiceless-victims/1
So yes, in many jurisdictions one 911 call = one restraining order = one homeless guy. I think if someone is wearing a tinfoil hat, it is the morons who are writing these laws!
Thats why you buy a house before letting a girl move in, that way you can evict her ass and file your own restraining order to speed it up.
Agreed, but there are a few problems. I've seen them used as chips in custody battles. If restraining orders are too easy to get, they can be used as effective tools for manipulation of the system.
Laws are also region-specific and vague about situations where the restraining order is used for harassment. Suppose I want to intimidate another person. Not only do I not look like the aggressor if an altercation occurs, but I can completely disrupt the life of that person by simply visiting the same places they frequent. They would be required to leave.
Lastly we have the problem that tomek is describing. The courts get swamped, orders aren't taken seriously, and they stop being enforced.
For these reasons, I think property trespass notices are usually more sensible.
um...how is the process of restraining order unconstitutional and what jurisdiction are you referring to?
http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/no_restraint_on_restraining_orders.htm