Over the years, hundreds of women have contacted National Organization for Women chapters looking for assistance in their efforts to protect minor children in family court custody proceedings. Often these women have been accused of a phony psychiatric condition, termed Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). The “disorder” has been proposed by so-called father’s rights (men’s custody) activists to be added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual – V to give it more legitimacy than it currently has — or should have — in court.

This accusation is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers’ claims of fathers’ physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers’ full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. (See link below)

The notion of a parental alienation in custody disputes was advanced by the late Dr. Richard Gardner who committed suicide in 2003. The alienation accusation has been embraced by men’s custody activists as an effective weapon to undermine mothers’ bid for legal custody of minor children. Many advocates on behalf of mothers believe that batterers, child abusers and pedophiles populate these men’s custody networks. There have been numerous instances of documented batterers and child abusers being awarded custody by biased family court judges.

NOW Foundation has sent a letter recently to the American Psychiatric Association noting that publications by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have concluded proposed “alienation disorder” is inadmissible in court and has been discredited by the scientific community. Accordingly, family court judges, lawyers and other court personnel should take action against the use of the alienation accusation in cases before them. Read NOW Foundation’s letter (PDF) and for more information on family court issues, go to the family law website.

More information on fathers and ex-partners involved in child custody or child support matters who have killed children, murdered mothers and/or committed suicide, please visit this website.

From the NOW Foundation

The next Supreme Court nominee should be a woman. Agree or disagree?

Agreed! And not just any woman — we need a justice who understands that women’s rights are human rights, and that our fundamental freedoms cannot legitimately be taken away by any legislature. While both men and women should have equal respect, women and men do not have the same bodies. We are different genders that need to be represented as such while respecting our human rights to be free to make our own decisions, live without a guardian, and more.

Out of 111 Supreme Court justices in history, only three have been women. Today, only two of the nine Supreme Court justices are women! In fact, women make up less than one-quarter of federal and well under one-third of state-level judgeships — despite the fact that nationally, women make up 48 percent of law school graduates.

At 17 percent of Congress, less than 20 percent of state governorships, and two out of nine Supreme Court justices, women are nowhere near to equal representation. How long will it take for women to see themselves represented in equitable proportion on our nation’s highest court?

We need equal for all women everywhere - in Congress, state governorships and legislatures and on the Supreme Court — where we belong. What we really need is to have government fully be equal by having one male and one female senator from each state and each district should have one man and one women as a representative. Only then can women have any chance of having their rights both represented and protected.

President Obama has advocated for women to have reservation in India so that women’s rights can be represented in Parliament there. What about representation for women here in the United States? Only two women on the Supreme Court does not represent that about half of the population of the United States are women. Contact President Obama and tell him that the United States has both men and women, and women need to be represented as such in judicial, legislative and executive positions. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Watch the Dr. Phil Show this Wednesday, April 14th, 2010, for some history-making television!

The Dr. Phil Show worked with Kathleen Russell on behalf of the Center for Judicial Excellence to develop a compelling show that exposes the systemic breakdown of our nation’s family courts. The tragic story of a young mother named Katie Tagle sets the stage for a deeper conversation about the divorce courts’ routine failures to protect children. Kathleen Russell and Marin family law attorney Barbara Kauffman appear as experts in the 2nd half of the show.

Click here to find your local Dr. Phil station & airtimes.

The taping of this show represents an amazing turn of events in the media’s coverage of this growing national crisis. Don’t miss it!

Bizarre quote from abuse denier Richard Gardner

Parental Alienation Awareness Day represents the epitome of disease mongering  and propaganda. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the faux mental illness created by abuse denier and pedophile sympathizer Richard Gardner. The promoters of Parental Alienation Awareness Day might as well be promoting “Family Sex Day” as the pedophile communities love this fake mental illness for pathologizing and criminalizing anyone who dares to protect a child from any type of abuse. Claiming a child has Parental Alienation patholizes children for disclosing abuse implying that the victim is a mentally ill and/or a liar. The sexual abusers benefit the most as sexual abuse is so difficult to prove as there is frequently no physical evidence and it is embarrassing for the victims to disclose. The Australian Shared Parenting Debate has published an article listing known pedophile organizations who support Parental Alienation theories:

• Reform Sex Offender Laws Campaign
• Alt.support.boy-lovers
• BoyChat
• IPCE
• NAMBLA
• SOhopeful International

From Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate – Thursday, April 8, 2010

Parent Alienation Awareness Day

If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, “Abusers Awareness Day,” no one would help champion their goals.

There needs to be a little bit of propaganda to blanket their true goals.

Richard Gardner gave them that blanket by promoting ideas that society should punish those to speak against abuse as, “sick” and “requiring therapy”. He coined the term, “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. Appalled by the pro-pedophile material that was circulated on a large scale, researchers on child abuse and family violence worked even harder to debunk this content and for many years it has been frequently rejected by the American Psychology Association as a Syndrome. Regardless of the theory being discredited, it has still been used on court cases all over the world including a case where it was a defense for a brutal murder of a mother. Some backyard psychologists have even held workshops about, “Maternal Gate-keeping” and others have promoted theories such as, “Malicious Mother Syndrome.”

Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop “false accusers” despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.

Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.

Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser’s causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.

Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.

Here is a list of links from confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/digest.php

http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.support.boylovers/parent-alienation_s.html

http://www.boychat.org/messages/1195439.htm

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

http://pedophileophobia.com/Richard%20Gardner.htm

http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm

http://www.sohopeful.org/intl/facts/files/Investigative%20System/IPT%20Journal%20Manipulating%20the%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20System.pdf

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (p. 537)

Glenn Sacks the National Executive Director of Fathers & Families has been known to target victims of abuse, such as the Collins family, and instigate mob mentality with his misinformation. Now he has sent a personal message to Parenting News Network™:

From: Glenn Sacks
Date: Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Subject: for Trish Wilson

From: Glenn Sacks
Subject: for Trish Wilson

Message Body:
Trish–Nice to see you back in the family law business. As for “Maryland delegates have been lobbied hard by fathers’ and men’s rights activists, most notably Glenn Sacks and Fathers And Families,” as a mere point of fact, this is untrue–we didn’t do anything on the Maryland bill. Simmons’ op-ed makes sense to me, and we probably should have done something, but there are only so many hours in a day and sometimes things get missed.

How is your son–is he in college now?

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks, MA
National Executive Director,
Fathers & Families
www.FathersandFamilies.org
Email: GlennSacks@FathersandFamilies.org

Parenting News Network™ found that Glenn Sacks seems to be splitting hairs as the following information is on Fathers & Families website:

Fathers & Families’ Holstein Discusses DV Restraining Order Bill on Ron Smith Show in Baltimore

March 16th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1983

Fathers & Families‘ Dr. Ned Holstein discussed a bill regarding domestic violence restraining orders on The Ron Smith Show on WBAL AM 1090 in Baltimore on Wednesday.

A recent vote in the Maryland House of Delegates upheld by a narrow margin a law that keeps recipients of Temporary Restraining Orders in a computer registry even though a judge has dismissed or denied the TRO.

Holstein explained the effects of the law–people who had been cleared are being denied jobs and/or housing because they’re being kept in the computer registry.

From the Baltimore Sun’s Delegate shares personal story of domestic abuse (3/11/09):

Delegate Luiz R.S. Simmons, a Montgomery County Democrat and trial attorney, sponsored the bill.

He said that when temporary protective orders, which judge’s grant after hearing only from the accuser, don’t materialize as final orders, it is only fair to wipe away the public record of the court hearings.

“The question before the House is: Innocent until proven guilty – do we believe in it?” Simmons said.

Simmons argued that the civil orders are “the equivalent of criminal records” and can be viewed by potential employers and landlords. Even if removed from public view, Simmons said, police officers and courts would have maintained access to the records. He said it was time for lawmakers to address the problem of false accusations of domestic violence.

Of the more than 17,000 temporary protective orders granted last year in Maryland, about 9,000 were made final, said Del. Joseph F. Vallario, a Democrat representing Calvert and Prince George’s counties and a proponent of Simmons’ bill.

Simmons was 100% correct but the delegates were apparently swayed by Delegate Cheryl D. Glenn’s emotional appeal based on abuse she claimed she suffered at the hands of her deceased husband 30 years ago.

Simmons should be commended–to contact him, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Baltimore Sun, click here.

For additional information on the Bill, see the Washington Post’s Md. Domestic Violence Bill Splits Female Lawmakers (3/15/09). Notice how the article focuses on female legislators’ apparent hesitance to break with their feminist sisters, as opposed to recognizing the appalling number of innocent men who are victimized by the current restraining order system.

To email reporter Rosalind S. Helderman, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor, click here.

Glenn Sacks and Fathers & Families do appear to have asked people to lobby Maryland Delegate Luiz Simmons regarding legislation that relates to restraining orders in 2009. They may not have posted a new message in 2010, but the old message was still there letting batterers know who they should contact in Maryland’s legislature regarding domestic violence legislation.

This is just one more example of Glenn Sacks misleading communications. With this proof of the actions of the “Abuser’s Lobby” at work, please be sure to contact your legislators and let them know that domestic violence and child abuse are serious problems and that groups like Fathers and Families have an agenda to cover up abuse and enforce patriarchal domination on women and children.

The House Of Ruth and the Women’s Law Center of Maryland have filed complaints with a panel that disciplines the judiciary, asking it to investigate a Baltimore County Judge G. Darrell Russell Jr. who performed a wedding ceremony between a woman and the man accused of beating her, and then acquitted him. County Chief Judge Ben C. Clyburn has already reassigned Judge Russell to paperwork duty on civil cases after learning of the incident so that he will no longer hear domestic violence cases.

On March 10, a 29-year-old Middle River man, Frederick D. Wood, appeared in an Essex courtroom on a charge that he had beaten his fiancée, 27-year-old Shelly Pearl Say. Wood’s lawyer’s suggested that the victim could not be compelled to testify against her husband. The judge collaborated with the defendant and his counsel allowing Wood to obtain a marriage license. The judge also volunteered to perform the wedding ceremony himself, and married the couple later that day in his chambers. Russell found Wood not guilty after the newlywed wife invoked marital privilege so that she would not have to testify against Wood about allegations that he beat her on Nov. 29.

Whatever the reasoning for Say going along with this plan, be it coercion, co-dependence, or trauma bonding, the judge was obligated to follow the law that a crime had been committed. With a judge willing to marry the couple it certainly placed the victim in an awkward position. Shelly Pearl Say has two children with Wood. Did this factor into this judge’s actions?

Judge G. Darrell Russell Jr. is a member of the St. Thomas More Society. The St. Thomas More Society of Maryland was established in 1958 as a local guild of Roman Catholic lawyers looking to stimulate the practice of principled precepts in the formulation and administration of law. One of the Society’s activities includes annual sponsorship of a votive Mass of the Holy Spirit, historically known as a “Red Mass,” at which Divine guidance is asked for those discharging their responsibility in the legal profession. One homily of the Red Mass discussing marriage may give some insight as to this judge’s mixture of religious beliefs affecting his decision making:

Red Mass Homily

Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien

October 25, 2007 ~ Basilica of the Assumption, Baltimore 

The Gospel read last Sunday in Catholic and many protestant churches offers an appropriate springboard for this Red Mass, at which it is my singular privilege to officiate and to offer a few simple thoughts. It is the Gospel we’ve just heard, featuring of all persons, a judge whom Jesus considers is unworthy of his office. Unworthy, because he is cold-hearted. He manifests as much in his treatment of the poor widow, and in his double profession that he neither fears God, nor respects people. There is the clear implication that his rejection of God’s dominion and his failure of respect for his fellow man are connected. Let me say this at this point . . . that while I don’t yet know many of you, I am confident that neither this judge nor any of his successors in office are with us this evening. And so while I would hope that you will take the Gospel lesson seriously, I also hope that you will not take it personally. 

Increasingly, our secular society urges us to separate our belief in God from our contemplation of our rights and responsibilities and those of our brothers and sisters in citizenship. Yet I would say to you that it is not un-American to claim that God and the laws of God must be granted a role in the operation of America’s institutions. In the very beginning of our Declaration of Independence we read that our system of government must be rooted “in the laws of nature and nature’s God.” These laws, naturally perceived and fundamental for the common good, were seen by most of our founding fathers as being enshrined in religion, broadly understood perhaps, but clearly reflected in the biblically based faith groups of the time. 

Justice William O. Douglas’ declaration that we Americans are “a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,” nicely complements the counsel of our first president: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,” Washington said, “religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man [call himself a patriot] who [would] labor to subvert these . . . firmest props of the duties of men and citizens . . . .” And so, said Washington, “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” 

Your presence here this evening – women and men who have committed yourselves to the rule of law and devoted yourselves in its pursuit — gives our Church the chance to express our admiration and gratitude for the sacrifices you make to keep strong the basic structure of our democracy. Daily in our churches and in our hearts we respond to the exhortation of St. Paul to Timothy (2:1-2):

First of all, I urge that petitions, prayer, intercessions and thanksgiving be offered for all those in authority, that we may be able to lead undisturbed and tranquil lives in perfect piety and dignity. In a formal way we offer just such petitions, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving on your behalf at this Red Mass, as together we mark the start of the juridical year. 

This occasion also offers me, a newcomer hereabouts, but not the less zealous in promoting the “political prosperity, religion and morality” of the good people of Maryland, to share my deep concern for the sacred institution of marriage, radically threatened, in my opinion, by the inclinations of some courts of law and not a few legislatures to apply the legal status of marriage to relationships between persons of the same sex. My own opinion in this matter, I think it fair to say, is widely shared by a great many people of faith, no matter their denomination – people who believe that our laws, all our laws, especially those which so directly affect the human person, properly should be rooted “in the laws of nature and nature’s God.” 

In the view of the American Catholic bishops, marriage between one man and one woman, with a view toward family, is a basic human and social institution . . . indeed, the most basic of such institutions. True, the institution of marriage is regulated by civil law and church law, but it preceded them both. It originated from neither, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter its basic meaning and structure. Marriage, whose nature and purpose are established by God, can only be the union of a man and woman. The law should not have it otherwise. Indeed, that marriage is a joining of man and woman, involving the gift of offspring has been the cherished standard of Western culture time-immemorial. 

Of all human relationships, Western law has always regarded marriage with special significance and accorded to it special privileges. In doing so, it has reflected the universally accepted understanding that healthy marriages require the protection of law if our culture is to promote the welfare of its future generations. To be sure, the campaign to fundamentally change the legal meaning and cultural significance of this central social unit is vigorous and determined, and has influential adherents. One prays that the pressures brought to bear by these formidable forces, . . .or by the high emotion generated by the marriage debate, . . . or by the temptation of political expedience will not cause our lawmakers or our justice system to enable such a change. And so, to you respected jurists, counselors, and law enforcers and especially to all our Catholic people, many of whom are increasingly perplexed by a fiery debate that too often admits more smoke than light, permit my making these several summary points: 

• At a time when family life is under significant stress, the principled defense of marriage is an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the wellbeing of children, and the common good of society. (USCCB) In short, the future of our society is forged in today’s families, and marriage is the foundation of the family.

• While many of our fellow citizens might not take as seriously as we do, biblical and doctrinal truths in rejecting same sex marriage, most want our legislatures to maintain the privileged juridical status for traditional marriage.

• To redefine marriage to respond to secularist, nontraditional standards; e.g., as simply a sincere commitment to love each other for life or to achieve mutual fulfillment, satisfaction and happiness is to open the way, in principle, to a host of other “marital” friendships, thus rendering the very uniqueness of marriage meaningless.

• Our position will be open to fierce attack by extremists. 

While we are unconditionally opposed to same-sex marriage, we must unconditionally condemn unjust discrimination against homosexual persons whose dignity as daughters and sons of God we must accept, respect and defend. Finally, men and women of justice, the contentious political atmosphere of this and of many other social issues as they relate to modern jurisprudence, might make sincere and objective dialogue difficult in the months ahead. Whether our Constitution demands the judge to discover and remain faithful to its authors, or whether today’s judiciary should look to the law with fresh contemporary insights to enrich the Constitution’s moral evolution, please do not sacrifice individual human dignity or sacred marital unity without reconsidering those timeless words of our Declaration of Independence: let our justice and its regard for this bedrock social institution of marriage be rooted “in the laws of God and nature’s God.” 

Post-Communion Announcement 

Permit this final word to the members of the St. Thomas More Society: I am heartened by the presence of your organization in our Archdiocese. As I trust you have high expectations for me, I want you to know that I expect much of you. I look forward to working with an organization in every way worthy of its patron…as zealous in the faith as it is committed to the rule of law and active involvement in the public square. I look forward to your counsel, your central involvement in the life of our Archdiocese, and your support.

We don’t know whether Judge G. Darrell Russell Jr. attended this particular service of the Red Mass, but he does list his association with the St. Thomas More Society, which mixes church and state, on the Maryland State Archive website. The United States government is supposed to have a separation of church and state, but this organization seems to be based on mixing church and state together. Just as Sharia law subjugates women to men, patriarchal religious views cannot be allowed to subject women to abuse. We don’t know if Judge Russell is using religious belief to keep these people together, or if he just doesn’t think that wife-beating is a crime, or if he just has no common sense. Whatever the reason for his lack of judgment, he does not belong on the bench.

Luiz R. S. Simmons, Democrat, District 17, Montgomery County, MD

Maryland delegate Luiz Simmons’ op-ed in the Washington Post has revealed that he is more concerned with the rights of accused batterers than he is with the welfare of abused women. He has written at length about so-called false allegations of abuse. I know he and other Maryland delegates have been lobbied hard by fathers’ and men’s rights activists, most notably Glenn Sacks and Fathers And Families. Hence the preponderance of propaganda about allegedly rampant false allegations of abuse, especially in divorce and contested custody cases.

Here are the facts about about protective orders. It’s a myth that false allegations of abuse are rampant, and it’s about time Maryland delegates, especially Simmons, were made aware of the truth. Here’s what I wrote in comments to his op-ed.

Del. Simmons is overly concerned with false allegations of abuse. The truth is that bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare. They account for only about 8% of all allegations of domestic violence. These facts have been overshadowed by propaganda coming from father’s and men’s rights activists in Maryland who say that false allegations of domestic violence are rampant, especially in custody cases, and that women frequently file for protective orders in order to gain an upper hand in divorce. None of this propaganda is true.

Please see these excerpts from papers about domestic violence and protective orders for the facts about both:

Rita Smith (NCADV) and Pamela Coukos (PCADV), “Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations”, The Judges Journal, Fall 1997, Pp. 38-56:

“(…) Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent. (…)

–__–__–

MYTH: Restraining Orders Are Easy To Get.

All A Woman Need Do Is Lie Or State That
She Is Afraid,
 And She Can Force An
Innocent Man Out Of His Own Home

The WBA Law Journal

May, 1999, Vol. III No. 1

Why Attorneys Should Routinely

Screen Clients for Domestic Violence
By Pauline Quirion, Esq.

Excerpts:

In the recent landmark decision, Custody of Vaughn, the Supreme Judicial Court has observed that “[t]he very frequency of domestic violence . . . may have the effect of inuring courts to it and thus minimizing its significance.” A 1994 study of batterers based on the database used to track restraining orders concluded that:

[t]he high frequency with which RO’s [sic] are issued might lead some
skeptics to assume that these orders are granted too easily for minor
 offenses and almost any man is at risk of being a defendant. The data 
from the new RO database in Massachusetts reflect otherwise. Men
 against whom RO’s have been used are clearly not a random draw
 from the population. They are likely to have a criminal history, often
reflective of violent behavior toward others.

Research suggests that false reports of family violence occur infrequently. Although many believe that women especially will lodge false charges of child abuse or battering against their spouses in an effort to manipulate or retaliate, the rate of false reports in these circumstances is no greater than for other crimes.

Most batterers minimize and deny the frequency and severity of their abusive conduct. Similarly, victims often underreport and may minimize the abuse. They may be embarrassed or fear that disclosure will lead to retaliation by the abuser, financial hardship or personal stigma. In addition, some practitioners fail to appreciate that abuse cuts across all class lines and stereotype abuse victims as primarily indigent. These dynamics make it easy for an untrained practitioner to gloss over information pointing to domestic violence and which may be relevant to a client’s case or continued safety.

–__–__–

The next time a bill is introduced to Maryland legislators that will bring the state in compliance with the rest of the states when it comes to protective orders, may women’s lives be taken more seriously so that the bill passes.

Comments are open so post your thoughts on what Del. Simmons had to say about protective orders in Maryland.

Washington Post – Sunday, March 7, 2010: AS EXPECTED, the Maryland House Judiciary Committee wrongly killed a bill on Thursday that would have made it easier for victims of domestic violence to obtain protective orders. H.B. 700 would have brought Maryland into conformance with the practices of every other state in the country. As an election-year service to voters, here is the 15 to 6 vote:

Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George’s) did not vote, as is the general practice.

Against: Curtis S. Anderson (D-Baltimore), Benjamin S. Barnes (D-Prince George’s), Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore), Frank M. Conaway Jr. (D-Baltimore), Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), William J. Frank (R-Baltimore County), J.B. Jennings (R-Baltimore County), Kevin Kelly (D-Allegany), Gerron S. Levi (D-Prince George’s), Tony McConkey (R-Anne Arundel), Victor R. Ramirez (D-Prince George’s), Samuel I. Rosenberg (D-Baltimore), Todd L. Schuler (D-Baltimore County), Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) and Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil).

For: Kathleen M. Dumais (D-Montgomery), Benjamin F. Kramer (D-Montgomery), Susan C. Lee (D-Montgomery), Susan McComas (R-Harford), Kriselda Valderrama (D-Prince George’s) and Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher (D-Montgomery).

Remind Maryland lawmakers that domestic violence victims will not forget how they have been pushed to the side once again. Here are links to information and contact info on the legislators who voted against this important bill.

Michael Smigiel Sr.
Todd Schuler
Samuel Rosenberg
Victor Ramirez
Tony McConkey
Gerron Levi
Kevin Kelly
J. B. Jennings
William Frank
Donald Dwyer Jr.
Frank Conaway Jr.
Jill Carter
Benjamin Barnes
Curtis Anderson
Luiz Simmons

The bodies of the Castillo children - Anthony, Austin and Athena - were found in a hotel room March 30. Their father killed them after their mom was denied protection by Judge Joseph A. Dugan Jr . (Family Photo)

Despite the fact that more often than not victims of violent crimes are killed by someone they know rather than a stranger, the lawmakers in Maryland don’t seem to want to make it any easier for the victims to be protected. Once again Maryland has the chance to do what every other state in the country does in affording protections to victims of domestic abuse. There is a proposal being debated in the General Assembly that would ease the draconian standards for obtaining protective orders. Unfortunately, the prospects are not good for this to pass. The lawmakers need to wake up to the reality that their refusal to put in place sensible safeguards endangers lives and makes Maryland a national disgrace.

The House and Senate are considering bills that would change the standard of proof needed to grant a final protective order. The bills, H.B.700 by Del. C. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick) and S.B.823 by Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery), would replace the current standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of the evidence” the same as the rest of the country. Maryland is the only state that uses this higher standard when victims — most often women — seek orders to protect themselves and their children from their alleged abusers. In all other civil matters, Maryland courts require only a preponderance of evidence.

There are fears by some opponents that this would somehow lead to careless decisions based on false charges, rather than concern for those who are in danger. These fears are unfounded because judges would still be able to assess the credibility of any claim, but they would have more discretion in reaching a decision which could help save lives. Instead of being restricted by there being no doubt about a petitioner being in danger, the court would be able to use the more reasonable standard of there being a good chance of danger.

What might have been the outcome for Anthony, Austin and Athena had this standard been available to Judge Dugan who denied the request for a protective order from Amy Castillo? Ms. Castillo’s three children were drowned by a father whose threats about killing the children were deemed insufficient for a protective order. Ms. Castillo recounted her tragedy last month when she testified in favor of easier access to protective orders before the House Judiciary Committee, a body notoriously hostile to this and other reforms sought by advocates for victims of domestic violence.

The committee has thwarted similar bills in previous years, and judging by the reception it gave Ms. Castillo, chances don’t seem much improved this year. Their argument that no problem exists because only (their emphasis) 14 percent of protective orders are denied because the standard of proof isn’t met is no consolation for Ms. Castillo or the others who make up that 14 percent. It is UNACCEPTABLE as lives have been lost. The Castillo children are gone and the lack of concern over this is appalling, as was her treatment in court and also by the committee. As Ms. Castillo told the committee: “When you’re in fear of your life and for your children, and you make that move to step out and do something about it, and then you go to get a protective order, and you don’t get it, it’s just really devastating. . . . It’s like a discouragement to make a change in your life that needs to be made.”