June 16, 2003

Court system, attitudes confront violence victims

   By Oliver Mackson
   Times Herald-Record
   omackson@th-record.com
   
   In New York, justice is dispensed through what's officially called the Unified Court System. That may be the formal title, but it isn't what Christine Sadowski hears and sees.
   What she sees looks more like a maze.
   Sadowski runs the Orange County YWCA in New Windsor. That makes her one of the leading advocates for victims of domestic violence. The Y runs supervised visits for parents, it runs the child-care center at the county's Family Court and it's part of the county's domestic violence coalition.
   The grievances Sadowski hears aren't unique to Orange County. But they provide a window into the big, messy picture of what confronts a woman who's a victim of domestic violence and seeks some comfort and justice in court. And the vast majority – 85 percent – of victims are women, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice.
   A woman might get an order of protection from Family Court in Goshen, then have to commute to a court in Newburgh to testify against her batterer. And then, if she's married and wants to divorce the batterer, she'll wind up facing him in a third courtroom – state Supreme Court back in Goshen, 26 miles southwest of Newburgh.
   "That's a bit of a problem if he's threatened to kill her," says Sadowski. "The system is rife with limitations for effectively working through issues and keeping women safe. Just as important an issue is the issue of accountability, when you may have four different judges determining the accountability for actions."
   For example: One judge might issue an order of protection that keeps a man from harassing his mother while they live in the same house.
   But another judge might add conditions: If the son doesn't "act with respect toward" his mother, he's in contempt of court and he's going to jail.
   What Sadowski sees as the consequence is this: The inconsistency and the confusion from having so many different stops to make causes the system to lose credibility with the people who rely on it the most.
   "Ultimately, that confusion leads to less reports of incidents. You get caught up in such a maze of confusion that it's not worth pursuing a complaint," Sadowski says.
   It's not unusual for Family Court Judge Debra Jenkins-Kiedaisch to get a phone call from someone who was supposed to show up in her Goshen courtroom, but wound up mistakenly going to a local court instead.
   It was in the name of one-stop convenience that New York's chief judge announced in January that new "integrated domestic violence courts" would be established in each of New York's nine judicial districts.
   "For victims of domestic violence, bringing all related cases before one judge eliminates the potential for conflicting orders, reduces the number of court appearances and maximizes available resources," Chief Judge Judith Kaye said in her annual message to the state Legislature.
   She spoke to the lawmakers Jan. 13 in Albany.
   The proposal was welcomed by people like Sadowski and Susan Rose, who advocate for victims of domestic violence. Rose is executive director of the Orange County Safe Homes Project, which runs a shelter for battered women.
   "If we could have a court where our clients could be heard in all different areas – where they wouldn't have to reappear with the batterer present five different times and for five different things – it would make an incredible difference in terms of feeling safer and feeling less victimized," Rose said shortly after Kaye announced her plan for the new courts.
   Kiedaisch and other judges see benefits to such courts. But they also see potential drawbacks, especially since New York state is in the throes of its worst fiscal crisis in decades.
   "It's a great idea, but the problem you have with the specialized courts is that they're very labor-intensive and need very high levels of staffing and – and everybody's getting hit by this budget crunch," Kiedaisch said.
   A domestic violence court is already hearing cases in Westchester County, and it isn't clear if that will be the only such court in the 9th Judicial District. The district includes Orange, Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester and Rockland counties.
   Westchester, with its population of 925,000, its money and its political clout, is the 9th District's 400-pound gorilla.
   It's not a sure bet that the state's Office of Court Administration will clear the way for domestic violence courts outside Westchester.
   "The goal for the first year is to put one in each district," said Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan Lippman, the state's second-ranking judge. "You already have one in the 9th District in Westchester, but we would certainly consider starting planning to get a court in the up-counties."
   The court isn't a cure-all. Kiedaisch's concerns about resources are shared by the Westchester County chapter of the National Organization for Women.
   NOW, which is one of the most influential lobbying organizations in the U.S., worries that domestic violence victims with children may be charged with "failure to protect" their children from domestic violence if the cases receive the closer scrutiny that comes with uniting the custody, divorce and criminal elements in a single courtroom.
   There's also the worry that the domestic violence courts might bargain away the criminal aspect of a case in order to settle the divorce or custody element.
   Even if the domestic violence courts prove to be a success, there's still only so much that the state's top judge can do.
   Much of the work in combating domestic violence and making Family Court more responsive to its victims has to be done by changing laws, and judges can't do that.
   If violence erupts between a live-in couple who don't have children in common, neither side can go to Family Court for an order of protection.
   The state's Coalition Against Domestic Violence has been trying for several years to expand the definition of "family." The state Legislature hasn't passed the necessary law.
   Advocates also say the legal idea of "family" has to be expanded to protect older people who move in together but don't get married, as a way of protecting pension and Social Security benefits.
   But mostly, says Sadowski, it's attitudes that have to change. Judges, after all, are elected in New York.
   "We have way too many cultural attitudes that accept violence that need to be changed in order to get judges that are sitting on the benches to come from a community with a no-tolerance policy," she said.
   And like many of the issues that are hashed out in Family Court, domestic violence is still often thought to be something that's a private matter, not something of public concern.
   "Because it is a 'private issue' – like most family issues are," Sadowski said, "it's very difficult to come to a common agreement that we won't tolerate it."