Saturday, April 18, 1998 | 2:33 a.m.
SANDRA THOMPSON is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas SUN. She can be reached at 259-4025 or on the Internet at [email protected]
A man shoots at his estranged wife in her car. One of the bullets narrowly misses their young son, who's also in the car.
Frantic, she drives off, but he chases her in his car at speeds of 100 miles an hour through Pahrump. She drives to the police station. He takes off. Police later find him and arrest him. He is charged with attempted murder and child endangerment.
While he's awaiting trial, he is awarded custody of their young son: the same boy who was in the car and could have been hit by his father's bullets.
The wife, Jackie Graybill, is dumbfounded. She figures that when he's sentenced for the crime, she can regain custody. After all, there's a state law that says custody of children cannot be given to persons convicted of domestic violence. And isn't "attempted murder" domestic violence?
More than a year goes by. She has been trying to get Family Court to reconsider the custody issue.
Last week, Jackie's ex-husband pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon and was given three years' probation.
Family Court says it doesn't have jurisdiction in the custody case and she must appeal to the Supreme Court.
"This case is emblematic of what's wrong with the Family Court system," her attorney, Randall Roske, says.
Domestic violence is alleged in many contentious divorce cases, and often there is no proof. But the facts in this case can't be disputed, Roske says, because the ex-husband pleaded guilty.
What's even more incredulous to Roske is that the Nye County prosecutor elected not to prosecute the ex-husband on the original child endangerment charges.
Roske says there is a state law that has a presumption of a parent being unfit if he/she is a perpetrator of domestic violence. Her ex-husband admitted he tried to kill Jackie. It's conclusive evidence. What more does the court want, he asks.
The Nevada Supreme Court has overturned Family Court cases that have not adhered to the statute, Roske says. "It takes the 'best-interest' statute to heart."
So he believes Jackie's case will be overturned.
Jackie is the victim here, he says.
Her case was first reported in the SUN's series on Family Court in January 1997. Despite her ex-husband's attack, she was not given custody of her son, now 5 years old, because she had a "false positive" on a drug test.
Graybill said she was taking medication as a result of trauma and stress, but she was not using illegal drugs. Her doctor even gave the court a letter to that effect, she said.
The court also would not accept testimony from her daughter from a previous marriage about being abused by her stepfather.
Despite all the publicity and attention given to domestic violence, Roske believes courts still give insufficient weight to it.
"It's an issue our society has long chosen to ignore," he said.
While some domestic violence allegations fall into gray areas -- where there's no proof or witnesses -- this case has indisputable facts, Roske says.
"It's outrageous," he adds.
Family Court critics contend judges don't follow the law. Instead, they say, judges rely on hearsay and don't investigate wild accusations.
In Graybill's case, the law seems clear. But what about the gray areas?
At Thursday's legislative subcommittee hearing on Family Court, two people testified about allegedly trumped-up domestic violence charges and the abuse of the TPO (Temporary Protection Order) system.
Anita Ray of Carson City said her son was served a TPO while he was teaching his class at Truckee Community College. He was shocked. He had never abused his wife, Ray said. And there was never an investigation into the charges. He was denied visitation with his son and evicted from his house with the clothes on his back.
Later, when his wife was facing several surgeries, she asked for a reconciliation because she had asked him to put her on his insurance, Ray said. He moved back with his wife so he could be with his son. Some time later he was served with another TPO -- again in front of his class.
"I believe TPOs are valuable tools. But there are men and women abused by the process," Ray said. "TPOs shouldn't be used to gain an advantage in a divorce or custody process."
Many litigants have told of similar experiences with TPOs.
There's a definite gap in how judges perceive domestic violence. On the one hand, there is absolutely no proof of violence and that doesn't seem to matter.
On the other hand, a man tries to kill his wife and that fact doesn't seem to matter. The victim becomes a victim yet again.
And what becomes of the child caught in the middle?
archive
