Columnist Sandy Thompson: Domestic violence court plan must be solid

Sandy Thompson

Friday, Feb. 8, 2002 | 5:08 a.m.

"THE ENTIRE justice system is crippled by domestic violence issues."

That was the grim assessment of a Family Court official quoted in this column Jan. 30, 2000.

Now, two years later, there is a serious effort under way to do something about it. Because of the rising number of domestic violence cases and problems with protection orders, the Clark County Commission has appointed a task force to look into the feasibility of creating a domestic violence court.

The task force won't have to reinvent the judicial wheel. Jurisdictions in several states across the country (Chicago, Miami and Brooklyn to name a few) have such courts. It also should be noted that designing an effective court that works in the real world is more complex than it appears and involves more than the courts.

"You must have a coordinated community effort -- police, the medical and education communities, probation departments and support for victims," says Administrative Judge Amy Karan of the Domestic Division of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida located in Miami/Dade County.

Miami/Dade established a domestic violence court in 1992 after a year-long pilot program. The court has seven full-time and four part-time judges who handle about 15,000 criminal domestic violence cases (except felonies) and requests for civil protection orders that also involve custody, visitation and child support issues. That's in addition to the 13-judge Family Court that handles paternity and divorce cases.

According to Karan, the essential components of a domestic violence court are:

Those elements must be in place if a local domestic violence court is to be effective in attacking the problem of domestic violence and in sending a message that this is a serious issue that not only affects individuals and families, but also the community at large.

Efforts to create such a court extend beyond the county borders. The Legislature must set clear parameters.

"The statutes are all over the books," says Family Court Presiding Judge Dianne Steel. For example, there is no consistent definition of domestic battery. There is civil battery between family members and then there is criminal battery.

Another issue is burden of proof. In criminal court, there must be clear and convincing evidence to convict a person of battery. The burden of proof in Family Court is much lower (some critics say it's non-existent). Judges deciding temporary protection order requests or custody matters involving domestic violence cases only need "a preponderance of evidence" on which to base their decisions.

These burden of proof standards must be raised if a domestic violence court, which presumably would be an arm of Family Court, is to function properly.

Why does this matter? A common complaint among Family Court litigants who say they are victims of domestic violence is that their batterers are given custody of their children. According to Nevada statutes, there is a presumption that custody would not be awarded to someone who commits domestic battery. Yet it happens. In a few cases, custody has been granted to a person who has served jail time for the crime. In other cases, the judge has no "proof" of domestic violence, so he/she must base the custody decision on which parent appears to be more credible.

A domestic violence court would have the authority to investigate the claims and make a determination of who is telling the truth. Such a court would keep track of violent incidents and hold the batterer accountable for his/her actions. It also would take action against a person who makes false claims. The optimal benefit of such a court would be to take some of the guesswork out of custody cases, and have decisions based more on facts that have been investigated rather than a judge's sense of which party is more credible.

As Judge Karan noted, a key ingredient in the success of such a court is the training of judges, prosecutors and others involved in the system so that they are knowledgeable about, and sensitive to, domestic violence issues.

Despite extensive public awareness campaigns, there still is a feeling in some community circles that what goes on between a couple is private. One Cook County, Ill., judge who participated in a panel discussion on domestic violence told of one judge who considers the issue "male-bashing."

The Clark County task force should take all these factors into consideration before making a recommendation about a domestic violence court. We don't need political posturing. We need a solid plan that covers all the bases. If a dedicated domestic violence court is the answer, it must be adequately funded. That will be a definite challenge and a possible project killer.