To many, protective orders ‘just paper’

By Steve Kanigher (contact)

Saturday, Nov. 27, 2004 | 12:28 p.m.

WEEKEND EDITION

November 27 - 28, 2004

When Maria Ortiz went to her estranged husband's home to pick up their 11-year-old daughter on Sept. 26, the outcome was not what lawmakers had in mind when they developed protective orders for victims of domestic violence.

The husband, Carlos Ortiz, had visitation rights but Maria Ortiz also had a temporary restraining order against him that was to run through Nov. 8.

Metro Police reported that when the woman arrived at the home the couple argued outside and wrestled to the ground. He then allegedly punched her repeatedly, brandished a gun and forced her and their daughter into his car.

When she spotted some Metro officers at a Winchell's Donut House on Eastern Avenue near U.S. 95, she stopped next to their squad car, honked the horn and screamed for help.

But Carlos Ortiz allegedly grabbed her hair, pulled her toward him and fatally shot her in the head, according to the police report. The district attorney's office has said they may seek the death penalty against Ortiz.

Domestic violence advocates say that one of the biggest problems with protective orders -- which are intended to dissuade batterers from striking again -- is that they're often treated by the violent offender as something to be torn up and tossed in the trash. And they can set the person off and lead to more violence.

"It does the victim no good if the person has no fear of authority or of police," said Amber Batchelor, special programs director for Safe Nest, a shelter for battered women. "Then it's just a piece of paper."

There are actually two types of protective orders: those issued by Family Court in instances of domestic violence and those issued by justice courts in cases where the accused offenders are strangers.

The orders generally warn the abuser to stay at least 100 yards away from the person being protected.

Most of the requests in Family Court get approved by either of two domestic violence commissioners. One, Commissioner Patricia Doninger, said some requests are rejected because "they're lacking a specific threat of domestic violence."

"The victim has to be ready to leave the abuser but a lot of times they file for a protective order and then don't show up at the hearing," Doninger said. "That's the circle of violence. A victim has to be ready to stop being intimidated."

There were 8,321 requests last year in Clark County for domestic-related protective orders, including 6,241 filed in person at Family Court and 2,080 that came from a 24-hour telephone hotline (646-4981) maintained by Safe Nest.

Although the most common victims of domestic violence are women at the hands of men, about 20 percent of the individuals who file for protective orders are men who are seeking protection from women or other men.

Once protective orders are approved, one problem is simply getting them served on the perpetrators in a timely manner. Although ordinary citizens who are acquainted with the person being protected can serve the orders, they are usually hand-delivered by deputy sheriffs who work in the civil process section overseen by Metro Police. The section is run by the Clark County Detention Center, which is headed by Chief Paul Martin.

"It can be very difficult to serve the orders if we don't have accurate information," Martin said.

Many times the orders come with inaccurate home or work addresses for the perpetrators, he said. That is not always the applicant's fault, though, because many abusers have been known to change jobs or residences to dodge authorities.

Even if the information is accurate, protective orders are not like court-authorized search warrants. The server cannot simply enter a residence at will to deliver the order, even if he knows that the perpetrator is home.

"We've had a legal opinion on this from the district attorney, and we're limited in what we can do," Martin said.

The process servers may make five or six attempts to deliver the protective order, choosing different times of day if they have to or waiting for the perpetrator to come home. But like other facets of law enforcement, the civil process section is understaffed and often doesn't have the time to make endless attempts to serve the paperwork.

Adding to the frustration is the civil process section is often unaware when an order has already been delivered by a private citizen -- a problem attributed to the lack of computer coordination between Metro and the courts.

"If they give us an order that has already been delivered, we waste time," Martin said.

One of the most perplexing things that has advocates scratching their heads is how Nevada penalizes individuals who violate protective orders. Strangers accused of stalking or harassment who violate protective orders can face gross misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine, or class C felonies, punishable by one to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Batterers who violate domestic-related protective orders are punished with misdemeanors, which carry penalties of no more than six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

"The penalty should be based on the behavior, not the relationship," said Julie Proctor, executive director of Safe House, another shelter for battered women. "They should all be felonies, and I think they should be put in jail. Temporary protective orders that come out of Family Court are not held to the same standards as the protective orders that come out of the criminal courts, but I think they should."

Doninger agreed that the penalties for violating domestic protective orders should be stronger.

"It's more of a volatile situation when family members are involved because they are emotionally charged," she said. "If anything, the penalties should be similar to that for stranger stalking."

Another change some advocates would like to see is in the length of time that temporary protective orders can be extended in Family Court. As of now, Family Court can issue emergency protective orders of seven to 10 days against abusers who have been arrested for domestic violence, temporary extensions of up to 45 days and longer extensions of up to a year.

Nevada requires another instance of domestic violence before the victim can reapply for more protection. Some advocates would like to see Nevada's protective orders extended for up to three years, the same as California, so that the victim doesn't have to keep returning to court.

When protective orders are issued in other states but are either ignored by the perpetrators or aren't served on them because they cannot be found, the victims often have no choice but to flee those states. Some choose Nevada for safety.

That's what 33-year-old Jody (not her real name) did in September when she grabbed her seven children and fled California to avoid her ex-boyfriend. She was hoping to stay with a cousin, but when he got in a car accident and had to be hospitalized, she turned to Shade Tree, a shelter for battered women and their children.

She had filed for a protective order against her ex-boyfriend, but it never got served.

"I gave them three addresses," Jody said. "One was his job, one was his house and one was his sister's house. But the police said they couldn't find him."

Police couldn't find the ex-boyfriend but he was able to find Jody outside the home of one of her relatives.

"He pulled my hair and slammed me to the ground," Jody said. "They called police and he took off."

Jody had moved last summer but the ex-boyfriend found her new residence in September ands confronted her in front of her children.

"He jumped out of a bush and attacked me and threw me against my car," she said. "He grabbed my purse and ran off."

That's when Jody decided to move to Las Vegas, where she is now searching for a full-time job.

"It's not very easy," she said. "I need child care for my children and except for my cousin I don't know anybody outside of the shelter. It's an experience to live in a shelter and have your whole world turned upside down."

Going to court

Advocates complain that abusers, especially those with money who can afford to hire good attorneys, are adept at manipulating the legal system to their advantage.

"A lot of the batterers are being let off too easily," Proctor said.

Because of the belief that abusers can manipulate Nevada courts by coercing victims into dropping battery charges or by discouraging them from court appearances by issuing threats, advocates believe judges need better training to understand the dynamics of domestic violence.

District Judge John McGroarty, who has been on the bench since 1983 and had a hand in forming Family Court, said he agrees that "the more training the better."

But he also expressed reservations about the cost of the training and the ability of judges to take time away from the bench.

Domestic violence with substantial bodily harm is a felony in Nevada. If domestic battery is committed but there are no broken bones or other injuries that require hospitalization, the charge is only a misdemeanor. It takes a third conviction for domestic battery without substantial bodily harm within a seven-year period to rise to a felony.

But there is a state law that allows accused offenders to have misdemeanor battery charges dropped in lieu of a civil compromise with the victim, such as a monetary payment or simple apology.

Frank Sullivan, a former domestic violence commissioner in Family Court who now serves as a juvenile hearing master, said civil compromises should not be allowed in domestic battery cases. He said the law makes it easier for abusers to continue their violent behavior because they know they can avoid prosecution if they can convince the victims to compromise.

The abuser is often able to orchestrate a compromise by threatening a victim with more severe violence if the victim insists on pressing charges, he said. The additional violence is possible because abusers who face misdemeanor battery charges usually spend no more than a week in jail -- and often much less time -- before they are released, pending court hearings that could be weeks away.

Without the civil compromise law, continued beatings are still possible but advocates such as Sullivan say there also could be more domestic battery convictions.

"I would like to see the Nevada Legislature say no more civil compromises for domestic violence," Sullivan, president of the Southern Nevada Domestic Violence Task Force, said. "Civil compromises send the wrong message to a batterer."

Another professional who believes civil compromises should be stricken from Nevada law is Alexandra Chrysanthis, the county's chief deputy district attorney in charge of the domestic violence unit.

"My hands are tied," Chrysanthis said of the civil compromises. "Why would we put victims in that position?"

Sullivan said all domestic batteries should be penalized as felonies "but I don't think that will ever happen."

"We now send the wrong message that it's OK to slap your wife or girlfriend around," he said.

He would get no argument from 44-year-old Shade Tree shelter resident Michelle (not her real name), whose husband beat her for years only to do brief stints in jail. She has a protective order against him but that doesn't keep him away. When she was at another local shelter and he found the location he sent her a bullet in the mail.

Like other victims of domestic violence, Michelle would often get beaten after her husband went into a drunken rage. She has been choked and pushed down stairs and she has had a gun held to her mouth. And yet she was too afraid to leave him.

"I couldn't leave the house because he said he would kill me," Michelle said. "If I tried to get a job, he said he would get me fired."

Michelle said none of her injuries were serious enough to warrant hospitalization, which is usually the threshold used to determine whether a beating is a felony instead of a misdemeanor. But she said all domestic violence should be charged as felonies, regardless of the injuries.

"I cannot believe that some domestic violence can be only a misdemeanor," she said.

Michelle, who has a 3-year-old child, has chosen to live independently. But because of the ongoing threats from her estranged husband, she is contemplating moving out of the state.

"I'd like to be alive to see my son grow up," Michelle said.

Batchelor would like to see Clark County adopt a mechanism known as "victimless prosecution," which is used elsewhere in the country, including Phoenix. This enables domestic violence to be prosecuted without the victim having to sign a complaint.

This is done by prosecuting a case using other witnesses and photographs. The advantage is that if the victim isn't the individual who files the complaint, it removes one reason for a abuser to use violence.

Defending domestic battery victims in court can be a frustrating experience because many either fail to show up at hearings or decide not to go on with the hearing against the alleged perpetrator once they get to court, Chrysanthis said.

"Most of the time you have victims who don't want them in jail," she said. "It's the most frustrating aspect of my job. They want to move on, and I can't run a case without a victim."

On the flip side is 43-year-old Maureen (not her real name), who said she got so fed up with her attorneys that she decided to defend herself in Family Court in her protracted battle with her ex-boyfriend over custody of their child.

Maureen said he constantly intimidated and controlled her through verbal abuse, including threats to take the child out of the country if she didn't play by his rules. The threats extended to her parents and some of her co-workers, she said.

She once called police when he threatened her life and she also obtained a temporary protective order against him but the threats continued. She thought attorneys would help her but she has gone through four of them without satisfaction.

"I wanted them to get him to stop bothering people," Maureen said. "I wanted him to be in trouble. He has no business threatening people the way he does. But none of the attorneys would listen to me."