Should battered women who violate court orders of protection be punished? An increasing number of judges around the nation, frustrated by women who ignore restraining orders granted to protect them, say yes. At their wits' ends, the judges are levying fines and even jail time against these women, who return to the husbands or boyfriends they swore complaints against, or who drop the matter after an initial complaint.
One Kentucky judge fined a woman $100 for contempt of court after returning to her husband after filing a protective order, while some North Carolina judges are fining women $65 is they decide to drop a protective order. Certain Illinois judges hold women in contempt of court if they rescind their initial complaint.
A restraining order serves as a valuable tool for a woman and her children facing a domestic situation full of threats, abuse and the potential for deadly consequences. But, those who file for such protective orders, only to then renege on their claims, do a disservice to those who truly need the protection.
According to some advocates for victims of domestic abuse, women return to abusive partners because they feel the partner is the one who can care for them. Putting aside the obvious comment that these men are at best mending wounds they inflict, these women need to break away from their partners to prevent further, perhaps more violent, abuse from occurring. Understandably, their situations are difficult and rife with physical, emotional and financial entanglements, but that does not excuse abuse of the judicial system, especially by transforming a legal tool into a routine exercise in familial dysfunction.
It is correct that in many cases protection orders restrict only the abuser from contacting the person who swore out the complaint, and the abused are well within their rights to reinitiate contact with his or her assailant. Yet, that defeats the very purpose of restraining orders and protective decrees. What is the point of taking the court's time and resources in handing out decisions ultimately ignored by the very person who requested it?
If certain women do not adhere to the principles of their restraining orders - a physical separation from the abuser for the necessary benefit of the abused - then those orders should stand as null and void. Aside from the aforementioned reasons, the orders could be used as loose provisions to trap an innocent man named in the order. It's not out of the realm of possibility to imagine a woman bent on achieving retribution by seeking her banished partner out, then claiming he violated the terms of the order.
It must be said that many battered women have no other means of support for themselves and their children outside of the abusive relationship. They are forced to choose between physical safety and poverty, or financial support entwined with danger and abuse. Frequently they choose the more familiar of two evils. States and localities need to remove this dilemma from the situation. There needs to be an established infrastructure of shelters and support agencies designed to give battered women the necessary resources, such as safe houses, job placement, child care, and, of course, counseling, to avoid the awful calculus of choosing between physical safety or basic necessities.
It must also be said that these women are not the criminals - the ones who hurt them are violating the legal and moral code of society. Monetary fines and jail time do not serve to treat the root cause of why these women return to their batters. More appropriate - and effective - would be counseling programs and treatment designed to address why these women act as they do and help them to break the cycle violence that ensnares their lives.
