Wasteful restraining orders clog Rock County courts
JANESVILLE — Three women had hearings in Rock County Court recently to get restraining orders, but none was granted.
One woman asked the court to dismiss her case, claiming she and her husband plan to get counseling.
A second woman had no evidence her ex-husband abused her, prompting the defense attorney to call her case “frivolous.” Her petition was denied for the third time.
The third woman didn’t show up.
The three cases illustrate a larger trend in Rock County. A Gazette analysis of court data indicates nearly 70 percent of requests for restraining orders in 2008 were quashed because petitioners failed to appear in court, asked for their case to be dismissed or couldn’t prove they were in danger.
“What has happened is people have discovered this statute, and it’s being grossly abused,” Judge James Welker said. “All of those that get dismissed are a waste of time.”
Serving the orders, holding court hearings and paying court officials cost thousands of dollars a year, Welker said.
Kerri Parker, executive director of YWCA Rock County, agreed that some requests for restraining orders are without merit, but she said many people need restraining orders and protection under the law.
Two-thirds of Janesville's homicides stem from domestic violence, including the fatal shooting in the Fourth Ward neighborhood in April, police said.
“This is how we stop homicides, by people getting the protection they need when they need it,” Parker said. “You never know which incident will be the one that will give the woman the strength to leave the relationship.”
‘I’m going to show you’
A person must prove he or she is in imminent danger of physical harm to get a restraining order.
Petitioners file an application with the court. If approved, a judge schedules a hearing within 14 days.
The sheriff’s office must serve the order to the respondent, and the parties are notified of the court hearing. Petitioners can get restraining orders for up to four years if they prove their cases at hearings.
The law offers a measure of protection to legitimate victims, but many are using the court for leverage in their relationships, Welker said.
“What happens these days is someone in a family relationship gets in a spat of some sort, and one family member goes, ‘Well, I’m going to show you,’” the judge said.
In such cases, people often change their minds and later want the cases dismissed or don’t appear in court, Welker said.
“So now, they really don’t care because this was a spat, and this was just one more weapon in the arsenal between people who spat,” he said.
About two months of court time was wasted in 2008 to have judges, court commissioners or staff members work on restraining orders that went nowhere, Welker said.
And that doesn’t include the time and money sheriff’s deputies spent finding and serving respondents with orders, he said.
“You’re talking about a lot of money,” Welker said. “It’s a very, very expensive operation.”
Reasons to dismiss
When people follow through, most requests for restraining orders are granted, said Barbara McCrory, a family court commissioner who oversees the hearings.
People who want their cases dismissed usually have children in their relationship, she said.
Parents have a hard time discussing their children or sharing custody with restraining orders in place, McCrory said.
People sometimes see positive changes in their partners after their cases are filed, she said.
Court officials question people to ensure they’re no longer in danger before dismissing a case, McCrory said.
“There are some cases where they come in and say, ‘Maybe I exaggerated a little bit,’” she said. “But that is very rare.”
If people skip their court hearings, no one follows up with them, she said. It is unknown why they don’t appear.
Help for victims
The YWCA assists 40 percent of people seeking restraining orders, Parker said.
Among those, 80 to 90 percent are granted, she said.
The YWCA is able to reduce the number of invalid requests with consultations up front, Parker said.
People who appear in court with YWCA advocates also are treated with more credibility, she said.
Even among people who file alone, however, restraining orders are an important step in protecting victims, Parker said.
“In some ways, it’s a level of security for the petitioner,” Parker said.
When court officials grant petitions, they are validating a victim’s fears, she said. They also are assuring victims there will be consequences if the orders are violated.
People who want their cases dismissed could be getting manipulated, Parker said.
Domestic violence runs in cycles, she said, and a honeymoon period often follows an abusive period.
Although it’s frustrating to have so many cases dismissed, it’s important the court hears the needs of victims, Parker said.
People should be given the opportunity to stand up to their abusers, even if they change their minds, she said.
Solving the problem
The court could reduce the number of dismissed cases, officials said.
People could be required to have a consultation before filing for restraining orders, Welker said.
They could be informed whether court is the appropriate place to solve their problems, he said.
If court is not the right place, people could be sent to the YWCA, marriage counseling or other places, Welker said.
“Not every problem in the world gets solved in the courts,” he said. “There are other social agencies.”
The court also could order people to pay costs for filing a frivolous case, Welker said.
The problem with ordering fees, however, is the court doesn’t want to discourage victims from applying, McCrory said.
“The law is never perfect, especially with human behavior,” she said.
Mar 30, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Barbara McCrory seems to think every woman who walks into her courtroom is entitled to get a free restraining order without any proof. I recently know of one man who received a permanent injunction because one of his own witnesses testified she saw his wife heat up some left over’s in the microwave when he got home from work one day two years earlier. McCrory said this was the typical abusive life style of living when a woman would do such a thing. Forget the fact that the woman in this case was the only person ever arrested for domestic violence, and that she tried to poison him and was tying up her children!
Jul 15, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
And the "criminal" didnt win in this case. He got a free ride to hell because he took his own life.
Jul 15, 2009 at 9:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Let me rephrase. The girls didnt want to bother getting a ro because they didnt think it would help them. They did however go and get one and also made numerous police reports about the ex and there was not much action taken in their defense. It is a sad sad story but it is true and unfortunate. So please if there is dv in your relationship..get help!
Jul 13, 2009 at 5:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
not to be disrespectful, SwissChick, but a piece of carbon paper cannot stop a bullet. I know the premise behind a R.O. is a good one; however, we are not dealing with "normal" people. If someone wants to hurt/kill someone badly enough, no court in this land will stop them from succeeding. Very sad that the criminal usually "wins".
Jul 13, 2009 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
prncess992000 - I'm very sorry about your tradegy. But if they never got an RO, then how do you know the RO's "didn't work"?
Jul 13, 2009 at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Restraining orders are only papers saying you cant do this and that. There is nothing physically protecting anyone. I lost 4 family members because of dv. The girls never wanted to bother with an "order of protection" because they didnt believe that piece of paper would help them and you know what...it didnt. 6-9-07 was the date that they were taken away by bullets from an ex!! Please spread the word and help victims of domestic violence(women and men!)
Jul 13, 2009 at 1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
6 years ago my sister went to the courthouse to get a restraining order against her x that was harassing her in her own home and was using crack regularily. He threatened her but did not hit her. She was worried about his behavior and what he MIGHT do. They denied her a restraining order even though she was the one paying for it and a week later Beloit police found her dead in her home. The restraining order may not have been the ultimate answer, but every person deserves to feel safe, the system denied her this. Really?? Anyone who asks for one has the right to have one if it is a way for them to feel a bit safer. What isn't a waste of time and space accordingto the system??Thats why the let dead beat dads and child abusers walk!!!! Our system is a joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
..and, why can the "system" be abused??
....because there's no *money* in stopping it!!
.
Taxpayers, the joke is on you...AGAIN
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Even when someone needs an RO they can't always get one; even with proof. Not everyone has access to the YWCA, as they are no longer centrally located and they are not staffed enough to help everyone. People do abuse the system, and this makes it more difficult for those who truly need them.
Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Its too bad the court system must do the job. Why is it when there is a domestic disturbance automaticaly a restraining order is issuded? How can it be when a scum bag punches a mother with her infant in her arms and pulls a knife on them threating to kill, is cloging up the courts. For $200 this same loser would be would be out on the street terrorizing this family. Thankfully between him and the vermin he hangs with $200. is harder to raise than providing a restraing order.
Jul 13, 2009 at 11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
truecitizen- Good post.....Those "playing" the system need to be held accountable for the REAL damage they cause.
Jul 13, 2009 at 10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
I had a court ordered civil restraining order during my divorce that when it was broken not a thing was done about it so what is the purpose of even having it...what a joke.
Jul 13, 2009 at 4 a.m.
Suggest removal
I see this as a double edged sword. Most people are using the system to run through their hopeless soap-opera relationship filled lives. It is really stupid sometimes, and these people need to be considerate of the real 'clog' they are placing on the system.
*
However, the other side of that sword is the person who truly needs protection from something they didn't expect, and they sometimes can't get what they need because of these other aformentioned clowns.
*
Maybe if people simply grew up and stopped with the domestic trouble, booze, and go-between children issues. Then the REAL victims out there could get the help from Police and the Court!!
Jul 13, 2009 at 2:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
It is unfortunate that RO are necessary. But there is need for protection. Is this a cure all? No. Those counselled at the YWCA have a RO granted 80% of the time. I am not aware of the procedure to initiate a RO, but maybe some counselling as to how it would affect your life and the restrained persons life would help people understand. I would not like to see fees across the board for every filing. That could keep some who really need to have a RO from filing. Just like a false accusation can have a deep affect on the accused, a false restraining order can too. Un-valid requests should have consequences.
Jul 13, 2009 at 12:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Not every person who is abused has evidence to show in a court of law. Not all abuse leaves marks."
Perhaps not, but there's a concept that the law operates under called "due process". That means you can't just slap a restraining order on someone restricting their freedom to go certain places, denying them certain constitutional rights and hindering their employment, solely on someone's say so and absent any other proof. That's sort of what that big fancy document called The Constitution is all about, like it or not.
Jul 12, 2009 at 10:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
perhaps he's changed. I just have knowledge of several cases where the victims did not receive court's protection from local abusers and the women's lives were literally put on hold until further legal action (divorce, changing legal address, changing legal name, etc) could be processed.
I am so sorry for the men who have been victims of intimate partner abuse as much as I am for the females. I am very disappointed that some women have resorted to physically abusing her partner. Nobody deserves to be physically touched in anger!
My fear is that those who have frivolously filed for a restraining order will make it impossible for the truly desperate victim to get the protection order.
Jul 12, 2009 at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
"It's not totally surprising as he is a white man in a position of power (that demands respect or the consequence of contempt of court). I am fairly confident that if he wasn't born into male privilege he would have a different view of "reality" and be less inclined to blame victims of D.V. I will try to find some sources to validate my point and get back here shortly!"
You have thrown out the race card and the sex card, you are hoping that those two factors will count for a certain amount of guilt against Judge Welker, without any facts. But you will "try to find some sources to validate my point and get back here shortly!"
By all means, if it is not too much trouble or work for you, please get some facts or hard evidence to back up your bigoted accusations.
Jul 12, 2009 at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sassy, if you took the time to actually look into welkers history you would know he takes a strong stance against DV. there was even a group started during the last election in which he was re-elected called chicks for welker who had all the facts, to show people like you who are ignorant that he is very fair when it comes to gender equality. quit playing the Race card, quit playing the gender card. There are too many people out there that throw around allegations that are indeed unfounded. and besides the gender card is bolgne anyway, my own brother was a victim of an abusive women! when he finally pushed her back after she hit him in the face repeatedly, she called the police and he was arrested! when they picked him up he was bleeding from the face, and she had dirt on her butt! but he went to jail, because she was a poor defenseless women! if you knew anything about judge welker you would know that he is in fact very evidence based...which is reasonable, how else can you convict someone of something without evidence? all you need for evidence is documentation of behavior if there is no physical evidence. get witnesses its that easy. when you are given the power and responsibility to determine whether or not someone goes to jail or worse how on earth can you sentence someone in good conscience without adequate evidence. as for his demand of respect in the court, of course he demands respect in the court, it maintains order! if you are out of hand, shouting insulting or causing a ruccus you should indeed be held in contempt until you have learned to either keep your cool, or simply had time to cool down. no offense sassy but i think it is you who needs to "have a different view of reality" if the victim of DV cannot produce evidence then they are indeed to blame for their own inability to be granted a RO. if it weren't for evidence you could claim anything for instance: i could claim that you hunted me down for writing this article and beat me..... you just can't see the bruises! and i guess now that i think about it, most of the abuse was verbal. but since i don't have any evidence and there were no witnesses you'll jut have to take my word for it, i'll take my RO now.........i agree with welker, “What has happened is people have discovered this statute, and it’s being grossly abused,”
Jul 12, 2009 at 8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Not every person who is abused has evidence to show in a court of law. Not all abuse leaves marks.
Jul 12, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
The women who don't show up...perhaps you have no knowledge of domestic violence. If you are aware of the mixture of emotions that a (typically) woman feels being in a room with her abuser, it's not hard to understand. I'm not condoning "no shows" and I agree it is an expense that needs to be evaluated; but, yes. I blame this particular judge for his inability to hide his bias against women. If he had even an inkling of the fear the victim of d.v. lives with, it's not a stretch that she wouldn't feel safe ANYWHERE - even a court of law.
Jul 12, 2009 at 6:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
You can't hand out restraining orders like candy just for "piece of mind". There has to be legitimate evidence to support it.
Jul 12, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
as is the case with most domestic abuse issues, this article is a "he said/she said".
On a more serious note, restraining orders are seriously pieces of paper. While I agree that having a restraining order is of "some" protection, and having an R.O. granted IS reassuring to the petitioner, if an abuser/stalker, etc. wants to harm someone badly enough, they will-R.O. or not. I am frustrated; however, by the comments of Judge Welker. He has consistently been up against victims of domestic violence and over powers victims. It's not totally surprising as he is a white man in a position of power (that demands respect or the consequence of contempt of court). I am fairly confident that if he wasn't born into male privilege he would have a different view of "reality" and be less inclined to blame victims of D.V. I will try to find some sources to validate my point and get back here shortly!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.