Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/11/2004 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 308-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTIVE ORDERS
CHAIR GARY STEVENS announced SB 308 to be up for consideration
and then recognized Senator French.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH, sponsor of SB 308, stated that the bill
extends the length of a long-term protective order from six
months to one year. This is to give longer protection to
petitioners who are seeking protection from an abuser and also
to relieve the court system of the need for repeat hearings. He
continued:
Right now just five states have long-term domestic
violence protective orders that have a shorter time
period than Alaska. Three have the same six-month
maximum period and the 40 other states have increased
the length of time to a year and beyond. In this bill
we would set the time frame at one year. It's an
incremental step and I think it's a reasonable balance
between an order that never ends and an order that is
too short of a duration.
For those of us who have worked in the area, the big
difference between the two types of orders - an ex
parte order and a long-term order - is that an ex
parte order can be gotten without ever hearing from
the respondent. An ex parte order is the order you
hear about when someone says 'She ran down to the
court house and got an order and I never knew about
it.'
[The long-term] order is not that Mr. Chairman. This
type of order has to take place with formal notice of
the hearing to the respondent and give that individual
every opportunity to show up in front of a judge and
have his or her day in court. I think that is the
chief protection for folks who think they are not
being treated fairly by the system. That they are
going to get their day in court under this hearing, no
matter what.
This is a big area, but it is a fairly small
adjustment to the law.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that it's difficult to quantify court
savings and costs, but he would like to hear the Senator's
comments on the fiscal note.
SENATOR FRENCH said he hasn't had the opportunity to speak to
Ms. Wilson [deputy director, Public Defender Agency] regarding
her view of the fiscal note, but he questions the fiscal note in
this respect:
Her analysis, I believe, assumes that all orders are
violated at a regular rate throughout the duration of
the order. ... I would contest that and I would say
that most orders are violated fairly soon after they
are issued because that is, in the cycle of domestic
violence, the most dangerous time. ... That's when
tempers are running high and I would assert that as
time goes on those violations drop off. ...
I would assert that the price of this bill would go
down over time and really wouldn't produce much more
of a burden on the public defender's office.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS then asked the Senator to speak to decreasing
the need for repeat court proceedings.
SENATOR FRENCH said they spoke with the Division of Statewide
Services with the Department of Public Safety and they have
indicated that this is likely the same as many areas of the
criminal law. Most people that have a brush with the law aren't
seen but once. They get themselves straightened out and don't
have future problems. In fact, of the 28,000 domestic violence
restraining order reports that have been filed, 22,000 appeared
just once.
Nonetheless, you have to realize that some people absorb lots of
resources. For instance, one petitioner had to file seven long-
term orders and two ex parte orders over a three and one-half
year period to continue to get the court's protection from a
difficult person. In another case, a respondent had 19 entries
in the registry filed by two related individuals.
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN said he wasn't concerned about the
extension of time, but he did have some concern about how
effective restraining orders really are and the false sense of
protection they might give to a woman with children in
particular. He asked the Senator for a comment.
SENATOR FRENCH said that is an issue of great concern to both
sides and he is personally aware of cases that were brought to
trial "where exhibit 1 in the case was the bloody domestic
violence restraining order that the woman had with her when she
was killed by her former spouse." In a very real sense it's just
a piece of paper, but people from the domestic violence
community say that restraining orders do work. This is because
the restraining order provides the ability to go to the police
to make them enforce the order. It provides police help in
separating the household and in establishing the initial buffer
of safety. "It is no real way a physical barrier to anyone, but
it sets up a psychological barrier. While you can't stop some
determined aggressors, it seems to work very well with the broad
base of rational people who are going through a violent time in
their relationship."
SENATOR STEDMAN noted that a woman in Ketchikan had such an
order recently and her 24-month-old baby is now deceased. He
said, "So I think we do have some issues that need to be
addressed in this area..." He encouraged Senator French to look
into this area further to provide additional statutory support
to affected mothers and their children. "It really upsets me to
find that some of these orders are ignored, especially if there
are children involved." It's egregious for a civilized society
to tolerate such a thing in any form, he said.
SENATOR FRENCH responded to say that those concerns are right on
target and SB 308 is just one piece of the puzzle. "An efficient
911 system helps every community, swift response from the police
and certain prosecution on violations that sometime seem a
little picayune." He described it as a bubble of protection
around the woman. It protects her from not just violence, but
from the communications that sometimes lead to violence. The
restraining order doesn't say call when you're nice, it says
don't call. Anything that can be done to strengthen that bubble
of protection is a step in the right direction.
SENATOR GUESS agreed that Senator Stedman is on target and
Senator French's response is correct. "We don't ...prosecute
violations of these orders enough." It can be a constant
struggle, but there are ways and she thought everyone could
probably agree on that.
She commented that she too was having trouble with the fiscal
note. Certainly it costs the state money when a petitioner goes
to court at the end of a six-month period and files for another
six month restraining order, but that is already happening in
the cases in which continued protection is necessary. If there
isn't a problem, the individual probably doesn't refile. That's
probably the case now and is unlikely to change. "So for those
cases there's not going to be any increase in cost."
SENATOR FRENCH stated that he sees the situation in much the
same way. Someone who is still having problems in the
relationship after a period of 5.5 months is going to have that
order extended. If the order is then violated, it would likely
have been violated regardless of whether it was for a year or
six months. "I'm certain there will be some increased burden on
the system. I wouldn't say there wouldn't be, but I think
doubling is just sort of taking a snap judgment."
CHAIR GARY STEVENS advised that they would try to reach Ms.
Wilson who prepared the fiscal note to see whether she could
shed some light on the situation.
LAUREE HUGANON, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault, expressed support for the bill. Anytime there is an
opportunity to decrease batterers' access to victims, it's
important to do so. "Extending this order is one less time at
least that she would have to go to court and be in the presence
of the person that is abusing her. Often times repeated court
appearances are often used as a way to coerce or further try to
control the victims."
Separation doesn't always end the violence and although the
restraining order may be just a piece of paper, it is a barrier
that carries consequences if it is violated. There are seven
provisions of protective orders that if violated can result in a
class A misdemeanor. The penalty for a physical assault must be
at least 20 days in jail if there is a conviction.
MS. HUGANON reported that there were about 6,000 protective
order filings in FY 03. A little over half were filed in
Anchorage, about 200 in Ketchikan, and more than 80 were in
Kodiak, which shows that the problem is statewide.
CAREN ROBINSON, Alaska Women's Lobby representative, spoke in
support of SB 308. She said it's amazing to her that it's taken
20 years to get the restraining order laws to the point they are
today. She said, "Believe it or not back then we were fighting
to just to get anyone to believe that it was important to allow
a person who was being victimized in a family situation to get
any kind of protection." The change is refreshing.
MS. ROBINSON emphasized the need for the continuum of services
and said she was concerned about the shelter network in Alaska.
According to the recent information, there could be a $1 million
budgetary deficit for shelters this fiscal year. She asked the
committee to contact the Department of Public Safety and get the
information they need because shelters across the state would be
affected. Keep in mind that women typically go to shelters first
to get the information they need to go court in the first place.
CHAIR GARY STEVENS noted that there was no one on line from the
public defender agency. There were no further comments or
questions.
SENATOR STEDMAN remarked that he would like the Finance
Committee to double check the accuracy of the fiscal note.
SENATOR GUESS made a motion to move SB 308 from committee with
individual recommendations and "attached questionable fiscal
note." There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|