Family Law Clinic Observes City District Court's Work on Domestic Violence Cases
January 23, 2012
Contact: University Relations
Phone: 410.837.6190
A month-long period of observation of a Baltimore District Court specializing in domestic violence cases identified a series of issues related to the court's effectiveness in protecting abuse victims and processing their claims in order to mitigate further episodes of violence between domestic partners. The analysis, conducted by five students from the University of Baltimore School of Law's Family Law Clinic under the supervision of law professors and professional staff, concludes that the combination of a crowded docket and a convoluted system of administrative processes and conflicting communication methods represents a significant impairment to the court's ability to protect abuse victims—even when they are in the courthouse to appear for a case.
"While the court system deserves credit for recognizing that domestic violence cases require special attention, we found a number of areas that could use improvement," said Kelley Spigel, a 2012 J.D. candidate.
As part of a community education project, five students from the Family Law Clinic conducted a Domestic Violence Court Watch in order to compile data which could help identify potential issues within the system and provide a basis for making recommendations to improve it. The watch began last Sept. 19 and ended on Oct. 14, and took place at the Eastside District Court Building, 1400 E. North Ave. The monitors observed both morning and afternoon dockets, altogether taking notes on 17 dockets and 15 judges. The group’s work focused on the serving of temporary protective orders, the safety of plaintiffs as they went through court procedure, and the effectiveness of that procedure.
A number of issues are identified in the clinic's report, with the lack of service of the temporary protective order being a primary concern. The Court Watch found that 32 percent of the cases observed did not have the temporary order served at the time of the scheduled Final Protective Order hearing—meaning that of all the District Court's domestic violence cases, roughly a third of them had not received the basic benefit of the order being served on the respondent. Also, that 32 percent does not take into account those cases dismissed by a judge due to the petitioner’s inability to take off time from work for repeated trips to court, the petitioner resolving the domestic violence dispute by other means, and so on. These cases ended in dismissal for the petitioner’s failure to appear, and were not coded as cases in which the serving of a temporary restraining order had failed.
The student observers also noted that victims of domestic violence are unnecessarily exposed to their abusers during the process of requesting a protective order—before, during, and after the hearing: while the victim waits in the hallway for the courtroom to open, without bailiff protection; when the respondent confronts the petitioner directly during the hearing; and while the victim waits for copies of the protective or peace order in or near the clerk's office and the abuser is sent to the same office just moments later, before ensuring that the victim has left the building.
In this District Court, all parties must await their turn in the hallway outside the courtroom together. Bailiffs, while present, are unable to identify which parties may be in conflict. Waiting together means that petitioners may be physically close to their abusers, and thus may be susceptible to pressure, coercion and intimidation by defendants during that time. During the hearing, many victims and abusers speak with or confront each other instead of speaking only to the judge, despite efforts by the judge and bailiffs to make sure that order is kept in the courtroom and parties refrain from engaging with each other.
Other problems in the court could be more effectively managed with better communication tools, specifically regarding the status of a protective order and the whereabouts of serving officers as well as defendants and petitioners. In several instances witnessed by the observers, judges did not have the necessary proof that a temporary restraining order had or had not been served, or they were not aware that a defendant was serving time in jail—a situation forcing a delay in a domestic violence proceeding because a writ is required to bring the defendant from the jail to the courthouse for a hearing.
Other problems, such as the inconsistent staffing of a court-based 24-hour hotline where petitioners can check on the status of a protective order, or the promotion of a program which allows the petitioner to waive a court appearance pending service of a temporary protective order, slow down the judicial process and prompt victims to walk away without resolution. Databases, court-wide awareness of judicial time savers, and consistent messages about the impact of court proceedings would do much to rectify processes in the District Court, the observers noted.
"The failure to achieve [temporary restraining order] service has extremely harsh consequences for petitioners," the observers noted in their report. "The majority of the problems … could be addressed by the court, such as verifying whether proof of service has been filed with the court or whether respondents are in jail. An online database or centralized phone number indicating when service was made upon respondent would be extremely useful and have minimal operational costs. A phone line or online database would also be effective in informing petitioners where difficulty in effectuating service is. At the very least, an increase in empathy from judges would go a long way towards calming petitioners and reinforcing the idea that the justice system is a viable route to receiving protection from their abusers."
The complete report is available here (PDF).
The University of Baltimore is a member of the University System of Maryland and comprises the School of Law, the Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Public Affairs and the Merrick School of Business.