Asylum Philadelphia: A look at the overburdened Philadelphia Immigration Court
January 12, 2011
Philadelphia Daily News (PA)
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
IN JUNE 2006, men in military clothes grabbed Maria, kidnapping her as she slept in a church shelter in Angola, bound and blindfolded her and dragged her away. They beat and raped her, and interrogated her about her boyfriend's human-rights work. Maria eventually escaped to the United States, where she sought asylum. But more than four years went by before a judge in Philadelphia heard her testimony.
Separately in Philadelphia, "Esther," from Ghana, overstayed her tourist visa, fell in love with a naturalized U.S. citizen and married him in 2006. Then he turned abusive. "Esther" wants to stay here, and her attorney says that federal law permits it. But a backlog caused her hearing to be put off until Feb. 1, 2012, and now the matter appears headed out of the judicial system altogether.
These two cases provide a glimpse into the highly emotional issues often brought before the overburdened Philadelphia Immigration Court, where applicants can remain in limbo for years and where the number of cases pending before just three judges skyrocketed to 4,573 in fiscal year 2010 - a 20 percent increase from the previous year.
It was the court's highest number of pending cases since at least 1998, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data-research center at Syracuse University - and possibly its highest number ever.
And it's not just traumatic for applicants. The judges themselves, because of the number and nature of the cases, "suffer from significant symptoms of secondary traumatic stress and more burnout" than prison wardens or physicians, according to a nationwide survey by the University of California, San Francisco.
Last month, immigration lawyer Steven Morley was added to the Philadelphia court as its fourth judge, and he is to begin hearing cases Tuesday. The judges aren't allowed to discuss their work, but observers wonder whether the extra staffing will be enough to bear the burden triggered in large part by the Department of Homeland Security.
"I'm not even sure the fourth judge is going to make much of a difference, because enforcement [by Homeland Security] is cranking up, is still running full-tilt," said James Orlow, a veteran immigration lawyer in Philadelphia and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Even with more judges being sworn in, immigration judges nationwide "are still in a crisis phase," said Judge Dana Marks, of San Francisco, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges. New judges still have to go through training and don't take on full caseloads, she said.
Maria's day in court
Last month, more than four years after entering deportation proceedings in October 2006, Maria - who asked that only her first name be used for this article - finally testified before Judge Charles Honeyman.
Honeyman, like the other Philadelphia immigration judges - Miriam Mills and Rosalind Malloy - has been more likely to deny than to grant asylum, according to Syracuse's TRAC.
Summoning the horrible memory of the day she was kidnapped in Angola, in Africa's southwest, Maria told the judge that she had been dating a man who worked for a human-rights group.
"They tied me - my hands, my legs," she testified through a Portuguese interpreter. "They blindfolded me and took me to some location." During the four days that she was held captive, she was raped by several men and repeatedly beaten, she testified under questioning by her attorney, Troy J. Mattes, of Lancaster.
Maria, 32, said that she was allowed to leave after agreeing to poison members of her boyfriend's group. But after she was released, she told her boyfriend what happened and he helped her escape from Angola. Two months later, in August 2006, she applied for asylum in the United States.
Because of the high volume of cases in the court system and the time needed to locate, contact and get evidence from her former boyfriend, it took more than four years for her testimony to be heard.
Mattes, who began representing Maria in 2007, found out that Amnesty International had written about her former boyfriend. Through his efforts, Maria was able to phone the man and get him to send a letter that was introduced in court as evidence of their past relationship.
Ira Mazer, senior attorney in the Department of Homeland Security, cross-examined Maria on what appeared to be inconsistencies in her testimony. He questioned if the letter had been sent by her former boyfriend.
But Honeyman said that he found her credible, and the evidence that she had submitted "genuinely plausible," and he granted asylum. Sitting in the back of the courtroom, Maria cried. Afterward, she said she was happy.
Later, as Maria reflected on her case, she said that the hard part about waiting so long for a hearing was that she had to depend on others. "I can't work or anything," she said, speaking through a cousin who interpreted for her. "That's basically the downfall of that. I can't work, I can't study. I can't get any legal papers to do anything."
Her cousin said that Maria finally has received her legal papers to be in this country.
Mattes said that the case was unusual. The hardest part of asylum cases, he said, is to back them up with evidence. Fortunately for his client, she was dating someone known to Amnesty International. And, he said, she was a witness who "didn't flinch."
Stepped-up enforcement
Philadelphia Immigration Court is a cog in a vast network overseen by the Justice Department: 271 judges in 59 immigration courts located in 27 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, in the Pacific Ocean.
Two of those courts are in Pennsylvania - one in the federal building at 9th and Market streets, the other inside the York County Prison, in York, where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an arm of Homeland Security, houses detainees accused of violating immigration law. Philadelphia's court was relocated Sept. 1 from cramped quarters at 16th and Callowhill streets, where the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), another agency under Homeland Security, remains.
Judges decide whether foreign-born individuals whom Homeland Security charges with violating immigration law should be ordered removed from the U.S.
The Justice Department agency that oversees immigration judges was created in 1983, when the attorney general moved the judges from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Many immigration lawyers say that Homeland Security has been more aggressive in recent years in its enforcement, bringing cases before judges that previously wouldn't have been argued in court.
Some attribute the increased enforcement to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Obama administration also has made it a priority to deport "criminal aliens," noncitizens convicted of crimes in the U.S. It recently touted its fiscal year 2010's record-breaking number of deportations - more than 392,000.
Lawyer Dave Bennion, of the nonprofit Nationalities Service Center, in Philadelphia, said that what would have been routine cases a few years ago - such as a marriage to a U.S. citizen - now may be disputed in immigration court. Often in the past an immigration officer at USCIS would have determined whether to grant a green card, without the case having to go before a judge.
The stepped-up enforcement efforts by USCIS and ICE "have the result of increasing the backlogs in the courts," Bennion said.
Bennion said that he's "a little bit reluctant to endorse" hiring more judges, because it "doesn't address the underlying problems that lead people to continue to come to this country and employers to continue to hire them."
The case of 'Esther'
Ricky Palladino, the attorney representing "Esther," from Ghana, said that hers is an example of cases that shouldn't clog up immigration court.
Under the Violence Against Women Act, Esther, 32, is "immediately eligible" for a green card because she is the abused spouse of a U.S. citizen, he said.
He said that her marriage to her husband, also of Ghana, started off well but that he then lashed out about the "way she cooked, the way she cleaned," then began choking her. The abuse escalated to rape, the woman told Palladino.
Esther and her husband filed for a green card for her in 2008, but failed to show up for their interview with the USCIS immigration officer, so the application was denied. Homeland Security placed the woman in removal proceedings in February 2009, after the green-card denial.
At a hearing Dec. 13, Palladino told Judge Mills that USCIS had approved the woman's petition to be classified as an abused spouse. He explained afterward that the approval also meant that USCIS agreed that the woman's marriage was legitimate, not a sham.
The Homeland Security attorney, Bruce Dizengoff, told the judge that he needed time to review the case and contended that it was properly before the court.
Judge Mills sided with Palladino, referring to an August memo by ICE Director John Morton to have some cases returned to USCIS jurisdiction instead of remaining in the courts, in an effort to help unclog the courts.
She instructed Palladino to file a motion to terminate the case, and to let the government's attorney respond. Palladino last week told the Daily News that the ICE chief counsel in Philadelphia, Kent Frederick, has agreed that the woman's removal proceeding should be terminated. Palladino also last week filed a joint motion indicating that both sides agree.
Once the judge grants the motion, as she is expected to do, Esther's request for a green card will be heard by a USCIS immigration officer, instead of languishing in the backed-up immigration-court system.
Vice President Biden Announces Bruce Reed as New Chief of Staff
eNews Park Forest (IL)
January 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–January 14, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden announced today that Bruce Reed will succeed Ron Klain in the role of Chief of Staff for the Office of the Vice President. Mr. Reed has most recently worked for the Administration as Executive Director of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, also known as the Bowles-Simpson Commission. In addition, the Vice President announced that one of his closest advisors, Michael C. Donilon, will be returning to his previous position as Counselor to the Vice President.
"I've known and admired Bruce for over 20 years," said Vice President Biden. "We worked closely together to pass the crime bill in the 1990s and I've frequently sought his advice and counsel in the years since. He brings a unique blend of experience and perspective to this position and his leadership will be a tremendous asset to my office, and to the entire White House. I'm also very pleased that my friend and closest advisor, Mike Donilon, will be returning to the White House in his role as Counselor. His wit, humor and guidance have been missed and we are all very happy to have him back."
"I'm very excited to join Vice President Biden's team, and to work with the fine staff he has assembled. I'm thrilled that he asked me to take on this role, and I look forward to helping him advance the important agenda of the Obama-Biden administration," said Reed.
Bruce Reed's previous work in the White House came during the Clinton-Gore administration, where he spent four years as the Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to the President, after two years as Deputy Domestic Policy Advisor and two years as Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Planning. During this period, he helped President Clinton win passage of landmark welfare reform, the Clinton education agenda, and much more. On behalf of the Clinton-Gore Administration, Reed worked closely with then-Senator Biden to help craft and win passage of the 1994 Biden Crime Bill, which included then-Senator Biden's Violence Against Women Act and his initiative to put 100,000 cops on the streets.
Prior to the Clinton-Gore administration, Reed was deputy campaign manager for policy for the Clinton-Gore campaign and previously served on the staff of then-Senator Al Gore from 1985-1989. From 1990-1991, he served as policy director for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Reed returned to the DLC in January 2001, where he served as Chief Executive Officer until his appointment nine months ago as the Executive Director of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. A native of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Reed is a graduate of Princeton University and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University.
Reed's formal title will be Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President.
An excellent target for spending cuts
WorldNetDaily (USA)
February 1, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
While the U.S. House is trying to figure out how to cut wasteful and/or extravagant federal spending, members should be mindful of Reagan’s advice to begin by cutting programs that are harmful. One that fits this definition is the billion-dollar-a-year Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for re-authorization.
This week is the 18th anniversary of an event that precipitated passage of VAWA in 1994. It’s known as the Super Bowl Hoax, the assertion made on Jan. 28, 1993, in Pasadena, Calif., with fulsome media coverage, that more women are victims of domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than any other day of the year.
That radical-feminist fairy tale lacked even a shred of truth. It was designed to feed the feminist anti-male and anti-masculine prejudices that men are naturally batterers, women are naturally victims, sports fans are prone to aggression and macho posturing, and football is especially guilty.
Reinforcing this non-news-story was an appearance on “Good Morning America” by Lenore Walker to regurgitate her then-14-year-old book called “The Battered Woman.” It is credited with originating what is known as the “battered woman syndrome,” which spread the propaganda that batterers are always men, the battered are always women, and the definition of domestic violence includes acts and words that are not violent.
Feminist political correctness demands that we accept these gender-specific notions while at the same time denying any other innate male-female differences. Larry Summers was driven out of the Harvard University presidency for daring to suggest that we might research possible gender differences between men and women in math and science.
NBC joined the propaganda push by airing a public service announcement before the 1993 Super Bowl to remind men that domestic violence is a crime. The original feminist news release, plus all its “legs” (a favorite media word), was later conclusively proved false by the scholar Christina Hoff Sommers.
Of course, real domestic violence exists and is a crime, and should be punished. However, this issue raises constitutional problems that domestic violence has come to mean whatever a woman alleges, with or without evidence, and men often lose their presumption of innocence and right to confront their accusers.
The fiscal problem is that a billion dollars a year is streaming into the hands of left-wing feminists to pursue their agenda, which does not include preserving or restoring marriage. Taxpayers’ funds are used to lobby for feminist legislation, to train law enforcement and judicial personnel in feminist ideology and in the aggressive enforcement of feminist laws, and to break up families instead of giving them pro-family and anti-substance-abuse counseling.
The VAWA appropriation is only the start of its high cost to taxpayers and society. When marriages are broken by false allegations of domestic violence, U.S. taxpayers fork up an estimated $20 billion a year to support the resulting single-parent, welfare-dependent families.
The total annual taxpayer costs for federal poverty programs arising from family fragmentation and fatherlessness are at least $100 billion. We should establish rigorous accountability for how the taxpayers’ money is spent for domestic violence and evaluate the results of the spending.
An organization called SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) has identified VAWA’s major shortcomings. SAVE also offers some less-costly solutions for domestic problems.
Other proposals include requiring proof of physical violence or credible evidence of imminent violence and removing funds from persons who are “gaming” the system, so funds can be directed to enhance services for true victims. Taxpayers should not have to fund special-interest feminist lobbying, support for enforcement of counterproductive feminist legislation, or training and public awareness programs until they have been reviewed and shown to be accurate and truthful.
One example of VAWA funding doing actual harm is the lobbying to enact state laws requiring mandatory arrest and training the criminal-justice system to pursue aggressive enforcement. A Harvard University study of mandatory-arrest laws in 15 states found that they increased partner homicides by 57 percent.
In the interest of truth, SAVE has set up a Training, Education and Public Awareness (TEPA) program. The hope is that taxpayer funding will be suspended for any domestic violence educational program that lacks TEPA accreditation, a process that should eliminate the fake statistics that have plagued this issue.
SAVE estimates that these VAWA reforms can shave a significant sum off the federal deficit. Some may say that’s “chicken feed” in the big picture of cutting the budget, but these cuts will enable us to do a better job for true victims as well as save money.
Feminists' whines: Back with a vengeance
WorldNetDaily (USA)
Author/Byline: Phyllis Schlafly
February 8, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
The liberals have unjustly blamed Sarah Palin for many things, but there’s one thing for which she is probably responsible: making feminism the hot topic that it has become today. Every couple of years, Time and Newsweek ask, “Is Feminism Dead?” but all of a sudden feminism is being discussed and debated in the mainstream media.
Feminists have been weighing in to dictate their definition of feminism. Modern feminist Jessica Valenti defined it authoritatively in The Washington Post: “Feminism is a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.”
Picturing women as the victims of mean men is the engine of feminism. The feminists’ legislative agenda – from unilateral divorce in the 1960s, to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, to taxpayer-financed day care in the 1980s, to the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, to the Paycheck Fairness Act in the 2000s – is always wrapped in whines about alleged discrimination.
Feminist dogma decrees that women can never be successful under our oppressive patriarchy. Feminists complain that Hillary Clinton was denied the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 because of (in Gloria Steinem’s words) “profound sexism,” and feminists never honor genuinely successful women such as Margaret Thatcher or Condoleezza Rice.
The most scholarly book written about the feminist movement by a non-feminist is “Domestic Tranquility” by Carolyn Graglia. She read all those tiresome books and articles by the feminist leaders – Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer, Kate Millett, Gloria Steinem and Simone de Beauvoir – and concluded that the principal goal of feminism from the get-go has been “the status degradation of the housewife’s role.”
Phyllis Schlafly, the original “anti-feminist,” teams up with her niece in a tour-de-force defense of traditional womanhood – don’t miss “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say”
Graglia documented the fact that all branches of feminism are united in the conviction that a woman can find identity and fulfillment only by a career in the workforce. Steinem said “you become a semi-nonperson when you get married,” while de Beauvoir and Friedan labeled the housewife a “parasite.”
Acquiescence in devaluing the role of full-time homemaker has become part of our culture, taught in women’s studies courses and endlessly reiterated in the media. Conventional wisdom says that modern women should all be in the workforce because just being a homemaker is a wasted life.
Another contemporary feminist, professor and author Linda Hirshman, set forth a popular definition in the Daily Beast. She wrote that “support for abortion rights and Obamacare were litmus tests for true feminism.”
That shows how out of touch the feminists are. The Republican victories in the 2010 elections, which demonstrated American opposition to Obamacare, included many new non-feminist female House members, a senator and four governors. Nearly all newly elected Republicans are anti-abortion.
The feminists don’t know what to say about Sarah Palin, but they can’t resist talking about her. They can’t deal with the facts that she has a successful career, a cool husband and lots of kids; and it’s salt in the feminists’ wounds that she’s pretty, even while wearing glasses.
It’s clear that feminists never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left, which is why they use the word empowerment so repetitively. The worldview of the women you see on television and in college classrooms is fueled by feminist dogma about men, sex, work, marriage, motherhood and politics.
The female left got Barack Obama to make his first acts as president to overturn the anti-abortion executive order known as the Mexico City policy, to sign the Lilly Ledbetter law to facilitate lawsuits against decades-old alleged employment discrimination and to give women the majority of jobs created by the stimulus.
By November 2009, the feminists were ready to gloat and to reproach Americans for relying on “an outdated model of the American family.” They gave fulsome publicity to “The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything,” published by the left-wing think tank Center for American Progress.
The 400-page Shriver Report boasted that we are now living in a “woman’s world,” and, “Emergent economic power gives women a new seat at the table, at the head of the table.” The female left argues for women to be independent of men, self-supporting, sexually uninhibited and liberated from the obligations of marriage and motherhood.
The result is that women are chronically dissatisfied ,however. The National Bureau of Economic Research reports, “As women have gained more freedom, more education and more power, they have become less happy.”
It’s time that young women have a handbook that sets forth the real goals and agenda of the feminists plus a non-feminist roadmap to a happy life. My co-author, Suzanne Venker, and I have provided this in our new book, “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know and Men Can’t Say.”
Valley woman trying to stay in US wins appeal
Yakima Herald-Republic (WA)
February 16, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
A Yakima Valley woman took a significant step toward winning legal immigrant status when a federal appeals court ruled that she qualified to remain with her children, her attorney says.
The San Francisco-based U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued its ruling Monday in the case of Maria Lopez-Birrueta, who had argued that she should not be deported because her children, who were legal residents, had been assaulted by their father.
Lopez-Birrueta, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally in 1994, when she was 14.
The federal government notified her in 2002 that she would face deportation proceedings. She applied for permission to remain under a provision in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
That law allows illegal immigrants to fight removal on the grounds that their spouse assaulted them or, as in Lopez-Birrueta’s case, their unmarried companion has assaulted their children in common.
The law was intended to keep legal residents from using their partner’s or spouse’s illegal status as a way of preventing them from reporting crimes or otherwise controlling them.
Lopez-Birrueta was represented by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which has a Granger office.
Matt Adams, the project’s legal director, said the Ninth Circuit decision was important because it determined that the applicant must provide credible evidence that battery occurred. Battery is generally understood to include any act of violence or threatened act.
The immigration judge who heard Lopez-Birrueta’s case ruled that the “regulatory definition of ‘battery or extreme cruelty’ requires a heightened level of violence that ‘results or threatens to result in physical or mental injury.’ ”
The Ninth Circuit ruling found that the immigration judge went beyond the language of the statute in ruling against Lopez-Birrueta.
The court ordered that the case be returned to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Seattle for further consideration of other factors that govern whether Lopez-Birrueta should be allowed to remain in the country. Those include whether she is considered to be of good character or whether she has any criminal history that would bar her from staying.
“We’re confident there aren’t going to be any problems on those other issues,” Adams said.
The government was represented by the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation in Washington, D.C., which could not be reached for comment after business hours Tuesday.
No criminal charges were ever filed against the children’s father, Adams said. The children testified that he had not assaulted them in recent years.
Boxer Statement on Meeting with United Nations Special Representative Margot Wallstrom on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Targeted News Service (USA)
February 17, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 -- The office of Sen. Barbara A. Boxer, D-Calif., issued the following news release:
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today met with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) on Sexual Violence in Conflict Margot Wallstrom to discuss their shared goal of ending sexual violence against women and children in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Sudan.
After the meeting, Senator Boxer said, "Too many women and girls worldwide endure horrific acts of violence every day, and we must take immediate and concerted action to end these human rights violations. I look forward to working with Special Representative Wallstrom to reverse this appalling trend and to give the United States government and the international community the tools to protect women and children from conflict-related sexual violence."
Special Representative Wallstrom said, "Sexual violence in conflict is a scourge that for too long has been seen as an inevitable consequence of conflict, or as collateral damage. Instead it must be seen as the crime it is, and no longer be the only human rights violation routinely dismissed. Thanks to great U.S. leadership, the U.N. Security Council recently and unanimously approved Resolution 1960. This gives us the tools and teeth we need to fight conflict-related sexual violence. I am in Washington to share with Members of Congress and U.S. Administration representatives my assessment of the current state of this combat, and welcome this opportunity to discuss this crucial issue with Senator Boxer."
Senator Boxer chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women's Issues. She was also a lead sponsor with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) of the bipartisan International Violence Against Women Act, which called for a comprehensive, five-year strategy to reduce the levels of violence against women and girls across the globe.
Special Representative Wallstrom, a longtime advocate of the rights and needs of women, was appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in February 2010. She previously served as Swedish Minister and later as Environment Commissioner and Vice-President of the European Commission, and has served as Chair of the Council of Women World Leaders Ministerial Initiative since 2007.
Assembly Passes Barnes, Spencer & Vainieri Huttle Bill Providing Relief for Gender Motivated Violence
Targeted News Service (USA)
March 14, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
TRENTON, N.J., March 14 -- The New Jersey Assembly's Democrats issued the following news release:
Legislation sponsored by Assembly members Peter J. Barnes III, L. Grace Spencer and Valerie Vainieri Huttle that would provide an additional element of relief for women, and even men, who suffer at the hands of gender-motivated violence passed the General Assembly Monday, by a vote of 60-14-4.
"Gender-motivated violence is still a real and pervasive threat for women," said Barnes (D-Middlesex), chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. "Victims may suffer for many years with the long-term ramifications of this violence, which are not always remedied by criminal prosecutions. This will provide an additional measure of relief for victims of these types of crimes."
A multimedia package consisting of a video of Barnes discussing the legislation and audio and a transcript of same accompany this release.
The bill (A-3086) would create a civil cause of action for gender-motivated violence, allowing victims to be awarded actual damages, damages for emotional distress or punitive damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief. Under the bill, the court may also award reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
"Victims of gender-based violence often see their lives shattered by the mental and physical trauma that can linger for years," said Spencer (D-Essex/Union). "Sometimes the effects require medical treatment, therapy, relocation, or any number of other actions. By creating a civil compensation element, victims will have an additional means to pick up the pieces of their life and move on."
The bill was modeled after the federal "Violence Against Women Act" as well as similar statutes in California and Illinois which provide for a cause of action for gender-motivated violence.
Under the bill, "gender-motivated violence" can mean any of the following:
* one or more acts that would constitute a criminal offense under the laws of this state that has as an element of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction; or * a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction.
Under the bill, the civil action must commence within two years after the cause of action occurred, except if the victim was a minor at the time the action occurred, then the civil action must be commenced within two years after the person reaches the age of 18.
The bill does not require a prior criminal complaint, prosecution or conviction to establish a cause of action. It now heads to the Senate for further consideration.
A transcript of the Assemblyman Barnes' comments is appended below:
"Ordinarily, a victim of gender violence would have to pursue, potentially, three different remedies: a criminal remedy that the state would bring; they'd have to sue for a restraining order, usually in both municipal court and superior court; and then they'd have to turn around and file a regular lawsuit for compensatory damages.
"This bill essentially creates a more efficient mechanism for a victim to sue, where they can get both compensatory damages and a restraining order, which we call injunctive relief.
"In one setting, the victim, who is a victim of violence - gender violence - or an intrusion, an unwanted intrusion, can sue in one setting for all the various damages that she'd be entitled to receive."
NNEDV and NCADV are out of touch
Abuse and stalking victims left behind
Sacramento Examiner (CA)
Author/Byline: Alexis A Moore - Survivors In Action / SIA
March 16, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
Domestic violence and stalking victims need leadership that will listen.
Victims of domestic violence are finding it more and more difficult to get the support that they desperately need. Funding continues to be allocated to outdated programs and policies that are out of touch with the needs of victims today. Shelters continue to turn away battered victims and their children, and stalking victims have no resource at all. The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) are not taking the steps necessary to reform resources and public policy to ensure that no victim is left behind.
It is time for the leadership that directs the funding and public policy to be held accountable for their actions. Today, victims and survivors of domestic violence and stalking are demanding the leadership within the national and state domestic violence organizations listen to their pleas and support DV REFORM or get out of the way.
“We are seeking leadership that will listen and put the needs of victims first instead of their own agendas and egos,” says Alexis A. Moore, founder of Survivors In Action (SIA). The non-profits that are providing the direct services and support to victims need the support of the leadership at the national level, and they are not getting that today. More often than not it is common for the NCADV and NNEDV to block public policy or resource reform that is vital to victims of today and this has to end.
Survivors In Action has been leading the movement known as DV REFORM since 2009, when Moore first spoke with the newly appointed White House Advisor for Violence Against Women and requested her assistance and support to improve domestic violence and stalking victim resources in the 21stcentury. After being told that Ms. Moore would need to provide evidence that would support the need for reform, Survivors In Action began to connect and collaborate with victims, survivors, and family members of abuse and stalking victims from around the nation.
There is a groundswell of support for domestic violence resource reform, but those fighting for DV REFORM are finding a disconnect between national leadership and the local non-profits who are dealing with the victims firsthand. It is the NNEDV and NCADV that the media, private donors, and government officials turn to for advice and input when directing funding and public policy regarding domestic violence and stalking victim resources and laws. These two organizations hold the purse strings and the ability to make all of the decisions while the local shelters and domestic violence organizations are left to do all of the work without any input.
There has to be a meeting of the minds -- the NNEDV and NCADV can’t continue to direct public policy without any accountability measures in place. Survivors in Action believes that they need to cut out the bureaucracy (do we really need two national organizations?) and start directing funding to shelters and to organizations that support victims directly. SIA acknowledges that this may mean that there will need to be more volunteer support and fewer paid staffers, and it certainly means that there should be fewer paid lobbyists. But the money should be going straight to victim support services, where it is most needed.
Domestic violence and stalking are far too often situations of life or death for victims. Leadership that listens is vital in order to prevent domestic violence and ensure victims have the resources they need to become survivors. New leadership and a new organizational structure that better serves the victims of domestic violence are needed now.
Domestic violence bill introduced
Slaughter seeks extension of portion of Violence Against Women Act
Niagara Gazette (NY)
April 21, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON — Landmark 1994 legislation to curb domestic violence is set to expire at the end of this year and Rep. Louise Slaughter has introduced a bill that would preserve a popular component of it.
Slaughter, D-Fairport, announced Thursday that she has introduced the Violence Against Women Health Initiative Act, a bill that would help train doctors and nurses to spot the signs of domestic abuse and offer better care and counsel to victims.
The goal, according to Slaughter’s spokeswoman Victoria Dillon, is to prevent domestic abuse before it happens. Women often feel most comfortable talking about domestic violence with a doctor or nurse rather than friends or family and Dillon said this legislation looks to build on that relationship.
In addition to the obvious benefit, Dillon said preventing domestic violence represents a cost savings to the health care system as a whole.
“There is a level of trust that exists (between a doctor and patient),” she said. “By preventing domestic violence happening in the future by intervening earlier, the costs associated with that (are a) savings to the health care system.”
Slaughter’s office estimates that caring for victims of domestic violence can cost upwards of $8.3 billion per year.
“The health care system is uniquely positioned to take a leading role in fighting and responding to intimate partner violence,” Slaughter said in a statement outlining the legislation. “By training our future doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to recognize and help us prevent future domestic attacks, we will be able to save some of the $8.3 billion domestic violence costs our health care system each year. Most importantly we can save women from repeated attacks.”
Dillon said this is one of a number of bills that are expected to be introduced in the effort to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, of which Slaughter was a co-author. The relevant legislation will likely be bundled into a larger bill that will address all the expiring components of the original 1994 law.
The cost of implementing Slaughter’s legislation has not yet been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, Dillon said, though it was last reauthorized in 2005 at a total cost of $13 million. In 2005, the bill received wide bipartisan support, passing by a 415-4 vote in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.
Justice Department Announces $6.9 Million in Grants to Engage Men in Preventing Crimes Against Women
Government Press Releases (USA)
April 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) announced $6.9 million in awards to 23 projects in the Engaging Men in Preventing Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence and Stalking Grant Program (Engaging Men Grant Program). This is the first time in the history of OVW that a grant program directly encourages men to be part of successful crime prevention efforts addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, and to become partners in creating respectful and positive relationships.
The Engaging Men Grant Program creates a unique opportunity for OVW to support public education campaigns and community organizations to encourage men and boys to work as allies with women and girls for preventing violence.
"All men play a critical role in preventing crimes against women and are important partners in our effort to address the full spectrum of these crimes," said Susan B. Carbon, Director of the Office on Violence Against Women. "These grants and the work of the grantees will provide the framework for extending and developing these partnerships across the country."
The funded projects include non-profit non-governmental victim services agencies; non-profit community based agencies; state domestic violence or sexual assault coalitions; an institution of higher education; a unit of local government; a tribal coalition; and a tribal non-profit victim services agency. These awards are part of OVW's ongoing commitment to support gender and culturally specific education on healthy relationships and strengthen existing community outreach efforts to men and boys.
The following 23 organizations received $300,000 :
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (Juneau, Alaska)
Korean American Family Service Center Inc. (Los Angeles)
Peace Over Violence (Los Angeles)
Howard University (Washington, D.C.)
Tapestri Inc. (Tucker, Ga.)
Idaho Coalition Against Sexual & Domestic Violence ( Boise, Idaho)
Maine Boys to Men (Portland, Maine)
Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence ( Augusta, Maine)
Boston Public Health Commission (Boston)
Michigan Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault ( Okemos, Mich.)
Family & Children's Service ( Minneapolis)
Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition (St. Paul, Minn.)
North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault ( Raleigh, N.C.)
North Dakota Council on Abused Women's Services ( Bismarck, N.D.)
Enlace Comunitario ( Albuquerque, N.M.)
Family Services Inc. ( Poughkeepsie, N.Y.)
Retreat Inc. ( East Hampton, N.Y.)
Vera House Inc., ( Syracuse, N.Y.)
Klamath Crisis Center ( Klamath Falls, Ore.)
White Buffalo Calf Woman Society Inc. ( Mission, S.D.)
Migrant Clinicians Network Inc. ( Austin, Texas)
Migrant Health Promotion Inc. (Weslaco, Texas)
Refugee Women's Alliance (Seattle)
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), a component of the U.S. Department of Justice, provides leadership in developing the nation's capacity to reduce violence against women through the implementation of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and subsequent legislation. Created in 1995, OVW administers financial and technical assistance to communities across the country that are developing programs, policies and practices aimed at ending domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In addition to overseeing 21 federal grant programs, OVW often undertakes initiatives in response to special needs identified by communities facing acute challenges.
W.Va. justices reverse shelter board ruling
Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
May 27, 2011
https://infoweb.newsbank.com/
West Virginia's Family Protection Services Board has prevailed in a legal fight over its handling of domestic violence policies.
Thursday's unanimous ruling by the state Supreme Court reverses a 2009 Kanawha Circuit judge's order against the agency.
Judge Jim Stucky had sided with the group Men and Women Against Discrimination. It alleged gender bias and unfair practices.
The board provides funding and licensing standards for domestic violence shelters and family protection programs. It also oversees programs to treat abusers.
The justices ruled that Men and Women Against Discrimination had no legal standing to sue. But Thursday's ruling also rejects the group's challenge of three rules governing board policy. The Supreme Court affirmed each as reflecting the intent of the Legislature when it passed the state's Domestic Violence Act.
