Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Kansas --Made a “Deal” and Sold a Child to her Abuser-- so HE Could Become Chief Judge--HAPPY ANNIVERSAY – Mother Fucker

Americans For Prosperity and Kansas Judges-Claudine Dombrowski

July 31, 2010---Happy Anniversary you sick shit—I have not forgotten you---I Have not gone away ---I will NOT SHUT UP and YOU are not forgotten-- 

Ten Years ago--July 31, 2000, Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court,  of Topeka Kansas Made a 'deal' with prior Judge James P Buchele - to  "Take the child away from mother-give her to her known rapist and drug/alcohol wife beating father—DADDY HAL RICHARDSON  So he could  become Chief Judge" --he did- and he did.

See Manhattan Free Press ...

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Judge Richard D. Anderson Shawnee County Court

Shawnee County District Court-- Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 - Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND  convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

CRIMINAL Halleck George RICHARDSON II, TOPEKA KANSAS MINUTE MAN SOLOR FILM TOPEKA KANSAS

OUTRAGES

NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies - 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances...

THESE CASES ARE NOT "TRAGEDIES". THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:

Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN

KANSAS

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
            Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
            But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vaccuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

RICHARD ANDERSON---- Topeka Kansas Courts Have Continued Abuse Of Manhattan Woman

By Jon A. Brake

Manhattan Free Press

MANHATTAN, KS - To some this could be considered beautiful. Solid mahogany is beautiful when given a high finish and it does have a high finish. It is about four to four and a half feet long, a foot and a half high; with shinny brass handles at the foot and head. A child's coffin, in this home has been turned into a coffee table.

To Claudine Dombrowski it is not beautiful, that is her daughter, six-year-old Rikki on the couch behind the threatening coffee table. If a coffin coffee table is not enough, a hunting rifle hangs on the wall above the couch.

Claudine, a Manhattan resident, was divorced from Hal Richardson in Shawnee County District Count in 1997. She had been a repeat victim of Domestic Violence and a repeat victim of the State Court System.

What does the Court System think of the coffin coffee table? In a letter to Shawnee County District Court Division Two Judge Richard D. Anderson, Harry Moore, with the Court Services stated: "When I was at the house, I did not recognize anything which in my experience resembled a child's coffin. After looking at the picture and speaking with Mr. Richardson, I have come to find out that it is indeed a coffin and that it was an antique which he purchased in Mexico several years ago and uses as a coffee or end table of sorts."

What about the rifle? Mr. Moore said, "There is also a secured hunting weapon hanging on Mr. Richardson's wall. The thing which is striking about this specific issue is that it contains a remarkable leap of logic. For instance, I am the owner of a 7.9 mm Mauser rifle which was the standard issue firearm for the German soldier in World War II. This weapon was procured by my father who served in Europe during the war. This weapon also hangs on the wall in  my rec room. Does my ownership and display of this firearm lead one to the conclusion that I am a Nazi?"

The question Mr. Moore failed to answer is: "Is it a leap of logic for an abused woman to see the child's coffin and the rifle as more than furniture? Is there a message to the mother? The Shawnee District Court has missed many messages when it comes to the violence in this case.

When reading Court documents it is clear that attorneys have intentionally muddied the waters. It was a nasty divorce, those things happen. Eight or more attorneys, three different Judges and several Court Service workers have filed motion after motion. In the end a Judge wants to compel a dysfunctional family to be normal. It can't be done.

Halleck (Hal) Richardson and Claudine Dombrowske lived together for several months before they were married on November 22, 1995. Divorce papers were filed four month later. By this time records show Hal Richardson had abused Claudine and he had Domestic Battery and Criminal Damage to property convictions.

Hal had seven other convictions before 1995. The convictions were for Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and an Open Container conviction.

Most of the Probation Conditions were never followed up on by court officials. After the Domestic Battery conviction, Hal was ordered to attend an "Alternatives to Battering Program" put on by the Battered Women Task Force in Topeka. A few of the comments made on Hal's report were: "Client rude and disrespectful to female co-facilitator as evidenced by his combative stance, his repeated interruptions, his sexist language and his refusal to accept any responsibility."

Another report stated: "Client very disruptive during group, this was evidenced by the fact that he interrupted the facilitator repeatedly by making rude comments, laughing and telling inappropriate sexist jokes."

And finally: "Called PO (probation officer) and client to tell them that he had graduated as far as I was concerned. He only has 17 sessions, but is causing too much trouble with his mouth. Terminated, with cause. Will not be accepted back."

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine's attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that "Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson."

Hal was given supervised visitation.

As in many divorce cases the Judge on November 5, 1996 appointed Mr. Scott McKenzie, Attorney at Law, to serve as Guardian ad Litem to appear on behalf of Rikki. Mr. McKenzie was very experienced in juvenile court proceedings with more than 1,000 cases but this was only his sixth Guardian ad Litem. Under Mr. McKenzie direction visitation terms were worked out to where Claudine would keep Rikki for three weeks and then Hal would have her for a week.

Before the Divorce Trial started a new Judge took over. Judge James P. Buchele replaced Judge Leuenberger.

It is about this time the Court and Court appointed case workers attitued changed. Judge Buchele saw that fifty people were being called as witnesses for the trial. He placed a limit of five for each side. This can be done but it can cause problems. Court documents state: "These limits made it difficult or impossible for Ms. Dombrowski to bring in all of the witnesses to corroborate here clams." During the trial the Judge would not allow hearsay evidence but the proper witness was not there to testify.

At trial Mr. McKenzie indicated, "after reading the police reports of the violence, and the doctor's reports, he was not able to validate any of the truth of any of the accusations of violence made by Ms. Dombrowski."

When asked about Mr. Richardson's criminal history Mr. McKenzie recalled only a single offense for driving under the influence of alcohol, and was unaware of the misdemeanor convictions including the domestic violence battery against Claudine. He was unaware of a misdemeanor battery for a bar fight and the battery of a law enforcement officer.

Records of the Battered Women's Task Force had never been reviewed by Mr. McKenzie. Even thou Claudine had received support from the facility. In a report to the court Mr. McKenzie had recommended anger management therapy for Claudine but not for Hal.

In Judge Buchele's Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: "Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski's unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court's view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age."

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: "Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager."

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there. Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her. The Shawnee County Sheriff's Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week. The child will go to school in Topeka unless a new motion, which will be filed this week, is granted. The motion will request that Claudine be given custody and Rikki be allowed to attend school in Manhattan.

This case has received national attention by the National Organization for Women; the Judicial Initiative Commission Hearing by the Citizens for Good Judges and it was told to the Kansas Justice Commission in 1997.

A new Judge will be hearing the motion. Judge Richard D. Anderson took over the case on the retirement of Judge Buchele. But, unless Claudine receiveds help from Kansas citizens, the abuse will continue. In July of 2000 Judge Anderson reaffirmed all of Judge Buchele's previous orders. Evan the order to not call law enforcement authorities

Webmaster Note:  You can contact Judge Richard D. Anderson at (785) 233-8200 ext. 4350

OUT RAGES

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the "man" who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine's history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here

If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here

AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994

AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996

AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000

AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003

THE "COFFEE TABLE" IN THE FATHER'S HOME IS A CHILD'S COFFIN.  MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

What Litigation Abuse Looks Like! It Boggles The Mind That Each Line Represents a Trip to Court. This is a KANSAS CASE! The Claudine Dombrowski Case.

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse | Stop Family Violence There is a crisis in our nation’s family courts. Judges are awarding child custody to abusers and pedophiles and punishing the safe parent who tries to … As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the[more...]

ShareThis

• CONFIRMED: PROTECTIVE MOTHERS WERE RIGHT

• 

  A special Mothers Day Article
  By Barry Goldstein

  For many years, protective mothers have complained about a broken custody court system giving custody to abusive fathers. The courts dismissed the complaints by saying they came from disgruntled litigants. Now, a new book based on multi-disciplinary research has confirmed that common mistakes in the custody[more...]

WordPress Tags: Judge,Richard,Anderson,Shawnee,Kansas,Made,Deal,Child,Abuser,Could,Become,Chief,ANNIVERSAY,Mother,Fucker,Americans,Judges,Claudine,Dombrowski,Anniversary,SHUT,Court,Topeka,James,Buchele,Take,drug,wife,father,DADDY,RICHARDSON,Manhattan,Free,Deprivation,Abuse,District,Street,Order,REPEAT,daughter,KNOWN,Batterer,RAPIST,CRIMINAL,Halleck,George,MINUTE,SOLOR,FILM,NOTE,Trag,drama,consequence,flaw,CASES,ethics,ideas,CHILDREN,CASE,custody,Rikki,testimony,behavior,Battery,Enforcement,Officer,Obstruction,Legal,Possession,Marijuana,violation,Open,Container,times,Worse,permission,manager,orders,prohibition,Guardian,Scott,McKenzie,portion,hell,America,Courts,Woman,Brake,Solid,foot,brass,coffin,Count,victim,Domestic,Violence,State,System,letter,Division,Harry,Services,Mexico,weapon,logic,instance,owner,Mauser,firearm,German,soldier,World,Europe,room,ownership,conclusion,Nazi,furniture,message,messages,documents,Service,workers,Dombrowske,November,Divorce,papers,records,Damage,conviction,Most,Probation,Conditions,Program,Women,Task,Force,comments,Client,facilitator,stance,sexist,language,refusal,Another,fact,proceedings,Throughout,reports,incident,piece,wood,June,Leuenberger,Great,Bend,area,history,Attorney,Litem,Under,direction,Trial,problems,hearsay,doctor,truth,misdemeanor,management,therapy,Here,Mutual,involvement,decision,dialogue,relationship,separation,parent,judgment,Further,authorities,petitioner,December,Marys,treatment,Hospital,Pottawatomie,Sheriff,event,Department,attention,National,Organization,Judicial,Initiative,Commission,Citizens,Justice,retirement,Evan,Webmaster,FULL,IACHR,relationships,BIRTH,HUSBAND,BEAT,ASSAULT,COFFEE,TABLE,HOME,WALL,ABOVE,SOFA,Litigation,Boggles,Mind,Line,Trip,Stop,crisis,nation,ShareThis,PROTECTIVE,Article,Barry,Goldstein,disciplinary,TRAGEDIES,decisions,convictions,feet,interruptions,sessions,violations,accusations,periods,fathers,Photos,complaints,alcohol,four,attorneys,three,months,visitation,week

Mother’s Day Proclamation at the White House 1870 and 2010

Mother’s Day Proclamation at the White House 1870 and 2010

Mother’s Day Proclamation at the White House 1870 and 2010

Mothers' Day Proclamation

All Pages

Mothers of Lost Children at the White House on Mothers Day, May 9, 2010

Whereas: Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that children’s exposure to traumas such as child physical abuse, incest and witnessing domestic violence have severe negative effects that can last a lifetime and that childhood adverse experiences are the major risk factors for the leading causes of illness and death in the United States[1]; and

Whereas: Domestic violence is a strong predictor of child physical abuse, increasing the risk from 5% after one violent act to 100% after 50 violent acts[2]; and

Whereas: Child sexual abuse allegations are extremely rare in custody cases (2-6%)[3], are just as likely to be true as at any other time (two-thirds are substantiated)[4], and fathers are far more likely to intentionally make false allegations (21%) than mothers (1%)[5]; and

Whereas: Domestic violence, child abuse and incest may not become known until the child’s parents separate, and abuse may begin or escalate after separation; and

Whereas: Non-scientific theories such as alienation theories which assume that the children’s reports of physical or sexual abuse are coached or fabricated by the protective parent result in children being inappropriately ordered into unsupervised contact with their identified batterers and molesters[6]; and

Whereas: Violent parents (usually fathers) are much more likely to seek sole custody and are successful about 70% of the time[7]; and

Whereas: More than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States[8] and a growing number of children are murdered while in their violent parents’ custody and control[9]; and

Whereas: Children’s physical and sexual safety is fundamental to their health and welfare, and must take precedence over abusive parents’ claims to custody or visitation.

Therefore: Be it resolved that:

1. A Congressional Hearing on family court abuses and corruption be convened.
2. A complete investigation be ordered by the President, requesting that the U.S. Attorney General investigate family court policies, practices and procedures in California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Hawaii, states from which advocacy organizations receive an unusually high number of complaints that children are ordered to live with batterers and molesters.
3. A Federal Grand Jury be convened to ensure that these children are with their safe parents.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ace and http://www.acestudy.org

[2] Ross, Risk of Physical Abuse to Children of Spouse Abusing Parents, 20(7)Child Abuse & Neglect, 589-98,1996

[3] Thoennes & Tjaden, The Extent, Nature, and Validity of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Disputes, 14(2) Child Sexual Abuse & Neglect, 151-63, 1990

[4] Brown, Frederico, Hewitt & Sheehan, Revealing the Existence of Chidl Abuse in the Context of Marital Breakdown and Custody and Access Disputes, 24(6) Child Abuse & Neglect, 849-85, 2000

[5] Bala & Schuman, Allegations of Sexual Abuse When Parents Have Separated, 17 Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 191-241, 2000

[6] Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family,www.nnflp.org/apa/APA_task_force.htm; and unpublished research by Geraldine Stahly, PhD

[7] Violence and the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family,www.nnflp.org/apa/APA_task_force.htm; American Judges Foundation, Domestic Violence and the Court House: Understanding the Problem…Knowing the Victim, http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html; and unpublished research by Geraldine Stahly, PhD

[8] www.leadershipcouncil.org

[9] http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/02

Mothers' Day Proclamation

Julia Ward Howe, Boston, 1870

Mother's Day was originally started after the Civil War, as a protest to the carnage of that war, by women who had lost their sons. Here is the original Mother's Day Proclamation from 1870.

Arise then...women of this day!

Arise, all women who have hearts!

Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:

"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,

Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,

For caresses and applause.

Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn

All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.

We, the women of one country,

Will be too tender of those of another country

To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with

Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."

Blood does not wipe out dishonor,

Nor violence indicate possession.

As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil

At the summons of war,

Let women now leave all that may be left of home

For a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means

Whereby the great human family can live in peace...

Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,

But of God -

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask

That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,

May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient

And the earliest period consistent with its objects,

To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,

The amicable settlement of international questions,

The great and general interests of peace.

Blogger Labels: Mother,Proclamation,White,House,Lost,Children,Whereas,Research,Disease,Control,Prevention,exposure,violence,lifetime,death,Domestic,predictor,Child,custody,cases,separation,alienation,reports,parent,result,Violent,health,welfare,precedence,Congressional,corruption,investigation,President,Attorney,General,procedures,California,York,Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,Florida,Hawaii,advocacy,Federal,Grand,Jury,Ross,Risk,Physical,Abuse,Spouse,Parents,Neglect,Thoennes,Tjaden,Extent,Nature,Sexual,Visitation,Brown,Frederico,Hewitt,Sheehan,Existence,Chidl,Context,Marital,Breakdown,Bala,Schuman,Canadian,Report,American,Psychological,Association,Presidential,Task,Force,APA_task_force,Geraldine,Judges,Foundation,Court,Problem,Victim,Julia,Ward,Howe,Boston,Civil,carnage,Here,Arise,Whether,baptism,tears,applause,mercy,patience,From,Earth,Disarm,sword,justice,Blood,possession,Whereby,human,peace,Caesar,period,objects,alliance,settlement,interests,traumas,factors,allegations,fathers,theories,policies,organizations,complaints,hearts,agencies,incest,batterers,molesters,nnflp,women,sons

Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders

Fact Sheet #2: The myth of women’s false accusations of domestic violence and rape and misuse of protection orders

| Michael Flood

More articles about:

• Fathering
• Men’s & fathers’ rights
• Violence

Summary

Myth:

Women routinely make up allegations of domestic violence and rape, including to gain advantage in family law cases. And women use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children.

Facts:

• The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.
• Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.
• Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.
• Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.
• Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

Note that this fact sheet is also available in PDF. (See below.)

The myth

Fathers’ rights groups assert that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence to gain advantage in family law cases and use protection orders to remove men from their homes or deny contact with children rather than out of any real experience or fear of violence. In its submission to a review of legislation regarding protection orders, the Lone Fathers’ Association (2004, pp. 11, 38) states that protection orders “are employed as a routine separation procedure” by women to force their husbands out of their homes, without any actual violence having occurred, “and/or as a vindictive retaliatory act”.

The facts

The risk of domestic violence increases at the time of separation.

There is no doubt that family court proceedings often are accompanied by allegations of domestic violence and the use of protection orders. However, this reflects the fact that domestic violence often escalates at the time of separation. Australian data from a national survey in 1996 show that women are as likely to experience violence by previous partners as by current partners and that it is the time around and after separation which is most dangerous for women (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996, p. 8).

Similarly, North American research documents that the risks of nonlethal and lethal violence are highest for women when they are leaving the male partners with whom they have been living in an intimate relationship (DeKeseredy et al., 2004, p. 677). Separated women are at elevated risk of violence by men, whether physical, sexual, or lethal, relative to women in intact unions (Brownridge, 2006), and women are at risk of increasingly severe violence when separating from violent partners (Riggs et al., 2000). The risk of post-separation violence decreases with the passage of time since separation, and is greatest in the first two or three months after the commencement of the separation, at least from homicide data.

Further situational variables influence post-separation violence. Leaving a marital or cohabiting relationship or trying to leave it increases women’s changes of being physically or sexually assaulted especially if they are connected to men with patriarchal and/or sexually proprietary attitudes (DeKeseredy et al., 2004). Women are at greater risk of post-separation violence if they are more ‘available’ for victimisation: if they live in the same city as their former partner, and at risker times such as court appearances and exchanges of or visits to children (Brownridge, 2006). The presence of a new partner can be either a risk or a protective factor, as can children. For example, joint custody may become an opportunity for conflict and violence, may increase opportunities for violence at visitation and the exchange of children, and children may be used as tools for violence by abusive men (Brownridge, 2006).

The relationship between pre- and post-separation violence is shaped by other variables such as the duration of the union and the severity and frequency of pre-separation violence. There is evidence that post-separation violence often is a continuation of violence that occurred during the relationship and that a substantial proportion of such violence is a new phenomenon (Brownridge, 2006).

Most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims.

Existing research finds that most allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings are made in good faith and with support and evidence for their claims. Two studies have examined rates of substantiated allegations of domestic violence in the context of family law proceedings, and they find that allegations are substantiated in 63 to 74 percent of cases (Shaffer and Bala, 2003; Johnston et al., 2005). The remainder are unsubstantiated – where either there is insufficient information to support substantiation or where there is a determination that the allegation is false.

A Canadian study of family law cases in which written decisions were produced over a three-year period identified 42 recorded cases of spousal abuse alleged against men. Seventy-four percent of these were substantiated. Only two cases of spousal abuse alleged against women were identified, one of which was substantiated (Shaffer and Bala, 2003). However, as the authors note, in the cases where the courts found the allegations to be exaggerated or unfounded, in some instances the courts gave no reasons for this conclusion, and in at least some cases, judges failed to recognise the existence or seriousness of actual abuse (Shaffer and Bala, 2003).

A US study drew on documentary records describing 120 divorced families referred for child custody evaluations and custody counselling, collected over 1989 to 2002 from family courts within San Francisco Bay Area counties. Multiple allegations of child abuse, neglect, and family violence were raised in the majority of cases. Allegations were assessed on the basis of detailed interviews with family members, information from professionals, and analysis of written documentation. This study found that 63 percent of allegations of abuse by one adult of another (including domestic violence and substance misuse) were substantiated (Johnston et al., 2005). Allegations were more likely to be substantiated against men than against women (67 versus 55 percent). In other words, counter to some popular perceptions, men rather than women were more likely to make allegations of domestic violence (and substance abuse) in family law proceedings which were not substantiated. However, this study cannot determine rates of false allegations, as it could not distinguish among ‘unsubstantiated’ allegations between those which were false and those which could not be determined due to lack of evidence (Johnston et al., 2005).

Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.

The evidence is that rates of intentionally false and/or malicious accusations of rape are very low. For example, the most recent British study determines that only three per cent of rapes reported to the police were either ‘possible’ or ‘probable’ false allegations (Kelly et al. 2005). Australian studies are similar. For example, in an analysis of 850 rapes reported to Victoria Police over three years, only 2.1 per cent of reports were identified by police as false (Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault 2006: 5). Three earlier studies in Australia, based on police data from 1986 to 1990, find rates of false reports of sexual assault of 1.4 per cent, 4.8 per cent, and 7 per cent (VLRC 2004: 112).

Some other studies claim that rates of false allegations of sexual assault are much higher. However, as a recent review notes, there is considerable diversity in definitions of falsity, in how allegations are judged to be false, and in methods for collecting data regarding the extent of false allegations (Rumney 2006: 130-132). For example, some studies which find apparently high rates of false rape allegations take at face value the judgements made by police officers on the basis of stereotypical assumptions regarding rape victims and their responses to victimisation (ibid: 142).

There is no doubt that false allegations of rape and domestic violence sometimes are made. At the same time, there is nothing to suggest that these are common or that women make them more often than men (Davis, 2004). In addition, false allegations of violence and abuse are far less common than false denials of their perpetration (Jaffe et al., 2008).

Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.

There is further evidence that most allegations of domestic violence express women’s genuine concerns for their and/or their children’s safety. Research in Australia finds that women going through family court proceedings and living with domestic violence do not routinely take out protection orders in response. In a study of 176 files in which children’s matters were contested, while 95 of the files (54 per cent) included evidence of domestic violence Apprehended Violence Orders had not been obtained in over a third of these (Melville & Hunter, 2001, pp. 127-128).

In addition, women often only take out protection orders against domestic violence as a last resort after being subjected to repeated and serious victimization (Melville & Hunter, 2001). Among young women aged 18 to 23, women are more likely to seek legal protection if they have experienced more severe levels of violence (e.g. including being beaten, choked or shot at), have been injured, and have children (Young et al., 2000, p. 3). Earlier research into the use of apprehended domestic violence orders found that the majority of complainants had experienced physical violence on more than one occasion (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997).

Legal authorities themselves reject the view that women routinely fabricate allegations of domestic violence. For example, bodies such as the Criminal Law Review Division of the NSW Attorney-General’s Department reject the view that women use protection orders in family law proceedings to gain a tactical advantage (Simpson, 2000, p. 18). In New Zealand, reviews by the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice find no evidence to support the claim that women are making strategic use of protection orders, based for example on false allegations of domestic violence, to gain strategic advantage in family law cases (Davis, 2004).

In fact, Australian research finds that most women who have experienced violence in relationships still want their children to have some contact with the other parent, but what they seek (and often do not receive) is an arrangement which ensures safety for their children and themselves (Kaye et al., 2003).

Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence.

The Australian evidence is that protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women’s vulnerability to violence. An early study in New South Wales found that the vast majority of complainants experienced a reduction in violence and abuse from the defendant in the six months after the order was served on the defendant, and over 90 per cent reported that the order had produced benefits such as reduced contact with the defendant and increased personal safety and comfort (Trimboli & Bonney, 1997). Finally, research among young women aged 18 to 23 and subjected to violence by intimate partners found that “preventive strategies for young women at the early stage of a relationship can eliminate, or at least reduce, physical violence by a partner” (Young et al., 2000, p. 5). The severity of violence was reduced after legal protection, but the benefit was not as marked unless women sought help from the courts as well as the police.

References cited

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Women’s Safety Australia (cat. no. 4128.0). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Brownridge, D. A. (2006). Violence against women post-separation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5): 514-530.
Davis, W. (2004) Gender Bias, Fathers’ Rights, Domestic Violence and the Family Court. Butterworths Family Law Journal, December: 299-312.
DeKeseredy, W. S., Rogness, M., & Schwartz, M. D. (2004). Separation/divorce sexual assault: The current state of social scientific knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 675-691.
Jaffe, Peter G., Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, and Nicholas Bala. (2008).  Custody disputes involving allegations of domestic violence: toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans. Family Court Review, 46(3): 500-522.
Johnston, J. R., S. Lee, N.W. Olesen, and M.G. Walters. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 283–294.
Kelly L, Lovett, J & Regan, L 2005, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London.
Lone Fathers Association Australia. (2004). Protection orders legislation review. (ACT). Discussion Paper: Comments by Lone Fathers Association. (Australia). Inc. Canberra.
Melville, A., & Hunter, R. (2001). ‘As everybody knows’: Countering myths of gender bias in family law. Griffith Law Review, 10(1), 124-138.
Riggs, D. S., M. B. Caulfield, & A.B. Street (2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology 56(10): 1289-1316.
Rumney, N.S. (2006). False Allegations of Rape. Cambridge Law Journal, 65, March, pp.128-158.
Shaffer, M., and N. Bala. (2003). Wife abuse, child custody and access in Canada. In R. Geffner, R. S. Ingelman, & J. Zellner (Eds.), The effects of intimate partner violence on children  (pp. 253–276). New York: Haworth Maltreatment & Trauma Press.
Simpson, R. (2000). Incidence and regulation of domestic violence in New South Wales (Briefing Paper 4/2000). Sydney: NSW Parliamentary Library.
Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault. (2006). Study of Reported Rapes in Victoria 2000-2003: Summary Research Report. Melbourne: Office of Women’s Policy.
Trimboli, L., & Bonney, R. (1997). An evaluation of the NSW apprehended violence order scheme. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
VLRC 2004, Sexual offences: law and procedure: final report, Victorian Law Reform Commission, Melbourne.
Young, M., Byles, J., & Dobson, A. (2000). The effectiveness of legal protection in the prevention of domestic violence in the lives of young Australian women. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 148, 1-6.

Contact

This Fact Sheet may be circulated. It may be reproduced with acknowledgement to Dr Michael Flood. Direct correspondence to mflood [at] uow.edu.au.

Attachment
Size

False Accusations DV Rape 2010.pdf
92.35 KB

Blogger Labels: Fact,Sheet,myth,violence,protection,orders,Michael,Flood,rights,Summary,Women,advantage,cases,children,Facts,separation,Most,context,proceedings,faith,Rates,resort,Note,submission,Association,procedure,Australian,data,partners,Bureau,Statistics,North,American,documents,male,relationship,DeKeseredy,Brownridge,Riggs,greatest,commencement,homicide,Further,times,exchanges,factor,example,custody,tools,duration,frequency,continuation,proportion,phenomenon,Shaffer,Bala,Johnston,remainder,substantiation,determination,allegation,Canadian,period,courts,conclusion,judges,existence,records,Francisco,Area,Multiple,basis,analysis,documentation,substance,words,British,Victoria,Police,reports,Statewide,Committee,Reduce,Sexual,Assault,Three,Australia,VLRC,Some,notes,extent,Rumney,victims,Davis,addition,Jaffe,Research,response,files,Melville,Hunter,victimization,Among,Young,Earlier,Trimboli,Bonney,Legal,authorities,Criminal,Review,Division,Attorney,General,Department,Simpson,Zealand,Commission,Ministry,Justice,relationships,parent,arrangement,Kaye,South,Wales,reduction,benefits,Canberra,Aggression,Violent,Behavior,Gender,Bias,Domestic,Court,Butterworths,Journal,December,Schwartz,knowledge,Peter,Janet,Claire,Nicholas,plans,Olesen,Walters,Lovett,Regan,chasm,Attrition,Child,Woman,Abuse,Unit,London,Metropolitan,Home,Office,Development,Directorate,Discussion,Paper,Comments,everybody,myths,Griffith,Caulfield,Street,Risk,Clinical,Psychology,False,Rape,Cambridge,March,Wife,Canada,Geffner,Ingelman,Zellner,York,Haworth,Maltreatment,Trauma,Incidence,regulation,Sydney,Parliamentary,Library,Study,Rapes,Report,Melbourne,Policy,evaluation,Crime,Victorian,Reform,Byles,Dobson,prevention,Contact,Direct,correspondence,Attachment,Size,accusations,articles,fathers,allegations,attitudes,appearances,decisions,authors,instances,evaluations,members,perceptions,definitions,methods,officers,assumptions,responses,denials,strategies,References,Crooks,Factors,Trends,legislation,months,variables,victimisation,spousal,perpetration,complainants,defendant