First published: Thursday, January 3, 2008
Times Union
Ease Access to Family Court
By JAYNE BIGELSEN
Parents of New York City teenagers got a wake-up
call last month when they learned that one out
of 10 teenagers from a study of 8,000 students
between grades 9-12 have experienced violence by
a dating partner. The New York City Health Department's
Teen Safety Report released these numbers, which
describes a 40 percent increase in teen dating
violence since 1999.
If most of these teenage victims were to go to
Family Court, they would be turned away, unable
to obtain an order of protection. An order of protection
is often an essential tool in getting the abuser
to see that dating violence is a crime that law
enforcement takes seriously. Yet, New York requires
Family Court litigants to be either married, related
by blood to the abuser or have a child in common.
All 49 other states grant civil orders of protection
to either cohabitants and/or victims of dating-intimate
partner violence.
This means that not only teens, but same-sex couples
and heterosexual adult couples who are dating or
living together but not married will also find
the doors of Family Court closed to them.
While orders of protection can be obtained in
criminal court, that process requires police involvement
and criminal charges. The prosecutor, and not the
victim, is the named party and in charge of criminal
court cases. Young people often simply want the
abuse to stop and can be reluctant to initiate
a criminal proceeding that could result in their
partner's imprisonment.
This is the 20th anniversary of the introduction
of legislation pending in Albany that would open
Family Court to those living in the same household
or in an intimate dating relationship. For close
to two decades, the legislation has passed the
state Assembly but died in the Senate.
While the opposition sometimes claims it is a
matter of lack of resources in Family Court, the
court system has not opposed the bill and lack
of resources should never be the response when
failing to protect our children or allowing discrimination.
A better response for the Legislature to consider
as it returns to Albany next week would be to allow
fair access to Family Court while also increasing
the number of Family Court judgeships.
Many domestic violence advocates suspect that
the real reason the bill keeps dying is that many
state senators fear that the bill would expand
the definition of family to encompass same sex
relationships and non-married heterosexual couples
who reside together. If so, this would be consistent
with what we have observed in the Senate with regard
to other legislation.
For example, legislation protecting victims of
domestic violence from employment and housing discrimination
has failed to become law because the Assembly wants
to protect all victims of domestic violence, while
the Senate wants to retain the definition of victim
that excludes those who aren't married to their
abuser, related by blood or have a child in common.
The debate about the definition of family has
reared its head in other areas as well, particularly
health care where the Senate has refused to give
same-sex domestic partners the same rights as spouses
when it comes to making health decisions on behalf
of their loved ones.
Jayne Bigelsen is director of legislative affairs
for the New York City Bar Association
