Harry Shipps | JDI

The Pervasive Impact of Coercive Control

Harry Shipps — Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:13:58 +0000

In late June, the Together Rising Above Coercion (TRAC) coalition held a briefing at the Massachusetts State House, attended by numerous Coalition members and partners – including Jane Doe Inc. and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute – advocates, legislators, and survivors.

The goal of the briefing was to bring greater attention to the critical need for legislation in Massachusetts to improve protections for victims of coercive control, a pattern of deliberate behavior by an abuser that substantially restricts their victim’s safety and autonomy.

Current law in Massachusetts (Chapter 209A) limits the definition of domestic abuse to physical abuse and coerced sexual relations, but many victims are also subject to other forms of persistent, harmful abuse and control, including intimidation, threats, isolation, technology abuse, and abusive litigation.

During the briefing, to underscore the importance of more explicit protections against these other forms of abuse, several survivors shared their personal stories – highlighting the lengths their abusers went to to control their lives and prevent them from achieving safety or liberation.

Like many events at the State House, members of the media were in attendance at the briefing, and, in their reporting, they included excerpts from the powerful testimony offered by survivors during the briefing.

Unfortunately, in the days following the briefing, we learned an abuser used threats and intimidation to get one survivor’s story removed from the record – ensuring that fewer people hear that survivor’s experience and perspective.

In doing so, however, the abuser did not succeed in shaking the resolve of the survivor or of our Coalition. In fact, the abuser provided a crystal clear example of exactly the kind of ongoing, harmful abuse that necessitates stronger protections in Massachusetts.

As long as the law fails to recognize and address the power imbalance that allows abusers to intimidate and control the people they’ve abused at every turn and that empowers abusers to protect their own reputations by silencing survivors’ voices, then cycles of violence and abuse will only continue. Let’s be clear: if survivors are prevented from telling their stories, or have those stories silenced, more people will be abused. People who otherwise might have recognized the abuse happening to them and found the resources and support to change their situation will continue to be harmed.

Lawmakers – including Senator Michael Moore, Representative Natalie Higgins, Representative Tram Nguyen, and Representative Natalie Blais – have introduced two critical pieces of legislation aimed at addressing the profound, negative impact of coercive control: An Act to Improve Protections Relative to Domestic Violence (H.1547/S.1077), which would expand domestic abuse protections to include various forms of coercive control, and An Act Relative to Controlling and Abusive Litigation (H.1399/S.1079), which would give courts and survivors more tools to prevent litigation aimed at control and intimidation.

The TRAC Coalition, our partners, and allies will not stop centering the voices of survivors in our efforts, and standing up in the face of efforts to silence or intimidate them. This is exactly the fight our Coalition elected to take on, and every time an abuser manipulates systems and uses threats in an effort to control a survivor and deny their truth, it is only further evidence of why policy action is critical and urgent.

For more information or to get involved, please follow TRAC on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

25 In-Depth: Advocates hopeful Mass. will finally criminalize nonconsensual porn

Harry Shipps — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 20:33:52 +0000

Kerry Kavanaugh and Marina Villeneuve

Wed, July 12, 2023

Alex Hagerty said he remembers the day he got messages from strangers about sexually explicit videos they found of him on a popular social media website.

Immediately, he said he put the pieces together – he realized a former partner had taken videos of them without ever telling him. Hagerty said he found out the partner posted the sexually explicit content online the same day they broke up.

“It felt like a stab to the heart,” Hagerty said. “I felt like everything went black.”

He says he went to the police, who told him there was nothing they could do.

Hagerty said he soon learned a tough lesson: “That revenge porn is legal in Massachusetts, that somebody can use revenge porn as a way to destroy somebody’s character, defame their reputation, attack their family, and utterly destroy their life.”

ONE IN TWELVE

As many as one in twelve adult social media users have been victims of nonconsensual pornography, according to the advocacy group Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

And one in 20 adult social media users have perpetrated what’s often called revenge porn – also known as nonconsensual pornography, or image-based sexual harassment or abuse.

But Massachusetts is one of only two states – along with South Carolina – that has yet to criminalize so-called revenge porn.

For years, advocacy groups and survivors have urged state and local governments nationwide to outlaw the practice.

Nonconsensual pornography refers to the sharing of images obtained either without consent – through hidden cameras or hacking phones, for example – or with consent, like sexually explicit selfies.

“The impact on survivors is very much in line with and consistent with the trauma experienced by sexual assault survivors when they talk about the violation of what it means to have one’s sexually explicit images out in the world without their consent,” said Hema Sarang-Sieminski, Deputy Director of advocacy coalition Jane Doe Inc, also known as the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence.

A NEW BILL

State Sen. John Keenan, a Democrat whose district includes Norfolk and Plymouth counties, has filed legislation to legally go after anyone who knowingly distributes visual material depicting a person nude, partially nude or engaged in sexual conduct. The House version is sponsored by state Rep. Jeffrey Roy, a Democrat who’s long tried to pass legislation addressing teen sexting.

The legislation would allow law enforcement to press charges against anyone who “knowingly distributes visual material depicting another person… who is nude, partially nude or engaged in sexual conduct.. and it causes physical or economic injury or emotional distress.”

“I think it empowers those who have been victimized and is an important step to its healing,” Keenan told Investigative Reporter and Anchor Kerry Kavanaugh. “And that’s not to say that everybody will choose to press criminal charges, but having that available to them, I think, is really important.”

Those found guilty of the crime of criminal harassment could face 2.5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine, under Keenan’s bill.

A second or subsequent offense could result in up to 10 years in prison and a $15,000 fine.

The bill includes provisions aimed at ensuring minors get diverted to educational programs.

The legislation would require the attorney general to develop a “comprehensive educational diversion program” to teach teenagers about the legal consequences of posting explicit images online.

“Sometimes these things are circulated within moments across an entire class or a school,” Sarang-Sieminski said.

The court would indefinitely stay arraignment for juvenile defendants who allegedly share or possess explicit images of children. Courts could consider any objections raised by a district attorney, and arraign juveniles who don’t complete diversion programs.

In certain scenarios, minors who possess or upload explicit content of others could face 6 months commitment to the department of youth services and/or a $500 fine.

LONG PUSH TO CRIMINALIZE

Efforts to ban revenge porn in Massachusetts date back to 2017.

“The reality that there was really no protection available to survivors who experienced this kind of harm,” Sarang-Sieminski said, “that was really at the heart of what so many advocates really were hoping to address. You know, they would say, we can’t do anything about this. And that was very striking.”

In 2017, ACLU Massachusetts’s deputy legal director said the state needed to figure out how to address image-based harassment while protecting freedom of expression.

The director said victims could sue or seek extortion charges, as an alternative.

The ACLU also raised concerns that a bill filed by former Governor Charlie Baker would have allowed prosecutors to charge minors with a misdemeanor for possession or distribution of sexually explicit images of children.

A spokesperson for the ACLU didn’t respond to multiple emailed requests for comment about the group’s stance on the latest legislation.

But by 2022, lawmakers appeared poised to criminalize nonconsensual pornography.

Several survivors of revenge porn spoke to lawmakers in January 2022 during a Joint Committee on the Judiciary hearing.

In May, the Massachusetts House unanimously passed a bill to ban revenge porn.

In July, the Judiciary Committee’s Senate Chair, James Eldridge told the State House News Service when asked about the state’s hesitation on passing a revenge porn bill: “Probably, it’s a case where law enforcement and, with all due respect, media have been very, very laser-focused on this even though it’s not a particularly severe problem in Massachusetts.”

In the final days of 2022, the state Senate began considering an amended version of the bill.

By early January, the Senate passed the amended bill by a voice vote.

But there wasn’t enough time for lawmakers to agree on a compromise bill to send to the governor by deadline.

“It passed the House of Representatives and then it came to the Senate,” Keenan said. “And it didn’t pass the Senate until very late in the session. And so we were unable to get it across the finish line, so to speak, to the governor’s desk because it was passed so late.”

‘CLEAR THIS HAS TO BE ADDRESSED’

The senator said that stories from survivors finally got lawmakers’ attention.

“As we pushed the legislation through the end of the last session, there were conversations,” Keenan said. “I had conversations with my colleagues, colleagues that might have wondered what the bill does. Is it necessary? Colleagues who might have been a little hesitant or weren’t fully aware of what was going on out there. Those conversations were held, and as I had those conversations, I think there was a growing awareness of the need for this.”

Keenan said it doesn’t matter if the issue impacts thousands of people, or just a handful.

“When I’ve spoken to individuals that have been the victims of this and to their family members, they incredibly look beyond themselves,” Keenan said. “But even if it was just that one person, it’s clear that this has to be addressed.”

Keenan said he’s hopeful about the bill’s chance of passage this year, and said he hasn’t seen any group opposing the legislation.

Hagerty, a selectman in Abington, said he feels lucky that his images were taken down – though he’s worried about the footprint of any images uploaded online.

“I was able to confront my vengeful former partner and get the images and videos taken down,” Hagerty said. “But not everyone in Massachusetts has that same opportunity as I have. And then they contemplate taking their own lives, harming themselves, or doing damage to their life.”

—-

Those looking for support can reach out to crisis hotlines:

National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is a network of local crisis centers that are available 24/7 to provide support for youth and adults who are in any kind of emotional crisis.

SafeLink: 1-877-785-2020

SafeLink is for anyone who is being affected by domestic violence or dating violence. Volunteers at SafeLink speak English and Spanish, and SafeLink also has a service that can provide translation in more than 130 languages.

CCRI Image Abuse Helpline at 1-844-878-2274

If you are a victim or survivor of Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA), please visit the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative Safety Center or call the CCRI Image Abuse Helpline, which is available free of charge, 24/7.

Column: Domestic violence isn’t just a ‘family matter.’ It’s ‘community violence.’

Harry Shipps — Sun, 09 Jul 2023 20:26:54 +0000

The Supreme Court is set to hear a case about abusers and guns. It’s urgent to change the reductive narrative about intimate partner violence.

By Renée Graham Globe Columnist

On July 4, Scott Swale broke into Tatiana Tavares’s Raynham home. He fatally shot her as she lay in bed. He died by suicide. A statement from Bristol County District Attorney Thomas Quinn’s office said Swale, 43, and Tavares, 30, “had been engaged in a hostile yearlong on-again, off-again relationship.”

It’s not the first time Hema Sarang-Sieminski, deputy director of Jane Doe Inc., the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, has heard lethal acts of intimate partner violence described that way.

“The coverage was concerning because it was the ‘tumultuous relationship’ kind of conversation as opposed to naming this type of harm as a pattern of power and control that results in domestic violence-related homicide,” she told me in an interview. “I think that kind of language is used to distance or dismiss the very calculated pattern at play in these kinds of scenarios.”

That can affect perceptions of domestic violence in families, in communities, and in this nation’s courts, she said. And this is particularly alarming because last month, the conservative-led Supreme Court agreed to hear a case during its next term on whether the government can keep guns away from people with domestic violence restraining orders against them.

Just last year, the high court ruled 6-3, with its three liberal judges dissenting, to strike down a New York law that limited rights to carry a firearm in public. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said government “must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That flung open the doors to even greater erosions of gun safety policies. In February, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit trashed a federal law to bar domestic abusers from having guns, ruling it unconstitutional. But it was the decision’s wording that was particularly chilling. Banning domestic abusers from possessing guns is an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted,” it read.

Looking back to this nation’s origins: Those “ancestors” accepted enslaving Black people and marital rape. Women did not have the right to vote or any legal recourse against an abusive husband. There was no such thing as a restraining order.

“We as a society have a real challenge in acknowledging that harm is happening within our own homes, and that also means we have to talk about who’s causing that harm,” Sarang-Sieminski said. “We have to look around our own communities, workplaces, places of worship, and schools and reframe the narrative that domestic violence is a form of community violence. Harm to one is harm to all.”

In a brief asking the Supreme Court to overturn the circuit court’s ruling, the Justice Department argued that “more than a million acts of domestic violence occur in the United States every year and the presence of a firearm increases the chances that violence will escalate to homicide.”

But in a nation where about 50 women are murdered each month by a current or former intimate partner and guns are the leading cause of death for children, domestic violence rarely seems to garner the same sustained outrage as other violent crimes.

Mass shootings over the long July 4th weekend in Shreveport, La., Baltimore, and Philadelphia received hours of coverage. But unless you lived in or near St. Ann, Mo., it’s unlikely you heard that Seychelle Schaumburg and her three children were shot in their home by Coleman McIlvain, Schaumburg’s boyfriend, who died by suicide. Only Schaumburg’s 9-year-old daughter survived.

Statistics show that most mass shootings are acts of domestic violence and that a majority of mass shooters have histories of domestic violence. Yet conversations about such massacres can reduce them to “a family matter, a spat, or a lovers’ quarrel,” Sarang-Sieminski said.

“It almost sends a message that this type of harm doesn’t rise to the level of meriting restrictions on someone’s Second Amendment rights,” she said. “It’s like rewinding the language to narratives that we as a movement have really tried to overcome for decades. And it does feel like we’re getting dangerously close to that narrative again.”

Judges are “taking these originalist interpretations and attempting to create a scenario where they’re applying that framework to a particular issue,” Sarang-Sieminski said. “We’re in a time period where they’re trying to roll back the clock and roll back history in such profound ways to an era when there were no protections available to survivors.”

As with its decisions on abortion and affirmative action, the Supreme Court will likely wait until well into its next term, which starts in October, to issue a ruling that will determine whether this nation’s highest court will again place the Second Amendment above the safety of American lives.

In ‘historic’ moment, MCI-Framingham prisoners testify live at moratorium hearing

Harry Shipps — Tue, 27 Jun 2023 20:30:37 +0000

By Sarah Betancourt

June 27, 2023

A group of 20 women incarcerated at MCI-Framingham testified live on Zoom at a hearing on Monday — for the first time in legislative history.

Clad in green uniforms, each woman sat in front of a camera in a white room and spoke in favor of a prison moratorium bill. The legislation would put a five-year pause on planning or building new prisons and renovating current prisons “beyond maintenance or building code requirements.”

Their reasoning often stemmed from their own experiences, telling stories of poor medical care, concerns about limited reentry services upon entering the free world and dire conditions they experienced behind the walls of one of America’s oldest functioning prisons.

The bill was approved by the Legislature in the last session, but then-Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed it, saying the moratorium would restrict the ability to “maximize operational efficiencies.” His administration was considering building a new women’s prison in Norfolk to replace the aging MCI-Framingham. State Sen. Jo Comerford, who is the lead sponsor of the bill, called Baker’s veto “misguided.”

Christen Longley at MCI-Framingham testified in support of the moratorium.

“There’s a much less costly option,” Longley said as she sat before the camera. “It is getting people into alternative housing programs.”

Longley said that there’s a false narrative that Framingham is overcrowded when the population has dropped, and said that there are two unused newer units at the Framingham facility. A decade ago, more than 600 women were at MCI-Framingham, and now it’s about 200.

The state estimates that it would cost $50 million to build a new women’s prison.

“Fifty million? Why do we need a new facility? There are two units they aren’t even using so that they can cram us into less space,” said Graciela Paulino.

The Department of Correction did not specifically respond to questions about the new units.

Several women, including Sandra Dostie, pointed to the $20 million spent to renovate the facility over the past few years. Dostie says there’s a pervasive and false narrative about how the prison is so far gone that is can’t be repaired. “Please keep talking to us,” she said.

“Yes, MCI-Framingham needs repairs, but not imminently. What we need is accountability,” said Robin Casali. She said she wanted to see restorative justice programs.

Many of the women mentioned past history of sexual and domestic violence. “Eighty-six percent of women in prison identify as victims of sexual violence,” said Hema Sarang Sieminski of Jane Doe Inc, saying the state needs to prioritize and resource healing services. “We need to recognize that passing the moratorium is a survivor issue.”

Paulino thinks the funding should go to reentry services. “When I go home, I have nothing to go back to.”

Advocates want to prevent that replacement of the women’s prison, which has involved paying and meeting with firms to draw up plans for a new facility. They also want to put a stop to incarceration overall, and an infusion of funds into alternatives, like a guaranteed basic housing program, and community-led crisis response.

Others spoke of fellow prisoners who were aging and ill, and the need to release them and support them, not spend money on prison construction.

“There’s people 80-years-old in here and they have dementia and don’t even know they’re here. They’ll never see their families before they die. It’s sad to say,” Jasmin Rivera said. She said she’s been in and out of prison since she was 18 — now, she’s 49 — and that in-prison services have been poor.

“When the judge sentenced me, he said it was for rehabilitation,” she said. “That is not what has happened.”

Lawmakers celebrated the testimonies from female prisoners. Comerford was overjoyed, called it a “historic moment” and said that people impacted by policy should have a say in hearings. Committee Chair and state Rep. Antonio Cabral said that having prisoners Zoom into his committee was “new,” and that it’s “important to hear from them.”

Mallory Hanora of Families for Justice as Healing speaks at a rally to end new prison construction on Tuesday, June 27.

Sarah Betancourt / GBH News

Advocates are calling on the new governor to back their bill, and called on Healey to support it during a rally outside of the State House.

“Gov. Healey supports efforts to stop new construction of prison infrastructure provided it does not preclude the state from making critical renovations to maintain safe, modern facilities and attain quality programming and services,” said Karissa Hand, spokeswoman for Gov. Maura Healey.

“This bill does not preclude repairs,” Comerford said during the hearing. “It’s important to note this,” she said.

In 2021, the Department of Correction and the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance signed a contract with the firm HDR Architecture to design a new women’s prison.

In its original pitches to the state, HDR spoke of a smaller prison with trauma-informed services. But that isn’t appeasing some legislators and advocates.

“I’m not alone in believing there is no such thing as a trauma-informed prison,” Comerford said. “Incarceration is inherently traumatic.” She said prisoners need alternatives.

Column: What does a predator look like? Not what the haters want you to think.

Harry Shipps — Wed, 07 Jun 2023 19:33:37 +0000

By Yvonne Abraham Globe Columnist,

What does a predator look like?

The question has long been crucial for the cynics who fuel America’s culture wars, leveraging fear to win votes. It is also crucial to those of us who genuinely want to confront the scourge of sexual assault.

To hear the culture warriors tell it, predators put on wigs and sparkles and read stories to children at public libraries: Taking their cues from bigots of decades past, conservatives have tried to make drag queens into monsters, accusing them of being pedophiles and of “grooming” children. To these hate-mongers, transgender women are equally terrifying, menaces supposedly lying in wait in girls’ and women’s bathrooms, ready to attack.

Both stereotypes are ludicrous, but those who push them are working from a playbook as old as America: Demonize marginalized people, and deploy them as foils, by calling them a threat to women and children — white women and children, that is.

It’s a cruelty with which older members of the LGBTQ+ community are acutely familiar, as are Black and brown Americans of every age. The line there runs right from Emmett Till to the 1990s hysteria over fictitious “super predators” to Trayvon Martin and countless Black men and women and children shot and killed because armed neighbors took one look at them and decided they were life-threatening.

If only abusers were as easy to spot as the haters contend.

The truth is, they look like everyone else — including, and especially, cisgender white men. They wear uniforms, cassocks, and nice suits. They teach our kids in school and coach them in sports. They’re popular and respected and trusted. They are devoted parents, brothers, husbands, uncles. They live in tony towns and humble ones. They are strangers and friends, creeps and colleagues. They appear utterly unremarkable.

But nobody is talking about banning priests or lawyers or police officers from story time.

“The reality is that there are people who cause harm and sexual violence, and survivors of sexual violence, all around us every day,” said Hema Sarang-Sieminski, deputy director of Jane Doe Inc., a coalition of groups fighting sexual assault and domestic violence.

Take the two cases playing out in Boston courtrooms this week, where two clean-cut attorneys are answering rape charges.

A dozen women have accused former Suffolk and Essex County prosecutor Gary Zerola of strikingly similar rapes since 1996. Zerola, named a “most eligible bachelor” by People magazine in 2001, has been acquitted or avoided prosecution on previous charges. He’s currently standing trial for raping an acquaintance who says she woke up to him assaulting her after she got drunk on a night out with Zerola and his girlfriend.

And Matthew James Nilo, a 35-year-old lawyer, was arraigned Monday after being arrested in attacks on four women in Charlestown in 2007 and 2008. Investigators connected him to the unsolved rapes this year using advances in genetic genealogy. In three of the attacks, Nilo, then a North End resident, allegedly lured women into his car, drove them to remote Terminal Street in Charlestown, threatened them, and raped them.

Police had to rely on genealogy to make the connection, because the lawyer wasn’t in any DNA database.

“That happens over and over again,” said Barbara Rae-Venter, a genealogist who works to help identify suspects in murders and rapes told the Globe. “The people we identify have no record. They are not on anybody’s radar.”

One in four women, and one in 26 men, have experienced a completed or attempted rape, according to the CDC. One in two transgender people reports being sexually assaulted. If so many of us are survivors, it stands to reason that a significant share of us are perpetrators. And most of them are not on anybody’s radar.

That notion is hard to take for a lot of people. But that reluctance to acknowledge the frequency of assault, and the apparent ordinariness of those who commit it, empowers abusers and isolates victims.

“We don’t want to see that this harm is so prevalent and around us, it is far easier to imagine a small number of serial rapists, extreme offenders,” Sarang-Sieminski said.

And easier still for some people to imagine that those predators are members of groups they deride, rather than a member of their own. Where would be the comfort — or the political advantage — in doing otherwise?

New Hope Inc. CEO Diana Mancera Receives 2023 Visionary Voice Award

Harry Shipps — Mon, 05 Jun 2023 13:55:55 +0000

On Thursday, June 2, Jane Doe Inc. (JDI), the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence — in partnership with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) — was thrilled to present Diana Mancera, CEO of New Hope Inc., with the 2023 Visionary Voice Award, honoring Diana’s leadership in the ongoing work to end sexual violence. Below, please find a press release from New Hope Inc. announcing the award!

New Hope Inc.’s CEO Diana Mancera Receives NSVRC Visionary Voice Award

Massachusetts – June 2, 2023 – Diana Mancera, a distinguished advocate, has been honored with the prestigious NSVRC Visionary Voice Award. This esteemed recognition is bestowed upon individuals who have demonstrated exceptional dedication in their efforts to end sexual violence. Mancera’s visionary leadership and transformative work have earned her this well-deserved honor.

“Receiving this award for advocating for victims and survivors of sexual violence, being recognized for my creativity and hard work in making the world safer and ending sexual violence, is and will always be my greatest accomplishment,” said Diana Mancera, reflecting on the significance of this recognition.

“Jane Doe Inc. is delighted to present the 2023 Visionary Voice Award to Diana Mancera,” said Debra Robbin, Executive Director of Jane Doe Inc. “Diana’s leadership, unwavering commitment to justice, and invaluable contributions in supporting survivors and addressing the root causes of violence have made her a cherished colleague. We are thrilled to continue working alongside Diana in her role as CEO of New Hope, Inc.”

The NSVRC Visionary Voice Awards, presented every two years in conjunction with Sexual Assault Awareness Month, celebrate individuals who have made remarkable contributions to combat sexual violence. Mancera’s unwavering commitment to empowering survivors and her groundbreaking initiatives have set her apart as an extraordinary advocate.

Diana Mancera’s exceptional career trajectory encompasses pivotal roles within the field of sexual and domestic violence advocacy. As CEO of New Hope, Inc., she continues to make a profound impact on the lives of survivors and the fight against sexual violence. This award is a testament to Mancera’s visionary leadership, her unwavering pursuit of justice, and her ability to create meaningful change in the lives of survivors and the communities she serves.

About New Hope, Inc.:

New Hope, Inc. is a leading organization dedicated to providing comprehensive support, advocacy, and resources to survivors of sexual and domestic violence. With a focus on empowerment, education, and community engagement, New Hope, Inc. strives to create a society free from violence, where all individuals can live with dignity and respect.

Proposed task force would address Mass. domestic violence records law found to shield abusers

Harry Shipps — Tue, 30 May 2023 19:31:21 +0000

May 30, 2023 by Ally Jarmanning

State legislators are looking to make changes to a Massachusetts law that keeps secret all police records of domestic and sexual violence, after a WBUR investigation revealed the statute designed to protect victims has instead shielded alleged abusers.

The privacy law makes it harder for survivors to access their own police incident reports and other records — documents they need in order to file restraining orders or fight for custody of their children.

The secrecy also can lead to repeat episodes of violence, because alleged abusers are not outed. State Sen. John Velis, the bill’s sponsor, said, “Because of the way that the law is currently written, are we missing out on things that could go a long way to preventing something like this from happening again?”

His legislation would create a task force to review the statute and make recommendations to “ensure confidentiality of domestic violence survivors without protecting perpetrators.”

WBUR found that police departments cite the law when withholding records that show how they respond to domestic violence calls. It also allows departments to keep records about officers accused of sexual and domestic misconduct private.

Massachusetts is the only state in the country with a law so broad. Domestic violence records were made secret in 2014; sexual assault records have been confidential since 1974.

Advocates for victims also are pressing for change, but they want the task force to include survivor voices. Nine of the 10 proposed members so far are designees of law enforcement or lawmakers.

Velis said he’s open to changing the makeup of the task force, and adding sexual assault records to the committee’s review. The bill is with the Senate judiciary committee and does not yet have a hearing date.

Separately from Velis’ legislation, Jane Doe Inc., a statewide survivor advocacy group, has been holding meetings to discuss how to improve the law. Deputy Director Hema Sarang-Sieminski said there’s a tension between privacy interests and survivors’ need to access their own reports.

“Those are the sort of pushes and pulls that we are grappling with,” she said, adding that the goal is “making sure we have thought about any of the possible potential outcomes and consequences.”

One option would be following the Connecticut model: making the records public to all, but withholding names and addresses of victims. Massachusetts also could keep domestic and sexual crimes off public police logs, but make reports available to anyone who requests them.

There’s still a long process ahead before any change can happen. Most important, Sarang-Sieminski said, is including survivors’ voices in the conversation.

Ann Donahue, whose sister Mary Fairbairn was killed in an alleged domestic violence homicide three years ago, said she doesn’t have high hopes for the task force as currently proposed. She called the bill a “big nothing burger” and expressed doubt that an overhaul of the law could come in the near future, “which is when we need it.”

Donahue said she wants to see closer scrutiny of how police approach domestic violence calls. Police were called to the Fairbairns’ house twice in just the week before Mary was killed, but did not arrest or remove anyone from the home. Fairbairn’s husband is awaiting trial for her murder.

But details of how officers handled those calls are locked away from the public eye. Groton police refused to provide WBUR records about the Fairbairns’ calls or other domestic violence incidents they responded to before someone was killed. They cited the privacy law in withholding such reports, as did 15 other police departments in Massachusetts.

“How do we know that they did everything that they were supposed to do?” Donahue asked. “And how do we learn, as a person or as a community, if we don’t learn from our mistakes? And we don’t see those mistakes if they’re buried.”

Whatever changes are made, Donahue said it’s critical that the law does not put the privacy of victims or their families at risk.

EDITORIAL: Abuse takes many forms, and domestic violence laws should reflect them

Harry Shipps — Tue, 02 May 2023 15:03:29 +0000

Since state domestic violence laws were written, the understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse has evolved, and laws must keep up. Advocates make a strong case that the abuse many people, often women, experience from intimate partners is not adequately accounted for in current law.

By The Editorial Board Updated May 2, 2023, 4:00 a.m.

For years, the Brookline woman’s husband abused her. According to motions she filed with Norfolk Probate and Family Court, he would throw things at her, rant in the middle of the night, take her purse and phone so she couldn’t leave, call her names, and stalk her at work. The man threatened to rape her and slammed a bed frame on the floor.

Because much of his abuse was not physical, the woman only applied for a restraining order more than a year after she left the marriage, in 2022, after an incident when he physically pulled her away from a car as they were transferring custody of their son and engaged in behavior that endangered their son, according to the restraining order.

Since she left her husband, the woman, who requested anonymity as a victim of domestic violence, said she has learned the term “coercive control,” a pattern of behavior where an abuser controls their victim through intimidation, isolation, or threats. That definition, she said, fit her situation perfectly.

But under state law, a person can only get a restraining order if there is a threat of physical harm or sexual assault.

If the law recognized other types of abusive behavior, the woman said, “I think I would have had a restraining order from day one. I didn’t have a restraining order, so a year and a half into the divorce process, I experienced another assault.”

The woman has joined other advocates for survivors of domestic violence who are seeking to change Massachusetts law to let a judge issue a restraining order when there is a pattern of “coercive control” or technological abuse.

Bills sponsored by Representatives Natalie Higgins and Tram Nguyen and Senator Michael Moore would let a judge issue a restraining order based on “a pattern of conduct that has the purpose or effect of substantially restricting an individual’s safety or autonomy through intimidation, isolation, implicit or explicit threats, or by compelling compliance.” The bill gives examples including repeatedly humiliating someone, isolating them from friends and family, controlling their finances, damaging property, abusing pets, or threatening to report them to immigration authorities. Technological abuse includes cyberstalking or “revenge porn,” which is nonconsensual sharing of explicit images.

Since state domestic violence laws were written, the understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse has evolved, and laws must keep up. Advocates make a strong case that the abuse many people, often women, experience from intimate partners is not adequately accounted for in current law. However, lawmakers must make sure any law has a clear, narrow definition, so judges, lawyers, and litigants understand exactly what behavior is inappropriate.

The term “coercive control” was coined in a 2007 book by that name. It has become commonly used by researchers to explain how abusers use coercive behavior to control their victim in ways other than violence. Over the last four years, Hawaii, California, Connecticut, and Washington incorporated the concept into state laws that define domestic violence — generally in civil laws related to child custody or restraining orders. Scotland in 2018 passed a law making domestic violence through coercive control a criminal offense.

Michelle Cruz, a Western Massachusetts attorney who represents victims of intimate partner violence, said the police and courts still lack an understanding of coercive control so abusive behavior is often seen as innocuous and not reflected in judicial decisions about restraining orders and child custody. “The problem is the system hasn’t caught up,” Cruz said.

Cruz said changing the law then educating judges about coercive control could allow victims to more quickly find safety — and save lives. Looking only at violence and not other types of abuse, she said, avoids identifying behavior that can be a precursor to homicide.

Marsha Kazarosian, a past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association who represents victims seeking restraining orders, said attorneys have long faced challenges obtaining protection for clients who are harassed and coerced in ways other than the threat of violence. “There are just so many ways that a person of power in a relationship can exercise control that would limit somebody’s freedom or threaten their safety or demean or diminish them to a point they’re no longer themselves,” Kazarosian said.

Hema Sarang-Sieminski, deputy director of Jane Doe Inc., The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence, agreed that current restraining order law “really leaves out a number of behaviors that are at the heart of what we consider the dynamics of power and control at the heart of domestic violence — the control, the isolation, psychological abuse or harm.”

The Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposes expanding the law unless the conduct is carefully defined. John Amabile, president of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, raised concerns about the serious impact of a restraining order, since violating one is a criminal offense. “It’s very important the orders be limited to a very narrow range of conduct,” Amabile said. “Broadening the scope of the issuance of restraining orders is something that has to be done with a lot of care, and having amorphous definitions that are not easily understood is a bad idea.”

Any update needs to be done in a way that is narrowly tailored and easy for judges and litigants to understand. There is also a desperate need for judges to be educated about domestic abuse.

For years, domestic violence victims have reported that family court judges do not believe their allegations of abuse and hold abuse allegations against them. Joan Meier, founding director of the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, found in a 2020 study that mothers’ claims of abuse tend to increase their risk of losing custody, especially when fathers say the mother is trying to alienate them.

Domestic violence situations are often messy and complicated. As the understanding of domestic violence changes, the law needs to keep pace.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us on Twitter at @GlobeOpinion.

Columnist Carrie Baker: Cutting-edge domestic violence prevention — coercive control bills

Harry Shipps — Wed, 22 Feb 2023 20:28:14 +0000

By CARRIE N. BAKER

Published: 2/22/2023

On Jan. 17, prosecutors in Stoughton charged Victor Carter with viciously murdering Amber Buckner, who was stabbed 30 times. Police found her with the handle of a 4-inch knife protruding from her right temple. The next day, prosecutors in Quincy charged Brian Walshe of Cohasset with brutally murdering his wife, Ana, then dismembering and discarding her body. Last year, there were 26 domestic violence-related homicides in Massachusetts — a more than 40% increase over the previous year. Most perpetrators were men; a majority of the victims were women.

To address this scourge, Massachusetts lawmakers have so far filed nearly 70 bills this year. One approach is to address coercive control — the attempt to dominate an intimate partner by subjecting them to psychological, sexual, technological or financial abuse.

“Almost all domestic homicides are preceded by coercive control,” says Lisa Fontes, a senior lecturer in Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the author of Invisible Chains: Overcoming Coercive Control in Your Intimate Relationship. “In fact, coercive control is a better predictor of domestic homicide than previous violent assaults.”

Survivors of domestic violence and their advocates are organizing across the state of Massachusetts to pass new laws addressing coercive control. HD 1844 and SD 1975 would allow survivors to obtain a restraining order based on coercive control and technological abuse, including electronic monitoring or surveillance, non-consensual sharing of explicit images and impersonation on the internet.

“Physical violence is just one tool in an abuser’s tool box — along with intimidation, isolation, manipulation, and emotional, financial, legal and sexual abuse,” says Fontes. “This legislation is important because it enables Massachusetts victims of coercive control to seek protective orders based on the entire tool box of coercive control. This is especially important where there either was not physical violence or where the physical violence has not been documented.”

Examples of coercive control include isolating a spouse or partner from friends or relatives; repeatedly humiliating a partner or using degrading language or behaviors towards them; controlling, regulating or monitoring a partner’s activities, communications or finances; damaging property; threatening to abuse family pets; displaying a firearm in an intimidating manner; and threatening deportation.

“Coercive control is devastating. It tears down the individuality and the centeredness of a person. It leaves them open to self-doubt and therefore makes it more difficult for them to leave an abusive situation,” says Jamie Sabino, Deputy Director of Advocacy at the Mass Law Reform, a leading advocate for the legislation.

Courts are willing to issue restraining orders in cases of physical violence, but many will not when the abuse is not physically violent or when it happened in the past, says Sabino.

“Sometimes an abuser has beat up a person in the past and then continues to use coercive control. Survivors will say, ‘he was talking to me the way he did when he beat me up before, I just had to do what he said because I was so afraid of it.’ But if they go into court at that point, a judge is going to say, you’re not in reasonable fear at the moment,” says Sabino.

Advocates are also supporting legislation to prohibit abusive litigation. HD 2611 (introduced by state Rep. Natalie Blais, D-South Deerfield) and SD 2054, would prohibit litigation for the purpose of abusing, harassing, intimidating, threatening or maintaining contact with a current or former family or household member. Examples are constantly refiling motions in a custody matter when they have been repeatedly denied or bringing claims with no legal or factual basis. Abusive litigation costs survivors time and money, and subjects them to the emotional trauma of constantly having to face off against their abuser in court.

“Judges could stop this now and sometimes do — but are reluctant to cut off access to the courts,” says Sabino. “Having this bill would give specific guidance to judges (and litigants) as to what is controlling and abusive litigation — and would allow a judge to not only compensate survivors for their costs but also allow judges to put in place protections like limiting new custody motions unless approved by the judge.”

Massachusetts’ statewide coalition of domestic abuse and sexual assault community providers Jane Doe Inc. supports both of these laws as do survivor networks from across the state and local lawmakers.

“Some of the hardest calls my office receives are from people trying to survive and escape from intimate partner violence,” says state Rep. Lyndsay Sabadosa, D-Northampton, who is co-sponsoring both bills. “It becomes clear from those conversations that the law, while trying to help, often doesn’t do enough to protect them and, in fact, puts up hurdles making it harder for survivors to move on with their lives. These bills are small, concrete things that the state can do to offer assistance and support.”

Carrie N. Baker is a professor in the Program for the Study of Women and Gender at Smith College and a regular contributor to Ms. Magazine.

URL: https://www.gazettenet.com/Gazette-columnist-Carrie-Baker-50013822