-
Am. Sub. HB 10 – JUVENILE PROTECTION ORDERS
Introduced on February 17, 2009 by Rep. Edna Brown (D-Toledo), the
proposed legislation passed the House on June 24 and was assigned
to the Senate Judiciary Civil Justice Committee in a vastly different
version than the original. The purpose of the bill was to provide
specific mechanisms to ensure that juvenile offenders of teen dating
violence were held accountable. The bill addressed the unique dynamics
inherent in dating relationships and improved the current judicial
response to violence committed by teens in dating relationships by
permitting the issuance of protection orders in juvenile court.
As passed by the House, Am. Sub. HB 10 abandoned its original purpose
of creating a unique, narrowly defined framework to address teen dating
violence and instead approved legislation that broadly and generally
addresses juvenile violence. The failure of Am. Sub. HB 10 to include
a particular framework within which to understand teen dating violence
limits the juvenile court’s ability to purposefully use the
new remedy being provided. Absent a specific framework to analyze
the facts before the court and understand the potential for future
violence, juvenile courts will be inundated with cases not appropriate
for a protection order and could result in an unmanageable process
for the court.
In addition to the expanded definition as described above of Am.
Sub. HB 10, as passed by the House, the bill before the Senate includes
several provisions that should be revisited due to their unsound public
policy implications.
The automatic expungement 30 days after the juvenile’s 18th
birthday is problematic because it limits the juvenile courts ability
to properly, fairly and rationally impart justice and protect victims
of juvenile relationship violence, and it fails to consider the escalating
nature of relationship violence. Specifically as passed by the House,
a protection order issued by juvenile court automatically expires
upon the juvenile offender’s 18th birthday. A provision that
expunges the juvenile offender’s record when the protection
order is not granted would be appropriate. In addition, a provision
that permits the modification and dismissal of protection orders if
a juvenile offender files a motion for such relief would be appropriate.
There is no provision that permits a victim to petition the juvenile
court to renew the protection order past the juvenile’s 18th
birthday. Furthermore, the victim must petition the court not to have
the protection order expunged. This is an enormous burden to place
on a victim, especially when that victim is a minor. The only evidence
a juvenile court may consider is whether the juvenile has or has not
complied with the protection order. No additional guidance is provided
to the juvenile courts upon which to base their decisions and ensure
that sound protection orders are issued.
Under existing juvenile laws, juvenile courts can retain jurisdiction
under most circumstances until the juvenile turns 21 years of age.
A provision directing juvenile courts to retain jurisdiction until
the offender turns 21 should be considered. Such an approach takes
into account that many juveniles are still in high school past the
age of 18 and may continue to share many of the same community resources
(schools, recreational centers, etc.) as the victim. In addition,
the offender may have violated the provisions of the protection order
and sanctions from the juvenile court may still be in effect.
The bill as passed by the House will permit parents to file protection
orders against a juvenile without the consent of their child--the
victim/petitioner. This approach presents too many opportunities for
waste of scarce judicial resources. For example, parents who simply
do not approve of the relationship may request a protection order.
This was not the intent or purpose of the initial version of HB 10.
Absent the introduction of parameters to guide both litigants and
courts on the purpose and use of this new tool, the probability increases
for the abuse and misuse of the process.
While electronic monitoring for juveniles may be an option, the authorization
that such monitoring for indigent juvenile offenders be paid out of
the victim compensation funds is an unrealistic proposition. The Attorney
General has publicly stated that the solvency of this fund is uncertain
due to the disproportionate intake of funds as compared to the amount
of expenses being covered. Furthermore, to use this fund to underwrite
the cost of the monitoring devise of a perpetrator appears incongruent
with the stated purpose of the fund (paying crime scene clean-up,
burials, medical expenses of the victim, etc.)
-
Sub. HB 19 - TEEN DATING VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN SCHOOLS
Introduced on February 18, 2009 by Rep. Sandra Harwood (D-Niles) and
passed by the House on May 13, 2009; the proposed legislation modeled
after similar legislation passed in Rhode Island last year requires
schools to adopt teen dating violence policies and provide education
in health classes to students in grades seven through twelve. The
bill has been assigned to the Senate Education Committee and has had
no hearings.
-
Sub. HB 19, advances dating violence prevention education as part
of the health education curriculum for grades seven through twelve.
Sub. HB 19 creates an important foundation for the prevention of intimate
partner violence, sexual violence and family violence.
-
Sub. HB 19 contains substantive guidance to schools regarding a juvenile
dating violence prevention policy, including a statement that dating
violence will not be tolerated, mandatory reporting and response procedure,
education on the warning signs of relationship violence and the characteristics
of healthy relationships. The principles included in the bill of educating
parents regarding juvenile dating violence are critically important.
The National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc. has adopted a
platform advocating for education of juveniles on dating violence
prevention, which will facilitate the development of an Ohio-specific
relationship violence policy and prevention curriculum. A provision
to strengthen and to ensure the intent of the legislation is fulfilled
should be included that utilizes the expertise of an Advisory Board
in the process of developing the mandated model policy. The Dating
Violence Prevention Advisory Committee could include representatives
from statewide educational and community groups that have interest
and expertise in the development of a statewide model policy and curriculum.
- HB 167- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM’S EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING RIGHTS
Passes Housing & Urban Revitalization Committee of the Ohio House
HB 167 passed out of committee on 10/7/09. Click on this link to
read the bill as passed out of committee:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_167
Brief Summary of Major Provisions in HB 167
1. Prohibit law enforcement from charging a fee to victims of domestic
violence or stalking or their landlords for responding to domestic
violence calls;
Employment Provisions
2. Prohibit employers with more than 25 employees from discharging,
failing to hire, discriminating or retaliating against employees who
are (or are perceived to be) domestic violence victims;
3. Prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees
because of disruptions caused by abusive partners in the workplace
or because the victim seeks relief under this statute;
4. Require employers to create their own policies offering reasonable
accommodations to employees who are victims of domestic violence or
stalking;
5. Require employers to permit employees to take unpaid leave for
issues related to domestic violence or stalking (such as emergency
medical treatment, attending court hearings, obtaining protection
orders, meet with law enforcement, advocates or other named service
providers);
Housing Provisions
6. Permit victims of domestic violence and stalking to terminate
leases or have their names removed from leases;
7. Prohibit landlords from terminating leases because tenants are
victims of domestic violence or stalking, because they called emergency
services to their homes or because they previously had to terminate
a lease under this statute;
8. Require landlords to change locks for victims of stalking or domestic
violence, at the tenant’s expense.
9. Require Public Housing Authorities to transfer victims of domestic
violence or stalking to other available units when units exist (no
more than twice in each five year period).
For a complete bill summary, contact ODVN at 614-781-9651, ext. 233.
-
HB 55 - ANIMAL CRUELTY
The bill was reintroduced on March 3, 2009 by Rep. Brian Williams
(D-Akron) and Rep. Courtney Combs (R-Hamilton). The bill would include
the protection of companion animals in civil and criminal domestic
violence and stalking orders, mandate psychological assessment and
counseling for juveniles that committed animal cruelty and revise
the penalties and sentencing provision for cruelty to animals. The
bill has had three hearings. The Statute and Rules Committee of the
Family Violence Prevention Center; Office of Criminal Justice Services
(OCJS) has some concerns about the ambiguity of the bill as regards
whether or not the legislation intends to make a companion animal
a “protected party.” If so, what is the standard of proof
and does the animal need to be independently abused? If the intent
is just to ensure protection then that must be clarified. Additional
language would also be helpful including removing the companion animal
from the abuser, permitting a victim to return to a residence to remove
a companion animal, and enjoining the defendant/respondent from interfering
with the care, custody, and control of a companion animal. We have
based these ideas on best practice from other states. The Statutes
and Rules Committee have sent our ideas up the ladder at OCJS/Department
of Public Safety and have meet with the legislation’s sponsor
to introduce the possible amendments.
-
HB 70 - COMPANION ANIMALS
Introduced by Rep. Robert Hagan (D-Austintown) and Rep. Ronald Gerberry
(D-Youngstown) on March 10, 2009, the bill would enhance the penalty
for violation of the prohibition against cruel treatment of a companion
animal to a fifth degree felony.
-
HB 112 - PROTECTION ORDERS
Introduced by John Domenick (D-Smithfield) on March 31, 2009, the
bill would authorize a court to monitor alleged offenders by a GPS
system as a condition of pre-trial release in specified criminal cases.
The cost is borne by the alleged offender. However, this did not fly
in a similar bill on stalking last year in the Senate and they now
have the Crime Victim Compensation Fund paying for indigent offenders.
-
SB 144-FAMILY STABILITY
Introduced by Sen. Ray Miller (D-Columbus) on June 16, 2009, the bill
would create the Ohio Family Stability Commission in the Department
of Job and Family Services. The intent of the commission is to research
and formulate recommendations regarding the reduction of the divorce
rate, unmarried births, the rate of domestic violence and child abuse,
and research and recommend strategies around issues concerning child
custody and child support and to implement said recommendations.
