This extremely powerful piece by Robert Lewis for CalMatters is not about the rural-urban divide--at least not on its face. But a close read can make it about that rural-urban axis and how geographic difference, including in relation to the availability of services, influences the outcomes of domestic violence cases where the accused has possession of guns.
The story features the murder of Calley Garay, allegedly by her husband, Julio. They lived in Chowchilla, in northern Madera County, just before you pass into Merced County proceeding north through the Central Valley. It's the second part in a three-part series on gun control--or maybe we should just say guns--in California.
This young mother was killed by her husband, and the question this article raises is why authorities didn't take away her husband's gun before he apparently killed her with it. After all, the forms she completed with the Madera Superior Court, when she was reporting the abuse, suggested he had a gun. Under California law, efforts should have been made to get it away from him. That didn't happen. Lewis writes:
But the beatings were getting worse, the threats more ominous, and local law enforcement was still investigating her allegations. She needed help. So in June of last year, planning for a new life with her children free from his control, Calley filled out the standard domestic violence restraining order request. Hers was one of 72,000 such forms Californians – mostly women – filed statewide that fiscal year, including 211 in Madera County.
We are now married or registered domestic partners. Check.
We are the parents together of a child or children under 18. Check.
I believe the person…owns or possesses guns, firearms, or ammunition. Check
The answer to that last question on Calley’s form told the court her case could be particularly dangerous. Research shows the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood domestic violence will turn deadly. It’s why people who are the subject of a restraining order in California – even a temporary one – aren’t allowed to have guns. By law, they are supposed to surrender their weapons to law enforcement or a licensed dealer within 24 hours of being served.
And if a simple checkbox wasn’t enough to grab a judge’s attention, Calley attached to the form more than a dozen pages of horror, including descriptions of assaults and photos of bruises on her leg, back and chest.
Through it all was mention of a gun – a gun in his pocket when he yelled at her outside their son’s school. A gun when he threatened to take her into the orchards and kill her.
What happened to Calley Garay – a story that culminated this week in the Madera courthouse – is about more than one woman. It’s about California’s inability to disarm abusers, a longstanding failure that judges, advocates and law enforcement have been warning about for years.
Here's more that suggests rural-urban difference--the difference between say Madera County and highly urban Sacramento County:
Threats. Beatings. Escape plans. Secret hotel rooms. This is the reality for domestic violence survivors every day across California. Many, like Calley, connect with a local nonprofit to help navigate the justice system.
In Sacramento County, these survivors end up on the third floor of a modern office building, at the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center. Like the victim services organization that helped Calley, this is where police and prosecutors in the capital city often refer abuse survivors for everything from counseling and shelter to filling out court forms and legal advice. The center is conveniently located above the county’s child support services and across the street from family court.
Some people end up here on their own. In fact, many women and men experiencing abuse choose not to involve law enforcement for a variety of reasons, experts say, including fear of police, concern about the impact on child support, and the risk of further antagonizing a dangerous partner. Instead, they might only seek protection via a family court-issued domestic violence restraining order. That means a family court judge might be the only official to ask about a gun and try to ensure an abuser is disarmed.
On a recent morning at the Sacramento office, a handful of women sat in a waiting room for their turn to speak with a counselor or attorney. Inside, others were in private rooms – named after domestic violence homicide victims – sharing their tales of abuse and getting help filling out a state form called a DV-100, the court system’s restraining order request form. A Golden Labradoodle named Buddy wandered the office, trained to nuzzle up to those in emotional distress.
The office sees as many as three dozen people each day, mostly women. Hanging from the ceiling on one wing of the suite are stuffed sea creatures that a detective brought in, a cheerful addition for the kids who often accompany the abuse survivors and who sometimes must share their own stories in special interview rooms.
The Justice Center’s case managers and attorneys always ask new clients if their abuser has guns and make sure to include that information on restraining order request forms, said Faith Whitmore, the Justice Center’s chief executive officer.
But, she said, judges there don’t seem to follow up – failing to ask detailed questions or use their power to try to force abusers to comply. Among those powers: Family courts are empowered to hold hearings to check on the status of guns, and judges can hold abusers in contempt if a firearm isn’t surrendered.
Whitmore acknowledged it can be difficult for courts to know if an abuser is actually armed. Many guns are unregistered, invisible in a background check. And sometimes victims believe there’s a gun but lack proof.
Still, the stakes are so high the courts should be trying harder – asking questions, holding hearings, checking for receipts, she said.
“If it is the law – and there’s a reason there is a law and the courts are the ones to enforce that – it seems that throwing up one’s hands should not be the default response,” Whitmore said.
Lewis also provides a contrast with Mendocino County, where procedures are in place to better ensure that guns get removed from those accused of domestic violence:
Take Mendocino County on California’s North Coast. CalMatters reviewed 19 cases filed in Mendocino County’s Superior Court the same month that Calley filed her request in Madera. The records reveal a clear and consistent process for handling firearm relinquishment in restraining order cases.
Cindee Mayfield has been a Mendocino County judge for almost 24 years, including 10 in family court. She praised the state Judicial Council for educating judges about firearm issues and said such training encouraged her to develop her court’s approach.
After a temporary restraining order is issued or a hearing set, her court does a background check of an alleged abuser, looking for registered firearms. The search is noted in every case docket. If there is a registered firearm, or the person asking for the order indicates the abuser is armed, the judge will ask about alleged guns at a hearing to make a record of the issue. If alleged abusers deny owning a gun, the court has them sign a statement under penalty of perjury saying they don’t have guns. If there is evidence of a gun and no proof of surrender, the judge holds a special hearing.
In the three cases CalMatters found where the court issued a full restraining order against an allegedly armed abuser, two of the men filed proof they surrendered guns. In the third case, Mayfield held a special hearing because the man didn’t file such proof.
Mendocino is a rural county where hunting and ranching is a way of life, so the issue comes up often, Mayfield said.
“We have a lot of people that do have registered firearms,” she said. “They’re sometimes kind of loath to give them up. And so sometimes we do have to do follow-up hearings with people just to verify the fact they’ve complied with the law.”
Mayfield said it’s important to have clear, consistent policies.
“I do kind of feel bad sometimes because they want them for wildlife or snakes or what have you on their ranches,” she said. “But it’s like, at this point for the next three years, I’m sorry, you’re just not going to have guns because it’s not safe.”
My own academic work about domestic violence in rural places is here. An earlier post discussing the failure of California law enforcement to remove guns from those known to be a threat is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment