More than 100 parents who say they’re victimized by restraining orders in divorce and custody fights took their campaign to the State House Tuesday, but most of the media ignored them. 
 Gov. Paul Cellucci opposes reform and wants to make existing laws on restraining orders even tougher. His office is pushing several bills that would make such orders easier to obtain and impose more stringent penalties for their violation.
 Mark Charalambous, spokesman for the Fatherhood Coalition, told Massachusetts News: “The media are engaged in a conspiracy of silence with feminists. We’re more politically incorrect than the NRA.”
 Ned Holstein, president of Fathers and Families, said: “The governor doesn’t have his feet on planet earth and does not know what’s going on in the courts.”
 While most media focused on high-profile bills on homosexual marriage and partial-birth abortion, at least 100 people were telling the Joint Judiciary Committee to adopt their bill, which would protect the rights of subjects of restraining orders in domestic disputes.
 Restraining orders, commonly meant to protect marriage partners from violence or abuse during divorce and custody proceedings, have been turned into offensive weapons in many of these cases, family group advocates say.  Orders can be obtained by one person’s unsubstantiated accusation, based only on his or her state of mind.  Many people have been jailed for accidentally violating restraining orders.
 The reform bill would require the following: more evidence than a person’s “state of mind” to obtain a restraining order; proof that violations of restraining orders are intentional;  removal of  “no contact” provisions between parents and children in cases where there is no abuse; and,  provide clearer evidentiary and due-process protections in restraining-order proceedings.

Horror Stories

 Several parents told the committee horror stories of their own experience as victims of restraining order abuse.
 Phyllis Field, an attorney who has defended parents arrested for violating restraining orders, spoke of one of her clients who was jailed for dropping off Christmas presents and making phone calls to a house he was paying for. 
 Dr. Abigail Maxton, a psychologist, told the committee that restraining orders have been used to force patients to continue therapy. She also said that she’s seen many allegations of sexual abuse used as grounds for granting restraining orders even though there was no evidence of abuse.
 Myra Dunn, a nurse, told a story of being thrown out of her house in 1996 by her husband.  She now suffers from depression, hypertension, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
 Jan Distelbrink, a nuclear physicist, testified that his wife was abusive and used a restraining order against him while their divorce was underway.  He said she continued to abuse their children until the divorce was finished; he won custody.

“Women’s” Activists Oppose Reform

 Patricia Levesh, an attorney for the Battered Women’s Legal Assistance Project, a part of the Greater Boston Legal Services, opposes the reform bill. 
 Apart from anecdotal testimony today, she said, there is no evidence that restraining orders are commonly abused.  It’s just not plausible that 40,000 restraining orders issued every year are based on false accusations, she said.
 The bill would destroy the only protection that victims of domestic violence have, said Levesh.  
 Sen. Robert Creeden (D-Plymouth), committee co-chairman, asked Levesh about a case he had encountered. A woman deliberately baited her husband into violating a restraining order, said Creeeden. She told her husband to come and pick up his fishing equipment despite an order forbidding him to go to her house.  The woman then called the police and the husband spent Independence Day weekend in jail.
 Levesh answered Creeden by saying that the committee has only been hearing one side of the issue. She added that victims of domestic violence are reluctant to come forward and tell their stories.
 The Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts, which also opposes the reform bill, agreed that battered women are afraid to come forward. The Bar says that the removal of the protections of the law would reverse all the progress the state has made against domestic violence.

Governor Wants More

 The reform bill has been filed “by request” and still has no legislative sponsor.  And the Cellucci administration wants to strengthen rather than reform restraining orders.  
 Secretary of Public Safety Jane Perlov testified in support of several bills that would make restraining orders easier to obtain, stay in effect longer, and provide increased penalties if violated.
 Perlov said she didn’t know of any problem of abuse in the restraining order system.  “If a judge issues an order, it should be obeyed,” she told Massachusetts News.
 “She doesn’t have a clue,” Attorney Field told Massachusetts News.  “She should come down and follow me through the courts. These are not isolated cases.”
 The administration’s bills would aggravate what Field calls a “judicial nightmare.”  They are really a “lawyer’s full employment act,” she said.

Prospects of Reform

 Sen. Brian P. Lees (R-Hampden), Senate minority leader, said that while most provisions of the current law are good, too many complaints have been made not to recognize that the law is being abused.
 He said that women’s groups have opposed any proposal to protect the rights of people under restraining orders.
 While the reform bill is overly-broad, he said, like most bills filed “by request,” some reform is needed.  He urged women’s groups to try to help improve the law. And he urged citizens to let their representatives know about abuses.
 Sheara Friend, an attorney who testified in favor of the reform bill, said that men’s groups have a reputation for being angry, and that the abuse they suffer in the courts is one of the reasons for their anger.
 Bob Maschi, chairman of the Fathers Group, did not testify. But he told Massachusetts News that the anger of people who have been falsely accused of abuse blinds them to the fact that there are battered men and women who need the protection of restraining orders.  The Fathers Group did not support the bill because of its poor prospects of passage.
 “The politicians aren’t going to stick their necks out over this,” he told Massachusetts News. “But the bill is valuable if it helps to educate people that some reform is needed.”