209A Reform Bills -- How They Would Eliminate Abuse

209A Reform Bills — How They Would Eliminate Abuse

May 2001

Advocates of a reform of the system that has been damaging so many children have filed two bills, S952 and S953. The first, S952 is a shorter version of S953, and contains the three most important provisions of the comprehensive longer bill.

• The definition of abuse would be changed so that it would no longer concern the state-of-mind of the “victim.” Specific acts or threats by the perpetrator would be required. The language would be changed from “placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm” to “threatening another with imminent serious physical harm.” If the new language is adopted, fraudulent protection orders like Mrs. Stewart’s would presumably be denied since the burden of proof of abuse could no longer be satisfied by statements regarding her “state of mind.”

• A violation of a “no-contact” order would have to be intentional. Employing a 209A protection order as an offensive weapon to falsely imprison someone would be considerably more difficult. The present law allows the “victim” to stalk the “abuser” to contrive “contact” and place him in criminal violation of the no-contact provisions of the civil order. This change would have no impact on physical assaults, which would continue to require no proof of intent.

• “Victims” would be less likely to commit perjury if defendants could be awarded actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with defending against an emergency order obtained under perjury.