It's a weird day

[drwex]

It's a weird day when multiple people take the time to thank me for being the voice of reason. You all who know me can stop laughing now. Any minute. I'll wait.

I've been posting a good deal in both sunspiral's LJ and shadesong's LJ. I'm glad to be able to have discussions with both of them. This is where I stand:

- Judah is a self-admitted abuser and has a restraining order against him for domestic violence and other related offenses. As such, I do not want him at my house and I am probably not comfortable going to other parties where he is welcome. That might change in the future; or, maybe not. I'm in new territory here and the Magic 8 Ball is cloudy.

- My comfort is about me and my loved ones. It's not a standard for other private individuals to follow. I am not the boss of you (unless you're one of my kids and they have some vehement objections to my Boss status anyway).

- When I go to a party I expect to follow the hosts' rules. When people come to my parties I'd like them to follow my rules, which are often summarized as "don't piss off the hosts." Part of why Judah is not welcome is because I'm so angry at what he did. I want him to be banned from other events where I might attend because I have my visceral, fist-clenching furious reaction to imagining someone doing to my loved ones what he did to Shira.

- I recognize that my response to the situation is seated in a position of vast privilege, including white, able, cis-male, wealth privilege. I also don't know what to do with that, except try to keep it in mind when I write or speak.

- There are people I like, love, and respect, on all sides of this debate. I am struggling to understand how these people I respect have reasoned to the positions they hold. I think we have now a large rift in the circle of people I like and if people do not understand each other there is no hope for dialog. Because this is all about me, I feel like I want to understand all the sides first.

- I am currently using the theoretical basis of framing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) ) to think about this. I believe we have a framing problem, not a Rashomon problem. In Rashomon, every witness tells their own version of events, and no two of them agree on all the facts. In this situation I think pretty much everyone agrees on the facts, but is using different framings to interpret those facts.

- I have a long and friendly relationship with Scott & Rachel. I have a much shorter acquaintanceship with Shira and even less so with Adam but I'd like to think that Shira and I are at least on friendly terms.

- I am intensely sad that this situation has now become a conflict between these households when I think that conflict was entirely avoidable. I see people responding to perceived attacks on each of these people, being protective of the people they love. I understand that, deeply. I continue to believe that this level of self- and other-protectiveness is preventing many people from recognizing the framing differences.

- We accuse each other of lies, deceptions, exaggerations, denials, etc. But I think these things are all distractions from the core issues. I care about how you treat the people who commit these violent acts; how you treat the people who are the victims of these acts; how you treat the people who have to deal with the consequences of these acts; and how you treat the people who are trying to navigate these unknown and shark-infested waters. I reject any formulation that says, "It's simple, just XYZ." It's not simple.

- I would like to be able to focus on the problems that having Judah in the social circle brings and how we can deal with that. Unfortunately the grounds have shifted and people are choosing up sides in a wholly unnecessary war. Perhaps I'm falling into a geek fallacy, but I also see this as an important test case. If we cannot find a way to work with each other - despite our different frameworks - to deal with an abuser and social gatherings then we have a pretty deep problem.

Comments

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

But crucially, I don't think S&R have that evidence, nor do they have your training, nor do they have your past history.

The second and third parts of that are, of course, true. The first part - I did write about it extensively. I don't have time to dig up links right now (I'm getting ready for a con that starts this evening), but the posts are tagged with Judah's name.

I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.

Scott has repeatedly referred to past situations and it's clear to me that he's using those to model this situation. What I hear you saying is that either those past situations were not handled the way you'd've liked them to be, or they're not appropriate models for this situation. Does that seem accurate to you?

I don't know enough about the past situations to judge. The key thing I don't know, so I can't know whether to disagree with Scott's decisions on them, is that I don't know if anyone in those prior situations was a violent offender. I believe that if one party is a violent offender and the other their victim, the logical and responsible choice would be to disinvite the violent offender. However, I do not know if that's the case in their prior RO situations. If that was the case, yes, I'd say their way of handling it was irresponsible, but I do not have sufficient data to make that call. By a long shot.

Another factor there is that Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event, which is odd, as an RO forbids all contact, and therefore any such communication would be in violation of the RO. So... that's curious.

Being mistaken is not the same as being insane or illogical.

I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR. I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.

[drwex]

I think we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns. However, I'm learning a lot from all these conversations so I'll tickle a couple of points here and leave it to your judgement what's worth a reply. I continue to appreciate that we've been able to have a positive conversation despite having some differences.

I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.

Understood. I wonder if she feels, given what evidence she has, that those things are applicable here. She's been notably silent in these public conversations so I'm reluctant to make assumptions about what she knows, remembers, or believes.

Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event

He has clarified that they negotiated through third parties other than himself and conveyed a joint agreement to him.

I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR

True. You referred to "contortions of logic". I was writing in haste.

I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.

So this brings me back to the question of whether calling Scott's statements "lies" versus "mistakes" advances your greater goals. I dunno; I can see value in both approaches.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

I continue to appreciate that we've been able to have a positive conversation despite having some differences.

As do I.

She's been notably silent in these public conversations so I'm reluctant to make assumptions about what she knows, remembers, or believes.

Agreed. I can only state that she was, at one point, aware.

He has clarified that they negotiated through third parties other than himself and conveyed a joint agreement to him.

Which is also a violation of the restraining order, actually. I really do need to get Adam to scan mine... But the person who has the RO against them is specifically prohibited from contacting the other party even via a third party, even to respond to a question the other party asks.

[drwex]

Which is also a violation of the restraining order, actually.

That is not universally true. At one point I was asked to act as such a communication third party between a couple involved in an unpleasant divorce(*). There are other situations I'm aware of where third parties are necessary for couples with children, etc. Also, times change. What was the norm 10 years ago is probably not the norm today.

(*) no violence there but a concern about shared finances. She didn't want him emptying their joint bank accounts, selling off shared household property, etc.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

Okay. Mine is a 209(A), for the record; I can show it to you next time we're in the same space.

[ron_newman]

If you could can a copy of that restraining order (appropriately redacted to remove personal information as needed), that would help people understand your situation better.

[drwex]

I'm uncomfortable with this. I don't feel like Song should be required to produce government documentation to back up her story. If she says that's how her R.O. is written why not simply believe her? Is anyone seriously debating this? My disagreement with her was over her generalization from her R.O. to all such orders. She accepts my personal experience, and I accept hers.

That said, I agree that most people (including myself) have little to no experience with these things and it might be worthwhile to educate ourselves. But that's an obligation on us, not on Song.

[ron_newman]

Fair enough. I'm hearing -- and personally having -- some confusion over whether the order imposes any obligation upon its "owner" as well as on its "target", and seeing one of these in (virtual) print might clear that up. If 'Song's order is a generic form with just the two names filled in, perhaps a link to such an un-filled-in form could be helpful.

(also, I now see a stupid typo in my earlier comment, which I can't fix now that you've replied to it)

[drwex]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legalpleadingtemplate.com%2Fpreview%2FRestraining_Order

[ron_newman]

That link is helpful, as it shows that such restraining orders are (or at least, can be) a set of checkoff-able options on a generic template form. But, there are a lot of options available, including a free-text "Other Orders" section, and we don't know what options were checked off in this particular case.

One of the points under dispute here seems to be this: if A has obtained from the court a restraining order against B, is it legitimate or not for A to travel to a place where B is known to currently be (a place which is *not* B's place of residence or work), for the purpose of forcing B to leave that place? And is B automatically in violation of the order by being at a place where A may later arrive, but hasn't yet arrived?

The generic form does not appear to contain any restrictions against A (the Person to be Protected), but the customized "Other Orders" might.

The party hosts say they have previous experience involving other guests who are at opposite ends of a restraining order, and that that experience informed their decision in this case. But that restraining order may have been very different from this one.

[drwex]

The point is that you can do the research and learn about these things yourself. I find it irrelevant.

[ron_newman]

We'll have to just disagree on this, as I think the specifics of the order, and the obligations it places on each person, are fairly central to the misunderstanding and dispute that have followed.

I appreciate your providing a calm space for this discussion, and hope that your efforts will help to heal the rift that has developed in our community(s).

[deguspice.livejournal.com]

This seems to be a useful page for describing 209A Protective Orders

http://www.masslegalhelp.org/domestic-violence/wdwgfh/chapter6-209a-protective-orders

What is a 209A protective order?

A 209A protective order is a court order that protects you from being abused by a member or former member of your household or family or someone you have been dating. It is called a 209A protective order because the law that created it is Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 209A.

Is it the same thing as a "restraining order"?

Protective orders are also called "restraining orders," "abuse prevention orders," or "209A's." In this manual we use the term 209A protective order, because the order does more than just "restrain" your abuser. It protects you in other ways too. 209A protective orders say “Abuse Prevention Order” at the top of the order

[...]

[ron_newman]

That site was also very helpful. Thanks.

From reading everything there, I get that the order does not impose any obligations on the complainant (the abused person), only on the respondent (the abuser). So the concept of "misusing the restraining order" doesn't appear to have any basis in law.

[alienne.livejournal.com]

IANAL but that's correct for all types of protective orders that I'm aware of in various states. If Alice gets a protective order against Bob, then Bob is the person being ordered by the court to perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions. The court's ruling is only about Bob; Alice incurs no obligations whatsoever.

[curly-chick.livejournal.com]

I am responding to the question only and not to whether or not the question should have been asked.

To clarify, restraining orders do not impose any obligation on the victim. The purpose of a restraining order is to deal with the actions of the perpetrator and not punish the victim. There is no "misusing" the restraining order and there is no "mutual obligation".

One caveat regarding your question above: when a victim is seeking a continuation of the order she or he must prove that there is a continuing need for the order. If the victim is contacting the defendant, than the defendant will surely bring that up as evidence that there is no continuing need.

Please note that there are a myriad of reasons a victim might still need to contact the defendant (e.g. I have no money to feed our kids, our lights are being turned off, someone died; where is the bank account etc.) I think that those are reasonable. Some reasons for contact are less reasonable. Courts take all of that into account.

That being said, any violation of a restraining order is a criminal offense so the prosecutor must prove, as in any criminal offense, that the requisite conditions to the crime are met. That is harder when contact is accidental. It is easier, though, when you can argue that the defendant knew or should have known the victim would be at a location.

One final note, a defendant can get a restraining order modified if there is something the defendant feels he or she must attend (like a wedding of their children). The victim can argue that this would not be safe for him or her and the judge would decide. But the whole argument that the defendant can't do anything is not true: they can go into court and ask the court for permission. This way the victim has notice and make the right decisions for his or her safety.

A final note: restraining orders are only about the safety of the victim.

[ron_newman]

Thank you. Your comment was very helpful, especially this:

There is no "misusing" the restraining order and there is no "mutual obligation".