ILNews

Editorial: Maybe there's a reason she doesn't just leave

Editorial Indiana Lawyer
September 15, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Editorial

Why doesn’t she just leave?

Maybe she’s a teenager still in school who believes her dreams of higher education and a better life will be markedly more difficult to achieve if she leaves the family headed by her abusive father.

Maybe she’s a mother who doesn’t believe she will be able to provide for her children if she leaves the husband who beats her. Maybe she fears him beating the children, too, should he find her after she leaves.

Perhaps the she in this scenario is a he. Can you imagine – in a society where many men believe they must adhere to a Clint Eastwood-esque archetype of masculinity – a man admitting that his wife beats him?

If you’ve ever asked that question – why doesn’t she just leave? – we implore you to ask that of the people who run the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence. ICADV celebrated its 30th anniversary with a gala Sept. 11. The statewide network was formed when the first five domestic violence shelters decided to join forces. Those first five were: Turning Point in Columbus, 1975; the YWCA of Fort Wayne, 1976; YWCA of St. Joseph County, 1977; Women’s Alternatives in Anderson, 1978; and The Caring Place in Valparaiso, 1978.

Today the network contains about 40 domestic violence organizations across the state, some with more than one location.

The organization reports an increase in the numbers of victims seeking assistance now than it did in the first few years of its existence. That increase is not due to an uptick in the number of victims, but an increase in awareness of the resources available to people who do manage to summon the courage to leave their abusive situations.

The organizations now do more than make their communities aware of the problem, and offer more than a hotline to call and a safe haven for victims. Now shelters provide job training, financial education, and protective order help for victims who need it.

ICADV works with the Indiana General Assembly on public policy issues, and has helped update statutes so that police and prosecutors have more tools to use when making a case against an abuser. The network also offers training for police, prosecutors, and judges.

They also helped broaden a program started in Lapel by the police chief there and Alternatives Inc., what had been Women’s Alternatives when it started in 1978. Employees of Ricker Oil, a gas company based in Madison County, were trained starting in 2002 to work with domestic violence victims who may come to their stores needing assistance. The president of Gas America, which is based in Hancock County, learned about the program and asked Alternatives about it, who then asked ICADV for help in implementing it in that chain of stores. Programs like these are critical in providing resources to people in rural communities who may not have a home phone or are afraid to use it to call for help. Liability insurance increased for both gas station chains once this program was implemented in their stores, but the owners remain committed to the program anyway.

So if you dare to ask that question – why doesn’t she just leave? – of the ICADV, we will caution you to be prepared for the answer. Sometimes she does leave and her worst fear comes true and she dies at the hands of her abuser.

The violence doesn’t always end when the relationship does.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT