ILNews

IBA: Changes Announced Impacting Protective Order Registry

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Kerry Hyatt Blomquist

Last month was “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.” Yeah, I know—it was also “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and while I am certainly not anti-anti breast cancer, I do at times wish the DV Movement had the PR momentum that the Breast Cancer Awareness folks do—the guy that changed my oil last month was in a pink jumpsuit for Lord’s sake.

Anyway… good things—great things—are happening in Indiana in the ongoing fight against Intimate Partner Violence. The Indiana Supreme Court recently announced that a quarter of a million dollar grant received from the US Department of Justice will be funneled into updates and modifications to Indiana’s Protective Order Registry. Starting as soon as early 2011, protective order petitioners could be notified via text or email that their orders have been served or that their orders are about to expire. This is so important because the most dangerous time for any victim of violence is when they do try to finally escape that violence. Knowing exactly when their abuser is notified is critical to their safety planning.

Another change coming down the pike: Protection Order forms will soon be available in Spanish, which of course will make the system more accessible to Spanish speaking survivors. This is an equal access to justice move that is long overdue and impossible to disagree with.

And finally, the Protective Order Registry will be accessible to advocates and other members of the public, which will allow advocates to continue to help survivors get the Orders for Protection designed to keep them safe. Best of all, those advocates can provide other resources and services to survivors at that time, be it safety planning, shelter options or counseling. And those same advocates can explain fully what can and (as importantly) CANNOT be done with a Protective Order, keeping abuse of process cases in check.

The Indiana Supreme Court and JTAC have been amazingly proactive and forward thinking in their commitment to the development of Indiana’s Protective Order Registry. This is great news for those of us on the front lines in the fight against domestic and intimate partner violence in Indiana. Next on the agenda—purple jumpsuits at Jiffy Lube next October. •
____________

Blomquist is Legal Director for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Co-Chair of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Legislative Committee.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT