ILNews

Protective order project moves to Center for Victim and Human Rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the Center for Victim and Human Rights announced Tuesday that the ICADV’s Protective Order Pro Bono Project is being taken over by the CVHR.

The project was created in 2001 and offers free legal services to victims of domestic violence who need protective orders or need to enforce the order. The project merged with the ICADV in 2007.

“The Project’s move is absolute win-win for our client survivors, the pro bono attorneys and law students who have volunteered to help them” said Kerry Blomquist, legal counsel at ICADV. “The Center for Victim and Human Rights has provided a growing number of free legal services to victims of domestic violence, many with multiple legal needs, so this is an excellent fit for the project.”

The Pro Bono Project is partially funded through the Indiana Supreme Court’s Civil Legal Aid Funding. The ICADV will train the center’s staff and volunteers as to how to work with victims of domestic violence.

The CVHR, founded in 2008, is a nonprofit legal services organization whose mission is to make the victim as whole as possible. The organization provides low-cost or no-cost legal services to crime and human rights abuse victims and engages in policy development and educational outreach.

“We are honored to be the next stewards of this project and advance the legacy of the ICADV Protective Order Pro Bono Project of providing safety for victims of domestic violence. Our objective is to provide access to justice for victims who wouldn’t otherwise be able to procure legal assistance in obtaining and enforcing protective orders,” said Raio Krishnayya, executive director of CVHR.

 

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