Alex Schodowski will sit as pro tem commissioner in the Clallam County Superior Court Family Court July 1-12, 2019. Ms. Schodowski is an attorney in Port Townsend, and has been practicing law since 2011.
Practice areas
CLE: Chemical dependency treatment by Stormy Howell June 7
Please join the Clallam County Bar Association for their CLE on June 7, 2019, Chemical dependency treatment and the justice system by Stormy Howell, J.D. The program starts at noon at the usual location. For more information, contact CCBA President Donna Knifsend at 360-670-9406.
Local Mandatory Arbitration Rule 1.3 amended
LMAR 1.3, Claim Limit was modified effective September 1, 2018. It reads:
The limit for claims subject to mandatory arbitration is $100,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney fees and costs. For the purpose of this rule, a “claim” is defined to be the net value of the claim, after all reductions for comparative negligence or setoffs.
Free Legal Clinic June 15 2019
Clallam and Jefferson County Probono Lawyers Presents: Free Legal Clinic
This general legal clinic runs from 12PM to 2PM at the Masonic Lodge in Port Angeles, 622 South Lincoln Street, and provides a free, drop in, legal advice clinic, for low income residents of Clallam and Jefferson Counties. Participants will have the opportunity for a free one on one consultation with an attorney who can address questions regarding the following topics:
Child Support
Landlord/Tenant
Creditor/Bankruptcy
Foreclosure
Dissolution
Domestic Violence
Wills & Estate Planning
Custody
Public Assistance
Employment
Those interested in participating in this event should bring to the clinic, all relevant paperwork regarding their legal matter or questions.
For more information, please call or email: 360-504-2422; [email protected]
For those interested in volunteering their time, please contact Shauna Rogers McClain.
CLE May 17, 2019: discovery, depositions, trial advocacy by Sal Mungia
The May 17, 2019 bar lunch CLE focuses on discovery, depositions and trial advocacy. If you don’t know Sal, the presenter, you should! I have seen him present before and highly recommend. More information about Sal is below.
All CLE donations directly support Clallam Jefferson County Pro Bono Lawyers.
Ariel Speser
Past President, CCBA
“The highest calling of any lawyer is to give a voice to those who have no voice and to restore hope to those who have forgotten what hope looks like.”
Salvador Mungia
Salvador A. Mungia
Over the last 30 years, Salvador A. Mungia has worked vigorously to advance equal justice. Sal has committed his career not only to his clients but also to the improvement of the justice system. He has served his profession by being president of the Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Association in 1999, president of the Washington State Bar Association in 2009, chair of the Equal Justice Coalition from 2016-2017, and he currently serves on the board of the Endowment for Equal Justice and the Washington State Access to Justice Board. However, Sal considers his highest achievements as those times when he has represented individuals in both state and federal court, both individually and in class actions, free of charge to protect their rights so that he can do his part to ensure that those without any power are not taken advantage of.
A partner at Gordon Thomas Honeywell, Sal generously gives his time, his money, and brings unbridled enthusiasm to the legal community in his quest to serve and make a difference in the lives of those for whom justice is frequently out of reach. He has devoted thousands of hours of pro bono representation in class action and individual civil rights cases and where fees have been awarded, he has donated them back. Sal’s leadership, accomplishments, and his lifelong dedication to civil legal aid are recognized by the Tacoma Pierce County Bar Association, Washington State Bar Association, Access to Justice Board, Washington Association for Justice, ACLU of Washington, Northwest Immigrant Right’s Project and Endowment for Equal Justice, among others.
Sal is the type of leader many aspire to be and the legal aid community is proud to recognize and honor him.
Ariel Speser
Study: how to change DV behaviors
The Process of Primary Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence suggests three things people can do to reduce domestic violence behaviors and the thinking patterns that drive the behaviors. To reduce coercive control behaviors, people and remove external stressors, promote stability in their life, and develop a supportive environment.
In my view, from a psychological, developmental, and attachment perspective, one of the main challenges is discovering what the “external” stressors are, because they likely involve internal stressors related to their experience as a child. It is not easy to discover and address the deeply seated stressors. Obvious stressors include financial issues, unclear communication patterns, poor sleep, etc. Less obvious stressors are subjectively perceived dangers.
Common dangers for people who tend to engage in coercively controlling behavior, and which drive internal stress and external behavior include:
- Abandonment, and being alone,
- Not being in conflict,
- Not being true to one’s own feelings, even if in conflict with other people’s desires,
- Not attending to relationships, letting important people not attend to oneself,
- Believing that others will do as they say,
- Ambiguous reactions by others,
- Compromise, and
- Delaying gratification
From an attachment perspective, it would likely also be necessary for the person to develop understandings of what constitutes danger to them, and new strategies for how they respond to perceived danger. What these changes might look like will be different in any individual case. Absent such fundamental changes, concern should remain about the likelihood of significant changes in coercive control behavior and the underlying thinking patterns.
The Process of Primary Desistance From Intimate Partner Violence Kate Walker, Erica Bowen, Sarah Brown
Violence Against Women, First Published August 15, 2017 Research Article Abstract
This study examined the interaction between structure and agency for individuals in the first or early phase of primary desistance (1 year offending free) from intimate partner violence (IPV). Narrative accounts of perpetrators, survivors, and IPV program facilitators were analyzed using Thematic Analysis. Changes in the self and the contexts, structures, and conditions were necessary to promote desistance. Perpetrators made behavioral and cognitive changes taking on different identities (agentic role) by removing external stressors and instability within the confines of a supportive environment (structural role). Findings provide a theoretical framework of desistance from IPV that integrates social processes and subjective change.
Copyright Mark Baumann, 2019
Study: DV increases during major sporting events –reasons and solutions
Research shows that domestic violence increases during times of major sporting events such as the world cup. Reasons that are often cited include increased tension, investment in the outcome, disappointment, adrenaline, and intoxication. https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/football/world-cup-domestic-violence-united-kingdom-campaign-trnd/index.html. From our perspective, this is best understood from attachment and rejection theory perspectives.
Attachment perspective. Domestic violence is associated with adults who have an affectively-oriented attachment structure, or a “C” pattern. These patterns tend to rely, to one degree or another, on affective information, rather than cognitive information to guide thoughts and behavior. That is, feelings, especially “elicited negative feelings” in the body provide the neural system with preferred information, and intense feelings tend to drive intense thoughts and behaviors. Intense feeling can override cognitive information, such as the thought “I should control my feelings because if I don’t I might do something I will regret.” (Crittenden, Patricia M., and Spieker, Susan, J., (2018), Can attachment inform decision-making in child protection and forensic settings?, Infant Mental Health Journal, 39:6, 625-641.)
Rejection theory perspective. From a social science rejection theory perspective, attachment C-patterns can involve the increased likelihood of angry responses to relationship threats, increased history of relationship abuse, increased feelings of jealousy, a tendency to perceive partners in a negative light, and struggle between wanting and avoiding intimacy. These are all elements common to people who tend to be sensitive to rejection and respond with aggression. There are two types of relational rejections that are important to understand. Perceived low relational evaluation: a person may feel rejected when their perceived relational evaluation is not as high as they desire (even though they may recognize they are valued, liked, or accepted). Relational devaluation: a person may feel particularly rejected when they experience a subjective, sudden and dramatic devaluation in a relationship. (Leary, Mark R., Twenge. Jean M., Quinlivan, Erin, (2006), Interpersonal rejection as a determinate of anger and aggression, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10:2, 111-132.
As noted in the CNN article above, expectations and the game’s outcome can make a difference. A 2010 British study found that violence spiked during the World Cup tournament only if the English team won or lost, not if the game ended in a draw. In a 2015 British study, violence spiked if expectations were high –either because of who was playing, where the games was played or because of the significance of the match.
Putting the data and theory together. We can see that when a person evaluates their own self-worth based on the performance of a sporting team, and when they have an affective-oriented personality structure, they may be more susceptible to act upon intense feelings and less able to manage those feelings whether the team wins or loses, and/or if their expectation for the game outcome is set too high.
What can be done? Armed with foreknowledge about the risks, people with partners who tend to use attachment C-pattern behaviors (or people who tend to exhibit difficulty controlling their emotions and coercive control behaviors) can anticipate and be proactive. The studies suggest people can help put the games in a healthy context, provide healthy outlets to let off steam, be mindful to eat healthy food and moderate alcohol consumption, and keep a focus on positive places, people, events and things that elicit positive rather than negative feelings. For partners of these people, they can be be mindful about other potential relational challenges and rejections: they can be careful to avoid bringing up difficult issues, put off sensitive topics, redirect people whose behavior is escalating, or if sensitive issues cannot be avoided address them in a structured way or with helpful third parties present.
From a longer term perspective, it may be helpful to work with their partners to develop a good set of skills for:
- Managing emotions, such as by recognizing and labeling emotions (neurobiological drives) and feelings (the outcome of the neurobiological impulse),
- Learning to accept and talk about feelings,
- Develop mindfulness techniques,
- Partners may want to model such techniques and engage in practices like yoga and exercise to encourage partners to do the same.
Judges can support partners who are struggling to manage their partner/co-parent’s coercive behaviors. A few simple examples for how judges can do this include:
- Being respectful to all parties even as boundaries are held,
- Modeling affect management on the bench (not allowing a judge’s own emotions to rage),
- Enunciating behavioral expectations in a non-judgmental and non-humiliating way.
- Encouraging people who appear to use coercive strategies to engage in known emotion management activities and then demonstrate to the court their efforts to learn and apply learned skills.
Mark Baumann copyright 2019
Study: coercive control can continue after divorce
“I Was Naive in Thinking: ‘I Divorced This Man, He Is Out of My Life’.” That is the title of a study which identified 9 different ways a spouse might continue to control the other spouse after divorce.
The most common themes to emerge from the narratives were, in order of prevalence, as follows:
- Using the Children;
- Using Threats, Harassment, and Intimidation;
- Emotional Abuse;
- Economic Abuse;
- “Stuff to Try to Hurt Me”;
- Disrupting Her Relationships With the Children;
- Using the System; and
- Physical Violence.
The findings are not surprising to professionals who work with victims of domestic violence (coercive control).
The study found that “many women” simply give up everything just to get out. For some people, men and women, “walking away” is a reasonable option, and even a best option in some cases. For people ready to stand up for themselves, and who are not willing to simply walk away, obtaining help in court is possible if the judge is aware of the nature and persistence of coercive control. For people thinking about standing up for themselves, help can be obtained from any domestic violence agency, mental health professionals, and informed lawyers. Religious leaders, teachers, coaches, employers, friends, may or may not have awareness of the persistent dynamics of domestic violence.
“I Was Naive in Thinking, ‘I Divorced This Man, He Is Out of My Life’”: A Qualitative Exploration of Post-Separation Power and Control Tactics Experienced by Women
Michelle L. Toews, Autumn M. Bermea
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol 32, Issue 14, 2017
First Published June 18, 2015
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore women’s perceptions of the
power and control tactics used by their former husbands post-separation.
A total of 22 in-depth interviews with divorced mothers who reported
male-initiated partner abuse (psychological and/or physical) during
and/or after their marriages were analyzed. The most common themes to
emerge from the narratives were, in order of prevalence, as follows:
Using the Children; Using Threats, Harassment, and Intimidation;
Emotional Abuse; Economic Abuse; “Stuff to Try to Hurt Me”; Disrupting
Her Relationships With the Children; Using the System; and Physical
Violence. We also found that the violent and coercive behaviors men used
during the marriage continued to influence the women’s perceptions of
the power and control their former husbands had over them
post-separation. As a result, many of the women described how they gave
up everything just to get out of their abusive marriages.
Court sees through bully’s story, wife’s slap appropriate
An abuser went too far and his wife slapped him, so he sought a restraining order. The court said no, her slap was an instinctive reaction to discovering his long-term lying about not having an affair.
In Fischer vs. Fischer, a California case, the wife caught the husband having an affair. He apologized a “million times” telling her it was over and that it had been a short term thing. She forgave him and they tried to work things out, and went to marital therapy. Months later, the wife saw his phone ringing and saw a picture of his mistress. She looked at the phone and saw numerous text messages indicating they not only were still having an affair, but had been doing so for a long time. As she was discovering the depth of his deception, he came into the room, hovered a foot from her face and snatched the phone from her hand. When he demanded to know what she was doing, she swore at him and slapped him.
The husband took the offensive and filed for protection order seeking the court’s protection from his abusive wife, and intense custody litigation ensued. At trial, the judge found that the wife’s actions were not an intentional assault, rather an instinctive, in the heat of the moment act, and refused to grant the husband’s request for a restraining order, and also refused to grant the husband’s request that the wife undergo a parenting fitness evaluation. The husband appealed and lost again.
When the wife initially caught him having an affair, he took the initiative then too, filing for divorce. But as is often the case, she begged him not to leave and they reconciled.
Of course there was more to the story, as is usually the situation in these types of cases. The wife provided evidence of a pattern of coercive control by the husband. He was much larger than her, and he constantly got angry and pushed her, spat on her, threw water on her, grabbed her and moved her around, and tossed her across the bed.
DV and patterns of coercive control are driven by a person’s fundamental way of solving all problems with coercive behaviors. Aggressive tactics in litigation can be an indicator confirming a person’s use of coercive control. In this case, the husband took the unusual step of filing an appeal. He had requested a five-year restraining order based on the one incident of the wife slapping him. Both the trial court and the court of appeals saw through his aggression and denied his requests.
Washington’s law is similar. At a domestic violence protection order hearing, the court “may” grant an order, or not. Also, an assault must be an intentional act.
The full opinion from the appellate court can be accessed here.
Coercive control and emotional abuse illegal in U.K., France, Ireland –and Clallam?
Ireland joined the United Kingdom and France extending the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse and coercive control. The definitions in these countries expand the basis for a protection order and criminalize coercive control. Washington State law is not quite as clear, but for non-criminal cases is consistent with these European jurisdictions. Understanding coercive control, or more importantly what drives the controlling behavior, and applying protections by judicial officers in rural communities is not easy.
On January 1, 2019, Ireland enacted the Domestic Violence Act 2018, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/6/enacted/en/html.
Part 2 of the act enumerates a list of factors courts “shall have regard to”. Beyond the usual factors, such as fear for personal safety, history of violence, access to weapons, and substance abuse, they include:
- “any evidence of deterioration in the physical, psychological or emotional welfare of the applicant or a dependent person which is caused directly by fear of the behaviour of the respondent;”
- “whether the applicant is economically dependent on the respondent;”
- “the applicant’s perception of the risk to his or her own safety or welfare due to the behaviour of the respondent;”
- “any recent separation between the applicant and the respondent;”
- “any destruction or damage caused by the respondent to” the petitioner’s personal property or residence;”
The French Parliament “adopted Law 2010-769, of July 9, 2010, on Violence Against Women, Violence Between Spouses, and the Effects of These Types of Violence on Children * * * [which] contains several criminal provisions aimed at reinforcing the fight against familial violence, including psychological violence.” http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-law-on-violence-against-women/.
In England, the offence of controlling or coercive behavior is defined in Section 76(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015:
“A person (A) commits an offence if–
(a) A repeatedly or continuously engages in behaviour towards another person (B) that is controlling or coercive,
(b) at the time of the behaviour, A and B are personally connected,
(c) the behaviour has a serious effect on B, and
(d) A knows or ought to know that the behaivour will have a serious effect on B.”
Although not a law, a cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse is provided in a Statutory Guidance Framework for Controlling or Coercive Behaviour in an Intimate or Family Relationship, by the Home Office:
“Controlling behaviour is: a range of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacties for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour.
“Coercive behaviour is: a continuing act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten their victim.”
In 2014, the European Union Agency for Fundamental rights (FRA) conducted a survey of violence against women by interviewing 42,000 women in EU member countries. Consistent with studies in other countries, violence against women is common.
“What emerges is a picture of extensive abuse that affects many women’s lives, but is systematically underreported to the authorities.”
FRA survey, at page 3.
“One in three women (32%) has experienced psychologically abusive behaviour by an intimate partner either by her current partner or previous partner. This includes behaviour such as belittling or humiliating the respondent in public or private; forbidding her to leave the house or locking her up; making her watch pornographic material against your wishes; scaring or intimidating her on purpose; and threatening her with violence were threatening to hurt someone else the respondent cares about.”
“Overall, 43% of women have experienced some form of psychological violence by an intimate partner, which includes other forms of abuse alongside psychologically abusive behavior. This may include psychologically abusive behavior and other forms of psychological violence such as controlling behavior (for example trying to keep the respondent from seeing her friends or visiting her family or relatives), economic violence (such as forbidding a woman to work outside the home) and blackmail.”
FRA survey at 71, from Main Findings of Psychological Partner Violence
The FRA survey broke down the results by country.
“In [the FRA] survey on violence against women, almost a third of Irish women (31%) said they had experienced psychological abuse by a partner. A further 23% of respondents said they had experienced controlling behavior, 24% said they had experienced abusive behavior, and 12% said they had experienced stalking (including online stalking).”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/02/health/ireland-coercive-control-domestic-abuse-intl/index.html
In Washington State (and presumably all U.S. states) coercive control behaviors are not a crime. However, the law, and the Washington Courts’ Domestic Violence Bench Guide for Judicial Officers (revised 2015), make it clear that protection orders can and should be issued based on this type of behavior. The Bench Guide defines domestic violence conduct in terms of both purely legal and also behavioral conduct. Behavioral domestic violence is defined as involving a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks, as well as economic coercion. Bench Guide at 2-4.
“Using both the Washington behavioral and legal definitions of DV is critical for making the complex decisions facing judicial officers hearing these cases in criminal, family law, juvenile, dependency, or protection order courts.” Bench Guide at 2-5.
In rural Clallam County, it’s a mixed bag as far as judges being able to see coercive behaviors and being able or willing to do something about them. Judge Brent Basden, with a decade of experience in the family and dependency courts, has developed a keen sense for consistently sorting out false from true claims and being able to respectfully impose reasonable boundaries, structure and compassionate consequences in most cases. Judge Erik Rohrer has demonstrated difficulty seeing coercive behavior, doing anything about it, and in at least one case getting it backward by supporting coercive behavior and punishing the victim. Judge Brian Coughenour has demonstrated a reasonable ability to see coercive behavior, but not an ability to do anything about it, as demonstrated in a recent 4-day divorce trial. In that case, Judge Coughenour ruled the father had engaged in a pattern of domestic violence. Indeed the mother and her witnesses had proven substantial evidence of having suffered a decade of virtually all forms of physical abuse and coercively controlling behavior directed at her, in front of the children, and/or to the children. She testified that she continued to fear her husband and requested a protection order. However, Judge Coughenour declined to issue any protection order and granted the untreated father a substantial amount of parenting time.
Coercive control is a relatively new concept for the legal community, and it can be difficult for people to recognize. Most people, judges or not, need some education to learn how and what coercive control is, how it differs from traditional notions of domestic violence, how common the behavior patterns are, what are the associated personality and behavior patterns, what the patterns look like in practice, what the legal system can do to minimize the behaviors and protect victims, and importantly, its devastating long term psychological and somatic effects on victims and children.
By Mark Baumann, J.D.
Port Angeles, Washington
Please note: this article represents the opinion of Mark Baumann only. Please contact the editor if you would like to submit your own opinion article.