Changes are needed to provide protection

By Robert Fulton

More than three months have passed since the Moshiri family tragedy in Jackson. It is vital that lessons be learned from those events so there is less chance of future tragedies of this type. These events raise important questions about the procedures used by the courts, prosecutors, police and community service agencies. It is clear that current procedures do not provide adequate protection and support for families facing potentially dangerous situations.

There were some early indications that a task force of state and local experts would be formed to distill the lessons learned from the Moshiri tragedy and to identify changes needed to reduce the chances for similar occurrences in the future. If such a study group has been formed, it has been quiet about its purposes and its progress.

The Southeast Missourian rendered important public service by reporting fully on the Moshiri family tragedy, including publishing on your Web site the petition for a protective order Katherine Moshiri filed with the court the day of the tragedy. You can provide further service by continuing to keep the history of this tragedy before the public and encouraging efforts to provide better protections for parents and children in situations similar to those faced by Mrs. Moshiri.

Katherine Moshiri has graciously defended the actions of law enforcement and the Safe House for Women. She has made clear that some of the early reports on what had happened were not accurate. For example, she says she had other alternatives for a place to stay and was not upset by the fact that the rules of the Safe House would not allow her and her children to stay there because she had a teenage son. Mrs. Moshiri has said she was mainly concerned about the possibility that her husband would try to take the children to Iran. She apparently did not believe her husband would do physical harm to her or the children.

But what about a mother who is in similar circumstances as Mrs. Moshiri except that she is truly scared to go home and has no other alternative for a place to stay? The Safe House's response would apparently have been the same. Why is there not a place -- provided either by the Safe House or the juvenile division or some other organization -- where a youth could be sheltered while the mother and younger children stay at the Safe House? Or why couldn't money be available to pay for motel accommodations for such a family? Availability of a placement in Columbia or some other distant place is really no answer.

Interestingly, the Southeast Missouri Domestic Violence Council, operator of a safe house in the Mineral Area, changed its policies sometime ago to enable teenaged boys to be housed at that area's safe house when that is appropriate for the rest of the family. If that works OK in the Mineral Area, wouldn't it also work in the Cape Girardeau area?

The response of the judicial system and the police to situations such as that faced by the Moshiri family also raise important questions. Under present procedures the filing of a petition for a protective order is not a criminal complaint. Approval of a temporary protective order only authorizes the police to serve it on the alleged perpetrator. They can take further action only if the order is violated. But is this how the system should work in situations in which the applicant for the order says she is in immediate danger?

Why couldn't the law and the procedures be changed so that a judge could order the police or sheriff to pick up immediately a person who is allegedly threatening to kill a woman and/or children and hold an emergency hearing before she leaves the court offices? The law should allow immediate lock-up of the accused if the information presented and demeanor of the witnesses indicates a probability that there is indeed a threat to the life and well-being of the complainant or her children. This might be the only sure way of keeping a potential killer from hurting the vulnerable people.

Law enforcement officers reportedly have said they could have done something immediately if Mrs. Moshiri had reported to them she had been physically assaulted by her spouse. This is quite puzzling. Threats of death and of child kidnapping are crimes too. The fact that they are alleged in an application for a protective order rather than in a complaint filed at a police station should not cause a different response by law enforcement.

It seems to me that at a minimum the 10 days allowed between the issuance of an initial protective order and the full hearing on a permanent order should be shortened drastically. The system should not expose women and children to 10 days of hell while the alleged abuser is free to pursue whatever he may have in mind, has made no appearance before a judge and will be arrested by the police only if they find him violating the temporary order. Unfortunately, the arrest too often comes after members of the family have been killed or injured.

And is the role of the prosecuting attorney's office in these situations what is needed to help protect people from domestic abuse? It seems that the prosecutors' involvement now comes too late in the process to contribute meaningfully and help provide positive outcomes.

Again, I urge the Missourian and its readers to help carry out a campaign to remedy deficiencies in law enforcement, judicial processes and social services. Success in lessening the danger to potential future victims will be the best way to honor Katherine Moshiri and her children.

Robert Fulton is a resident of Patton, Mo.