RI Family Court disputes report on domestic abusers with guns
A scathing new report accuses Rhode Island Family Court of failing to enforce the state's domestic violence gun safety law 100% of the time, something the report claims could be putting domestic violence survivors at risk.
NBC 10 News dug deeper into the report's findings, after Rhode Island Family Court fired back, calling the analysis inaccurate.
The report was based on a court monitoring program set up by two gun safety organizations, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
Over a six-month period, they sent volunteers to 289 court cases to see whether judges and magistrates were following the Protect Rhode Island Families Act.
According to their findings, judges and magistrates in Rhode Island only ordered defendants with Final Orders of Protection to turn over their weapons 34% of the time, a percentage that under state law should be 100%.
The law, which Gov. Gina Raimondo signed in 2017, is meant to protect domestic abuse survivors by prohibiting certain domestic abuse defendants from purchasing or possessing firearms.
The law also requires abuse defendants to surrender their firearms when issued a Final Protective Order.
Melissa Power is one of the volunteers who took part in the court monitoring program.
She told NBC 10 News that none of the volunteers were attorneys, but they first had to undergo training to understand what was happening in the courtroom.
"We trained the volunteers with attorneys from Rhode Island, law professors, and we talked about the situation in a court room, how a court would operate, what observers would be seeing within the courts. Then we observed and collected the data," Power said.
Power said they filled out surveys for each case and collected necessary court documents, which were later reviewed and coded by an attorney.
The report blames the alleged low percentage of firearm surrender on a potential loophole in Final Orders of Protection, a loophole the courts argue doesn't exist.
Rhode Island Judiciary spokesperson Craig Berke told NBC 10 News that the report is inaccurate.
"The documents that are either handed to or served upon defendants in orders of protection -- an order that has been signed by a judge or magistrate -- state in bold type that the defendant may not possess, have access to, or use firearms and must surrender any in their possession. How that can be construed as anything less than 100 percent notification is beyond us," Berke said.
NBC 10 obtained copies of Final Orders of Protection. They state the defendant "is ordered to surrender all firearms in their possession, care, custody or control," but that statement is followed by a checkbox.
The Everytown report says judges and magistrates did not check that box in every case, indicating the court still has discretion on whether to order firearm surrender.
Berke says the law is the law, and once a Final Order of Protection is given to a defendant, the surrender is mandatory, regardless of whether the box has been checked. He said it's up to the judge, magistrate or defense attorney to explain that to each defendant.
Everytown sent NBC 10 the court case files to go through ourselves.
NBC 10 News found that judges and magistrates checked the surrender firearms box in some cases, but not in every case.
However, the names were redacted, and NBC 10 News did not have matching affidavits, which means the station couldn't independently verify that all of those defendants had guns to begin with.
Berke said Rhode Island Family Court feels as though they were blindsided by the report, after they initially welcomed Everytown volunteers into their courtrooms.
"The Family Court had hoped for an opportunity to discuss the program's findings prior to the finalization of the report. Unfortunately, the court was completely cut out when the report was drafted, and we obtained our first copy from the media," Berke said.
Although Rhode Island Family Court disagrees with the Everytown report, it has already led to a significant change.
Berke said the judiciary understands the checkboxes on Final Orders of Protection may be confusing, which is why they're now working to remove them.
While the Everytown report also had other recommendations for Rhode Island Family Court, it called the removal of the checkbox a step in the right direction.
"If the Family Court intends to remove the checkbox, we welcome and applaud this change. Our report calls on the Family Court to recognize that ordering firearm surrender is mandatory with every final order of protection, not just when a box is checked. This update would be a step in the right direction and would further protect survivors of domestic violence," said Eric Tirschwell, the managing director of Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund.
Berke said for the courts, victim safety will always be a priority, and they'll continue looking for ways to improve procedures in the courtroom.
Craig Berke, spokesman for the Rhode Island Judiciary, sent NBC 10 News the following statement in response to the Everytown report:
"The Family Court does not believe the Everytown/Moms report is an accurate reflection of what takes place in court proceedings. The documents that are either handed to or served upon defendants in orders of protection – an order that has been signed by a judge or magistrate – state in bold type that the defendant may not possess, have access to, or use firearms and must surrender any in their possession. How that can be construed as anything less than 100 percent notification is beyond us. The Court believes that the existence of a checkbox on the form gives the impression that firearms surrender is discretionary. At the preliminary (ex parte) stage, when only the complainant is present, the judicial officer has discretion to order the surrender. After a hearing at which the defendant has had the opportunity to be heard and if a final order is issued, there is no discretion. The surrender is mandatory. The court has since taken steps to remove the checkbox so that there is no confusion about judicial discretion.
This study was supposed to be a collaboration with the court. For over one year, the Family Court cooperated with Everytown for Gun Safety and the Moms Demand Action organizations' court observation of domestic violence calendars. The court did so in recognition that the program might prove useful in advancing necessary improvements in the scope and mechanics of domestic violence firearms surrender laws in Rhode Island as they now exist, as well as in serving to inform other jurisdictions regarding best practices for such laws. The Family Court had hoped for an opportunity to discuss the program's findings prior to the finalization of the report. Unfortunately, the court was completely cut out when the report was drafted, and we obtained our first copy from the media. A cursory reading of the report underscores apparent deficiencies with the analysis and data contained in the report. This may be due, among other things, to confusion about interim temporary orders of protection and final orders of protection by volunteer monitors with no legal training. The report's "hypothesis" that judicial officers may have acted differently or stepped up the number of firearms surrender orders when volunteer monitors were in their courtrooms had no factual basis and was insulting. That statement belies the dedication and good faith of the members of the Family Court without a scintilla of corroboration.
The courts have worked with all the stakeholders – the advocates, the police departments, other professionals – to develop procedures for the safe surrender of firearms and ways to promote victim safety over and above the four corners of the piece of paper that constitutes a restraining order. And it will continue to look for ways to improve those procedures. We will certainly review and analyze the Everytown report and consider all recommendations in light of the court's actual experience and data. It is in the public interest to get the true story. This report does not do that."