Domestic violence law changes may include dating couples

South Carolina has the 7^th highest rate of women killed by men in the nation and last year more than 40 domestic violence victims were killed.  

But 2009 data from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division shows that 60 percent of relationship violence victims are not protected by domestic violence laws because they aren’t married and don’t live with their abusive boyfriend, girlfriend or ex. 

Wednesday, a House subcommittee heard testimony on a bill submitted by Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, that would expand domestic violence laws from “household members” to people in dating relationships, which would let victims seek orders of protection from family court. The legislation would also allow a judge to order the abusive partner to attend a batterer treatment program. 

South Carolina is one of only eight states that does not include dating relationships under its domestic violence codes. 

Rebecca Williams-Agee, the policy and prevention specialist at South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, supports the bill and testified that many people feel unprotected under the law if they aren’t living with their partner and even resort to moving houses or leaving town to get away. 

“The dynamics and the consequences of those kinds of relationships are the same whether you’re married or not, whether you’re living together or not. The controlling and abusive behaviors that come along with it are the same,” Williams-Agee said. 

She said that going to court or law enforcement is a difficult step to take for an abuse victim, because it can be emotional and physical and can involve threats that leave little proof. But getting an order of protection, currently reserved for only married or live-in couples, is better for dating violence than a regular restraining order because it acknowledges that violence has already occurred and that each subsequent incident has a higher chance of being lethal. 

“If the victim has that order of protection on them, immediately showing that to police immediately takes that person to jail. It takes that perpetrator to jail. We like to think that increases their safety because it allows for that more immediate response." 

She also advocated for the treatment program, which by Department of Social Services standards consists of 26 weekly sessions, saying it’s important to change abusers’ behavior quickly to break the cycle of violence before it’s too late. 

But Rep. James Rutherford, D-Richland, brought up concerns that it may not be legal to assign a costly and time-consuming program without a criminal conviction, because many people aren’t represented by attorneys in family court. 

Plus, the order of protection, which can be issued for 6 months to a year, could expire before the treatment is finished. 

There is also a concern of who would enforce the stipulation because when an order of protection is issued the parties don’t come back to court unless it’s violated, which Williams-Agee said is one of the advantages of the order so abusers don’t have further contact with the victim. 

An attorney by training, Rutherford said that filing assault charges would carry the same consequences as filing criminal domestic violence charges. 

But Rep. Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville, said he thinks letting dating relationships go to a family court for orders of protection, instead of filing assault charges, might help people in a dangerous situation because “the criminal justice system is generally much harsher and people are hesitant to go in that direction.” He said an order of protection lets people go their separate ways without criminal proceeding looming in the future and guaranteeing more contact. 

Order of protection preceding also have a lower standard of proof than a criminal case. 

Bannister, who chairs the subcommittee, said it might take time to work out the details because he doesn’t want the bill to fail in the full committee or on the House floor. He said it’s too important to get dating violence victims included in domestic violence laws and that the issues of getting dating relationships on the books and requiring treatment might need to be handled separately. 

Another controversial section was already taken out of the bill that would have allowed parents to file for orders of protective custody on behalf of minors. 

Williams-Agee said SCCADVASA will continue fighting for that change in the future though, because abusive relationships are affecting younger and younger teens, even middle schoolers. She said the 16 to 24 age range has the most rapidly increasing rate of dating violence, particularly against young women, and that if protective orders and treatment are allowed early, there’s a better chance of reforming an abuser’s attitudes and actions. 

The bill could also hit a stumbling block that it defines a dating relationship as between a man and a woman, echoing current domestic violence laws. 

Both SCCADVASA and South Carolina Equality, a LGBT civil rights group, will oppose the bill if it isn’t changed to include homosexual couples as well, because it fails to protect more than 120,000 South Carolinians, who have the same likelihood of being in an abusive relationship as straight couples.