WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Temporary protective orders will be available 24 hours a day to residents living in Southeast Washington, law enforcement officials announced Monday.

The District of Columbia launched the pilot program for domestic violence victims living in the 6th and 7th Police Districts.

Half of the city’s victims seeking protection orders each year live in those two police districts, according to Attorney General Linda Singer.

“Perpetrators of domestic violence do not confine themselves to business hours,” Singer said in a statement. “Domestic violence is a crime that happens 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Before, protection orders have only been available during business hours.

Victims in the 6th and 7th District can go to the police station where an assistant attorney will review the petition, and the Metropolitan Police will contact a Superior Court judge. The judge will speak with the victim before issuing the emergency order, which will remain in effect until the end of the next business day, allowing the victim time to file a temporary order.

smccabe@dcexaminer.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:27 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008 re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"

Examiner Reader said:
These protective orders are basically only as good as the person they are served on. Some people have no regard for the law, and certainly this piece of paper will not stop anyone determined to contact (and in Yvette's case unfortunately, harm) the petitioner. These orders are mostly used to get a "leg-up" in a divorce proceeding, vacate the spouse from the house, etc. and not for its original intention of protecting someone from a person they fear because of abuse. Often people file for these orders because they feel threatened, but the law states a qualification for this order is an assault or fear of "imminent bodily harm". Not all people who file for these orders qualify, but the judges and district court commissioners who grant them feel as though they need to proceed with caution and grant the order simply out of caution. The orders are becoming abused- the petitioners don't even show up in court to continue the order most times b/c it was just for a temp fix for that time.

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

4:07 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008 re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"

Wendy Weinbaum said:
As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun? And that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!

1 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:06 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 23, 2008 re: "Woman set ablaze testifies in support of bill targeting domestic violence"

Examiner Reader said:
I feel very , very sorry for Yvette. What a babaric attack! The perpetrator should spend the rest of his scumbag life behind bars (although he probably won't). However, I must strongly dissagree about the need for worse protection laws. These so-called "protection orders" are already unconstitutional and out of control. In the state I live in you can put out of the home that you personally and solely own by an affidavit that merely implies that your spouse "feels threatened" by you. They will be coached by the police as to how to screw you out of everything you own. You will be reduced to living out of your car if you don't have anywhere else to go. They will of course, take away your gun collection regardless of it's value. You will be allowed one supervised visit to retreive some of your clothes. That's when you will probably meet your wife's new boyfriend whom you will also be supporting until you get to the divorce hearing. In the meantime you pay for everything! It happenned

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:23 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "More people being turned away from domestic violence shelters"

Examiner Reader said:
Most of these woman are protecting there kids from the courts giving custody part time or visitations. If these men can not treat a woman good how can he be trusted to behave around a child. Burden of proof is on th mother, the courts with no proof will grant him unsupervised visits or part custody. Getting child support is also the battle, help fund these programs. hey wont pay if the woman leave as a toll for harassment, what the state collects is not enough to survive.

106 agree | 77 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:30 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "Domestic-violence victims fail to show due to fear, ignorance"

Examiner Reader said:
�Sometimes it�s fear. If they�ve filed for a protective order against their abuser and their abuser gets to them and says, �If you show up, I�m going to kill you� or �If you show up, I�ll take the kids� � it makes it very hard.� Or more often than that, the "protective order" is used as a pre-litigation tactic in what is likely to be a messy divorce. The mother gets a no-contact order, then has to power of the state to keep the dad from seeing the children, temporary maintanece is set, and then after the petiton and temp. orders are filed, dad might get to see kids after a few months. This type of order is a feminist litigation device, and usually dropped once the divorce is settled.

146 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:25 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 13, 2007 re: "More people being turned away from domestic violence shelters"

Examiner Reader said:
Yeah, there isn't 'enough' funding. Please let me pay more for taxes to bail people out of the situations they get themselves into. How nice. You have to love the nanny society we live in today.... 'my crackhead boyfriend who fathered my fifteen kids slapped me around again! Society needs to put me up, that is, until i need another fix at which point i'll get back with him.' Shocking.

92 agree | 99 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:38 PM MST on Tue., May. 8, 2007 re: "Domestic-violence victims fail to show due to fear, ignorance"

Examiner Reader said:
A better question may have been, "What happens in the domestic violence cases that do show?" What percentages of Padley's staffs' cases win? How does the law level the playing field of women who lack the financial ability to fight "financial abuse" along side the more obvious "physical abuse". I was a victim of physical abuse - hardly one of those "ignorant" cases. I held a master's degree and knew that I had a "good case". My court appointed attorney told me so. The day of justice came....I was made to listen to my 911 call. Then, emotions raw, I was told it was a "he said"/"she said" case. He walked away the case tabled. If he physically abused me again, the first case would be re-opened. He was a college graduate, too. He didn't need to attack me again. He successful took me to court over and over , slowly depleating my alimony, child support, and any savings I had. Financial abuse. He always had a better attorney. I had the most to lose, and did.

190 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate