Protect dating-violence victims

The state of Utah needs to address the growing problem of dating violence. Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, is sponsoring legislation that would allow victims of dating violence to have the same legal protections extended to victims who are married to their abusers, are live-in partners or have a child with the abuser. Essentially, HB10 would allow a person 16 years and older to seek an order of protection against someone he or she is dating, something that is not now not legally permitted. Utah would become the 34th state to extend protective orders to victims of dating violence upon the passage of HB10.

The Legislature should provide those protections. Here's why. According to the Utah Domestic Violence Council, dating violence is one of the fastest growing violent crimes in Utah. Without some intervention, abusive boyfriends and girlfriends can go on to be abusive to future dating partners, co-habitants, spouses and in some cases, their own children. It makes sense to interrupt cycles of violence as early as possible when counseling and other interventions tend to be more effective.

While some have concerns about teens abusing the system to obtain protective orders, the petitions are reviewed by judges to help ensure the requests are not frivolous. Litvack's bill allows parents to file for a protective order on behalf of their child 16 and older. It also enables minors 16 and older who do not have a strong adult advocate in their lives to seek assistance on their own. Again, the minor would require some assistance in filling out the appropriate forms, which would then be reviewed by a court.

Other concerns that have been raised, such as how would a protective order work if the victim and abuser attended the same high school, could be remedied through careful crafting of the order. The same is done now in adult cases where there may be ticklish child-visitation issues.

As for concerns that a protective order might prevent an abuser from being accepted into college or getting into the military, it needs to be understood that orders of protection are civil matters. Unless the order is violated, it should have no impact on future plans. If it is violated, it becomes a criminal matter. Other than curbing contact, people under protective orders cannot possess a firearm while the order is in effect.

Surveys of former Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake City clients suggest that 83 percent reported no further violence 60 days after obtaining a protective order. That suggests the system works. Shouldn't the same legal protections be available to teens 16 and older who find themselves in abusive relationships?