Tacoma area kids are harmed by witnessing domestic violence. Perpetrators must answer for it
When domestic violence is witnessed by children, the harm done in the household is multiplied exponentially, like ripples from a stone skipped across a dark, putrid pond.
Pierce County has had its share of DV incidents in which young family members were exposed to extreme brutality between intimate partners.
In January, sheriff’s deputies arrested a 29-year-old woman who allegedly shot her boyfriend in the chest in front of their 12-year-old son and her 5-year-old daughter. The woman claimed the boyfriend had been hitting her.
The most infamous local episode occurred on April 26, 2003, when Tacoma Police Chief David Brame fatally shot his wife, Crystal Judson Brame, then himself in a Gig Harbor shopping center parking lot. The tragedy was all the more appalling because the couple’s children, ages 8 and 5, were there to see it.
These are just a few of the eruptions of household violence that have made headlines, while countless others go unnoticed by the public. They may not involve weapons, result in physical injuries or show up in police reports as felonies. But the damage to child witnesses is undeniable.
Enter Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett and County Executive Bruce Dammeier, who collaborated on a proposal to increase penalties in such cases.
They submitted a draft ordinance to the County Council last week that would create a new crime of domestic violence in the presence of a minor child. It would be a gross misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of a year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine.
The intent is good and the council ought to give the ordinance a full and fair review. Robnett and Dammeier should also make sure it’s thoroughly vetted by a city-county DV task force that was appointed this winter, and seek input from service providers such as the YWCA and the Crystal Judson Family Justice Center.
Among social service experts nationally, there’s mixed opinions about the effectiveness of bringing additional charges on behalf of children who witness domestic violence. There’s also concern about unintended consequences, such as forcing kids into adversarial court proceedings, unnecessarily removing them from their homes and discouraging parents from reporting abuse for fear it will be too hard on their children.
Dammeier announced the joint initiative between the executive and prosecutor’s offices during his 2019 State of the County speech Wednesday.
“Just seeing such acts traumatizes children and can perpetuate the cycle of violence,” Dammeier said. “This is unacceptable.”
He’s right. An estimated 15.5 million American children have a front-row seat to domestic violence each year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, and studies show they’re prone to anxiety, depression, cognitive and social-adjustment problems.
If they witness a parent act consistently aggressive over time, they may normalize the behavior in their own intimate relationships, fueling a pattern of intergenerational violence.
Robnett said in an interview Thursday that in felony DV cases, Washington law gives prosecutors discretion to enhance potential penalties by making the presence of children an aggravating factor. A new county ordinance could be helpful in cases that don’t meet the felony threshold, she said.
The proposal is broadly drafted to protect any children of a victim or an offender who are “within sight or sound” of a domestic outburst. That makes sense; a child who hides under a blanket in the next room is no less traumatized than if she sees the violence firsthand.
“It’s an ordinance that makes a point,” said Robnett, a former chief criminal deputy prosecutor who was elected in November, “and it recognizes how profoundly and adversely children can be affected by witnessing domestic violence.”
As for putting kids through the grind of additional legal proceedings in which they’d have to testify against a parent, Robnett said her office would strive to avoid it. “Nobody in this business wants to make kids witnesses and put them through that.”
We agree that domestic batterers should answer for the indirect harm they inflict on children in their household. An extra layer of penalties could help achieve that.
Even more important, however, is that immediate support and comprehensive therapy is available to young DV witnesses, and that legal advocacy, emergency shelter and other services are fully funded for local survivors of violence.
There’s nothing wrong with adopting an ordinance that makes a point, as long as it also makes children whole again and takes pains not to re-victimize them.