Expert criticises law on internal family restraining orders as contradictory
|
|
Kati Rantala,, a special researcher at the National Research Institute of Legal Policy, says that local authorities should be required to offer support services to families in which one of the members has been given an internal restraining order.
“It is a very strong intervention by the state in a family’s life. However, support services are offered sporadically at best”, Rantala says.
The law on in-family restraining orders took effect in 2005. Police and the local district court can impose such an order in situations in which the two parties to the dispute live in the same home.
Those on whom a restraining order has been placed, would not be allowed to return to their home or contact those under protection during the validity of the order.
The need for accompanying support services was reiterated when the law was passed, but Rantala says that the lack of political will and material resources ultimately led to a situation in which the obligations were not written down.
Nevertheless, the need for support is great.
Women who have applied for an in-family restraining order have found to have an increased risk of becoming victims of homicide.
Men who have retraining orders placed on them run a greater risk of suicides than others. They often drink heavily and have serious mental health problems.
Rantala says that the implementation of the restraining order seems to reinforce the marginalisation of those on whom it has been imposed. Many find themselves homeless.
Rantala sees many contradictions in the law on restraining orders.
The person on whom a restraining order has been placed has the right to get personal belongings from home and to meet his or her children, unless the children are also mentioned in the restraining order as needing protection.
It is possible to stipulate that meetings with the children should be supervised, but this is rarely done.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 21.9.2009 - TODAY |
 Expert criticises law on internal family restraining orders as contradictory
|
|
