Categories
Campus Due Process Free Speech Office for Civil Rights Press Release Restraining Order Sexual Harassment Title IX

Three Judicial Decisions Spotlight Flaws of Biden Title IX Plan. SAVE Urges Lawmakers to Not Remain Silent.

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Three Judicial Decisions Spotlight Flaws of Biden Title IX Plan. SAVE Urges Lawmakers to Not Remain Silent.

WASHINGTON / July 25, 2022 – Three judicial decisions handed down in the past month reveal major problems with the proposed Title IX policy that was recently released by the Department of Education (1). Over 130 organizations around the country have come out in opposition to the plan (2). SAVE urges lawmakers to speak out strongly against the Biden proposal.

The three judicial decisions highlight the harmful effects of the Title IX proposal on free speech, women’s sports, and due process.

  1. Free Speech

On June 30, the District Court of Idaho handed down a decision against the University of Idaho in favor of three Christian law students who had objected to Title IX “no contact orders” that were issued against them (3). The orders had been issued only because the students had offered to engage in a respectful conversation about biblical teachings of marriage and sexuality. In the ruling, Judge David Nye noted that the university’s actions, “were designed to repress specific speech.”

The decision highlights the fact that the Department of Education is proposing a sweeping re-definition of sexual harassment that many believe will interfere with the exercise of free speech (4).

  1. Women’s Sports

On July 15, Judge Charles Atchley of the Eastern District Court of Tennessee ordered the U.S. Department of Education to cease its unlawful enforcement of a directive allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports (5).

The decision is timely because the proposed Title IX regulation would expand the definition of “sex” to include “gender identity,” opening the door to wider participation of transgenders in women’s sports. In response, federal lawmakers of both parties have issued statements condemning the policy’s harmful effects on female athletics (6).

  1. Due Process

Last Wednesday, Judge CJ Williams of the District Court of Northern Iowa issued a sweeping decision against Fordt University. The court noted widespread procedural irregularities including not informing the accused student of his rights, bias by the Title IX Coordinator, and the shredding of documents by school officials (7). The decision was one of the most sweeping Title IX rulings issued in the past decade.

Similar irregularities would be encouraged by the Biden plan, which removes a student’s right to a number of fundamental due process protections such as impartial investigations and cross-examination (8).

A more detailed analysis of the free speech, women’s sports, and due process concerns raised by the Biden Title IX proposal is available online (9). Even though the federal Title IX law was enacted to curb sex discrimination in schools, many believe the recent Title IX proposal will actually worsen these problems (10).

A rally will be held in Washington, DC on August 11 to highlight these concerns, and to call on the Department of Education to abandon its plans to move forward with the Title IX proposal (11).

Citations:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9nprm.pdf
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/
  3. https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/PerlotMPIorder.pdf
  4. https://www.thefire.org/proposed-title-ix-regulations-would-roll-back-essential-free-speech-due-process-protections-for-college-students/
  5. https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/TennesseeOrderOpinionPI.pdf
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/
  7. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iand.56248/gov.uscourts.iand.56248.72.0.pdf
  8. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/07/will_biden_bring_back_kangaroo_courts_at_the_university.html
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/camp/weaponization/
  10. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/07/09/new-biden-title-ix-rule-may-erase-students-due-process-rights/10007312002/?gnt-cfr=1
  11. https://www.saveservices.org/2022-policy/rally/
Categories
Restraining Order

Return to Sanity? Nebraska Court of Appeals Reins in Restraining Order Abuse

It’s no secret that restraining orders are often issued with little or no evidence of abuse. The SAVE Special Report, The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders, documents numerous examples of such frivolous orders:

• Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, admitted, “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply…In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for
tactical advantage.”

• In Connecticut, attorney Arnold Rutkin charged that many judges view temporary restraining orders as a “rubber-stamping exercise” and that subsequent hearings “are usually a sham.”
• In Missouri, a survey of judges and attorneys yielded many complaints of disregard for due process and noted that allegations of domestic violence were widely used as a “litigation strategy.”
• In Illinois, an article in the state legal journal described legal allegations of abuse as “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Recent cases in Cleveland and elsewhere suggest restraining orders afford little or no protection to true victims of domestic violence. And now, a decision from Nebraska suggests the judiciary is becoming concerned about the lack of due process in such cases.

On July 30, 2019 the Nebraska Court of Appeals issued a decision (Abbie Britton et al v. Christopher Simmons. Filed July 30, 2019. No. A-19-108.) that reversed and dismissed an unlawful domestic abuse protection order.  In retrospect, it’s hard to believe this protection order was granted in the first place.

Biased training provided to our judges may have contributed to the defective trial judge decision.  Numerous complaints have been made, both nationally and in Nebraska, that protection order bench guides and other materials provided to our judges contain material misstatements of fact and law that, if relied upon by judges, would constitute reversible error. Today’s decision is an example of this problem.

Two years ago, a lawsuit against the Nebraska judicial branch forced it to disclose training materials used to train judges. Once disclosed, those materials showed judges were given false information that misrepresented applicable research and failed to disclose dozens of studies that contradicted the presenter’s personal political agenda.  Here are two stories about that case:

Below is the salient portion of the Court of Appeals opinion:

The protection from Domestic Abuse Act (the Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-901 et seq. (Reissue 2008 & Cum. Supp. 2010), allows any victim of domestic abuse to file a petition and affidavit for a protection order pursuant to § 42-924. “Abuse” is defined by § 42-903(1) as the occurrence of one or more of the following acts “between family or household members”:

(a) Attempting to cause or intentionally and knowingly causing bodily injury with or without a dangerous instrument;

(b) Placing, by means of credible threat, another person in fear of bodily injury; . . . or

(c) Engaging in sexual contact or sexual penetration without consent as defined in section 23-318.

“[F]amily or household members” includes persons who have a child in common whether or not they have been married or have lived together at any time. Simms is the father of one of Britton’s children and Simms and Britton had cohabited. Simms and Britton are “family or household members” for purposes of the protection order application.

The definition of “abuse” also requires causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or a threat putting another person “in fear of” bodily injury.

A “credible threat” means

a verbal or written threat, including a threat performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written or electronically communicated statements and conduct that is made by a person with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family.

§ 42-903(1)(b) (emphasis added).

Whether domestic abuse has occurred is the threshold issue in determining if an ex parte protection order should be affirmed. Absent abuse as defined by § 42-903 the ex parte order must be dismissed. Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., supra.

CREDIBLE THREAT

The plain meaning of “credible threat” is a declaration or expression of an intention to inflict harm or damage utilizing various or combined methods of communication made by someone with the ability to carry out the threat. Id. There is no evidence Simms ever made contact, verbal or otherwise, with anyone in Britton’s household. And, as a result, there is no evidence of any sort of “credible threat.” Since there is no “threat” toward Britton or any of her children, Britton cannot have reasonably believed they were at risk for bodily injury. Britton testified she is terrified of Simms’ cruising behavior but she does not allege any specific communication or overt acts which could be construed as “threats” sufficient to make her fearful.

Nor is repeatedly driving by Britton’s house a threat “implied by a pattern of conduct.” § 42-903(1)(b). While Britton alleges numerous instances of Simms driving by which might be construed as a “pattern of driving by,” the behavior does not appear to have threatened anyone since there was no communication to Britton or her children that they were at risk for some sort of harm. Additionally, each “drive by” was a single act. Simms did not drive by, get out of his car, engage in acts of physical violence, or make threats and then drive away. A pattern of conduct cannot be demonstrated by a single act. Rather a series of actions at Britton’s house or wherever she may be found is required. See Robert M. on behalf of Bella O. v. Danielle O., 303 Neb. 268, 928 N.W.2d 407 (2019) (pattern of conduct cannot be demonstrated by single act; multiple instances of violent behavior against multiple victims in multiple locations in home sufficient to amount to pattern of conduct). Here, there is no evidence Simms ever got out of his car or approached anyone in the Britton household or communicated anything threatening to anyone.

NO EVIDENCE OF “ABUSE”

There is no evidence of any injury or threat of injury to anyone in Britton’s householdwhich could reasonably cause any family member to be fearful. There is no evidence of a credible threat by Simms to do bodily harm to Britton or her children. While the cruising behavior may surely be annoying, it does not rise to the level of “abuse.” Absent “abuse,” the protection order may not remain in effect. See Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., 301 Neb. 673, 919 N.W.2d 841 (2018). See, also, Linda N. v. William N., 289 Neb. 607, 856 N.W.2d 436 (2014).

SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

At the show cause hearing Britton had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the truth of the facts supporting her request for a protection order, even though show cause hearings may be more informal than trials. Maria A. on behalf of Leslie G. v. Oscar G., supra. Once that burden is met, the burden shifts to Simms to show cause why the protection order should not remain in effect. See id.

The bill of exceptions in this case reflects a very informal proceeding. While protection order proceedings are summary in nature and the court is justified in excluding evidence if its probative value is outweighed by considerations of delay, there needs to be some evidence establishing the allegations made in the application which are then incorporated into the bill of exceptions. See Mahmood v. Mahmud, 279 Neb. 390, 778 N.W.2d 426 (2010) (prima facie case may be established by form petition and affidavit but neither will be considered as evidence until offered and accepted at trial). The only sworn testimony during the show cause hearing was Britton’s preference for a domestic abuse order rather than a harassment order because a domestic abuse order could be renewed. The basis for the request was the cruising behavior. There was no testimony about any threat or bodily injury endured by Britton. The application, affidavits, and prior protection orders were never entered into evidence. Nor was any evidence related to any specific claims applicable to the children offered or received.

The record is without evidence of “abuse” by Simms against Britton because there is no evidence of any injuries or credible threats by Simms which could have put Britton or her children in fear or at risk for physical harm. There was insufficient evidence of “abuse” to warrant affirming the domestic abuse protection order following the show cause hearing on February 4, 2019, and as a consequence the order must be vacated.

Categories
Bills CAMP Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Press Release Research Restraining Order Special Report Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

PR: Ideology Over Science: Anti-Abuse Policies Put Victims at Risk, SAVE Report Says

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Ideology Over Science: Anti-Abuse Policies Put Victims at Risk, SAVE Report Says

WASHINGTON / February 11, 2013 – Widely used criminal justice measures intended to curb partner abuse are in fact placing victims at risk of violence, according to a research summary released today. Restraining orders, mandatory arrest, and aggressive prosecution policies are increasing, not decreasing partner violence, according to the SAVE report: http://www.saveservices.org/2013/02/the-violence-against-women-act-is-a-deadly-proposition/

Aggressive criminal justice policies are funded by the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and then implemented according to state laws. The SAVE report reveals:

1. Protection Orders: VAWA funds the enforcement of restraining orders, but they widely believed to be ineffective in curbing abuse. A review of 119 homicide-suicides in North Carolina revealed the issuance of a restraining order was the most common trigger for such tragedies, found in 41% of such incidents.

2. Arrest: VAWA funds mandatory arrest policies in 20 states around the country. Harvard researcher Radha Iyengar found that “intimate partner homicides increased by about 60% in states with mandatory arrest laws.” This translates into over 600 deaths each year.

3. Prosecution: VAWA pays $35 million annually to prosecutors who follow mandatory prosecution policies. But one 48-city study found prosecuting restraining order violations doubles the number of homicides among white wives and increases risk for other groups, as well.

The SAVE report terms the continued taxpayer funding of these harmful policies as “A triumph of ideology over science and common-sense.”

“What kind of crazy law purports to be about stopping abuse, but in truth is escalating tensions and discouraging victims from calling for help?,” asks SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Taxpayers should be demanding a complete overhaul of these irrational domestic violence programs.”

Over 40 leading scientists and organizations have endorsed major reforms to VAWA and state-level domestic violence policies: http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/. The Violence Against Women Act is currently up for reauthorization in Congress.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Child Custody Civil Rights Domestic Violence False Allegations Innocence Law Enforcement Press Release Prosecutorial Misconduct Restraining Order Victims Wrongful Convictions

PR: Penobscot Co. Woman Says Prosecutor Mary Kellett Employed Threats and ‘Bald-Faced Lie’ to Induce Testimony

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Penobscot Co. Woman Says Prosecutor Mary Kellett Employed Threats and ‘Bald-Faced Lie’ to Induce Testimony

WASHINGTON / February 6, 2013 – A Penobscot County woman has accused assistant district attorney Mary Kellett of lying in order to coerce her to testify in a domestic assault case. Michelle Sayasane has claimed that Kellett falsely represented that Sayasane’s husband, Keo, had murdered a previous wife as a legal tactic to coerce Sayasane to become a cooperative witness.

According to an August 18, 2011 article in the Bangor Daily News, Justice Kevin Cuddy learned that ADA Kellett told Mrs. Sayasane that her husband had been convicted in the 1987 stabbing death of his former wife. Kellett claimed the source of the information was deputy attorney general William Stokes, head of the Attorney General Office’s criminal division: http://bangordailynews.com/2011/08/18/news/hancock/blue-hill-man-seeks-case-dismissal-over-bad-information-from-prosecutors/

But Kellett’s statement appears to have been false. “Stokes said he never provided any information to Kellett that indicated that the victim in the manslaughter case was Sayasane’s previous wife, or even that the victim was a woman,” according the Bangor Daily News account.

In an article published earlier this week, Mrs. Sayasane revealed the reasons behind her reluctance: her husband “needed counseling, not jail, and I was not going to be a part of putting him there:” http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/my-ordeal-with-mary-kellett/. Kellett responded by threatening to have Child Protective Services remove their children, according to Sayasane.

Finally, Sayasane relented and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, even though Kellett allegedly caused “massive emotional distress on me and my entire family.”

“In December, a special panel ruled that prosecutor Mary Kellett violated seven ethical rules and recommended her license be suspended,” explains SAVE spokesman Steve Blake. “Michelle Sayasane’s latest account of prosecutor bullying and dishonesty reinforces the need for prompt action.”

Sayasane says she plans to file a complaint against Kellett with the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar for witness tampering.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Bills Dating Violence Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Law Enforcement Press Release Research Restraining Order Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

PR: Leading Scientists and Organizations Urge Reforming the Violence Against Women Act: SAVE Calls for Prompt Congressional Action

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Leading Scientists and Organizations Urge Reforming the Violence Against Women Act:

SAVE Calls for Prompt Congressional Action

WASHINGTON / February 5, 2013 – A group of scientists, victim advocates, and 15 leading organizations have endorsed a series of reforms to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law that is currently up for reauthorization in Congress. The endorsers include many of the acclaimed scientists who have elucidated the causes and dynamics of intimate partner violence.

The VAWA Reform Principles are endorsed by the Independent Women’s Forum, National Coalition for Men, Washington Civil Rights Council, 60 Plus Association, Able Americans, and many others. The endorsing organizations collectively represent the interests of a majority of the American public.

The Reform Principles address a range of documented deficiencies with the nearly 20-year-old federal law, including the need for greater emphasis on programs to address substance abuse, marital instability, and emotional disorders. The principles suggest a greater emphasis on partner reconciliation when it is safe to do so.

The principles highlight how VAWA has placed excessive attention on criminal justice measures such as restraining orders, which lack proof of effectiveness. The reforms call for the elimination of policies that mandate arrest in the absence of probable cause, an unconstitutional policy that was found in a Harvard University study to increase partner homicides by nearly 60%.

The Principles address other shortcomings with existing domestic violence programs. These include the need for programs to afford priority to victims of physical violence, for disseminating accurate abuse-reduction information to the public, and for instituting stronger accountability measures.

“For far too long, domestic violence programs have been based on gender ideology, resulting in programs that have been ineffective, unresponsive, and even dangerous to victims,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We urge lawmakers to include these reforms in the Violence Against Women Act bills currently being considered in Congress.”

The complete list of Principles and endorsers can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Abuse Shelter Child Custody Domestic Violence Press Release Research Restraining Order Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

PR: Domestic Violence Programs Have Not Delivered on Promises to Women: SAVE Report

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Domestic Violence Programs Have Not Delivered on Promises to Women: SAVE Report

WASHINGTON / January 14, 2013 – Domestic violence programs have fallen short in meeting women’s needs, according to a report issued today by SAVE. Of greater concern are studies that document some violence-prevention strategies endorsed by the federal Violence Against Women Act place women at greater risk of victimization and even death.

The report, Have Domestic Violence Programs Delivered on Their Promises to Women?, reviews nearly 50 research studies and articles examining the effectiveness of restraining orders, mandatory arrest policies, and no-drop prosecution. The report concludes the impact of these criminal justice measures ranges from harmful to ineffective: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/VAWA-Has-It-Delivered-on-Its-Promises-to-Women

The report is issued by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim-advocacy organization.

The report summarizes nearly 50 research studies and other articles, and concludes the programs funded by the federal anti-violence program:

  • Are ineffective in reducing abuse
  • Promote arrest and prosecution policies that place women at greater risk
  • Often ignore the wishes of abused women
  • May lull women into a false sense of security
  • Ensnare women in a rigid criminal justice bureaucracy
  • Make it more difficult for real victims to get help
  • Shortchange the needs of female aggressors
  • May not provide needed services at abuse shelters, and
  • Can lead to the removal of children from their homes

“Lawmakers should carefully review the findings in this report,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Women will be outraged if lawmakers stick to ‘business as usual’ and don’t reform policies known to maim and kill women.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Innocence Law Enforcement Press Release Prosecutorial Misconduct Restraining Order Sexual Assault Wrongful Convictions

PR: Prosecutor Shunned Due Process and Presumption of Innocence, SAVE Urges High Court to Impose Sanctions to Curb Prosecutorial Misconduct

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Prosecutor Shunned Due Process and Presumption of Innocence, SAVE Urges High Court to Impose Sanctions to Curb Prosecutorial Misconduct

WASHINGTON/December 13, 2012 – Following a bar panel recommendation to suspend the license of prosecutor Mary N. Kellett, SAVE is urging the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to act promptly to affirm and restore fundamental legal principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.

In its December 5, 2012 decision, a panel of the Board of Overseers of the Bar concluded Assistant District Attorney Kellett violated at least seven Maine Bar Rules. The panel then recommended the Hancock County prosecutor be sanctioned with a “period of suspension.” The panel’s recommendation now goes to a Maine high court justice for a final decision: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=mebar_overseers_discipline&id=464815&v=article

In advance of the trial of a man charged with spousal rape, Kellett repeatedly delayed or refused to provide exculpatory evidence that had been requested by defense counsel. This conduct drew a strong rebuke from the 3-member bar panel: “The seriousness of this issue cannot be overstated.”

In her closing argument before the jury, Kellett then argued the exclusion of that evidence should be viewed as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. The panel cited Kellett’s closing statement as unfairly causing “prejudice to the defendant.”

The panel also noted Kellett’s own expert witness testified during its October 2012 hearing that Kellett appeared “stubborn,” as if she were “bucking the court.” “This willful recalcitrance makes it appear likely that Ms. Kellett would repeat this unfairly prejudicial conduct,” the panel warned.

In its original 2011 complaint to the Board of Overseers of the Bar, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments concluded, Mary Kellett’s repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct have had the effect of undermining public respect for law. She is dangerous to the even-handed administration of justice.”: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/COMPLA1.pdf

“The citizens of Maine should be outraged by Mary Kellett’s ongoing abuse of her prosecutorial power,” notes SAVE spokesman Steve Blake. “The Maine Supreme Judicial Court must send a strong message that no prosecutor should be allowed to operate above the ethical rules that were designed to apply to all lawyers.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim advocacy organization, warns that prosecutorial charging decisions not based on probable cause harm the credibility of victims and rob them of needed protections and services.

Wrongful convictions of persons accused of sexual assault have become a national problem. According to a recent DNA analysis, one in 10 rape convictions in Virginia were wrong: http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/07/groundbreaking-research-one-out-of.html

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org.

Categories
False Allegations Law Enforcement Press Release Restraining Order

PR: One in 10 Falsely Accused of Abuse: Survey

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard

Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

One in 10 Falsely Accused of Abuse: Survey

Washington, DC/October 17, 2011 — One in 10 adults has been falsely accused of domestic violence, child abuse, or sexual assault, according to a survey conducted by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). The survey also found a strong disparity between the number of males and females falsely accused: more than three quarters of all false accusations are levied against men. Nearly seven in 10 false accusers are female.

The survey is the first of its kind to be undertaken, and uncovers distressing trends within the American abuse-reduction system.

Child abuse is the commonest false charge — about twice as many people have been falsely accused of child abuse as of domestic violence or sexual assault. In over one quarter of cases, the false allegations were made in a child custody case.

“Each year, millions of innocent Americans are falsely accused of abuse,” explains SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook. “These false allegations can strip persons of their assets, harm their families, and ruin their lives.”

Because of these widespread injustices, Cook said, SAVE has launched its Campaign 2012, a grassroots effort to reform U.S. domestic violence laws: http://www.saveservices.org/campaign-2012/

False allegations of domestic violence often lead to family break-up, which forces children into single parent households. Such children face a far greater risk of juvenile delinquency, school drop-out, and teenage pregnancy. One analysis concluded such allegations lead to $20 billion a year in increased welfare and public benefit costs: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/False-Allegations-Harm-Families-and-Children

Although past studies have examined false abuse allegations within specified groups, no national inquiry previously had been made. To this end, SAVE commissioned the national telephone survey, which queried 20,000 households around the country during two rounds in May and September 2011. More information about the survey methods and results can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/survey/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence: www.saveservices.org.