Full Faith and Credit: Interstate Enforcement of Protection Orders Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994

This article focuses on Title II, Safe Homes for Women, specifically, interstate enforcement of protection orders. Prior to the enactment of VAWA, the majority of states did not afford full faith and credit to protection orders issued in sister states! This was a serious breach in the protection afforded victims of domestic violence. Without full faith and credit statutes, a state only has the power to protect victims of domestic violence within its boundaries, limiting the protection afforded to victims if they are forced to move or flee to another state. Prior to the VAWA, in order to receive protection in the foreign state, a victim had to petition the foreign state\u27s court for a new protection order. Because of due process requirements, the batterer had to be served with notice regarding pending protection proceedings, thus revealing the victim\u27s whereabouts and putting the victim in a dangerous situation. In the absence of a full faith and credit statute, jurisdictional problems could arise. A state may not have jurisdiction to issue a new protection order unless abuse takes place within its boundaries. In addition, there are other problems that arise out of the requirement of refiling for a protection order including: additional filing fees; language barriers; the difference in each state\u27s domestic violence laws regarding availability, duration, and scope of protection; inadequate transportation; access to legal assistance; and child care facilities. This article examines existing procedures for enforcing interstate protection orders in states that have full faith and credit statutes. It then proposes methods by which practitioners can utilize the VAWA under their state\u27s existing systems and explores model approaches to implementing the VAWA by looking at the roles that practitioners, courts, and law enforcement officials should play. Finally, this article will address the issues of mutual protection orders and the creation of a new federal crime under the VAWA

Full Faith and Credit: Interstate Enforcement of Protection Orders Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994

This article focuses on Title II, Safe Homes for Women, specifically, interstate enforcement of protection orders. Prior to the enactment of VAWA, the majority of states did not afford full faith and credit to protection orders issued in sister states! This was a serious breach in the protection afforded victims of domestic violence. Without full faith and credit statutes, a state only has the power to protect victims of domestic violence within its boundaries, limiting the protection afforded to victims if they are forced to move or flee to another state. Prior to the VAWA, in order to receive protection in the foreign state, a victim had to petition the foreign state\u27s court for a new protection order. Because of due process requirements, the batterer had to be served with notice regarding pending protection proceedings, thus revealing the victim\u27s whereabouts and putting the victim in a dangerous situation. In the absence of a full faith and credit statute, jurisdictional problems could arise. A state may not have jurisdiction to issue a new protection order unless abuse takes place within its boundaries. In addition, there are other problems that arise out of the requirement of refiling for a protection order including: additional filing fees; language barriers; the difference in each state\u27s domestic violence laws regarding availability, duration, and scope of protection; inadequate transportation; access to legal assistance; and child care facilities. This article examines existing procedures for enforcing interstate protection orders in states that have full faith and credit statutes. It then proposes methods by which practitioners can utilize the VAWA under their state\u27s existing systems and explores model approaches to implementing the VAWA by looking at the roles that practitioners, courts, and law enforcement officials should play. Finally, this article will address the issues of mutual protection orders and the creation of a new federal crime under the VAWA

Deconstructing Teresa O’Brien: A Role Play For Domestic Violence Clinics

In this article, we will present and examine the role play that we have used with our students. We will provide the actual text of the role play, with an explanatory narrative about how we integrated the role play into our classroom component. We will outline the reading assignments and pre-class preparation that we require. Finally, we will suggest ways that this role play can be adapted for clinical programs in other jurisdictions or in countries with other legal systems

Deconstructing Teresa O’Brien: A Role Play For Domestic Violence Clinics

In this article, we will present and examine the role play that we have used with our students. We will provide the actual text of the role play, with an explanatory narrative about how we integrated the role play into our classroom component. We will outline the reading assignments and pre-class preparation that we require. Finally, we will suggest ways that this role play can be adapted for clinical programs in other jurisdictions or in countries with other legal systems

Teaching About Justice by Teaching with Justice: Global Perspectives on Clinical Legal Education and Rebellious Lawyering

Teaching About Justice by Teaching with Justice: Global Perspectives on Clinical Education and Rebellious Lawyering is co-authored by cadre of clinicians from around the world: Catherine F. Klein, Richard Roe, Mizanur Rahman, Dipika Jain, Abhayraj Naik, Natalia Martinuzzi Castilho, Taysa Schiocchet, Sunday Kenechukwu Agwu, Olinda Moyd, Bianca Sukrow, and Christoph König. The piece captures and reflects the content of five presentations at the 2021 Global Alliance for Justice Education (GAJE) biannual gathering, conducted virtually due to the pandemic, with over 450 participants from 45 countries. The piece illuminates many themes and issues in the teaching and practice of transformational justice and community lawyering as observed and lived by a number of law school faculty and their students around the world. The article includes faculty who are involved in an ongoing critique of legal education and the theories that drive it. The authors share illustrations of some experiments and articulate some of the important and fundamental questions about how best to teach about justice by teaching with justice and the legal impact this teaching can engender. The authors emphasize the dynamic, ongoing reflection and experimentation needed to truly embrace being a rebellious, transformative lawyer (or rebellious, transformative law teacher) and challenge clinicians and legal educators to embrace systemic—even radical—change in their lawyering and in the methodology to teach and achieve justice