One year ago, New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye initiated three new Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) courts in Westchester, Bronx, and Rensselaer Counties. The purpose is to consolidate domestic violence cases that are heard in several courts. Currently, there are many courts in the New York State Unified Court system which deal with domestic violence issues: 1) Supreme Court, which hears divorce cases; 2) Family Court, which hears family offense, custody, support, and other family court cases; and 3) Criminal Court, which hears criminal domestic violence cases.

The new plan is to allow cases involving domestic violence to be heard by a single judge in one court, the Integrated Domestic Violence Court. Although the lingo is "one family, one Judge," there can be many attorneys per family, as attorneys usually do not specialize in multiple fields. Therefore, a domestic violence victim will have the Prosecutor handling the criminal case, and a separate lawyer for the divorce case or support, custody or family offense case.

In Westchester County, the IDV court was established to handle all domestic violence felonies in Westchester County and all domestic violence misdemeanors in the City of White Plains, as well as any accompanying divorce, custody, family offense, or support cases. The Hon. Daniel D. Angiolillo is the presiding Judge and My Sister's Place provides attorney representation to indigent domestic violence victims. In addition there is a collaborative effort by District Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office, the Westchester Probation office, and Batterer's intervention programs. The Legal Aid Society has been representing the criminal indigent defendants, under protest, because of various legal issues that they feel impinges upon criminal defendants' rights.

Currently in Westchester County the schedule is as follows: on Mondays, there is a criminal court compliance calendar (to ensure that batterers are complying with certain imposed conditions, such as counseling and drug and alcohol rehabilitation); Thursdays are criminal court cases, including arraignments, pleas and sentences; and Fridays all family and matrimonial cases are heard by Judge Angiolillo. Tuesdays and Wednesdays are for hearings and trials. The given reason for the separate days is because they do not want to bargain away a criminal court case in a family/matrimonial matter. In addition, if a domestic violence victim cannot afford a matrimonial attorney, a pro bono attorney will allegedly be assigned to represent her.

Domestic violence victims, however, have many concerns regarding the IDV Court. One concern is that parties may try to settle a divorce action, and the criminal charges will disappear, despite the cases being heard by Judge Angiolillo on different days.

Another major concern is that domestic violence victims with children may be charged or threatened with charges of "failure to protect" their children, and then their children will be removed from them. A child welfare agency can charge a domestic violence victim with neglect by her "failure to protect" her children if she is a victim of domestic abuse over a long period of time. With the integrated plan, where the domestic violence victim is the complainant and there are children involved, there is a concern that this issue will become even more prevalent and that focus on the parent as victim could be lost. Domestic violence victims could be harmed if they actively seek prosecution or an order of protection, and if the child welfare agency gets involved.

Recently, a Federal Judge in a class action case, Nicholson v. Williams, brought by Sanctuary for Families' Center for Battered Women's Legal Services in New York City, lambasted New York City's Administration for Children's Services, for charging battered mothers with neglect for allegedly "engaging in domestic violence" in the presence of their children. The City is planning to appeal the decision. It is a very real issue that domestic violence victims can be charged with neglect by a child welfare agency in an integrated part, despite the Judge's sensitivity to the issue.

Another issue is that the integrated part empowers the batterer by providing a forum where he can get representation in matters that he would previously not have received. For instance, in a criminal case, one is always entitled to representation, but in a custody or divorce case, there is no right to counsel. By having an integrated court, the batterer will likely be represented on all matters in the court, providing him with more ammunition against the domestic violence victim. With the IDV Court, an attorney may advise the batterer to request visitation with the children, when previously, the batterer may not have thought to seek visitation.

Another legal issues is concerning a Judge's requirement to base decisions on a case on evidence in a particular case, and not on knowledge gained in prior or concurrent litigation. By having one Judge per family, the Judge can know too much about a family's history, thus affecting decision-making. Also, parties are getting access to a lot more discovery of documents that they would not be entitled to in separate courts.

In a related concern, many believe that programs for the batterers take away much needed funding for women's groups who aid domestic violence victims. In addtion, they believe that batterers cannot be rehabilitated and that the programs do not work. Some studies show that the batterers programs do not stop the batterer from engaging in violence. Many cases will be resolved by having a condition of the batterer entering into a batterers program, rather than jail time. Although this issue itself could be the subject of an additional article, because of the controversy surrounding it, it needs to be discussed in terms of the IDV courts.

In sum, since the IDV courts are currently called "pilot programs," it is clear that these courts are the future. We should vigorously take part in shaping the course of the IDV Court by engaging in discussions with Judge Kaye, the Westchester IDV Court personnel, and the District Attorney's office.