Gender issues in problem-solving courts

Abstract

The access to justice for domestic violence victims is examined in the context of the role of problem-solving courts in the handling of family law cases. This examination is based upon endorsement by Professors Barbara Babb and Nancy Wolff of the use of problem-solving courts to handle family law matters that include allegations of domestic violence. Women who were victims of domestic violence historically were unable to receive protection through the legal system. Although significant improvements have been made in providing systems for protection through the courts, many claim that these systems remain inadequate. Problem-solving courts are designed to include principles of therapeutic jurisprudence that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. A number of therapeutic jurisprudence successes have been noted, including drug treatment courts and mental health courts. Arguments in favor of using problem-solving courts in situations involving domestic violence recognize that often the victim and the abuser maintain an ongoing relationship and thus it may be necessary to focus on a holistic approach that provides a positive outcome for the offender as well as the victim. This paper provides an assessment of the need to proceed with caution on the use of problem-solving courts when domestic violence is present. The lack of accountability for the abuser and the possibility of blaming the victim in the therapeutic jurisprudence approach may dictate against the use of problem-solving courts for domestic violence victims. A number of commentators have joined in the caution against restorative justice measures in matters involving domestic abuse, noting that rights of offenders as well as victims may be compromised.