Can a judge judging a civil case start the process of pressing criminal charges against one of the participants in the civil case? Isn't it a conflict of interest?
That's the big question in the Iowa case. Why didn't that judge refer this case to the police or to Child Protective Services? I was hoping that the judge might have had a duty to report as a mandated reporter of child abuse and that he might face consequences for failure to do so. As I said in an earlier post, if the 13 year old's Mom had copies of the photos of his genitals that M Plumadore sent to the girl or of his texts stating that he wanted to impregnate the girl, then she had prima facie evidence of assault. Consequently, there was more than enough evidence for a mandated reporter to be required to make a report. I looked up Iowa laws re mandated reporters: judges are not mandated reporters of suspected child abuse
IMO, I don't think that it would be a conflict of interest for the civil court judge in this case to refer this matter to the police. The civil courts I'm familiar with in California all have "bailiffs" present to enforce order, etc. The bailiffs are law enforcement officers and certainly have the power to take someone into custody in a courtroom if the judge orders it. And civil court judges can and do order people taken into custody when the evidence in the civil case also provides evidence of a crime. If Iowa law is similar to Ca law and if the Mom and MP went to court for a hearing on her request for a protective order, then the judge could have ordered the bailiff to hold MP for questioning by LE officers re the evidence of sexual assault contained in Mom's request for a protective order. However, that didn't happen in this case.
I assume that the case was dismissed without a court hearing. Mom had no right to a hearing because she did not meet the statutory requirements for filing a request for a civil protective order - under Iowa law, Mom could get a civil protective order only if she had a past or present intimate relationship with MP, and Mom did not have such a relationship. Mom might have shown up in court; I'm guessing MP did not show up; and the judge dismissed the complaint without "hearing" it and advised Mom to go to the police herself or hire an attorney.
IMO, Mom deserves a lot of credit for trying to protect her daughter. We don't know why she didn't report the matter to the police. But my guess is that MP moved on - his history is that he moves around frequently. With an outstanding fugitive warrant from Florida, the last thing MP would do is to go to court on Mom's request for a protective order. I think MP moved away from the 13 year old and just started looking for his next victim. IMO, this likely was a pattern in his life and one reason for his frequent moves from state to state. For MP it would be safer and easier to walk away from a victim whose Mom was trying to protect her and just look for his next victim.
There's a lesson here for all of us: if your child says she/he feels harrassed or stalked by an adult, or receives sexually explicit photos or messages from an adult, CALL THE POLICE. Do not try to deal with it yourself. In the Iowa case, Mom conceptualized what was happening to her daughter as "harrassment" and "stalking," which she thought were civil matters, rather than criminal matters. So Mom sought to deal with it in the civil courts by asking for a civil protective order. In fact, what was happening to her daughter was a series of separate crimes - assault, sexual assault, stalking, etc. - and absolutely was a matter for the police and the criminal courts.
For the sleuths in Iowa, please get busy advocating for better legal protection for victims of sexual assault in Iowa, especially child victims. Judges in cases like this should be required to refer such cases to the police for investigation immediately. Maybe you could call it "Ali's Law," because if MP had been stopped in Iowa, Ali still would be alive today. And any victim of sexual assault should be able to get a protective order; protective orders should not be limited to victims who had a pre-existing intimate relationship with their abuser.
Sorry for the long post.