Jackie campbell handrahan affidavit


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jackie campbell handrahan affidavit

  1. 1. STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss.IGOR MALENKO, PlaintiffLORI HANDRAHAN, DefendantDISTRICT COURTLOCATION: PORTLANDDOCKET NO.: FM-08-51OName: Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, RN, FAAN (Fellow of the American Academy of Nursing)Profession: Anna D. Wolf Chair and Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing1000 Fell St. #210, Baltimore, MD 21231410 955-2778 (o); 410 522-6744 (h); 410 440-5594 (m)Education:BSN – Duke University School of NursingMSN – Wright State University School of NursingPhD – University of RochesterEmployment background: 27 years as a researcher and clinician in the area of domestic violence.Developed Danger Assessment as a lethality and near lethality risk assessment instrument for cases ofdomestic violence in 1986 with two major federally funded and five small validation studies conductedfrom 1987 – 2005. More than 150 refereed publications and 7 books published on domestic violence,domestic violence homicide and near homicide, and domestic violence risk assessment and lethalityassessment. Twenty eight years as a Professor of nursing, teaching research and family violence toundergraduate, masters, doctoral and post doctoral students in nursing, public health and medicine aswell as conducting trainings of judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, mediators, lawyers, child custodyadvocates, physicians, nurses, DV advocates and others in domestic violence homicide and domesticviolence risk assessment. Elected member of the Institute of Medicine and the American Academy ofJustice, recipient of the Vollmer Award, the American Society of Criminology Award for researchcontributing to justice.Subject matter of affidavit: Risk factors for homicide and near homicide in abusive relationships, DangerAssessment score for Lori Handrahan and meaning of the score, validity of Danger Assessment.Substance of Facts and Opinions and the Grounds Thereof: Defendant Lori Handrahan answered theDanger Assessment in writing and sent it to me on 9/18/08. I subsequently scored the DangerAssessment. Her weighted score was conservatively 22 which is well within the “extreme danger” range(18 and above) on the Danger Assessment, the highest level of danger. If plaintiff Igor Malenkobecomes unemployed again at any time in the future (unemployment having been a frequent problemin his past), the score on the Danger Assessment would increase to 26, even higher in the extremedanger range. The levels of danger on the Danger Assessment have been validated using data from a
  2. 2. large national case control study of actual and attempted intimate partner homicide (see attachedpublished, refereed article), showing that only 8% of the cases of intimate partner homicide of womenand attempted homicide of women by intimate partners were not accurately predicted using theweighted scoring method that I used in this case, Furthermore in only 2% of the cases of intimatepartner homicide was the extreme level of danger an overestimate of the level of danger in those cases.In this case, it means that I can say that I can predict with a 92% level of accuracy or confidence, that Ms.Handrahan is at extreme risk to be killed or almost killed by Mr. Malenko. Any custody judgment thatgives Mr. Malenko access to Ms. Handrahan puts her at extreme risk to be killed, almost killed orseriously harmed by Mr. Malenko. Since approximately 17% of intimate partner homicides of womenalso involve killing a child, Mila is also at risk to be killed if visitation is not supervised. Furthermore, wehave found that when women are killed or almost killed by an intimate partner, a child is present or thefirst to find the body in 71% of the cases nationally. Thus, even if Mila was not directly harmed in suchan incident, there is a high probability that she would be present or find her mother. This would be aserious trauma to the child, demonstrated to have long-term adverse physical and mental healthconsequences.As to the veracity of Ms. Handrahan’s answers to the Danger Assessment questions, most of theresponses are verifiable by others and are of known record. We have checked validity of the DA fromother abused women with official records, where such records are available, and found approximately80-90% reliability of answers with official records.In conclusion, in my expert opinion, based on findings from a validated assessment of danger indomestic violence cases, I strongly recommend only supervised visitation until the child reaches majorityin the case of Malenkov vs. Handrahan (DOCKET NO.: FM-08-51O, Portland, ME) because of extremedanger to Ms. Handrahan from Mr. Malenkov, and by extension serious danger as well as serious risk oftraumatic effects to the minor child, Mila.Anna D. Wolf Chair and ProfessorJohns Hopkins University School of NursingNovember 16, 2008