EXHIBIT "A"

AFFIDAVIT OF BARBARA J. HART, ESQ.

1. Barbara J. Hart, Esquire, the affiant, is an adult individual, employed by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domes tic Violence of 2505 N. Front St. Harrisburg, PA 17110.

2. Ms. Hart provided expert testimony at the hearings in this cause before Administrative Law Judge Schnierle. Her qualifications are set forth in Appendices A and B, attached.

3. The Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (hereinafter PCADV) is a party/petitioner in this appeal.

4. In my opinion, irreparable harm will be inflicted upon battered victims of domestic violence and their endangered children in this Commonwealth should the Commonwealth Court not stay the implementation of the Order of the Public Utility Commission of November 9, 1989, approving the tariff submitted by Bell of Pennsylvania with certain specific limitations and revisions.

The Commission's Order gravely jeopardizes the 800,000 victims of domestic violence in the Commonwealth, particularly those most exposed to the retaliatory, lethal assaults of the perpetrators of domestic terrorism. Most of those victims utilize the assistance of friends and family and do not seek shelter or help from domestic violence programs or the police. The Order also appears to endanger the more than 1,500 volunteers working in PCADV's domestic violence intervention programs as the critical protections afforded paid staff are not clearly awarded to unpaid

workers.

The decision by the PUC to limit the blocking option on CallerI.D. display units only to law enforcement and domestic violence intervention programs places victims of family violence and volunteers in domestic violence intervention programs at substantial risk of irreparable harm.

THE ORDER GRAVELY ENDANGERS BATTERED WOMEN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

The by

outreach

destruction of the confidentiality of help-seeking telephone, inherent in Caller*I.D., inflicts unavoidable, life-threatening, and irreparable harm on victims of domestic violence. Help-seeking by victims of family violence is predicated on absolute confidentiality of communications. The victim still living with the batterer will not be able to hide the fact that she is seeking help to end the violence and abuse once CallerI.D. is implemented. Absent confidentiality, battered women will wait much longer before seeking help - until the benefits of outreach appear to outweigh the risks of disclosure. The earlier a battered woman identifies her situation and seeks help the better; the fewer the long-term and life-threatening costs to her, her children and society.

The

battered woman who has fled the home to a confidential location will risk discovery and retaliation should she phone the batterer who is a subscriber to Caller*1.D. to apprise him of her safety and to conduct essential business. Thus, responsible communication for problem-solving will, after Caller*I.D., be impossible if the confidentiality of the victim's refuge is to be preserved.

Even those battered women who do not seek to maintain a confidential address after separation, often subscribe to private number phone service to limit the battering partner's access in order to eliminate either solicitous manipulations or threatening telephone calls. Caller*I.D. will end this protection because even private number customers cannot block the display of their telephone numbers on Caller*I.D. units. Even if the victim elects not to call the batterer from her home phone, if she calls anyone who is allied with, or feels sorry for, or is intimidated by the batterer, she involuntarily waives her privacy as a result of Caller* I.D. The separated battered woman will be compelled to foresake vital telephone communication to preserve the privacy, safety, and sanctity of her home should the Commission's Order not be stayed.

Caller I.D. will sharpen telephone monitoring by batterers; thus, gravely impairing the utility of the phone as a safety tool for battered women. Batterers are acutely sensitive to the "phone practices" of their partners. The telephone provides battered women with access to the world - to family, friends, clergy, fellow-workers, etc. The phone enables battered women to break their isolation, acquire emotional support, seek medical help, inquire about legal rights, gain police protection, and manage their daily lives. Batterers often focus their resentment and jealousy on phone utilization. Batterers monitor phone usage closely; often setting limits on who may call, or on how long a partner may talk, listening to phone conversations, or requiring that the battered woman account for every call. Many batterers rip phones out of the wall, destroy phones, or cancel telephone service in retaliation for violation of some telephone restriction they have imposed.

Telephone monitoring by batterers may reach obsessive proportions. Any technology which enables them to further dominate and Oversee the lives of battered women will create increased risk of harm and grave new obstacles in the struggle for safety and freedom from abuse.

Upon implementation of Caller*I.D.,

batterers learning of helpseeking efforts will interfere with outreach by battered women with whom they reside. Batterers with Caller*I.D. service will be able to track every in-coming call in their homes; thereby impeding the battered woman's help-seeking outreach for safety, support ог separation planning. Many will retaliate their battered partners for revealing the battering and help to end the violence. For example, a batterer will be able to identify plans for job-training and cancel them; will be

against

seeking

apprised that a battered woman is attending Al-Anon and stop her attendance; will learn of calls from the district attorney prosecuting him for assault and retaliate against her for cooperation; will discover that she is looking for an apartment and act to discredit her with potential landlords; will learn she has talked with a priest with whom he has forbidden communication and thereafter prevent her participation at confession or Mass; will discover his partner is talking with their adult son who has confronted the batterer/father about the wrongfulness of his violence and then threaten the son with assaults on his grandchildren if the son continues with his "interference", etc. The examples are endless.

Implementation

of Caller*I.D. will virtually eliminate the home phone as a confidential tool for battered women in the pursuit of safety and freedom.

The discovery of the help-seeking outreach of battered women will acutely escalate the danger of debilitating and lethal assaults by batterers. Batterers learning that their partners have broken the silence about abuse, that they may be considering separation ог that they may have asked for protective intervention, often escalate the severity of violent aggression, sometimes becoming SO enraged or desperate that they inflict permanent injury ог take the lives of family members. (Walker, 1989)

upon the

set

Research demonstrates that the risk of violent assaults battered women increases at three predictable times during marriage or relationship when the victim has challenged the batterer's control over her, when she takes action that may back his interests, and when she acts in a way that clearly advises him that she contemplates a future life without him. (Ellis, 1987) The risk of severe child abuse appears to increase as batterers apprehend the imminent loss of their partners and children. (Bowker, 1988) Furthermore, the risk of homicide by men of their female partners or wives increases sharply both when the batterer experiences jealousy and when he recognizes that his wife/partner is contemplating an end to the relationship. (Cazenave and Zahn, 1986) (For further information on risks of

lethal violence by batterers, see Appendix C.)

Most battered women in the Commonwealth never seek the services of domestic violence intervention programs but utilize other resources to protect themselves from abuse. Caller I.D. inflicts substantial risk of irreparable harm on these victims and those helping them. There are approximately 800,000 adult victims of domestic violence in the Commonwealth each year. While 58,000 battered women are served yearly by domestic violence intervention programs, many of the other victims utilize the assistance and support of friends, family and community systems. (Those not utilizing domestic violence services often do not know of our programs; in fiscal year 1988-89 almost 9,000 victims were turned away because the demand for service outstrips current resources; ог choose to employ other protection strategies.) Data is not collected on the number of victims of domestic violence seeking

the assistance of law enforcement each year. However, data in other parts of the country suggest that battered women are more likely to seek civil protection orders than criminal prosecution of batterers; and fewer than 20,000 victims are estimated to have obtained protection orders in the Commonwealth last year. Extrapolating from this data, it is reasonable to conclude that a substantial majority of the victims of domestic violence do not choose law enforcement intervention in this state, but rather pursue safety and support from families, friends and other community resources and agencies.

ог

Victims seeking help and consultation from family and friends from community agencies unappreciative of the fundamental need for confidential services will not have the opportunity to learn about the dangers of Caller*I.D. dangers both for victims and those rendering assistance; dangers that the batterer will begin to sharply scrutinize telephone practices after implementation of Caller* I.D., that batterers will interfere with telephone outreach, that batterers will likely increase violent assaults and property damage against battered women and those supporting them upon disclosure of help-seeking, that children will become the increased focus of terrorism once the batterer believes he may be about to lose his family, that battered women will give up efforts to obtain protection and support because a primary tool for achieving safety, private telephone communications, will no longer be available.

Nor will these 3/4 million victims (and the, at least, 3/4 million good samaritans offering assistance) have the benefit of safety planning to minimize the adverse outcomes attendant upon the unavoidable breach of confidentiality imposed by Caller*I.D. (See discussion of the limitations of protective circumvention alternatives to Caller*I.D. disclosure below.)

Batterers whose partners seek the advocacy and support of domes tic violence agencies ог law enforcement will be no better protected from the disclosures of Caller*I.D. because the limitations on blocking create a "red flag" for all calls coming into the home from these agencies. When calls are made to victims in their homes from law enforcement or domestic violence intervention programs, the Caller*I.D. unit will display "Private" or a "p". Batterers will quickly learn that only police and domestic violence calls avert a number display and register a "p" on Caller I.D. unit. The "P" will thus be a "red flag", notifying. batterers that someone has used the phone to seek help.

the

Had the Commission ordered that Bell afford free, "per-call blocking" to all its customers, the confidentiality of domestic violence intervention services and police communications would have been preserved no "red flag" would have been created as many consumers would utilize this privacy protection, thus masking the help-seeking outreach of battered women and children. The profound jeopardy to victims of domestic violence consulting with the two community agencies most utilized battered women would have been thereby mitigated or averted.

in

by

Volunteers in domestic violence intervention programs, unable to block their home phone numbers from display on Caller I.D. units, may quit rather than risk the retaliation of batterers. The PUC Order directed that blocking be available το domestic abuse shelters and staff. While the PUC did not say, it would appear that the protection was extended only to agencies and employees.

Most of the workers on the hotlines of domestic violence programs are volunteers. They generally work the midnight shift and provide telephone coverage from their homes. When a victim calls the hotline, the answering service usually takes her phone number and relays it to the volunteer, who immediately calls the victim. After the implementation of Caller*I.D., volunteers will either have to assume the risks of retaliation by working in their own homes or spend nights at the shelter. The beauty of the current volunteer system is that volunteers can avoid child-care and transportation costs, can serve from the safety and tranquillity of their own homes, can sleep between crisis calls, and can manage their own households while on duty. For domestic violence programs, advantages to this system are that this labor force is virtually free, that we do not have to provide offices, equipment and phones to these workers, that we can avoid insurance costs associated with this large volunteer corps, and that the shelter's phones can be diverted during the late evening hours so that residents are not disrupted by phones and so that staff can provide extensive counseling after children are in bed.

The contribution of volunteers to domestic violence intervention work is substantial. In 1988-89 fiscal year, volunteers gave approximately 69,079 hours to battered women and children in the Commonwealth. Were Caller*I.D. to be implemented many volunteers would quit. Those remaining would have to undertake the real costs of working from the shelter to avoid exposure to retaliation through discovery on display units. Few would continue to work from unprotected phones in their homes. The budgets and services of domestic violence intervention programs would be decimated by the loss of this volunteer staff.

THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE STAYED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL TO PREVENT THE IRREPARABLE HARM IMPLEMENTATION WOULD UNAVOIDABLY INFLICT ON BATTERED WOMEN, ON VOLUNTEERS AND ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS.

circumventing the

Alternative telephone practices aimed at dangers attendant upon the Commission's Order are not effective nor do they prevent irreparable harm to victims.

Pay phones. Proponents of the Commission's Order might suggest that battered women and workers can avoid the risk of disclosure if victims use pay telephones both to initiate and receive calls from helping agencies or individuals. This solution is specious.

Pay phones are not accessible to many battered women.

A signifi