QUES: Low-income domestic violence victims may find long-term legal help -- representation in divorces or child-custody disputes -- hard to come by, if two organizations now providing such help can't replace their lost funding. The Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake and Utah Legal Services are already facing cutbacks after they were refused a federal grant of more than $450,000 in September. The board overseeing the state Office of Crime Victim Reparations [CVR] has voted to deny a stopgap funding request from the two organizations. While describing the request as a worthy cause, board members agreed Tuesday that funding divorces or custody disputes was outside their focus -- providing direct services for crime victims. The $175,000 requested would have allowed the legal aid groups to maintain a skeleton staff to continue providing help beyond emergency protective orders for victims, completing existing cases and offering services in limited cases. The groups also plan to enlist more pro bono attorneys through coordination with the Utah State Bar. "We don't have a lot more options," said Anne Milne, executive director of Utah Legal Services, after learning of the CVR refusal Wednesday. The organization has already lost some staff through attrition and has turned away some cases, she said. Milne said she may ask the board overseeing her organization to give her until November to seek funding from additional sources. Without additional funding, the outlook for longer-term legal help is unclear. For two years, the groups had received 18-month civil legal assistance grants from the U.S. Department of Justice and had used them to provide such assistance. But last month, a third request was denied. Funding used to help victims obtain emergency protective orders remains in place, said Milne and Stewart Ralphs, executive director of the Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake. Although an order's requirements that an abuser stay away from a victim may remain in effect for years, protective orders only settle issues such as child custody, child support, custody and property arrangements for 150 days. Many judges are reluctant to address those issues in emergency protective orders, since the decrees stay in effect for such a short time, Milne and Ralphs said. "The likelihood a victim will return to her abuser increases if she cannot permanently sever the relationship and establish workable support, custody and property arrangements," the funding request to CVR said. The Department of Justice said it denied the grant application, in part, because evaluators did not see enough collaboration between the organizations and victims' advocates, Ralphs and Milne told CVR board members. While the two said they believe their organizations coordinate well, the organizations cannot appeal the grant denial. Although CVR board members considered giving the money as a loan, not a grant, their vote on the funding request -- taken after Milne and Ralphs left the meeting -- was unanimous.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: Did the Office of Crime Victim Reparations vote to uphold the funding request and if not, why was the stopgap measure refused?

QUES: Lash is associate dean at the University of Southern California Law School. Johnson is a justice on California's Second District Court of Appeal. Lash and Johnson are co-chairs of the California Commission on Access to Justice. The full report can be viewed at (www.calbar.org). In her year-long odyssey through the California justice system, Katherine, a 35-year-old single mother with three children, experienced failure at every turn. Leaving her abusive husband, she moved into the only apartment she could afford, and soon discovered a broken toilet and non- working oven, rats and roaches, and a fourthfloor landing with no railing. She began withholding rent pending repairs her landlord refused to make, but then her Medi-Cal benefits were cut off when she could not provide rent receipts. She lost health care for her children and herself, although she is a borderline diabetic in need of medication and her children were suffering from rat bites. Katherine tried to seek help through the courts. Representing herself at an administrative hearing, she lost her appeal to restore Medi-Cal benefits because she did not have proper documentation of the rent account. When she went to a courthouse to file a complaint against her landlord, she found the process so confusing that she gave up and went home. According to "The Path to Justice: A Five-Year Status Report on Access to Justice in California," prepared by the California Commission on Access to Justice, Katherine is just one of 4.6 million poor Californians whose basic civil legal needs -- often involving such critical needs as housing, health care, education, employment, safety and transportation -- are not being addressed. California has a critical dearth of legal services for the poor, and, as this report makes clear, it is imperative that the state join with the federal government and private funders to increase resources so that all Californians, regardless of income, have equal access to our justice system. Our justice system is predicated on the assumption that both parties will be represented by lawyers who act as gatekeepers and guides through a complex legal system that would otherwise be inaccessible to many of us. Unfortunately, the most vulnerable members of our society are the least able to afford legal services. California does have a strong network of legal aid organizations that try to help meet the needs of the poor, but there's just one legal aid lawyer available per 10,000 poor people. We may promise "justice for all," but for those who can't afford a lawyer, that promise is often a lie. In its new report, the Commission on Access to Justice notes some significant steps toward providing equal access to justice for all Californians.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: Why was Katherine seeking legal help?

QUES: In India to purchase some horses , British aristocrat , Lord Esketh and his wife , Edwina , come to the town of Ranchipur at the invitation of the elderly Maharani . Their marriage is an unhappy one and Lord Esketh announces his intention to return to England and begin divorce proceedings . The spoiled , insensitive Edwina scoffs at this . She renews in Ranchipur an acquaintance with a former lover , Tom Ransome , now a dissolute alcoholic . She also meets and attempts to seduce a distinguished Hindu physician , Dr. Rama Safti , a decent man who is the elderly Maharani's personal choice to succeed her someday . Safti at first resists , but ultimately succumbs to Edwina's charms and falls hopelessly in love with her . Lord Esketh becomes aware of this , but Safti saves him from a man-eating tiger during a safari . Safti admits his love for Edwina to Lord Esketh , who is now sympathetic toward this good man's plight . Ransome feels the same way , warning Edwina to stay away from Safti , a friend he admires . Edwina similarly falls into disfavor with the Maharani , who explains that Safti has been raised to lead a pure life and that Edwina is unworthy of him . Ranchipur suddenly is ravaged by a natural disaster , an earthquake and flood . Dr. Safti is so busy saving lives that he can not personally care for Edwina , who has fallen ill . Ransome looks after her as well as for young Fern Simon , who has declared her love for him . When a dam is exploded by dynamite and as a result the flood waters recede , it is Dr. Safti who reveals that Ransome is the one who risked his personal safety to save the people of Ranchipur .
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION:
What does Lord Esketh's wife scoff at?