Mom refused protection order, sole custody; ex murders her

This is an outrage. This mother's homicide could have been preventable, but the authorities continued to put this woman in harm's way by catering to the violent criminal father/ex-boyfriend, MITCHEL HADAN. They did not lock him up. They consistently dropped any charges against him. They didn't even give this mother a protection order--useless as those may be. And it appears that they also refused to give the mom sole custody of their child, which might have allowed her to move away from this psycho.

And matters are not helped by a biased local media that continues to write in outdated stereotypes such as the couple having a "tumultuous relationship" or "dueling" over custody. This language trivializes what was going on here and erroneously implies that there was mutual aggression, when in fact, the article cites no real evidence that the mother was encouraging or participating in this violence at all.

On the contrary, she was trying to escape it.

The facts as reported here suggest this guy was pretty much an obsessive and violent stalker and criminal maniac. The victim did what she could to save herself and her child, but was failed everywhere she turned. She tried to get a protective order, but was betrayed by a judge who apparently had no understanding of domestic violence or the risks that women take in trying to escape it.

I can't even begin to summarize this man's actions against her. Read it yourself. Why was this allowed to go on for this long? Why?

And it sure would be useful if the media pointed out that the father's obsessive interest in child custody is very often seen in violent criminal fathers. Custody for these guys is just another way to terrorize the victim--it has nothing to do with love or concern for the child. And it would be nice if the media would explain that instead of engaging in fathers rights friendly code words that minimize the father's responsibility for his own criminal acts.

http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local/article_a428dda8-1830-11e0-9f32-001cc4c03286.html

Slain woman had asked for protection order

Related: Amherst native becomes Omaha’s first homicide victim of year
Posted: Tuesday, January 4, 2011 3:30 pm Updated: 12:30 pm, Tue Jan 4, 2011.

Slain woman had asked for protection order
Todd Cooper reports for the Omaha World-Herald.
World-Herald staff writers Kevin Cole and Sam Womack also contributed to this report. Kearney Hub

OMAHA — Six months before she was gunned down on an on-ramp to L Street, Rita Eckhout described an eerily similar scene.

In June 2010, in a request for a protection order she wrote, the father of her 3-year-old child pulled his car up to hers — bumper to bumper — at a gas station near Interstate 80 and 42nd Street.

Mitchel Hadan “told me to get out of the car and held a gun that was inside his pants,” wrote Eckhout, an Amherst native. “He grabbed me by the arm and opened the door and I got out.

“The only reason he left was because he heard fire sirens. I was very scared but I knew that with so many people around us he would maybe not harm me.”

The same couldn’t be said for Saturday, Omaha police say.

After an officer approached his car in traffic, police allege, Hadan, 47, fatally shot Eckhout, 35, then turned the gun on himself.

Hadan was in critical but stable condition Monday at Creighton University Medical Center.

Court documents show that Eckhout and Hadan had a tumultuous relationship that began in 2006.

On March 18, Hadan was accused of threatening Eckhout and holding her against her will. In that incident, Eckhout said, Hadan held her over several days, continually punching her and, at one point, breaking a wooden board on her.

She said Hadan also put a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her. He did the same to their son, she alleged.

Photos contained within court records show Eckhout with a black eye and bruises and cuts over her body.

On May 20, Hadan again was accused of terroristic threats, a felony.

In a July application for a protection order, Eckhout wrote that Hadan was hounding her “all day” July 27 to drop the cases against him.

“He wanted to know if I was going to court to testify against him,” Eckhout wrote. “I told him he needed to be accountable for his actions. He then said, ‘We’ll see what happens.’”

In August, neither he nor Eckhout showed up for a hearing on her request for the protection order. In turn, a judge dismissed the protection order.

Before the cases were filed against him, Hadan had requested a protection order against Eckhout.

In that 2009 case, he wrote that he had awakened to find a firefighter at his door and his car on fire in the driveway. Someone had placed a propane tank under the car.

Hadan blamed Eckhout; Eckhout denied the claims.

Both Hadan and Eckhout claimed in court papers that the other suffered from mental illness.

And the two dueled over custody of their toddler son, Hunter.

In the May incident, Eckhout wrote that Hadan demanded money and repeatedly pistol-whipped her in the head.

Eckhout wrote that the two tussled over their son — and that Hadan tried to pull him out of the house.

“I finally got my son from him,” she wrote. “He made threats before leaving — saying ‘We’ll see’ and ‘We’ll see, (expletive).’”