Advocates: Recent deaths of two Minnesota women reveal gaps in domestic violence prevention

NINA MOINI: A warning to listeners, this next segment describes incidents of domestic violence. Please take care while listening.

This past month, two women were killed in domestic violence incidents 12 days apart. Ashley Kittelson was allegedly killed by her husband in International Falls on March 6 and Jennifer Marsaw and her five-year-old son were allegedly killed by her husband in Anoka County on March 18. He's been charged with two counts of murder.

These two cases share a common thread. Both women filed orders for protection from the men accused of killing them. Here to talk about the legal systems of protection and advocacy to make them better are the co-executive directors of Violence Free Minnesota, Nikki Engel and Katie Kramer. Thanks to both of you for being with us.

NIKKI ENGEL: Thanks for having us, Nina.

NINA MOINI: Thank you for being here. So many people's lives are impacted by these tragic cases. Unfortunately, these cases give us a look at what may have gone wrong.

And I want to start with Ashley Kittelson, who was a 34-year-old mother of three. And a week before she died, she filed an order for protection against her husband, saying he had put a gun to her head and had threatened to take her life. That order for protection was granted, but he violated it several times.

Nikki, in instances like this, what do you see that falls through the cracks?

NIKKI ENGEL: First of all, I just want to preface this whole conversation by letting everyone know that Violence Free Minnesota does not have access to confidential court documents or files.

NINA MOINI: Sure.

NIKKI ENGEL: So, by necessity, our picture is always incomplete and we're making assessments and recommendations based on what we from the public record.

NINA MOINI: Sure.

NIKKI ENGEL: In Ashley's case, there's two things that stand out to us. One is the use of a risk assessment tool that did not identify Kittelson's escalating behavior as significant enough to prevent release or issue a bond. The second is the lack of information the judge seemed to have about the escalating behaviors that Kittelson was engaging in the lead up to the murder.

We know that most generalized risk assessments are actually not designed to capture the coercive, controlling, and escalating behaviors amongst individuals who use relationship abuse. In our own research here in Minnesota, we found that 31.4% of supervision agencies in Minnesota are not using IPV, or Intimate Partner Violence-specific, risk assessment tools, or are using them inconsistently.

So that's a real problem. I think we can see the evidence of that problem in Ashley's case very clearly. They were using a risk assessment tool that couldn't accurately capture the escalating behaviors and the risk of lethality of this individual. We recommend that every agency use validated intimate partner violence-specific assessment tools consistently alongside their general risk tools.

The other piece of Ashley's case that stands out to us is the information the judge did or didn't have to make the bond determination. So as advocates, as people who work with victims every day, it's clear to us that Kittelson's behavior was escalating in really scary ways.

But violations of a protective order are-- and I'm making air quotes here-- only misdemeanors, right? So if the charge is the only information that a judge might be going off of to determine whether or not someone should be released pending trial or should be released without bond, that can really mask the seriousness of what was happening, in this case to Ashley, in those days that led up to her murder.

We don't know if this probation agency used an IPV-specific tool or not, but these are two pieces that we hope the International Falls community will explore in the aftermath of Ashley's death.

NINA MOINI: And I just want to clarify for the audience that when you use Kittelson in terms of the killer, you're talking about Nicholas Kittelson. They shared a last name. And authorities have said that Nicholas Kittelson later took his life. I just want to make that clear for the audience.

Moving on to Jennifer's case, there was a long pattern of reported abuse by her husband in the legal system. She'd filed an order for protection, saying her husband had threatened her and her child's life. Her husband also threatened her life if she took legal action. Jennifer would later move to dismiss the order for protection she filed, saying she wanted to stay in the marriage.

Nikki, again, realizing that we obviously don't the specifics of everybody's lives involved in these cases, what does this type of an instance illustrate to you?

NIKKI ENGEL: In Jennifer's case, we see a victim, also, like Ashley, desperately trying to achieve safety and protection from her husband. The court record as you noted, Nina, shows her seeking protection orders multiple times and then having those protective orders dismissed. And although it might be hard for us to understand why someone who was scared for her life would lift a protection order, the reality is that both of these efforts, both securing the order and dismissing the order, were Jennifer actively trying to manage the threat in her life in the best ways available to her at that moment.

And both of these cases really speak to the limitations of protective orders in achieving safety for victims and their children. Civil protective orders in Minnesota, we have at least two that we use in the realm of domestic abuse sexual assault, stalking, those are orders for protection and harassment restraining orders.

And both of these orders offer important protections in response to abuse. They serve to clearly communicate to someone using abuse or harassment that the person on the receiving end wants the behavior to stop. And the order has the force of the courts behind it.

Civil protective orders are really important because they don't require the involvement of the criminal legal system before a survivor can ask for protection. That's really important. You don't have to wait for a crime to have happened to you to seek out a protective order.

And they're really important because they're in the control of the victim. They can be initiated, modified, or dismissed by the victim. Civil protective orders are a really important victory in the domestic violence movement. And there's something that victims and advocates campaigned very hard for.

And protection orders of any kind, whether they're civil, like the kind we see in these two cases, order for protection as a civil order-- but whether there's civil or criminal, they're imperfect shields. Violations of orders are incredibly common. Not all individuals who are using abuse, harassment, or stalking are deterred by the presence of a court order. So the effectiveness of any order is going to be dependent on the ability of the local system to respond quickly and with appropriate seriousness to any violation.

And so because of this, those of us in the domestic violence field, the way we talk about protective orders is that protective orders, if and when they are used, can only, should only, can only be one component of a victim's safety planning.

NINA MOINI: Yeah. And I'm sure the last thing that you would want is for people to hear instances like this and think, oh, well, I'm not even going to bother with an order for protection because nobody-- you're saying it's a tool in a kit and that there has to be more resources in an environment that allows for that to go as planned.

I also want to take a little time and make sure to talk about the five-year-old child here who lost his life in Jennifer's case. Nikki, can you just talk about bystanders who lose their lives in domestic violence instances? Often children, other family members, these are the people who make up a big portion of victims of domestic violence.

NIKKI ENGEL: They really do. It was only two years ago that we saw the highest number of bystanders or interveners killed in connection with domestic violence in the state of Minnesota.

So, like you said, Nina, it is often children. It is often family members. But it is also first responders. It's people who show up at the scene. It's people who try to intervene in something they see happening on the street or in their family. All of these folks can be-- and we see them not uncommonly caught in the crossfire of domestic violence homicide.

NINA MOINI: I wonder, Katie-- I was reading about these cases, Jennifer Marsaw, Ashley Kittelson, and their stories and their photos are on peoplemagazine.com and they're everywhere. And I have to wonder what comes after something like this or after the headlines. And at the legislative session that's going on right now at the capitol, what are some of the ways that Violence Free is trying to keep these priorities front and center?

KATIE KRAMER: So one of our biggest asks right now for Violence Free Minnesota and all crime victims coalitions and crime victim services in our state is the need for funding. So crime victim services providers are a really integral piece of public safety, of housing, of education, and healthcare ecosystems in every community in our state. So advocates from our member organizations are attending court alongside victims. They're housing victims and shelter and short-term rentals. They're training and educating law enforcement and the courts and healthcare providers and other systems on the impact of violence on victims.

And unfortunately, crime victim services has seen a really steady decrease in federal funds. And these are funds that are generated not from taxpayer dollars, but from fines and fees from criminal and civil prosecution. So we've seen a decline in funding for advocacy services since 2018.

And so the state has stepped up to infuse some one-time crime victim services funding to really keep the lights on and the doors open for our program. But we have been told that we will now see a 20% cut to these life-saving services in the state of Minnesota starting on January 1 of this coming year, 2027. So that's a $12 million cut that crime victim services in the state of Minnesota are facing.

And we know that this funding crisis is going to mean that programs will have to cut services, reduce service areas, and some will have to close entirely unless the state steps up to address this gap. And so our field has really been in crisis for a long time now around funding. We've had to pause long-term transformative visions for ending violence in Minnesota in order to respond to the short-term and immediate crisis management needs that victims and survivors are facing.

So the needs of crime victims we know really just demand an investment in new responses to violence and greater resources for culturally specific programming and in really meaningful prevention work. And so we are fighting at the legislature for really robust and long-term funding for crime victim advocacy services.

NINA MOINI: Katie and Nikki, thanks for coming on and sharing your insights, as well as the work that remains to be done. I appreciate your time.

KATIE KRAMER: Thank you, Nina.

NIKKI ENGEL: Thank you for having us, Nina.

NINA MOINI: Nikki Engel and Katie Kramer are the co-executive directors of Violence Free Minnesota. If you or someone you know is in a dangerous situation with a partner, there's a 24-hour statewide domestic and sexual violence hotline. You can call Minnesota Day One at 866-223-1111 or text 612-399-9995. We'll have those resources linked to this story at mprnews.org.