She said, he said, judge said: analyzing judicial decision making in civil protection order hearings

Violence Risk or Writing Quality? Predicting Relief Outcomes from Protective Order Narratives

Civil orders of protection (OPs) are the only victim-initiated legal intervention for intimate partner violence. The OP process is unique because victims write a narrative account of abuse to inform judges' decision-making. Historically, feminist scholars have considered OPs as empowering to victims, as they can signal strength-based change and requesting needed relief. OPs also serve as an important tool for some mothers who need temporary protection related to child custody and visitation. Studies of OP narratives have found that content related to future risk is associated with securing an OP, including allegations of physical and severe violence, suggesting that OPs provide needed protection. At the same time, the OP process is disempowering for some women. The content and quality of survivors' OP narratives vary greatly, and studies have found that well-written accounts are positively associated with securing OPs, uncovering the potential influence of judges' implicit biases. This study used logistic regression to explore how violence risk and writing quality related to the receipt of emergency OPs in a sample of 90 petitions filed by women with minor children in a large Midwest County. As expected, violence severity was positively associated with securing an OP, controlling for the mention of other cases/orders and legal representation. However, the association was no longer significant when writing quality was considered; specifically, greater readability was associated with being granted an OP. Linear structure and appearance of narratives were not related to OP outcomes. Findings underscore the ongoing need to explore how the written narrative requirement of the OP process (dis)empowers survivors and the role implicit biases may play in judicial decision-making in civil OP proceedings.

Disarming Intimate Partner Violence Offenders: An In-Depth Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Firearm Prohibitor Laws in the United States, 1991-2016

Intimate partner violence is a preventable public health problem affecting more than 12 million people in the United States annually. The immense burden of victimization is most often borne by women. Nearly one in two female homicide victims are killed by current or former partners (more than 50% of which involve firearms). Firearm-related morbidity and mortality are concentrated where firearm ownership is most prevalent and firearm laws are least restrictive, indicating the potential for law to serve as an intervention. Understanding intricacies within laws and how they vary is critical to studying their influence on health. This study is the first to use the scientific legal mapping technique of policy surveillance to create legal data by systematically collecting and coding laws that authorize or require courts to prohibit offenders subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs) from purchasing and possessing firearms ("firearm prohibitor" laws). These data measure key provisions of federal and state laws from 1991 to 2016, including whether the law includes a firearm prohibition, who qualifies as an intimate partner, notice and hearing requirements, whether the prohibition occurs automatically or through judicial discretion, and if the law permits or requires the relinquishment or removal of firearms. The federal law, enacted in 1994 (and reauthorized in 2022), only protects qualifying victims that obtain final DVROs. States can mirror or go beyond federal measures. From 1991 to 2016, 38 states enacted a firearm prohibitor law through DVROs (37 states), TROs (20 states), or both (19 states). Today, survivors suffer from a sluggish and fragmented legal system leading to the unequal protection of victims based on where they happen to live. This research provides an in-depth descriptive analysis of this complex and nuanced legal system, recommendations to spur policy reform, and longitudinal data for future research.

Criminal Protection Orders for Women Victims of Domestic Violence: Explicating Predictors of Level of Restrictions Among Orders Issued

Criminal protection orders (POs), with varying degrees of restrictions, are issued by the criminal justice system to enhance the safety of victims of domestic violence (DV). Limited research exists to elucidate factors associated with their issuance. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how demographic, relationship, parenting, and court-process-related factors are related to the level of restriction the PO places on the offender. Two-hundred ninety-eight women who were victims in a criminal DV case (M age 36.4, 50.0% African American) participated in a structured interview approximately 12 to 15 months following the offenders' arraignment. Results revealed that psychological DV severity and fear of the offender in the 30 days prior to arraignment significantly predicted PO level of restriction issued. In addition, level of restriction requested by the victim significantly predicted level of restriction issued by the judge (though closer examination of the data revealed that many orders were issued at a different level of restriction than the victim requested). Other demographic, relationship, parenting, and court-process-related factors did not predict PO level of restriction issued. Findings are discussed with respect to practice and policy in the criminal justice system.

Firearms and protective orders in intimate partner homicides

PURPOSE

To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH.

METHOD

We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH.

RESULTS

We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.

Hate the Players, or the Game? The Role of Court Mediators and Hearing Officers in the Civil Protection Order Process

Civil Protection Orders (CPOs) are among the most common legal tools that victims of intimate partner violence and abuse (IPV/A) use to protect themselves. The current study adds to the CPO research by using quantitative data to look at how female survivors' experiences with court personnel (attorneys, mediators, and hearing officers) shape their satisfaction with the court process, and what types of individual and court-related factors are related to perceived fairness of court personnel. The current study uses in-depth quantitative data collected from women over the age of 18 who sought a CPO due to violence from a male current or former partner. The findings indicate that women's satisfaction with the court process is significantly impacted by the perceived fairness of court personnel. In turn, specific behaviors by court personnel predict women's ratings of fairness of those personnel. Additionally, women's socioeconomic status impacts how fair they perceive the hearing officers to be. Court personnel play an integral role in helping victims navigate the legal system in ways that could protect their safety and influence how they perceive the CPO system as it relates to the abuse they have experienced.

"I Don't Know That I've Ever Felt Like I Got the Full Story": A Qualitative Study of Courtroom Interactions Between Judges and Litigants in Domestic Violence Protective Order Cases

One in three U.S. women has experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) and many seek domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) for secondary IPV prevention. Because judges have considerable autonomy making DVPO decisions, there is a need to describe how courtroom interactions and information available to judges may influence DVPO dispositions. We conducted DVPO hearing observations and phone interviews with District Court Judges. Qualitative themes emerged that may influence judges' decision making in DVPO hearings: case information availability, judge engagement level, and litigant credibility. Recommendations include more time for judges to review case files, IPV-related training for judges, and increased court advocate use.

An Updated Assessment of Personal Protective Order Statutes in the United States: Have Statutes Become More Progressive in the Past Decade?

The Personal Protection Order (PPO) is one civil intervention all states provide to victims of domestic violence; however, each state varies widely in who can access PPOs, what protections are included in PPOs, and how they are enforced. Given the many changes to state PPO statutes over the last decade, this research replicates and updates DeJong and Burgess-Proctor’s research on PPOs’ victim-friendliness (using states’ 2003 PPO statutes) by examining states’ 2014 PPO statutes. Findings suggest that states have become more victim-friendly with most states ranking in the highest category of victim-friendliness. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.