Restraining Orders in California

Intimate Partner Violence Survivorship, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Disaster: Implications for Future Disasters

This study investigated posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevalence among a sample of intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors (n  =  77) who filed for restraining orders in rural Louisiana during the COVID-19 pandemic. IPV survivors were individually interviewed to assess their self-reported levels of perceived stress, resilience, potential PTSD, COVID-19-related experiences, and sociodemographic characteristics. Data were analyzed to differentiate group membership between two groups; non-PTSD and probable PTSD. Results suggest the probable PTSD group had lower levels of resilience and higher levels of perceived stress compared to the non-PTSD group. Findings suggest the importance of providing services during disaster to reduce PTSD for IPV survivors.

Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California From 2016 to 2019

IMPORTANCE

A total of 19 states and the District of Columbia now have extreme risk protection order (ERPO) or similar policies, and others are considering them; however, little research exists describing their use.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize early use of California's ERPO policy by providing the first aggregate, statewide description of ERPOs, individuals subject to them, and petitioners.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study analyzed 1076 respondents to ERPOs recorded in the California Department of Justice California Restraining and Protective Order System from 2016 to 2019. Descriptive analyses of orders issued between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019 in California were performed, and univariate Moran I was calculated to examine county-level spatial autocorrelation of the policy's use.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary study outcomes included the characteristics of ERPO respondents (demographic characteristics), petitioners (law enforcement vs family or household members), and orders (type and service) as well as temporal and spatial variation in policy use during the first 4 years of implementation.

RESULTS

Of 1076 respondents during the study period, most were men (985 [91.5%]) and white individuals (637 [59.2%]), with a mean age of 41.8 years (range, 14 to 98 years). A law enforcement officer was the petitioner in 1038 cases (96.5%). The number of respondents increased during the study period from 70 in 2016 to 700 in 2019, and there was substantial county-level variation in ERPO use (ranging from 0 to 354 respondents), with significant spatial clustering in counts of ERPO respondents among neighboring counties (observed Moran I, 0.18, mean [SD] Moran I from reference distribution, -0.01 (0.05); z value, 3.58; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study, among the first to describe the early utilization of an ERPO or similar policy, found a substantial increase in the use of ERPOs in California from 2016 to 2019. These results could inform policy makers and other stakeholders involved in policy implementation and outreach in California and elsewhere. Similar studies in other states would be useful to understand variation.

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.

Removing Firearms From Those Prohibited From Possession by Domestic Violence Restraining Orders: A Survey and Analysis of State Laws

Under federal and many state laws, persons under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) are prohibited from possession of firearms. Using multiple sources and a Lexis Nexis search, we developed a list of state laws pertaining to the relinquishment or removal of firearms from persons prohibited from possession by DVROs. After downloading the text of each law, we conducted a legal analysis to enumerate provisions of the laws specifying implementation. We found 49 laws in 29 states and Washington, DC. The laws were conceptualized as instructions to the court, the respondent, and law enforcement. We detail the content of each state's law, including such elements as whether it applies to ex parte DVROs; whether certain criteria must be met, such as previous use of a firearm in domestic violence or lack of an employment exemption, before the law can be applied; and whether the application of the law is mandatory. We also detail instructions to the respondent regarding to whom firearms may be relinquished, whether the respondent must seek permission to transfer the firearm to a third party, and the time by which dispossession must occur. Finally, whether law enforcement bears the responsibility for removing the firearm or whether the law gives the court the authority to order a search and seizure for the firearms is discussed. The purpose of the research is to provide an overview of these state laws that can be used by key stakeholders in legislative, judicial, advocacy, or research roles. Implications are discussed.

Nonfatal Gun Use in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Guns figure prominently in the homicide of women by an intimate partner. Less is known, however, about their nonfatal use against an intimate partner. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched eight electronic databases and identified 10 original research articles that reported the prevalence of the nonfatal use of firearms against an intimate partner. Results indicate that (1) there is relatively little research on the subject of intimate partners' nonfatal gun use against women. (2) The number of U.S. women alive today who have had an intimate partner use a gun against them is substantial: About 4.5 million have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun and nearly 1 million have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner. Whether nonfatal gun use is limited to the extreme form of abuse (battering) or whether it occurs in the context of situational violence remains to be seen. Regardless, when it comes to the likely psychological impact, it may be a distinction without a difference; because guns can be lethal quickly and with relatively little effort, displaying or threatening with a gun can create a context known as coercive control, which facilitates chronic and escalating abuse. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed, all of which include expanding an implicit focus on homicide to include an intimate partner's nonfatal use of a gun.

Domestic Violence Protective Orders: A Qualitative Examination of Judges' Decision-Making Processes

Approximately one in three women in the United States experience intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV is associated with long-term negative health consequences; therefore, there is a need to examine potential prevention strategies. Evidence suggests that domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs), a legal intervention that prevents contact between two parties for up to 12 months, are an effective secondary prevention tool. However, because judges have relative autonomy in granting or denying DVPOs, research is needed to examine the processes they use to guide their decisions. The aim of the study was to investigate how District Court judges decide whether to issue a DVPO. Using in-depth interviews with 20 North Carolina District Court judges, the present study addressed three research questions: (a) what factors influence judges' decisions to grant or deny a DVPO, (b) what heuristics or cognitive shortcuts potentially guide their decisions, and (c) what judges worry about when making decisions. Three themes emerged from the data analyses: (a) violent incidents must reach a certain threshold, (b) the presence of children creates competing concerns, and (c) judges worry about the negative impact their decisions may have on the lives of those involved. Recommendations for improving the DVPO issuance process are also discussed.

Intimate Partner Violence Victims Seeking a Temporary Restraining Order: Social Support and Resilience Attenuating Psychological Distress

Social support has been found in many studies to be a protective factor for those exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV), but personal resilience has received far less attention. The present study concerns 136 female IPV victims seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Family Justice Center (FJC). The relationships between IPV victimization, social support, resilience, and psychological distress were examined. Hierarchical regressions found that both perceived social support and self-reported resilience were inversely associated with distress symptoms. Higher social support was associated with lower trauma symptoms, controlling for abuse history, demographics, and resilience. Higher resilience was associated with lower mood symptoms and lower perceived stress, controlling for abuse history, demographics, and social support. No significant associations were recorded for anger symptoms. These findings suggest that fostering resilience can have important health benefits for IPV victims, above and beyond the well-known benefits of social support. Ways that resilience might be cultivated in this population and other implications for practice are discussed.

Firearms and the incidence of arrest among respondents to domestic violence restraining orders

BACKGROUND

Persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), known as respondents, are generally prohibited from possessing firearms. Efforts to enforce that prohibition have not been evaluated. The study objective was to determine whether associations exist between risk of incident arrest among DVRO respondents and 1) respondents' access to firearms, and 2) law enforcement recovery of firearms from respondents with access to them.

METHODS

This was an observational study of 2,972 DVRO respondents in San Mateo County, California, 525 of whom were linked to firearms by standardized screening procedures. Enrollment occurred from May 2007 to June 2010 and follow-up through September 2010. Follow-up began when DVROs were served (or when issued if no date of service was available); median duration was 689 days. Principal exposures were access to firearms and, for subjects with access to firearms whose DVROs were served, contact by law enforcement personnel to recover those firearms. Main outcome measures were 1) incidence of arrest; 2) relative risk for arrest, adjusted for age, sex, prior criminal history, and duration of follow-up, assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Respondents linked to firearms were older than others and were more likely to have a history of prior arrest (49.7 % and 37.3 %, p < 0.0001). The incidence of arrest was 20.6 % for respondents linked to firearms and 21.1 % for others (p = 0.78). In multivariate models, access to firearms was associated with a modest, generally not statistically significant, decrease in risk for incident arrest. Among respondents who were linked to firearms and whose restraining orders were served, no statistically significant association existed between firearm recovery and risk for incident arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study of DVRO respondents, findings are inconclusive for an association between access to firearms or firearm recovery and risk of incident arrest. Controlled trials on larger populations are indicated.

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

A modest body of research has examined judicial decision making in civil protection order (CPO) cases. A major finding of this prior research is that the factors expected to shape judicial responses to CPO requests are often found to be insignificant. Because such decisions are often rendered in an environment of vast judicial discretion and competing allegations, the question of "what matters?" assumes added importance. This study examines permanent/final restraining order (PRO) outcomes for intimate partner violence on a number of variables. Specifically, chi-square analyses were performed examining the associations between granting/denying a PRO and demographic, relationship, hearing, and allegation characteristics associated with the petitioner and respondent. These tests helped to reveal relationships at the bivariate level and aided in further model-building using logistic regression and decision-tree analysis. The findings show that the factors most associated with PRO outcomes, namely, the denial of a PRO, are those reflecting the licit rather than illicit behavior of the respondent.

Identifying armed respondents to domestic violence restraining orders and recovering their firearms: process evaluation of an initiative in California

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated a law enforcement initiative to screen respondents to domestic violence restraining orders for firearm ownership or possession and recover their firearms.

METHODS

The initiative was implemented in San Mateo and Butte counties in California from 2007 through 2010. We used descriptive methods to evaluate the screening process and recovery effort in each county, relying on records for individual cases.

RESULTS

Screening relied on an archive of firearm transactions, court records, and petitioner interviews; no single source was adequate. Screening linked 525 respondents (17.7%) in San Mateo County to firearms; 405 firearms were recovered from 119 (22.7%) of them. In Butte County, 88 (31.1%) respondents were linked to firearms; 260 firearms were recovered from 45 (51.1%) of them. Nonrecovery occurred most often when orders were never served or respondents denied having firearms. There were no reports of serious violence or injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.

Removing guns from batterers: findings from a pilot survey of domestic violence restraining order recipients in California

Persons under certain domestic violence restraining orders in California are required to surrender any firearms in their possession within 24 hours of service. The California Department of Justice funded a pilot program in which Sheriff's Offices in two counties developed a system for better enforcing the firearm surrender requirement. As part of a larger process evaluation, 17 restraining order recipients were interviewed about their experiences with and feelings about the removal of firearms from their abusers. Most women surveyed wanted firearms removed and felt safer as a result of their removal. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Survivor-defined practices to mitigate revictimization of battered women in the protective order process

A growing body of research finds that instead of a one-size-fits-all response, community-based responses that include survivor-defined advocacy may prevent further abuse through customized, individualized safety planning and provision of resources. Extant literature related to survivor-defined approaches highlights outcomes, but the work illustrating specifically how these practices work in applied settings is limited. Drawing from interviews with 26 domestic violence victim advocates, the author examines how advocates mitigate revictimization of battered women through survivor-defined practices in the protective order process to provide additional context for this emerging body of work. Findings illustrate that the effectiveness and benefits that an order of protection offered varied from case to case; consequently advocates used survivor-defined approaches to address the specific needs of each woman to better ensure safety.

Women with protective orders report failure to remove firearms from their abusive partners: results from an exploratory study

AIMS

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of women who sought court protection orders for domestic violence (PODV) about actions to implement laws intended to disarm their abusers.

METHODS

We identified female victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in New York and Los Angeles primarily through family courts and records of police calls for domestic violence. Of these, 782 were surveyed and asked about their experiences seeking PODV from courts, judges ordering the removal of firearms from defendants, and if firearms were actually surrendered or confiscated.

RESULTS

Of the 542 victims who had obtained a PODV and knew whether their abuser owned a firearm, 82 (15%) reported that their abuser owned a firearm. Although state law either allowed or mandated judges issuing PODVs to require abusers to surrender their firearms, 21 victims (26%) reported that judges used this authority. Ten victims (12% of victims with armed abusers) reported that their abuser had either surrendered all of his firearms or had the firearms seized. When victims reported that the judge ordered their abuser to surrender his firearms, victims were more likely to report that all firearms were either surrendered by the abuser or confiscated by law enforcement.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the perceptions of the IPV victims in this study, laws designed to disarm domestic violence offenders were either poorly implemented or failed to inform victims when their abuser's firearms were surrendered or confiscated.

Who Are the Defendants in Domestic Violence Protection Order Cases?

Domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) are the nation’s most widely used intimate partner violence (IPV)—related legal intervention, and there is emerging evidence that DVPOs are effective. However, little is known about DVPO defendants. We examined a population-based sample of male DVPO defendants. Most had previous IPV-related offenses, mental health issues, and alcohol and drug-use histories. Court personnel should be aware of the severity of violence plaintiffs are likely experiencing, and the potential danger posed by defendants, and ensure that expedited and appropriate protection is awarded. Concurrent treatment for substance abuse and mental health may enhance the effectiveness of DVPOs.

Intimate partner violence at the scene: incident characteristics and implications for public health surveillance

Using data that, to our knowledge, have not been used before for this purpose, we examined 9,231 opposite-sex intimate partner violence (IPV) calls for law enforcement assistance recorded in the Compstat system of a large U.S. city. Although women were the predominant victims, injuries were documented more often for men. Only about 1% of incidents were considered a restraining order violation, although many orders were active in the city at the time. The data appeared to be of good quality and just a few changes in recording procedures would increase Compstat's usefulness for public health in U.S. cities.

Outcomes of civil protective orders: results from one state

This study compares final sentencing decisions ordered by judges to federal and state sentencing guidelines for protective order violations. The authors reviewed violations that were pled before the largest district court in Utah and found that in the majority of cases, defendants were not sentenced in accordance with federal and state guidelines. Although state guidelines mandate defendants who violate a protective order to attend a batterer intervention program, less than one fourth of defendants were sentenced to attend such programs. Fewer than half of the defendants were arrested and incarcerated, as opposed to the 100% mandated by state sentencing guidelines. Federal guidelines mandate that all defendants be ordered to surrender firearms, but only six defendants were given that order. This study shows that the judicial system could be more aggressive in improving the safety of victims of intimate partner violence by using the full extent of the sentencing guidelines.

Using administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research

The utilization of administrative data in substance abuse research has become more widespread than ever. This selective review synthesizes recent extant research from 31 articles to consider what has been learned from using administrative data to conduct longitudinal substance abuse research in four overlapping areas: (1) service access and utilization, (2) underrepresented populations, (3) treatment outcomes, and (4) cost analysis. Despite several notable limitations, administrative data contribute valuable information, particularly in the investigation of service system interactions and outcomes among substance abusers as they unfold and influence each other over the long term. This critical assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of using existing administrative data within a longitudinal framework should stimulate innovative thinking regarding future applications of administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research purposes.

Understanding and informing policy implementation: a case study of the domestic violence provisions of the Maryland Gun Violence Act

The Maryland Gun Violence Act, enacted into law in 1996, explicitly authorized courts to order batterers to surrender their firearms through civil protective orders. It also vested law enforcement with the explicit authority to remove guns when responding to a domestic violence complaint. In order to assess how these laws were implemented, we designed a case study and collected data from in-depth, key informant interviews, court observations, and relevant documents. We present findings from this study and recommend how to increase the likelihood that policies designed to separate batterers and guns are implemented in a way that will result in greater protections for victims of domestic violence.

Are temporary restraining orders more likely to be issued when applications mention firearms?

Restraining orders, an important legal intervention for victims of domestic violence, have broad potential for injury prevention. Using data from one of the busiest restraining order clinics in the nation, the authors examined 1,354 applicants' descriptions of abuse. Most (89.2%) applicants were issued a restraining order. A total of 16.0% of applicants mentioned a firearm in their descriptions of abuse; doing so was not associated with restraining order issuance. About 1 in 20 applicants, even if issued a restraining order, would not be protected by the federal firearm purchase and possession prohibitions because they had not lived with or had a child with the defendant. However, the proportion of these individuals who report threatened or actual use of firearms against them is similar to that of other applicants. Federal and, when relevant, state law should be modified to include these persons.

Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide?

Domestic violence imposes a large cost on society. The authors exploit state variation in timing to examine the impact of three types of law on intimate partner homicides. These laws restrict access to firearms by individuals who are subject to a restraining order or have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor or allow law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms at a domestic violence scene. The authors find that female intimate partner homicide rates decline 7% after a state passes a restraining order law. They find no effect from the domestic violence misdemeanor or confiscation laws.

Disarming batterers through restraining orders: the promise and the reality in California

Laws that prohibit persons under a domestic violence restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm are a primary way to keep guns out of the hands of batterers. In July 2005, the California Attorney General's Task Force on the Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence issued a report called Keeping the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability. The report focused, in part, on the extent to which California's domestic violence restraining order system succeeds in disarming batterers. Restraining orders are the principal means by which the criminal justice system can accomplish this objective. The Task Force found that criminal justice agencies and the courts performed poorly in this area. The report strongly recommended that a more strategic, collaborative use of laws already on the books could significantly improve performance, without much additional expense. What follows is a summary of those finding and recommendations.