What Did Obergefell Change? Clearance of Intimate Partner Violence Before and After the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

Historically, same-sex intimate partner violence (IPV) was ignored, and victims often experienced high rates of harassment and intimidation from police, leading to low reporting of same-sex IPV incidents, victims' unwillingness to cooperate with the police, and common arrests in such incidents. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized and legitimized same-sex marriages and relationships in the U.S., mandating the inclusion of same-sex partners in protective order laws and yielding collateral benefits for victims of same-sex IPV, it is unclear if the decision has had a positive effect on same-sex IPV clearance rates. This study uses National Incident-Based Reporting System data to compare IPV clearance (arrest, dual arrest, victim noncooperation, and prosecution declined) pre (2013/2014) and post (2016/2017) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Regression results show no substantial changes in same-sex IPV clearance after Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Compared to opposite-sex IPV, same-sex IPV was less likely to be cleared by arrest but much more likely to be cleared by dual arrest, victim noncooperation, and prosecution declined. Same-sex IPV involving Black couples and married partners were also less likely to be cleared by arrest but more likely to be cleared by dual arrest than Black/White same-sex IPV and incidents involving unmarried partners, respectively. Moreover, same-sex IPV victims experience unfavorable criminal justice outcomes in states with mandatory arrest policies but fare better in states that supported same-sex relationships prior to Obergefell. The implications of these findings for practice and research are discussed.

Spatial and Temporal Distance Between the Victim and Offender as a Factor in Protective Order Violations: How Much Distance is Enough?

Research on the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they have only marginal protective value for the victim. This exploratory study investigated how the physical distance and temporal distance between the victim and offender corresponds to the percent of protective order violations. Results indicated that the percent of protective order violations was reduced to virtually zero when the victim and offender lived 25 miles or more apart. Surprisingly, this condition held for all types of contacts examined (physical, telephone, and cyber). The study concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.

What is the role of firearms in nonfatal intimate partner violence? Findings from civil protective order case data

BACKGROUND

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use firearms to injure, scare, and manipulate their partners. Abusers who have a firearm in their homes are more likely to threaten and/or kill their partner. To date, however, limited research documents the nature of IPV perpetrator firearm access or the prevalence of nonfatal firearm abuse behaviors.

METHODS

Federal law restricts firearm access for IPV perpetrators in qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) cases and information about firearms should be disclosed during the DVPO process. We used secondary data from civil DVPO cases (n = 406) in North Carolina that were collected using a representative sampling strategy. Data were from DVPO case files and structured DVPO hearing observations. We conducted a content analysis to record IPV perpetrator access to guns and reported firearm abuse behaviors. We used a linear regression analysis to determine whether IPV perpetrator gun access was associated with higher levels of reported abuse. We also examined factors associated with perpetration of nonfatal firearm abuse.

RESULTS

We found evidence of perpetrator firearm access in nearly half of all cases (46%, n = 108). Controlling for covariates, gun access was significantly associated with higher levels of reported IPV (b = 0.5, p < .001). Firearm abuse was reported in nearly one out of four cases (23.1%, n = 101), and often entailed spoken threats, displaying a gun, or holding a partner at gun point. The only factors associated with firearm abuse in the multivariate models were related to English language speaking/fluency.

CONCLUSIONS

Gun access should be considered an indicator for severe IPV. We must ensure that existing legal mechanisms to identify and restrict abuser access to firearms are fully implemented and enforced. Firearm abuse often manifests as non-physical coercive control which is traumatic and has the potential to escalate to homicide, even in the absence of past physical violence.

Opinions on a Firearm Prohibition Policy That Targets Intimate Partner Violence

Firearms and intimate partner violence form a nexus of dangerousness and lethality. But, some policies aim to separate the two phenomena. The present study aims to fill a gap in the literature focusing on opinions toward a firearm prohibition for persons with injunctions for protection in effect against them by analyzing data from a convenience sample of 290 undergraduate students at a large research university in Florida, United States. Overall, any agreement with the policy was high. Multivariate analyses indicated that females/women and gender identity minorities, together, tended to express more agreement with firearm prohibition than males/men. Multivariate analysis also showed that participants who experienced sexual violence also displayed more agreement with the prohibition when compared to individuals who did not experience sexual violence victimization. "Lower" severity sexual violence victimization had the strongest relationship with policy opinions. Possible explanations for the gender difference in opinions include the implications of hegemonic masculinity and power differentials among genders. A possible explanation for the relationship between sexual violence victimization and policy opinions includes empathy. Policy implications and directions for future research include investigating the potential relationship gap in firearm prohibitions within Florida, engaging college men to change the conceptions around firearms through educational intervention, harnessing the tech-savvy power that college students have to generate awareness of policies, and considering interconnections among opinions, polyvictimization, and firearm policies.

A Nation-Wide Assessment of Empowerment Among States' Personal Protective Order Statutes

The Personal Protective Order (PPO) and the PPO process may provide an opportunity to shift power dynamics from the state/abuser to the victim-a process otherwise known as "victim empowerment." Using a previously established empowerment framework, the Empowerment Process Model, 2017 PPO statutes for all U.S. states and the District of Columbia (n = 51) were examined in regard to 23 statutory elements conceptualized to facilitate the process of victim empowerment for initmate partner violence (IPV) victims. Findings demonstrated that there is little consistency across PPO statutes in regard to empowerment facilitators (8.0-18.5, M = 13.5, SD = 2.3). Three elements were found to be consistently empowering by most states: the use of gender-neutral language, inclusion of same-sex couple violence, and adherence to full faith and credit provision of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Future research should examine which statutory elements are associated with the greatest increases in victim empowerment, and model PPO language should be developed. Furthermore, in general, PPO research findings must be discussed within the confines of state statutes and limited generalizability across states.

Mediating Justice: Women's Perceptions of Fairness in the Civil Protection Order Process

Mediation use has grown rapidly in the past few decades as an efficacious method of civil dispute resolution. However, early research suggests that civil mediation may cause further harm to victims of intimate partner abuse because, based on the inherent power dynamics of abusive relationships, they are not able to effectively advocate on their own behalf. In addition, organizational efficiency concerns have led to the development of consent processes for civil protection orders (POs). However, research has yet to examine the extent to which victims of intimate partner violence who take part in these consent processes perceive the process and associated outcomes as fair. Using qualitative data (N = 19 interviews) collected from women who sought civil POs through Family Court in Delaware, this research finds that the consent process and women's interactions with mediators reproduce power inequalities that are inherent in cases of intimate partner abuse, which shape their perceptions of fairness in the PO process and outcomes. Victims being silenced and disempowered throughout the consent process results in cumulative effects-similar tactics used by batterers-which continue to leave victims vulnerable. In addition, the power asymmetry victims experience in abusive relationships is replicated by the legal institution and court structure in terms of not having access to attorneys, not receiving guidance and advocacy, and, at times, experiencing insensitive treatment. Thus, this study provides insight into the inequalities present within the PO consent process that can create further harm to victims.

The Use of Structural Intersectionality as a Method to Analyze How the Domestic Violence Civil Protective Order Process Replicates Inequality

While protective orders remain a commonly used resource, multiply marginalized survivors are often unable to file for, obtain, serve, and enforce orders. I argue that using structural intersectionality as a method is the best way to reveal how the protective order process replicates broader social inequalities. I advocate for an alternative way of using structural intersectionality. I first identify the mechanisms by which inequalities exist and then describe how these can be traced back to intersecting social identities. In doing so, I highlight the importance of historical context and the blurring of the civil and criminal legal systems.

Variation in State Laws on Access to Civil Protection Orders for Adolescents Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence

PURPOSE

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among adolescents. Civil protection orders (CPOs) are the most common legal remedy used by individuals experiencing IPV to prevent recurrence. However, laws on whether adolescents can access CPOs vary by state. We assessed the landscape of state legislation regarding adolescents' access to CPOs for IPV.

METHODS

We systematically assessed statutes across all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia for 5 indicators: whether minors can be granted CPOs, whether minors can file on their own behalf, whether dating relationships are eligible, definitions of abuse qualifying for CPOs, and whether a CPO prohibits firearm possession and requires surrender of firearms.

RESULTS

A total of 48 states (94%) explicitly allow minors to obtain CPOs. Fourteen states (27%) explicitly allow minors to file for a CPO on their own behalf. Forty-four states (86%) recognize dating relationships as qualifying relationships for a CPO. A CPO may be issued for physical violence in all 51 states (100%), sexual violence in 46 states (90%), threats of physical or sexual violence in 47 states (92%), stalking in 44 states (86%), and psychological/emotional violence in 28 states (55%). In 22 states (43%), an individual subject to a CPO is prohibited from possessing firearms and is required to surrender firearms they already have.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant variation in states' CPO statutes related to adolescent IPV. Improvements in legislation that reduce the barriers to legal relief for those experiencing violence can be an important part of a comprehensive solution to reducing IPV among adolescents.

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.