Figure - available from: Journal of Interpersonal Violence
This content is subject to copyright.
Decision tree: PRO granted when respondent objects to PRO. Note. PRO = permanent/final restraining order.
Source publication
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 compet...
Citations
... Although statute provides guidance, the interpretation and application of DVPO firearm restrictions is left to judges' discretion. Research from California (Vittes & Sorenson, 2006), Florida (Lucken & Rosky, 2016;Lucken et al., 2015), New York , Arizona (Wallin & Durfee, 2020), Texas , and a large Southwestern city (Bejinariu, 2016) collectively suggests that only a small proportion of DVPO plaintiffs who report firearm violence, weapon threats, or who request defendant gun restrictions ultimately receive a full DVPO with firearm restrictions. In fact, even if a plaintiff explicitly requests firearm surrender in a state where that provision was available, research suggests that a surrender injunction is only included in 11-50% of these orders (Wallin & Durfee, 2020;Webster et al., 2010). ...
... Other studies, including the research by Wallin and Durfee (2020), have found that some of these lethality indicators are in fact associated with firearm surrender injunctions for samples from other states, but the research overall is inconclusive. Multiple studies have examined whether weapon use, threats to kill, or reported defendant firearm access influences the odds of receiving a granted DVPO at all, and have yielded either null or inconsistent results (Bejinariu et al., 2019;Lucken et al., 2015). In most states, judges use discretion when interpreting whether a case meets statutory requirements and whether they believe a plaintiff's allegations are credible. ...
... The CASE IPV study did not have a predetermined sample size; rather, we observed eligible cases during specific 2-week observation time periods for eligible counties. After over a year of data collection, we had a sample size of n = 406 total eligible DVPO cases (n = 330 of which were granted), which is similar to the sample sizes used in other DVPO research studies (Bejinariu, 2016;Bejinariu et al., 2019;Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016;Lucken & Rosky, 2016;Lucken et al., 2015;Wallin & Durfee, 2020;Webster et al., 2010). Still, it could be that we were not sufficiently powered to detect smaller effect sizes for factors such as defendant firearm access or weapon threats and their association with DVPO firearm restrictions. ...
Research summary
We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016–17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders ( n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession ( n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender ( n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases).
Policy implications
Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.
... In addition, children of perpetrators and other family members may not realize the threat they themselves face and think to apply for a PO if they had not been victimized by the perpetrator themselves. Often when applying for a PO, applicants must demonstrate risk of harm to themselves from the perpetrator, not just a history of violence against the perpetrator's intimate partner (Lucken, Rosky, & Watkins, 2015;American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, 2008). Especially if a family member, friend or colleague of the intimate partner is working to help the victim leave the perpetrator, they may be unknowingly placing themselves at higher risk of violence (Chabot, Tracy, Manning, & Poisson, 2009). ...
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.
... Civil hearings do not require the approval of a state prosecutor (Johnson & Dawson 2010) and are often scheduled within a week of victims' initial filing (Buzawa & Buzawa 2003). Civil protection orders also require a lower burden of proof than criminal cases, needing only a "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to proceed (Finn 1991;Lucken et al. 2015;Wan 2000;Weissman 2007). This lower standard makes civil protection orders more available to victims who have not sought formal medical or police confirmation of their abuse, or who have fewer confidants who can corroborate their accounts of abuse (Cahn 1991;Durfee 2010). ...
... Previous research has shown that the race and gender of petitioners and respondents (Basile 2005;Muller, Desmarais, & Hamel 2009), the presence of children, the type of relationship between the parties (married, divorced, dating, etc.), references to a firearm (Jordan et al. 2008;Lucken, Rosky, & Watkins 2015;Yearwood 2005), and the organization and quality of victim narratives (Durfee 2009;Fitzgerald and Douglas 2020) affect civil protection order outcomes. For example, Vittes and Sorenson's (2006) analysis of petitions filed at a Los Angeles County domestic violence clinic found that the mention of sexual assault in a petition, but not mention of a firearm, was associated with receiving a temporary protection order. ...
... Most victims in the sample were female (85%), and over 54% of the victims were currently dating, married to, or living with the respondent at the time they filed their petitions for civil protection orders. These findings are similar to those in other studies (Harrell & Smith 1996;Harrell et al. 1993;Lucken et al. 2015). ...
Civil protection orders are one of the most widely used legal interventions for intimate partner violence. Every American state has legislation that allows victims to seek legal remedies through protection orders such as preventing abusers from contacting them, requiring perpetrators to stay away from specific locations, and ordering removal of firearms. However, judges do not grant every petition for a protection order. This study analyzed over 1000 civil protection order cases from Nebraska to identify how factors not prescribed in the legal statute contribute to a determination of whether victims receive protection. The results suggest that victims' gender and the counties in which they file influence victims' chances of obtaining a protection order. Male victims, victims with children with their abuser, and married victims are significantly less likely to receive protection orders, even after controlling for the severity, recency, and type of abuse. Both male and female victims who file their cases in metropolitan counties are more likely to receive protection orders than their nonmetropolitan counterparts.
... Because ID:p0165 of research finding large amounts of judicial discretion with CPOs, a recent article reported on the factors that might influence judicial decision-making in CPO cases. Lucken, Rosky, and Watkins (2015) found that the factors that significantly associate with the denial of a CPO were surprisingly not the illicit behaviors of the respondent, but whether the respondent was employed, had representation, whether the respondent objected to the CPO, and whether the respondent had previously sought a CPO themselves against the petitioner (Lucken et al., 2015). While the body of literature around judicial discretion in CPO cases is modest, there is no research that examines the interactions between hearing officers and victims, and how these behaviors influence victims who are seeking a CPO. ...
... Because ID:p0165 of research finding large amounts of judicial discretion with CPOs, a recent article reported on the factors that might influence judicial decision-making in CPO cases. Lucken, Rosky, and Watkins (2015) found that the factors that significantly associate with the denial of a CPO were surprisingly not the illicit behaviors of the respondent, but whether the respondent was employed, had representation, whether the respondent objected to the CPO, and whether the respondent had previously sought a CPO themselves against the petitioner (Lucken et al., 2015). While the body of literature around judicial discretion in CPO cases is modest, there is no research that examines the interactions between hearing officers and victims, and how these behaviors influence victims who are seeking a CPO. ...
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.
... Judges are more likely to deny a PO if the petitioner has a pending custody case and files on behalf of children, the respondent is male, the parties are not in an intimate relationship ( Jordan et al. 2008), the respondent is employed, contests the order, has sought an order previously, and has an attorney (Lucken et al. 2014). For Vittes and Sorenson (2006), severity of abuse alleged, and firearms did not have a significant impact on granting a PO. ...
... A CPO is meant to afford direct relief and increase safety for individuals experiencing violence. However, decisions to grant CPOs lie with the judiciary and are often an issue of "he said, she said" (Lucken, Rosky, & Watkins, 2015), which means the policy does not always provide the safety that it is meant to. ...
This chapter addresses the value of preventing trauma, reducing its impact, and advancing human rights through social policy. We begin by discussing a rationale for extending a trauma-informed and human rights perspective to social policy. Secondly, we establish why it is important for individuals in the helping professions to apply a trauma-informed and human rights lens to policy analysis and to engage in policy advocacy. Thirdly, we review a framework for trauma-informed and human rights-based policy analysis and provide an illustration applying the framework to fair wage policy. We conclude by detailing the link between policy analysis and advocacy, articulating how members of the helping professions can advocate for trauma and human rights-informed policy change at local, state, federal, and international levels.
... Weapon Use Previous research has also examined the impact of firearms as another case factor influencing these legal decisions. Surprisingly, two studies found that the mention of a firearm in the application did not increase the victim's likelihood of receiving a protection order (Lucken et al. 2015;Vittes and Sorenson 2006). Yet, and importantly, the role of a weapon becomes significant when the analysis if bifurcated by whether or not the offender objects to the protection order; when they object, weapon becomes the most important factor (see Lucken et al. 2015). ...
... Surprisingly, two studies found that the mention of a firearm in the application did not increase the victim's likelihood of receiving a protection order (Lucken et al. 2015;Vittes and Sorenson 2006). Yet, and importantly, the role of a weapon becomes significant when the analysis if bifurcated by whether or not the offender objects to the protection order; when they object, weapon becomes the most important factor (see Lucken et al. 2015). However, despite these findings and limited empirical studies on the role of weapons in these decisions, one would expect the mention of a firearm to increase perceptions of risk of physical danger and increase the likelihood of a protection order being granted, particularly when federal guidelines mandate that all convicted abusers surrender firearms (Diviney et al. 2008). ...
... Yet, Agnew-Brune and colleagues (Agnew-Brune et al. 2015) found that some judges were more likely to grant protection orders when a child was present during the incident, whereas other judges feared that children were only brought up to gain leverage in ongoing custody battles and not out of a need for protection. Even so, as Gondolf and colleagues (Gondolf et al. 1994) discuss, even when protection orders are liberally granted, provisions for protection orders are inadequate to ensure successful separation from the offender particularly if the victim has a low financial status or shared custody of children. 3 Overall, these findings albeit one (Lucken et al. 2015) suggest that when children are mentioned, in some form or another, it leads to higher protection order issuance rates. ...
Using observational data obtained from a sample of 303 protection order hearings in a large Southwestern city, the current study explores the impact of formal (i.e., presiding Hearing Master, legal counsel, courtroom-employed translator) and informal actors (i.e., victim advocate, family members, friends) on civil protection order (CPO) decisions. Several multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the net and context-specific effects of these legal and informal actors on the likelihood of receiving an order of protection and its length of time. When examining the effectiveness of courtroom actors in assisting domestic violence (DV)/ intimate partner violence (IPV) victims with their CPO cases, this study finds that whether or not a victim successfully obtains a protection order, and for how long, depends on a range of case attributes as well as who is actually present in the courtroom with the victim. As these findings suggest, gatekeepers matter depending on a range of case attributes. States should allocate additional resources and funding to non-profit agencies to continue to promote affordable/free legal services through legal aid and other similar legal entities as well as offer continued support for victim advocacy and self-help centers.
... For a PPO to be issued, a "preponderance of the evidence" must show that the respondent has committed an act of violence against the petitioner ("victim," "plaintiff," or "protected party") that meets the legal definition of domestic violence in that jurisdiction. The civil system requires a lower burden of proof than what is mandated for conviction in criminal court (Lucken, Rosky, & Watkins, 2015). ...
... A filing fee is typically required for many court documents; however, some states have waived filing fees for PPOs to reduce financial barriers to victims' safety (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006;Eigenberg et al., 2003). Many victims face the additional obstacle of possible retaliation from their abusers for seeking a PPO (Lucken et al., 2015). Retaliation may include subsequent physical, psychological, or sexual abuse or behavior that puts the victim in fear. ...
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.
... Various studies [17,32,33] show a disparity between the remedies petitioned for by the victims and those that judges are inclined to include in a protection order. The remedies most commonly petitioned for by battered women are a restraining order, temporary custody of minor children, and court-mandated treatment against domestic violence for the violent man [3]. ...
... However, our data revealed that 44% of the women who petitioned did not file a prior complaint with the police. What makes this tool problematic, despite the common use judges make of it, is the fact that in many cases the abused woman's petition for a protection order is the first time she has ever approached any formal institution in general [9,27,32,42], and the apprehension many women feel about contacting the police for fear of retaliation in particular [1,12,43]. This might also explain the large number of women who did not file a complaint with the police. ...
... In this regard, it is important to note that no significant inconsistency was found in the attitude and rulings of judges in the first petition and the petition to extend the order in the presence of both parties, a finding that coincides with those of Yearwood [3] and other studies throughout the world [32,36,38]. ...
The aim of the present study is to describe and re-consider the findings obtained from analysis of 260 protection orders that were granted in cases of violence by men against their partners. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Law was enacted in Israel in 1991. The data collection for the study took place 10 years later, after the 1996 amendment was enacted. In this article I revisit the data, the only empirical data on protection orders in Israel, and examine both the process of obtaining protection orders and several attendant issues that are relevant to the procedure, such as the remedies the law offers and the use (or lack of it) judges make of them. The study compares the first ex parte hearings and the second hearings, and the discussion and summary sections provide an insight into the problems emerging from the description of the situation in Israel in light of the current knowledge existing in the world today.
... A main assumption of this CPO hearing outcome research is that judicial decisions may be biased and/or ill-informed, leading to inappropriate denials of CPOs and ultimately victim dissatisfaction with the courts. Operating on this assumption, these analyses have examined the impact of such factors as alleged level of violence, prior injunctions, race/gender of petitioner and respondent, harm to others, presence of children, threats to kill, employment status of respondent, and presence of attorney on hearing outcomes (Basile, 2005;Durfee, 2009;Gondolf et al., 1994;Jordan et al., 2008;Lucken et al., 2015;Muller et al., 2009;Vittes and Sorenson, 2006;Yearwood, 2005). ...
... Florida statutes governing decisions to ultimately grant or deny CPOs are written in such a way as to allow discretion and varying interpretations of the law (DeJong and Burgess-Proctor, 2006;Eigenberg et al., 2003;Lucken et al., 2015). The standard to be applied by Florida judges in the case of CPOs follows the rule of the 'standard discretion of the court based on a preponderance of the evidence' (American Bar Association, 2009). ...
... For example, research on 'blame and believability' (Horney and Spohn, 1996) suggests that the socio-economic status of the victim affects the actions of criminal justice officials. Some research on judicial decisions in CPO cases indicates that the presence of counsel (Durfee, 2009) and the level of violence alleged by the victim can affect hearing outcomes (Lucken et al., 2015;Vittes and Sorenson, 2006). Based on the variables identified in this select research, Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the association between judicial grade and the race/ethnicity of petitioner/ respondent; presence of counsel for petitioner/respondent; English speaking petitioner/respondent; and allegations of threats of weapon use, death threats, or major battery/assault. ...
In the USA, civil protection orders, commonly known as restraining orders, have been underutilized as a means of protecting victims of intimate partner violence. It has been proposed that part of the reason for this underutilization is victim apprehension over treatment by the courts. To improve the experience of accessing legal relief, Court Watch programs have been implemented in various jurisdictions across the country. Court Watch programs monitor judicial behavior on several dimensions, including whether interactions with victims are informational, explanatory, participatory, and respectful. Using secondary data obtained from a Florida Court Watch program, this study examines judicial behavior in 500 civil protection order hearings for intimate partner violence. Applying quantitative and qualitative analytic strategies, we examine Court Watch perceptions of judicial behavior, the association between Court Watch perceptions of judicial behavior and civil protection order outcomes, and factors that might account for judicial behavior.
