No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Denial of Emergency Protection: Factors Associated With Court Decision Making
Abstract
Despite the importance of civil orders of protection as a legal resource for victims of intimate partner violence, research is limited in this area, and most studies focus on the process following a court's initial issuance of an emergency order. The purpose of this study is to address a major gap in the literature by examining cases where victims of intimate partner violence are denied access to temporary orders of protection. The study sample included a review of 2,205 petitions that had been denied by a Kentucky court during the 2003 fiscal year. The study offers important insights into the characteristics of petitioners and respondents to denied orders and outlines individual, contextual, structural, qualitative/perceptual, and procedural factors associated with the denial of temporary or emergency protective orders. Recommendations for statutory changes, judicial education, and future research to remedy barriers to protection are offered.
... IPV has numerous deleterious physical and mental health sequelae. Physical and sexual assaults may result in fatal and non-fatal injuries, trauma-specific and generalized pain, reproductive complications, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and numerous mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (PTS) disorder (Black, 2011;Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000;Dickinson, deGruy, Dickinson, & Candib, 1999;Drossman, Talley, Leserman, Olden, & Barreiro, 1995;Golding, 1999;Hathaway et al., 2000;Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, & Duckett-Pritchard, 2008;Wyshak, 2000). Moreover, experiencing IPV is associated with a variety of chronic health conditions, including arthritis, asthma, high blood cholesterol, body mass index greater than 25, diabetes, and heart disease, as well as higher reported health risk behaviors, including smoking, binge drinking, and HIV risk behaviors, such as intravenous drug use and receiving money or drugs in exchange for sex (Black, 2011;Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013). ...
... Gist et al. (2001) found that women who "did not qualify" for protective orders did not differ significantly in terms of the severity of physical or sexual violence or stalking from those who did qualify. Similarly, a study of DVPO applications in Kentucky found that applications denied for "insufficient acts of violence" did not reflect fewer acts of violence or physical abuse than applications denied for other reasons (Jordan et al., 2008). Finally, a North Carolina study found that the level of IPV severity a plaintiff experienced prior to filing for a DVPO was not associated with whether she was granted or denied a protective order (Moracco et al., 2015). ...
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.
... Ultimately, logistic regression analysis revealed only three significant factors in the TRO decision, namely, mention of sexual assault, child present during the incident, and others being threatened. Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, and Duckett-Pritchard (2008) examined all of the domestic and IPV TRO petitions denied in the state of Kentucky in 2003. Their analysis of these 2,174 denied petitions found the following factors to be associated with TRO denial: being male, filing on behalf of children when child-custody case is pending, statutory requirements for the relationship were not met for IPV, and judicial perceptions that evidence of abuse or imminent fear of abuse was insufficient. ...
... Advocates explained that certain occupations or employers require background checks that include prior PROs as well as a criminal record. 10 In this judicial assessment, having an attorney present may also advantage or enhance the "believability" of the respondent. While Durfee (2009) argues that a petitioner having an attorney works to their benefit, research by Jordan et al. (2008) and Muller et al. (2009) explains why having an attorney can work in favor of the respondent but not necessarily the petitioner, as is the case in this study. Muller et al. claim that many judges across the country believe protective orders are increasingly being used by either party to gain leverage in ongoing family disputes. ...
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.
... Yet, not everyone who applies for a protective order (temporary or permanent) is granted one by the courts. Various contextual, structural, procedural, individual, and qualitative factors contribute to the denial of protective orders (Jordan et al., 2008). Moreover, little research to date has explored victim and perpetrator race as predictors of courts' decisions to grant temporary or permanent protective orders (e.g., Russell, 2012). ...
The legal granting of temporary and permanent protective orders prohibits a perpetrator from engaging in contact with the victim. Although protective orders reduce risk of re-abuse, very little research has explored factors that predict the likelihood that a victim is granted a protective order. Thus, we conducted an archival analysis on data previously collected from a Protection Order Assistance Office in a midwestern region of the United States, testing the influence of victim and perpetrator race on protective order allocations. Specifically, we coded data gathered from 490 petitioners (i.e., victims) seeking a protective order against a perpetrator of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual offending. Analyses revealed that racial minority victims were significantly less likely to receive a temporary protective order compared to White victims – effects that were exacerbated when the perpetrator was White (versus racial minority). These results are in line with existing research and theory regarding aversive racism. Implications for theory, policy, and practice are discussed.
... 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. ...
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.
... More research is available on another exit point in the firearm prohibition process: DVRO petitions that are not granted. Research findings reveal that judges sometimes deny DVRO petitions even in cases in which the DVRO respondent is alleged to have committed severe violence (Gist et al., 2001;Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, & Duckett-Pritchard, 2008). Compellingly, in one study, scholars found that judges sometimes did not grant petitions in cases in which the victims' scores on a validated risk assessment tool indicated a high risk of subsequent serious violence (Nichols-Hadeed, Cerulli, Haukeinen, Rhodes, & Campbell, 2012). ...
Research Summary
We investigated the extent to which the 89 mass shooters who committed their acts from 2014 through 2017 were known or suspected to commit domestic violence prior to the shooting, whether they had been engaged in the justice system in a way that could have led to domestic violence firearm restrictions, and why they were either not legally or not successfully restricted from firearm access. A total of 28 mass shooters were suspected of domestic violence, 61% of whom had been involved with the justice system for domestic violence. At least 6 shooters had potential domestic violence firearm restrictions.
Policy Implications
Implementation of domestic violence firearm restrictions may prevent access to firearms for some potential mass shooters. For this to happen, domestic violence cases need to become known to and move through the justice system to conviction or granting a domestic violence restraining order and the firearm restrictions need to be effectively implemented.
... 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. ...
... Contrary to what would be recommended by past research , our result show that the most important factor considered by prosecutors when granting restraining orders was prior violent criminal convictions, while other risk factors were not taken into consideration to the same extent. Similarly, previous research (see for example Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, & Duckett-Pritchard, 2008) has found that the lack of a prior violent act was one of the major reasons for not granting a restraining order. Although prior acts of violence, often measured as convictions for IPV, are important to consider when assessing the risk for future IPV (Kropp et al., , 2010, it is crucial to bear in mind that there is a first time for every offender, and that not every criminal action results in conviction. ...
Restraining orders can be used as a risk management strategy to reduce the likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV) re-victimisation. The aim of this study was to examine how prosecutors work with cases of IPV, with a focus on their collaboration with police, use of violence risk assessment and implementation of restraining orders. A qualitative analysis was conducted based on semi-structured interviews with five prosecutors operating in two northern police districts in Sweden in 2016. Data were analysed using latent content analysis. Three overarching themes arose: The case, Organization of resources and Interpretation of the law. Each theme was discussed in the context of the prosecutors’ work with IPV. Prosecutors pointed to several inadequacies in the legislation and offered potential solutions that would ameliorate their work. Results also showed that prosecutors seldom used violence risk assessments conducted by police as a basis for issuing restraining orders. The primary reason for this was a lack of clear routines governing cooperation between police and prosecutors in the application process. The results from this study can be used when training criminal justice personnel in order to obtain a better understanding of the difficulties that prosecutors face when trying to protect victims of IPV.
... 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). ...
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.
... First, judges are three times as likely to deny a TRO to male plaintiffs on the basis of failure to meet the sufficiency standard, compared to female plaintiffs (13.5% vs. 4.5%). Second, confirming the analysis of Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, & Duckett-Pritchard (2008) whose study focused exclusively on denied petitions, insufficiency of facts is also the most frequently cited reason overall for denial of a temporary protective order (28/51 = 54.9%). ...
Our knowledge of the role of plaintiff gender in shaping the judicial decision to issue restraining orders rests upon only two studies. Both conclude that judges discriminate against male victims. Each is constrained by small male sample size, few control variables, and limited statistical analysis. We replicate one of these studies. In the issuance of temporary orders we find a gender difference, though with a greatly reduced effect size compared to the earlier study. Legally relevant gender differences may explain this disparity. Plaintiff gender had no effect on the judicial decision to set hearing dates or to issue a permanent order.
... Keilitz et al. found that more than 40% of women had experienced severe physical abuse at least every few months, and nearly one quarter had suffered abuse for more than 5 years before seeking an order of protection. These data may explain in part why the majority of the time when a woman seeks an emergency (or temporary) protective order from the court, it is granted (Jordan, Pritchard, Wilcox, & Duckett-Pritchard, 2008). ...
Research has shown that respondents to protective orders have robust criminal histories and that criminal offending behavior often follows issuance of a protective order. Nonetheless, the specific nature of the association between protective orders and criminal offending remains unclear. This study uses two classes of statistical models to more clearly delineate that relationship. The models reveal factors and characteristics that appear to be associated with offending and protective order issuance and provide indications about when a victim is most at risk and when the justice system should be most ready to provide immediate protection.
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.
Utilizing content analysis, the current study examines 2017 civil protection order statutes for all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to determine their level of comprehensiveness. In analyzing which state’s civil protection order statute is most comprehensive, the following criteria were used: inclusion of (1) gender-neutral language, (2) dating relationships, (3) firearm restrictions, and (4) batterer treatment and/or counseling programs. Two of the items were conceptualized as protective measures for the victim (i.e., use of gender-neutral language and inclusion of dating relationships) while the remaining two focused on the offender and were conceptualized as accountability checks. Findings indicate that the states located in the southeastern region of the country (i.e., South Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky) were the least comprehensive in their civil protection order statutes. Implications for future research are also offered as well as recommendations for improving victim’s experiences with civil protection orders and the court system more broadly.
Research on the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they have only marginal protective value for the victim. The current research This exploratory study investigated how the physical distance and temporal distance between the victim and offender corresponds to the rate of protective order violations. Results indicated that the rate 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 relationships examined (physical, telephone, and cyber). The study concludes with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings and suggestions for future research.
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.
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.
One of the few legal tools for protecting victims of domestic violence is the civil Protection Order (PO). How effective they were in preventing re-abuse was analyzed by examining court and police records from 210 couples in which female victims (or “applicants”) filed POs against their violent partners. Police records for 2 years prior and two years following the issuance of a PO were reviewed. Results indicated a significant decline in the probability of abuse following a PO. Prior to filing a PO, 68% of the women reported physical violence. After filing, only 23% reported physical violence. Several risk factors were assessed and it was found that very low SES women were more likely to report re-abuse as were African-Americans.
This paper is an ecological study of services provided to 392 battered women under a comprehensive domestic violence protocol. It focuses on microsystemic interactions between battered women and battered women's services and legal systems. We examine the relationships between women's receipt of services from a battered women's agency, receipt of protective orders, and completion of prosecution of batterers. We also explore the associations between women's receipt of services and protective orders and their partners' subsequent arrests and police contacts. We use open-ended interviews with battered women and with staff of the battered women's agency to expand and illustrate the quantitative data. The analysis shows that when a woman received battered women's services or had a protective order, a completed court case was more likely and numbers of arrests rose. We found that these associations were strongest when women received both battered women's services and at least one protective order.
Thousands of women each year initiate the process of obtaining a restraining order against a violent partner. Although many women request an emergency restraining order, many fail to return to obtain a final 1-year order. The present study examined factors associated with completion of this process. Sixty-five women who initiated the process of securing a restraining order against a male partner participated in the study. Participants completed an interview, self-report measures, and were followed up to determine final restraining order status. Less than half of the women who initiated the process obtained final orders. Women who indicated an attachment to the abusive partner were less likely to complete the process. Perceived threat to the women facilitated persistence with the process; however, when the threat involved her children, women were less likely to persist. Understanding factors influencing persistence in help seeking, especially attachment and threat, is a crucial step toward enhancing interventions to facilitate efforts toward violence-free lives.
This article examines the role of individual and contextual factors and legal interventions in reducing time to domestic violence revictimization. Drawing on current theory and research, hypotheses are deduced about the effects of these factors. Cox regression and survival analyses are employed to test the hypotheses using court, police, and census data from an urban jurisdiction in Texas. Prior drug use, race/ethnicity, and community-level income were associated with time to revictimization. However, there was little evidence either of interactive effects between race/ethnicity and community-level income or of differential effects of each of three types of legal interventions. Implications for theory, research, and domestic violence interventions are discussed.
Civil protection orders offer abused women a legal means to maintain their residences apart from the abuser and exert some autonomy in their relationships. The implementation of protection order statutes remains, however, largely unclear. Court records were examined for 200 petitioners randomly selected from 674 petitions for protection orders filed in one Pennsylvania county court during the year 1990. Court dockets, court petitions, and protection orders were coded for petitioner background, court factors, case disposition, and protective provisions. Approximately three quarters (76%) of the petitioners did receive a final protection order. In the majority of cases not receiving a protection order, the petitioners withdrew or dropped their petitions. The final protection orders limited the batterer's contact in some way and prohibited his future acts of abuse. However, the provisions regarding restricted contact, child custody and visitation, financial support, and property allocation were much less extensive than requested. Relevant background factors and court factors were not significantly associated with the outcome of the case, except for being in a marriage relationship. While protection orders were liberally granted, the provisions for the orders appeared inadequate to ensure separation from the abuser, given the low financial status of many petitioners and the abuser's visitation or joint custody of the children. Means to ensure more extensive and more comprehensive provisions may be needed.
The empirical literature on stalking was reviewed, and found wanting for greater descriptive detail of the process of stalking. For this study, fifty-five stalking case files from the city attorney's Domestic Violence Unit in a major western metropolitan area were coded for over one hundred variables each. Multiple victimization factors were examined to ascertain the characteristics of stalking victims and to analyze the relationship between victimization, symptomology, and coping strategies. Results indicate that the most common coping strategy was “hung up when they called,” and that victims reported feeling “threatened” more than any other symptom. In addition, as the number and/or breadth of perpetrator tactics increased, the victims experienced more symptoms. A history of violence was reported in the majority of the case files, and the presence of restraining orders had a strong correlation with victimization. Implications for refining current theory and research on stalking and strategies for successful intervention were examined.
Women entering the court system face a challenging experience, in part, because a courtroom can be an intimidating and difficult place for any person, and in part because women victimized by crimes in which the offender is known to them face distinctive difficulties when they seek the court’s remedies. The interface is also made more challenging for women as the literature offers disparate findings as to the efficacy of criminal justice responses and civil remedies. This article briefly explores the unique characteristics of intimate partner violence cases that influence the interface of these victims with the court system. Areviewis provided of research on the criminal justice interventions in cases of intimate partner violence; and research on the efficacy of civil protective orders.
Different reasons compel battered women to seek court orders of protection. Battered women decide to invoke the legal system by determining that they have had “enough.” At this point women must often confront significant barriers to obtaining court orders, most of which involve symbolic and tangible fears. A number of motivations, however, seem to counteract these fears. In addition, women may experience psychological benefits from orders by gaining some measure of control in their lives. A greater understanding of the factors involved in such decision making may assist legal authorities who deal with battered women.
Violence against women has been examined in thousands of research articles and books across multiple disciplines. The extraordinary range of subtopics alone makes it difficult for clinicians, teachers, and researchers to form a coherent picture of the phenomenon.
Women and Victimization: Contributing Factors, Interventions, and Implications is the first book to comprehensively examine and integrate a vast and diverse literature base, drawing from divergent findings to reveal a picture of complexity and of intertwining risk and resilience factors. Why do some women develop serious mental health problems like posttraumatic stress disorder or depression after victimization, whereas others survive seemingly unscathed? Is depression in women a risk factor for victimization and substance abuse, or is it an outcome? This definitive book provides a critical literature review, integrating and analyzing the widespread research on violence and victimization, mental health, and substance use among adult women. Students and professionals working in any of these three major fields will find the book a provocative and indispensable resource. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Are male victims of domestic violence provided the same protections as female victims? With increasing entanglement of custody and domestic violence law, the answer to this question is critical for fathers embroiled in disputes where allegations are sometimes made to secure custody of children. All non-impounded requests for Abuse Prevention Orders initiated in Massachusetts Gardner District Court, in the year 1997, involving opposite gender litigants were analyzed to determine if court response to the associated allegations is affected by the gender of those litigants. These orders were previously examined and male and female defendants were found similarly abusive. By studying the characteristics of each case, and overall court response at court hearings, a determination is made concerning any evident gender trends in the aggregate court response to requests for protection. Despite gender-neutral language of abuse prevention law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application of that law favors female plaintiffs.
Women with histories of interpersonal violence are poorly identified because of barriers in self-disclosure. This study identified differences on maternal health and child behavior between women who report filing a restraining order (RO) and those who do not among a nonreferred sample of women living in high-crime neighborhoods.
During a maternal interview mothers were asked whether they ever filed a RO, the victim/defendant relationship, the number of times, and the year of the filing. Four types of violence were coded independently based on maternal narratives: verbal harassment, verbal threats or intimidation, physical assault, and destruction of property. We controlled for differences between RO and non-RO groups regarding demographic background, partner characteristics, other types of maternal past victimization, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs. Outcomes for mothers include partner aggression (Conflict Tactics Scale-R), perception of health and bodily pain (SF-36 Health Survey), distress symptoms (SCL90-R), posttraumatic stress (PTS)-related symptoms, and partial posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis (modified Diagnostic Interview Schedule PTSD-Module). Outcomes for the child include partner aggression (Conflict Tactic Scale-R), behavior problems (CBC 2-3 or Child Behavior Checklist), and PTS-related symptoms (PTS-related symptom checklist).
One hundred sixty patients between 3.0 to 6.1 years who resided within five residential ZIP codes with a high rate of local crime in the City of Boston were drawn from a pediatric care clinic practice. Patients were participants of a larger study about the impact of community violence on mother-child relations.
Sixty-four (40%) of 160 mothers reported a history of filing a RO against a current boyfriend or husband (39%), ex-boyfriend or husband (44%), someone known (8%), or other (9%), with a mean of 3.9 years (standard deviation = 3.5 years) since RO filing. After controlling for covariates of marital status, immigrant status, public assistance, and lifetime sexual victimization, we found a significant multivariate analysis of covariance group effect on maternal outcomes. Analysis of covariance analyses indicated that mothers in the RO group experienced higher current partner verbal aggression and physical violence to mother, poorer health, and higher PTS-related symptoms, compared with mothers in the non-RO group. More mothers in the RO group met partial lifetime PTSD diagnosis. Unadjusted for maternal covariates, the multivariate analysis of variance analyses on child outcomes (partner aggression to child, behavior problems, and PTS-related symptoms) indicated a nonsignificant group effect.
Among dyads residing in high-risk crime areas, the incidence of RO histories is substantive considering this was a nonshelter, nonreferred sample. The inquiry about the history of a RO may provide a new and efficient marker to quality of current partner relationship, maternal health, and maternal stress-related symptomatology.
Scant empirical research has been conducted on the relationship between threats and violence. The purpose of this analysis is to assess the link between verbal threats of violence and actual physical violence against former intimate victims of stalking. The researcher interviewed 187 female former intimate stalking victims, asking respondents about various characteristics of their experiences. Responses to questions pertaining to threats; history of violence; stalkers' drug and alcohol use; frequency of phone calls, "following," and letters during stalking; and victims' age and education were analyzed as possible predictors of three violence-related dependent variables: (a) whether or not violence occurred, (b) the number of violent incidents during stalking, and (c) physical injury during stalking. The results of linear and logistic regression models reveal that, regardless of the measure of violence, there is an independent, moderate, and statistically significant correlation between verbal threats and subsequent violence. Regression coefficients for drug abuse and alcohol abuse were also statistically significant, but only in predicting physical injury during stalking.
It is unknown how victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) who seek civil protection orders differ from IPV victims who do not.
To compare characteristics of women with and without protection orders, 448 women with police or court contact for an IPV incident in Seattle, Washington, were interviewed. Data collected included demographic characteristics of the subject and her abuser, abuse history, and the subject's mental and physical health.
IPV victims who obtained protection orders were more likely than victims without protection orders to be employed full-time, be pregnant, be married, aged over 24, and less likely to be involved with perpetrator at index incident. The perpetrators for both groups were similar, and the majority had a current or previous alcohol/drug problem and a previous criminal history. Both groups of victims had been psychologically and physically abused during the previous year and nearly all had symptoms of depression. However, at the index incident, women who sought protection orders were less likely to be physically assaulted or injured, but more likely to have family members or friends physically assaulted.
Financial independence and abuse of family or friends are important factors associated with the decision to seek a protection order in IPV.
Not all women who apply qualify for a civil protective order. This study compares the type and severity of violence reported by women who qualified with that experienced by women who did not qualify. Ninety women seeking a protective order against a male intimate were interviewed. Findings indicated that 28% of women applying for a protective order did not qualify primarily because of cohabitation requirements or childbearing status. Actual and threatened violence was measured with the 46-item Severity of Violence Against Women Scale. A 17-item questionnaire measured stalking behavior. Levels of reported violence for the preceding 3 months were measured for the two groups. The symbolic threat behavior only of throwing, smashing, or breaking an object was significantly higher for qualifying women. The physical abuse behavior only of being pushed, shoved, or pulled was significantly higher. None of the stalking behaviors were significantly different. Data are urgently needed that document the barriers to abused women receiving protective orders, the relevancy of qualifying criteria, and the effectiveness of protective orders issued.
We compared types and frequencies of intimate partner violence experienced by women before and after receipt of a 2-year protection order.
Participants were 150 urban English- and Spanish-speaking Black, Hispanic, and White women who qualified for a 2-year protection order against an intimate partner.
One woman committed suicide 6 weeks into the study. The remaining 149 women completed all interviews. Results showed significant reductions in threats of assault, physical assault, stalking, and worksite harassment over time among all women, regardless of receipt or nonreceipt of a protection order.
Abused women who apply and qualify for a 2-year protection order, irrespective of whether or not they are granted the order, report significantly lower levels of violence during the subsequent 18 months.
A systematic analysis of statutes regarding personal protection orders (PPOs) was completed for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia to determine which states are most "victim friendly" in protecting women against domestic violence. Indicators used include compliance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the relationship between petitioner and respondent, ease of the PPO administrative process, and severity of punishment for violations. Results indicate that most states have PPO legislation that is consistent with VAWA; however, states differ dramatically in accessibility of orders for victims of violence.
Very little research has examined state legislation on protective orders. This study examined recent state statutes and compared the findings with a landmark 1988 study. Results indicated that more recent laws provided greater access to victims and expanded their eligible populations to include categories that were excluded in earlier legislation (i.e., dating partners, sexual partners, and same-sex partners). Orders increased slightly in duration and there were more access to them outside of normal working hours. Compared with earlier legislation, newer laws were more apt to authorize judges to fashion remedies that address financial matters. Penalties for violations remained relatively stable, although states were increasingly willing to use enhanced sanctions for repeat offenders. States continued to use mandatory arrest to enforce orders, although this trend was not as pronounced as one might have anticipated. Finally, legislators incorporated many aspects of new federal legislation into state statutes.
Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence (NCJ 181867)
- P Tjaden
- N Thoennes
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature and consequences of intimate partner violence
(NCJ 181867). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice.
Civil protection orders: A flawed opportunity for intervention
- P Finn
Finn, P. (1991). Civil protection orders: A flawed opportunity for intervention. In Steinman, M. (Ed.),
Women Battering: Policy Responses. (pp. 155–189). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
[AuQ1] [AuQ1]
[AuQ5] [AuQ5]
Domestic Violence and Abuse Act
Domestic Violence and Abuse Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes § 403-718-785 (1992).
Battered women: Strategies for survival
- K J Ferraro
Ferraro, K. J. (1997). Battered women: Strategies for survival. In A. P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence
between intimate partners: Patterns, causes and effects (pp. 124 –143). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Violence against women in San Diego (NCJ 191838)
- S Pennell
- C Burke
- D H Mulmat
Pennell, S., Burke, C., & Mulmat, D. H. (2002). Violence against women in San Diego (NCJ
191838). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice.
Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers after two years: Development of a predictive model Domestic violence: The criminal justice response
- A R Klein
Klein, A. R. (1996). Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers after two years:
Development of a predictive model. In Buzawa, E., and Buzawa, C. (Eds.), Domestic violence:
The criminal justice response. (pp. 192–213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.