Protection Orders Research Articles

Criminal to Civil Reforms on Stalking: A History and Recommendations for Model Responses

AbstractAs awareness about stalking has grown, so has an understanding that the justice system has not effectively protected victims from that unique crime. In 1990, California implemented reforms in stalking criminal laws, and by the end of the 1990s all states had done so. In 1994, federal anti‐stalking laws were passed. Early research found limited success with new stalking laws as most did not result in conviction. Civil rights of action and protective orders for stalking victims have also been passed by states. This manuscript reviews the history legal reforms to address stalking and offers select recommendations for future reform.

Scientific Analysis of Some Tasks Related to Issuing a Protection Order

The article provides a scientific analysis of some of the circumstances associated with the issuance of a protective order to women who have suffered from violence. The author highlights his views on the concept of “protective order” given by foreign and domestic scientists. An opinion is put forward about taking on a preventive record at the same time when issuing a protective order by involving representatives of the relevant authorities with the subsequent determination of the order of its strict supervision.

Understanding forced marriage protection orders in the UK

ABSTRACT This article examines the use of Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPOs) in England and Wales to determine which framing narratives affect the outcomes of FMPO cases. Forced marriage is marriage without the consent of one or both parties and is legally recognised as a form of domestic violence in the UK that primarily affects women and girls; FMPOs are civil injunctions designed to prevent forced marriage and protect its victims. Although approximately 200–250 FMPOs have been granted annually across Northern Ireland, England and Wales since 2014, little is known about how the legislation functions. This study used a qualitative socio-legal approach to understand the application and interpretation of the law and the broader socio-political context that shapes this process. It analysed 33 FMPO-related judgements, finding that perceptions of culture, consent, disability and victim credibility influenced how evidence was interpreted and how forced marriage was constructed. It also examined case outcomes and found that FMPOs were breached in a substantial minority of cases and that victims with disabilities faced significant barriers to justice. The study makes a number of recommendations to ensure that FMPOs can function effectively, such as providing training for judges and legal personnel and offering greater witness support.

О нарушении логики правового механизма привлечения к ответственности за побои и дополнительных мерах их профилактики

The relevance of the research is determined by a legal gap in the current legislation, which lies in the fact that when bringing a person who has committed a crime under Article 116.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation repeatedly in relation to the same person to responsibility, the state of the criminal record of this criminal is not taken into account.
 In this case, a person who has unexpunged or outstanding convictions, when committing battery for the third time, according to common sense, should be brought to criminal responsibility, and not to administrative responsibility, as is currently the case.
 In order to eliminate this conflict, the authors propose to include part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for the liability of a person who has an unexpunged or outstanding conviction in relation to the same person. At the same time, the authors consider it necessary to include a group of criminal cases considered as cases of public prosecution to part 2 of Art. 1161 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
 The authors also see an urgent problem of the need to improve the effectiveness of the prevention of domestic violence through the inclusion of new legal means in legislation and law enforcement practice. Attempts to implement the norms of international acts providing for legal means of preventing domestic violence in the Russian Federation, as well as the study of foreign experience on this issue, according to the authors, looks ambiguous and is debatable. In particular, the issue of introducing protective orders and orders as administrative and legal means of preventing administrative offenses through the adoption of the federal law «On the Prevention of Domestic Violence in the Russian Federation» is being considered.
 According to the authors, taking into account the foreign practice, there are sufficient grounds to believe that protective prescriptions and some other means will not be able to confirm their effectiveness in Russia.

Brazil’s Maria da Penha Domestic Violence Police Patrols: A Second-Response Innovation in Preventing Revictimization

This article examines an innovative domestic violence intervention: some 300 “second-response” police patrols set up since 2015 by military police forces and municipal guards in cities around Brazil. They enforce court-issued protection orders by paying repeat visits to women at high risk, referring them to support services, and ensuring abusers stay away. Drawing on interviews with officers who founded or now lead these patrols, and on local-level police data and studies, the article analyzes their origins and modus operandi and evaluates their impacts on victims, abusers, the community, and internal police force culture. Available evidence shows that victims enrolled in these programs are much less likely to suffer repeated assault or feminicide than those who are not. The article examines how this intervention fits with the other elements of local protection networks and compares these patrols with second-response police interventions developed elsewhere.

Do Survivors Feel Protected by Family Violence Legislation? Reflections on the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) from Those with Lived Experience.

Civil protection order legislation is the primary mechanism in each of Australia's eight jurisdictions' system-based response to domestic and family violence (DFV). There are many differences across the states' and territories' legislation, with each amended numerous times since their inception in the early 1980s. The latter is exemplified by the new Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legislative framework, the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) (the Act), which was introduced in 2017, following a number of high-profile intimate partner homicides. The aim of the Act was to better protect those who fear, experience or witness family violence (FV). This article reflects on whether that aim is being achieved, from the perspective of those with lived FV experience. We conducted in-depth interviews with eight people who identified as having lived experience (LE) with the Act. The open-ended questions were designed to elicit their observations, experiences, and suggestions concerning the black letter provisions and their implementation. The theme of safety emerged strongly as issues were revealed, including waiting for orders to be served, their duration, the exclusion of children, limits of the definition of FV, such as the omission of cultural and technology-facilitated abuse, as well as inadequate interagency cooperation and information sharing. Their reflections highlight that, while some improvements have indeed been made, there often remains a lack of protection for victims. Drawing on these experiences, we put forward recommendations for amendments to the current regime, which may further promote victim and community safety and reiterate the importance of listening to the voices of those at the coalface of experiencing FV.

Criminal Policy for Legal Protection of Children Victims of Criminal Action of Sexual Violence in the Household

This study is aimed to determine the criminal policy for legal protection of children victims of criminal action of sexual violence in the household. The type of research used is normative legal research which is carried out by examining library research using secondary data sources, both in the form of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials as well as tertiary legal materials. This study conclude that A criminal act is an act that results in a long-term negative impact on the victim, both physically and psychologically. Referring to the provisions in Article 10 of Law Number 23 of 2004 concerning the Elimination of Domestic Violence, legal protection that allows victims of a crime to be obtained, including: a. Protection from the family, police, prosecutors, courts, advocates, social institutions, or other parties, either temporarily or based on the stipulation of a protection order from the court; b. Health services according to medical needs; c. Handling specifically related to the confidentiality of the victim; d. Assistance by social workers and legal assistance at every level of the examination process in accordance with the provisions of the legislation; and e. Spiritual guidance services.

Criminal Protection Orders: Implications of Requested Versus Issued Orders on Domestic Violence Revictimiztion and Mental Health Among Women.

Criminal protection orders (POs), with varying degrees of restrictions on offenders' behavior, are issued by the criminal justice (CJ) system to enhance the safety and well-being of victims of domestic violence (DV). Yet, little research exists to elucidate outcomes associated with their issuance, and no research has examined outcomes of POs that are issued with greater restrictions than what victims requested. Among 187 women who were victims in a criminal DV case with a male intimate partner and who voiced their preference about a PO in the court system, this study examined if women's DV revictimization by their partner and mental health (i.e., posttraumatic stress disorder and depression symptom severity, perceived stress, and fear) are differentially impacted by whether criminal POs issued by the court were more restrictive than what was requested by victims. Results showed that regardless of whether the level of criminal PO issued was more restrictive or not, victims reported significant decreases in victimization and improvement in mental health over time. However, there was greater benefit regarding victimization and mental health outcomes in the degree of change over time for victims with POs that were not more restrictive than those whose POs were more restrictive. Findings are discussed in the context of Therapeutic Jurisprudence and survivor-defined practice, which underscore the importance of victims' input and requests in criminal PO proceedings.

Promoting the Public's Health with Personal Commitment and Gun Safety Policies.

The high level of gun violence in the United States is unique. Self-harm is the leading reason for death from a gun in the white population, and homicide is the leading reason for death from a gun in the Black population. Because three-quarters of gun owners say they could never see themselves not owning a gun, and half of gun owners say owning a gun is important to their overall identity, the path to reducing deaths and other harm from guns is narrow and must be tread with knowledge and skill. The experience of other countries and that of states like Connecticut and Indiana is evidence that gun safety laws - in particular, universal background checks and extreme risk protection orders - can reduce deaths and injury due to gun violence. Safe storage for firearms, preferably out of the home, also reduces the risk of death and injury from guns. The goal of this article, after briefly describing the intensity and causes of gun violence in the United States, is to give the reader some basic tools to become an effective advocate for gun safety and gun violence reduction.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Legal Advocacy of the Gwinnett County Domestic Violence Program

This study examines the effectiveness of a legal advocacy program of the Gwinnett County Domestic Violence program. The legal advocacy program assists the victims to resolve their legal issues. This evaluation focuses on Temporary Protective Orders in the form of Child Custody, Restraining Orders and Possession of Property. The program setting is Gwinnett County, a residential facility that houses 32 women and their children. The sample consists of women who entered the shelter between July 2000 and July 2001. A secondary data analysis was used to collect data, as well as interviews with the legal advocate and the shelter director. Data was collected in the winter and spring of 2002 at the agency where it is maintained manually in the form of written files and records. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data, along with graphs and a Program Logic Model for a fine interpretation of results. The findings of this study revealed that most cases were resolved eventually. However, some cases were not resolved indicating the existence of barriers between system of legal advocacy.

The Roberts Court and Lost ESI

John G. Roberts, Jr. was confirmed as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in September, 2005. Since then, there have been two major changes in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) involving losses of discoverable electronically stored information (esi). These changes address the duties of preserving some esi for federal civil litigation and the sanctions available for preservation failures. The changes were embodied in FRCP 37, once in 2006 and once in 2015. The current Rule 37(e) provisions have always been accompanied by other FRCP discovery provisions on esi, with some predating any version of Rule 37(e). To date, Congress has remained quiet on lost esi in federal civil actions. This article reviews the history behind, and all the current, FRCP provisions on esi, particularly the Rule 37(e) changes. It also reviews the proposed esi changes to Rule 37 in 2013 that were not adopted. These reviews will focus on how the FRCP has addressed and now addresses lost discoverable esi. These reviews are accompanied by an examination of state civil procedure laws on presuit and postsuit esi losses. State laws are examined as they suggest potential FRCP reforms. A brief survey of state spoliation claims, whether in tort, contract, or otherwise, follows because these claims can be pursued in federal courts for either presuit or postsuit esi losses impacting pending civil actions. All this will then serves as the basis for exploring significant issues on lost esi in federal civil actions. Such issues include the uncertainties arising from the FRCP distinctions between esi and nonesi, as well as between varying forms of esi; the challenges in pursuing state spoliation claims in related federal civil actions; and, the problems arising when discoverable esi is lost by nonparties. The explorations will lead to some tentative thoughts on FRCP reforms involving lost esi that would prompt greater justice, efficiency and economy, per the FRCP 1 mandate. Possible new approaches include FRCP amendments broadening the opportunities for presuit esi discovery and creating new avenues for presuit protective orders on behalf of those possessing or controlling relevant esi, perhaps modeled a bit on the recent Arizona Civil Procedure Rule 45.2.

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

BackgroundPerpetrators 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. MethodsFederal 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. ResultsWe 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. ConclusionsGun 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.

Effects of Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator and Victim Race on Protective Order Determinations.

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.

The law to combat violence against women

Concern about the issue of violence against women emerged in society in the second half of the 20th century. The development of networks of associations favours the creation of laws to defend women's rights on a national level and to respond to the European convention. While it is not easy for victims to assert their rights, a protection order is a key tool for protecting women. Through their actions, health professionals can facilitate the use of existing mechanisms.

Dating Violence, Protection Orders, and Gender Inequality: A Cross-state Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation.

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a public health crisis that organizations and individuals in several fields are working to prevent and address. State lawmakers are a group with substantial power to address TDV and intimate partner violence (IPV) through policies including Civil Protection Order (CPO) statutes. Understanding the factors that influence how state legislators craft TDV and IPV policies and how those policies are implemented can lead to policy processes that better serve survivors. Past research suggests the level of gender inequality in a state may be an important influence on TDV policies. This study used a case study approach to compare the processes of adding individuals in dating relationships to CPO statutes in a subset of states (n = 3) with high, middle, and low levels of gender inequality. Results did not suggest that gender inequality was related to variation between states but rather that it was a larger factor that creates the need for TDV policies at all. Relationships between the state IPV coalitions and lawmakers and the historical moment that laws were considered emerged as important factors in interstate variation. Future research can build on these results by further exploring the role of gender inequality in policy processes with additional states or policies and by examining the factors identified here in greater depth. Implications for practice are also discussed.

Reimagining Schools' Role Outside the Family Regulation System

The United States’ family regulation system often begins with well-intentioned professionals making child protection hotline calls, jeopardizing their own ability to work with families and subjecting the families to surveillance. By the system’s own standards, most of this surveillance leads to no meaningful action. Nowhere is this reality more present than in schools. Educational personnel serve as the leading driver of child maltreatment allegations, yet decades worth of data reveal educator reports of maltreatment are the least likely to be screenedin and the least likely to be substantiated or confirmed. In other words, education personnel— whether motivated by genuine concern, which may nevertheless be informed by implicit biases towards low-income families and families of color; fear of liability; or the desire to access services they believe families cannot acquire elsewhere— overwhelm our child welfare system with unnecessary allegations of maltreatment. This reality has fundamentally transformed the relationship between families and schools. Carrying the heavy burden of mandated reporting laws, public schools disproportionately refer Black and low-income families to the family regulation system, abdicating schools’ opportunity to serve these same families in the communities in which they reside. Rather than serving as the great equalizer, public schools increasingly contribute to the carceral state’s regulation of families. This Article argues that schools must shift their role away from the reporting and surveillance of these families, and instead directly provide and arrange for services for families. This change begins with sharply limiting or repealing mandatory reporting obligations (permitting voluntary reports in severe cases)—but that is only the start. Schools are well-positioned to create new pathways to the supports and services from which most families reported to the family regulation system might actually benefit. Schools are already a primary source of food for impoverished children, and can help ensure low-income families access all the public benefits to which they are entitled. Schools can largely refer children and families to the same services that the family regulation system can—such as mental health services and substance abuse treatment—but without that system’s coercive authority and its associated problems. Where some services are tied to the family regulation system’s involvement, then law should permit schools to refer families directly. Schools know which families need legal services to defend their housing, access benefits, obtain orders of protection—or any of the myriad of other supports that poverty lawyers can provide. This shift would tie schools to the families and communities that they serve and benefit those families and communities far more than the surveillance and policing they experience under the current family regulation system.

Firearm Extreme Risk Protection Order Laws and Preemption: New Developments and Outstanding Issues, 50 States, 2020

Firearm violence is a significant public health problem in the U.S. In 2020, there were 610 mass shootings, the highest recorded number according to the Gun Violence Archive, which includes all shootings with ≥4 victims1 (other estimates more conservatively record shooting deaths and exclude certain types). More women are killed by guns in the U.S. than in all other high-income countries, with almost half killed by domestic partners. Previous research found that before an attempted suicide or homicide, there are warning signs that the shooter intends to act.

Criminal Protection Orders Among Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: Women's Experiences of Court Decisions, Processes, and Their Willingness to Engage With the System in the Future.

Consistent with a therapeutic jurisprudence framework, court decisions and processes can have a therapeutic or antitherapeutic effect on intimate partner violence (IPV) victims. To maximize therapeutic effects, IPV scholars have advocated for survivor-defined practices that emphasize the importance of engaging with victims in a collaborative manner that promotes autonomy, choice, and control. However, limited research exists in the context of criminal protection orders (POs). The current study addressed this gap by assessing whether criminal PO match (whether victims received the level PO they requested [i.e., PO match] or not [i.e., PO mismatch]) and victims' subjective experiences of the court process were associated with their willingness to use the system in the future to address IPV. In a sample of 187 women whose partners were arrested for IPV, experiencing the court processes as positive (β = .36, p = .001) and court-related fear (β = .41, p < .001) were positively associated with willingness to use the system in the future. Additionally, PO match moderated the association between subjective court experiences and willingness to use the system in the future. Experiencing the court processes as negative (b = .33, p = .005) and validating (b = -.36, p = .001) was associated with willingness to use the system in the future only for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. While experiencing the court as positive (b = -.40, p ≤ .001) was associated with willingness to use the system regardless of PO match, it was most strongly associated for participants who did not receive the PO level they requested. Results suggest the importance of ascertaining strategies to improve victims' experiences with the court, especially when victims' requests are not met, to increase future engagement with the system.

Public Awareness of and Personal Willingness to Use California's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law to Prevent Firearm-Related Harm.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws temporarily suspend firearm and ammunition access by individuals whom a judge has deemed to be at substantial risk of harming themselves or others. Despite widespread recent adoption of these laws, use of ERPOs has been limited. Barriers to ERPO uptake remain unclear. To assess public awareness and perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use ERPOs in various risk scenarios, and to identify reasons for being unwilling, overall and by firearm ownership status, to inform efforts to improve ERPO implementation. This was a cross-sectional study using data from the 2020 California Safety and Wellbeing Survey, a statewide internet survey on firearm ownership and exposure to violence and its consequences, conducted from July 14 to July 27, 2020. Adult respondents were recruited from the Ipsos KnowledgePanel using probability-based sampling methods. Responses were weighted to be representative of the adult population of California. Awareness and perceived appropriateness of gun violence restraining orders (GVROs; California's official term for ERPOs), willingness to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm, and reasons for being not at all willing to use a GVRO in 1 or more risk scenarios, overall and by firearm ownership status. Of the 5018 panel members invited, 2870 (57%) completed the survey. Of these respondents (mean [SD] age: 47.9 [16.9] years; 52.3% women; 41.9% White, 34.7% Latinx, 14.4% Asian, and 5.8% Black individuals), 65.6% (95% CI, 63.0%-68.1) had never heard of a GVRO or a red flag law. Firearm owners were significantly more likely (20.5%; 95% CI, 15.9%-26.0%) than nonowners who live with owners (6.1%; 95% CI, 3.7%-10.0%; P < .001) and nonowners (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.8%-11.6%; P < .001) to have heard of both a GVRO and a red flag law. After reading a brief description of California's GVRO law, 72.9% (95% CI, 70.2%-75.4%) to 78.4% (95% CI, 75.9%-80.8%) of respondents, depending on the risk scenario, indicated that GVROs were in general at least sometimes appropriate, while 73.2% (95% CI, 70.5%-75.6%) to 83.6% (95% CI, 81.2%-85.8%) said they would be somewhat or very willing to use a GVRO for a family member at risk of harm. Firearm owners reported the highest levels of GVRO appropriateness in 4 of 5 risk scenarios (depending on the scenario, 80.0% [95% CI, 73.6%-85.1%] to 85.6% [95% CI, 79.9%-89.8%]). Nonowners who live with owners reported the highest levels of personal willingness to use a GVRO (depending on the scenario, 83.7% [95% CI, 74.7%-90.0%] to 94.7% [95% CI, 86.2%-98.1%]). The most frequently cited reasons for being unwilling to use a GVRO were not knowing enough about GVROs (44.9%; 95% CI, 39.7%-50.3%), believing the risk scenarios are personal or family matters (26.6%; 95% CI, 22.2%-31.6%), and distrust that the system will be fair (23.1%; 95% CI, 19.1%-27.6%). In this cross-sectional survey study, public awareness of GVROs was low, but perceived appropriateness of and willingness to use these tools at least some of the time was high. Foci for efforts to address barriers to GVRO use in California were identified; similar challenges likely exist in other jurisdictions.

Intimate Partner Violence against Women during the COVID-19 Lockdown in Spain.

Aims: To analyze the temporal and geographical distribution of different indicators for the evolution of intimate partner violence against women (IPV) before, during and after the COVID-19 induced lockdown between March and June 2020 in Spain. Methods: Descriptive ecological study based on numbers of 016-calls, policy reports, women killed, and protection orders (PO) issued due to IPV across Spain as a whole and by province (2015–2020). We calculated quarterly rates for each indicator. A cluster analysis was performed using 016-call rates and protection orders by province in the second quarters of 2019 and 2020. ANOVAs were calculated for clustering by province, unemployment rates by province, and the current IPV prevalence. Results: During the second quarter of 2020, the highest 016-call rate was recorded (12.19 per 10,000 women aged 15 or over). Policy report rates (16.62), POs (2.81), and fatalities (0.19 per 1,000,000 women aged 15 or over) decreased in the second quarter of 2020. In the third quarter, 016-calls decreased, and policy reports and POs increased. Four clusters were identified, and significant differences in unemployment rates between clusters were observed (F = 3.05, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The COVID-19 lockdown fostered a change in IPV-affected women’s help-seeking behavior. Differences between the volume of contacts made via 016-call and the policy reports generated provide evidence for the existence of barriers to IPV-service access during the lockdown and the period of remote working. More efforts are needed to reorganize services to cope with IPV in non-presential situations. The provinces with the highest 016-call and PO rates were also those with the highest rates of unemployment, a worrying result given the current socioeconomic crisis.