‘Not bullet proof’: The complex choice not to seek a civil protection order for intimate partner violence
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| Author | Alesha Durfee,Allison Ward-Lasher,Jill Theresa Messing,Meredith E Bagwell-Gray |
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758021993338 |
| Subject Matter | Special section articles |
Special section article
‘Not bullet proof’: The
complex choice not to seek
a civil protection order for
intimate partner violence
Jill Theresa Messing
Arizona State University, USA
Meredith E Bagwell-Gray
University of Kansas, USA
Allison Ward-Lasher
Arizona State University, USA
Alesha Durfee
Arizona State University, USA
Abstract
Protection orders (POs) are one legal system resource available to survivors of intimate partner vio-
lence. Many survivors choose not to obtain a PO, yet prior research has not examined the perspectives of
these survivors. This study examined the open-ended survey responses (n¼308) regarding the choice
not to obtain a PO by survivors residing in emergency shelters in the United States. Content analysis
indicated that many survivors made deliberate decisions to not seek safety through this venue. Survivors
indicated that a PO may increase their partner’s violence, identified substantial barriers, evaluated a PO as
unnecessary, preferred alternative strategies, were dealing with complex partner dynamics, and chose to
protect their loved ones by not seeking a PO. Women with marginalized identities, in particular, indicated
that there are multiple costs to seeking interventions within the legal system. Structural changes are
needed within the legal system to facilitate access to justice for survivors.
Keywords
Protection orders, intimate partner violence, help-seeking, legal interventions
Corresponding author:
Jill Messing, School of Social Work, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave, Suite 800, Phoenix AZ 85004, USA.
Email: Jill.Messing@asu.edu
International Review of Victimology
2021, Vol. 27(2) 173–195
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758021993338
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Worldwide, an estimated 35%of women report experiencing physical or sexual intimate partner
violence (IPV) and 38%of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner (World
Health Organization (WHO), 2017). In the United States, approximately 36%of women report IPV
in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). Women of color report IPV at higher rates (up to 53.8%) than
white women (Black et al., 2011) and are at high risk for homicide (Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2016). IPV is not limited to physical violence; 48%of women in the United States
have been psychologically abused (i.e. intimidation, threats, humiliation, coercive control) by an
intimate partner (Black et al., 2011).
Over the last 40 years, the legal system has become the primary response to IPV in the United
States (Durfee, 2012; Goodmark, 2018; Messing, Ward et al., 2015). However, there are many
complicated reasons why the criminalization of domestic violence has been problematic, espe-
cially for vulnerable and marginalized women of color who become ‘victim-defendants’ when they
are mistakenly arrested for domestic violence (Crager et al., 2003; Durfee, 2012; Goodmark, 2008,
2018; O’Neal and Beckman, 2017; Richie, 2012). In addition to structural issues such as over-
policing within communities of color, on an individual level, survivors report calling the police in
an effort to stop the violence and no t because they want their partner ar rested or prosecuted
(Richie, 2012). Yet policies such as mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution remove discretion
from survivors (Messing, Becerra et al., 2015). Legal system interventions function to separate an
abuser from a victim; once legal system intervention occurs, survivors may not be able to make
decisions about the amount and type of contact with their abusers that they feel is safe and
necessary (Goodmark, 2012).
In contrast to legal system interventions that remove decision-making from the victim once the
police are called, the decision to file for a Protection Order (PO) rests in the hands of the survivor
(Conner, 2015). POs (also called restraining orders, orders of protection) are a common interna-
tional intervention, but the specifics of legislation, eligibility, procedures, and enforcement of POs
varies widely between countries as well as between states or territories within the same country
(Cordier et al., 2019). In the United States, the protection order process generally includes the
‘petitioner’ obtaining a temporary or short-term order, filing for a longer-term order (e.g. 1 year, 2
years, 5 years), and appearing before a judge who determines whether there was a domestic or
intimate relationship and whether the ‘respondent’ threatens the petitioner’s safety (Cattaneo et al.,
2016). In the state where this research was conducted, there is no initial temporary order; rather, the
order must be served on the respondent within one year of obtaining it and is in effect for one year
after service, unless the respondent contests it. If the order is contested, the petitioner and respon-
dent appear in the civil court where a judge makes a determination about potential harm to the
petitioner based on a preponderance of evidence.
The overall goal of POs is to prevent re-abuse and decrease levels of violence by prohibiting
contact between a petitioner and a respondent (Durfee, 2009; Stoever, 2014). However, within a
PO, survivors are able to request provisions (e.g. removal of firearms, no abuse) that they feel best
meet their needs and provide safety for their families (DeJong and Burgess-Proctor, 2006;
Richards et al., 2018). Violations of POs are managed within the criminal legal system through
arrest and prosecution, although petitioners have some control over enforcement through reporting
violations to police. POs are the most common court intervention for IPV survivors (Fleury-Steiner
et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2018). These orders are unique among criminal and civil interventions
in cases of IPV as they focus on survivor safety instead of offender accountability (Conner, 2015;
Stoever, 2014; Durfee and Goodmark, 2020).
174 International Review of Victimology 27(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial