Domestic Violence—The Laws and the Courts - Protection Orders

A victim in any state may go to court to obtain a protection order prohibiting an abuser from harming her. Also referred to as "restraining orders" or "injunctions," civil orders of protection are legally binding court orders that prohibit an individual who has committed an act of domestic violence from further abusing the victim. Although the terms are often used interchangeably, restraining orders usually refer to short-term or temporary sanctions, while protection orders have longer duration and may be permanent. These orders generally prohibit harassment, contact, communication, and physical proximity to the victim. Although protection orders are common and readily obtained, they are not always effective.

All states and the District of Columbia have laws that allow an abused adult to petition the court for an order of protection. States also have laws to permit persons in other relationships with the abuser to file for protection orders. Relatives of the victim, children of either partner, couples in dating relationships, same-sex couples, and former spouses are among those who can file for a protection order in a majority of the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In Hawaii and Illinois, those who shelter an abused person can also obtain a protective order against the abuser.

In addition to violent physical abuse, petitioners may file for protection orders in other circumstances, including sexual assault, marital rape, harassment, emotional abuse, and stalking. Protection orders are valid for varying lengths of time depending on the state. In thirty states, the orders are in force for six months to a year. In Illinois and Wisconsin the orders last two years, and in California and Hawaii they are in effect for three years. Furthermore, some states have extended the time during which a general or incident-specific protective order is effective. For example, a no-contact order issued against a stalker convicted in California remains in effect for ten years. In Iowa, five-year protection orders are issued and additional five-year extensions may be obtained. New Jersey offers permanent protective orders, and a conviction for stalking serves as an application for a permanent restraining order. Judges in Connecticut may issue standing criminal restraining orders that remain in effect until they are altered or revoked by the court.

Protection orders give victims an option other than filing a criminal complaint. Issued quickly, usually within twenty-four hours, they provide safety for the victim by barring or evicting the abuser from the household. However, this judicial protection has little meaning if the police do not maintain records and follow through with arrest should the abuser violate the order. Statutes in most states make violating a protection order a matter of criminal contempt, a misdemeanor, or even a felony.

The "full faith and credit" provision of the Violence against Women Act was passed to establish nationwide enforcement of protection orders in courts throughout the country. States, territories, and tribal lands were ordered to honor protection orders issued in other jurisdictions—although the act did not mandate how these orders were to be enforced. Most states have amended their state domestic violence codes or statutes to reflect the new requirement, although the states vary widely on how easy it is for battered women to get their protection orders enforced. Courts and law enforcement agencies in most states have access to electronic registries of protection orders, both to verify the existence of an order and to assess whether violations have occurred.

Effects of Protection Orders

In the National Center for State Court study Civil Protection Orders: The Benefits and Limitations for Victims of Domestic Violence (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1997), Susan Keilitz et al. reported that most women who petitioned for a civil protection order had suffered physical abuse for some time. Onequarter of the women interviewed endured abuse for more than five years before obtaining a protection order.

The researchers found that temporary protection orders may be useful even when the victim does not follow through to obtain a permanent order. When victims were asked why they did not return for permanent protection orders, most said that their abusers had stopped bothering them.

Although abusers often violate the protection orders in some way, the orders generally deter repeated incidents of physical and psychological abuse. Keilitz et al. found that the majority of abuse victims felt that civil protection orders protected them against repeated incidents of abuse and helped them regain a sense of well-being. In the initial interviews, 72.3% of the women who had received protection orders reported that their lives had improved. At the six-month follow-up interviews, the proportion had increased to 85.3%. More than 90% reported feeling better about themselves and 80.5% felt safer.

About 72% of participants in the initial interviews reported no continuing problems following the petition for protection orders, compared to 65.3% six months later. The follow-up interviews showed that reports of stalking increased from 4.1% to 7.2%. Reports of repeated physical and psychological abuse also increased. Abusers with a criminal history of violent offenses were more likely to violate protection orders, prompting the researchers to observe that criminal prosecution may be required to stop abusive behavior in this group of perpetrators.

The Strength of a Protective Order

A federal report titled Enforcement of Protective Orders (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, January 2002) observed that while all states have passed some form of legislation to benefit victims of domestic violence, and thirty-two states have integrated these rights at the constitutional level, the scope and enforcement of these rights varies. The report called for law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and judges to be completely informed about the existence and specific terms and requirements of orders and to act to enforce them. John W. Gilles, the director of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, asserted that "[u]nequivocal, standardized enforcement of court orders is imperative if protective orders are to be taken seriously by the offenders they attempt to restrain."

Permanent Civil Protection Orders Reduce Risk

The results of research on civil protection orders were presented by Victoria Holt et al. in "Civil Protection Orders and Risk of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence" (Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 288, no. 5, August 7, 2002). The study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Justice as part of the Interagency Consortium on Violence against Women and Family Violence Research. The researchers investigated whether obtaining a protection order acts to reduce the risk of subsequent police-reported intimate partner violence.

Holt et al. reviewed the cases of 2,691 female victims of intimate partner violence reported to the Seattle Police Department between August 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999. They looked at rates of police-reported physical and psychological abuse in the twelve months following the incident according to the victim's protection order status. Temporary protection orders were generally in effect for two weeks and permanent protection orders were usually in effect for one year. The researchers also followed those victims who chose not to obtain protection orders.

The researchers found that having a permanent protection order in effect was associated with an 80% reduction in police-reported physical violence in the twelve months following an incident of intimate partner violence. They also reported that women who had obtained temporary protection orders were more likely than victims with no protection orders to be psychologically abused in the six months after the reported incident of intimate partner violence.

Holt et al. speculated that temporary protection orders may have restrained abusers from inflicting physical violence, producing a commensurate increase in psychological abuse. They observed that while temporary orders were linked to increased psychological abuse, the orders did not generate the increased physical violence that many victims and service providers fear will ensue. The researchers concluded that concern about increased physical violence after obtaining temporary protection orders may be unfounded, and permanent protection orders may be more powerful deterrents to prevent violence recurrence than previously believed.