Domestic Violence Protective Orders: A Qualitative Examination of Judges' Decision-Making Processes

Abstract

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.

Keywords: assessment; domestic violence; intervention/treatment; legal intervention; perceptions of domestic violence.