The response to domestic violence in a model court: some initial findings and implications

Findings From an Outcome Examination of Rhode Island's Specialized Domestic Violence Probation Supervision Program

“…This finding is consistent with findings from related batterer studies. For example, 69.4% had prior general criminal histories in Charlotte, North Carolina, 59.0% in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and 86.0% in Quincy, Massachusetts (Buzawa et al, 1998;Buzawa, Hotaling, Klein, & Byrnes, 1999;Hirschel, Hutchinson, Dean, Kelley, & Pecsackis, 1991;Sherman & Berk, 1984). Similarly, domestic violence prosecution studies have documented 74.0% had prior criminal histories in Indianapolis, Indiana, and 43.0% had misdemeanor convictions and 20.0% had felony convictions in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Davis, Smith, & Nickles, 1998;Ford, 1990).…”

Challenging the Negative Assumptions Surrounding Civil Protection Orders

“…The origin of this assumption is steeped in the belief that women are misusing the restraining-order process as a shortcut to gain custody of their children instead of going through family court and divorce proceedings (Buzawa et al, 1998). The reasoning follows that by claiming that their partners have abused them, women are able to get quick custody of their children through a temporary order (ex parte order).…”

“…In summary, research has shown that women who seek restraining orders are more likely to have been physically and sexually abused with increasing severity and to have endured the abuse for a long time before they initiated the process (Buzawa et al, 1998;Gondolf, 2001;Keilitz et al, 1997;Klein, 1996;Linares et al, 1999;Logan et al, 2005;Wolf et al, 2000). Battered women do not frivolously seek restraining orders to best their partners in a race to gain custody of their children; instead, they want restraining orders to remain safe, to stop the violence, and to have some measure of control over the process.…”

“…However, "critics of civil protection orders maintain that this remedy perpetuates the idea that domestic violence does not warrant the full force of criminal prosecution" (Keilitz, 1994, p. 80). In addition, critics, researchers, and advocates are unsure whether civil protection orders are effective in keeping victims safe from further abuse, often pointing out that their effectiveness is hindered by the failure of judges and police officers to enforce them (Finn, 1989).The research and anecdotal literatures are replete with assumptions and criticisms by key stakeholders in the restraining-order process, including the fear that restraining orders are used by battered women as a quick method of gaining custody of children-a fear that is usually promoted by divorce lawyers who represent male abusers (Buzawa, Hotaling, & Klein, 1998). In a study by Logan, Shannon, and Walker (2005), key stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, and advocates, provided their perspectives on the restraining-order process and indicated a number of problems with restraining orders.…”

“…The research and anecdotal literatures are replete with assumptions and criticisms by key stakeholders in the restraining-order process, including the fear that restraining orders are used by battered women as a quick method of gaining custody of children-a fear that is usually promoted by divorce lawyers who represent male abusers (Buzawa, Hotaling, & Klein, 1998). In a study by Logan, Shannon, and Walker (2005), key stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, and advocates, provided their perspectives on the restraining-order process and indicated a number of problems with restraining orders.…”