Freedom From Violence: Using the Stages of Change Model to Realize the Promise of Civil Protection Orders

This Article is the first legal scholarship to analyze domestic violence civil protection orders and response systems using the Stages of Change Model from the field of psychology. The Stages of Change Model, which describes how domestic violence survivors end relationship violence, includes five stages: (1) pre-contemplation; (2) contemplation; (3) preparation; (4) action; and (5) maintenance. According to the model, ending intimate partner violence is an iterative and complex process, and survivors typically revisit earlier stages as they progress toward maintaining freedom from violence. The model has been validated by numerous studies and is widely accepted in the psychology community. As a result, it is a powerful tool for evaluating the legal treatment of domestic violence. A heightened focus on the civil protection order remedy is warranted because of its potential to increase the domestic violence survivor\u27s safety and autonomy, unlike recent mandatory criminal policies that give control over arrest and prosecution decisions to the state without regard to a survivor\u27s belief about how the action will affect her safety. The civil protection order is also the remedy that survivors most often choose to address the violence. An exploration of the individual stages in the Stages of Change Model, however, reveals deficiencies in the protection order remedy and suggests procedural rule reforms, substantive law changes, and improvements to legal and advocacy interventions. For example, while current procedural rules and judicial practices penalize petitioners for seeking the court\u27s assistance multiple times, I propose rule changes that would allow petitioners to access the legal system designed to protect them. The Article also offers economic and safety justifications for advocacy support across the stages in response to the current system\u27s failure to address survivors\u27 safety planning needs in the preparation stage and the emotional and tangible resources they need to sustain an end to violence in the maintenance stage. Among other legal reforms, I identify substantive law changes necessary to the maintenance stage, such as making monetary relief statutorily available in protection orders to enable low-income or economically dependent survivors to end violent relationships. The advancements inspired by using the lens of the Stages of Change Model would enable civil protection orders to better respond to survivors\u27 actual experiences and needs and encourage survivors\u27 progression through the stages to achieve freedom from violence

Enjoining Abuse: The Case for Indefinite Domestic Violence Protection Orders

While countless studies demonstrate the complex and dangerous nature of intimate partner abuse, most jurisdictions permit only the entry of yearlong domestic violence protection orders. Judges may assume that danger ceases once the order takes effect, but evidence of the recurrent nature of violence demonstrates the importance of providing judicial protection over time. The brevity of domestic violence protection orders stands in stark contrast to the long duration of orders in other areas of the law, such as intellectual property, corporations, real property, and tax, where courts routinely enter permanent injunctions to protect individuals and businesses against irreparable harm. What explains this differential treatment? Why would the law deny courts the ability to protect those who experience physical and psychological harm at the hands of an intimate partner? This Article is the first scholarship to identify and attempt to explain the dichotomy between injunctive relief for domestic violence and other areas of the law and to explore the potential for indefinite domestic violence injunctions in normative depth. To establish the generally temporary nature of domestic violence protection orders, the Article reports the results of a fifty- state survey on protection order lengths and extension standards, a survey undertaken for this piece. To explain the differential treatment of domestic violence injunctions, the Article situates its analysis in the historic backdrop of the state condoning domestic violence through the husband\u27s right of chastisement and the family privacy theory, ideologies now considered untenable. Recent decades have seen the ensuing struggle to develop the civil protection order remedy in a continuing climate of family law exceptionalism. In conducting a comparative analysis among areas of the law in which permanent injunctions are commonplace, the Article applies to domestic violence cases the equitable principles for permanent injunctions that the Supreme Court recently announced as a four-factor test in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. The Article addresses potential due process concerns and draws heavily on social science to demonstrate the harm of domestic violence, physical and psychological dangers of returning to court, risk of reengaging with an abusive partner year after year, efficacy of protection orders, and inadequacy of other forms of relief. Abuse survivors come to court seeking protection, but current statutory durations often prove inadequate, and violence survivors merit the same protections readily available to property and business interests. To harmonize domestic violence law with other areas of the law, the Article proposes the nationwide availability of indefinite domestic violence protection orders and a presumption that orders be at least two years in duration