ABSTRACT
Civil orders of protection (OPs) are the only victim-initiated legal intervention for intimate partner violence. The OP process is unique because victims write a narrative account of abuse to inform judges' decision-making. Historically, feminist scholars have considered OPs as empowering to victims, as they can signal strength-based change and requesting needed relief. OPs also serve as an important tool for some mothers who need temporary protection related to child custody and visitation. Studies of OP narratives have found that content related to future risk is associated with securing an OP, including allegations of physical and severe violence, suggesting that OPs provide needed protection. At the same time, the OP process is disempowering for some women. The content and quality of survivors' OP narratives vary greatly, and studies have found that well-written accounts are positively associated with securing OPs, uncovering the potential influence of judges' implicit biases. This study used logistic regression to explore how violence risk and writing quality related to the receipt of emergency OPs in a sample of 90 petitions filed by women with minor children in a large Midwest County. As expected, violence severity was positively associated with securing an OP, controlling for the mention of other cases/orders and legal representation. However, the association was no longer significant when writing quality was considered; specifically, greater readability was associated with being granted an OP. Linear structure and appearance of narratives were not related to OP outcomes. Findings underscore the ongoing need to explore how the written narrative requirement of the OP process (dis)empowers survivors and the role implicit biases may play in judicial decision-making in civil OP proceedings.
