Intimate Partner Violence: Access to Protection Beyond the Pandemic

Civil protection orders are the most common legal remedy victims pursue in response to intimate partner violence (“IPV”). They are more empowering for victims than the criminal legal system because victims themselves, instead of prosecutors, drive the process, and they offer more flexible and tailored relief. This Article argues that victims should be able to choose how they file petitions and participate in civil protection order hearings, and that judges should be required to honor those preferences absent good cause. This conclusion is driven by two new, original sets of empirical data collected from IPV survivors who have sought civil protection orders and legal services providers who assist victims with navigating the process. The data from legal services providers provide a picture of court protective order procedures in jurisdictions across the country from before, during, and in the late stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, once public health restrictions were generally lifted. This complements the rich data about the lived experiences of survivors who sought a protection order against their abuser during the pandemic in one of New York City’s five family courts. 85% of participants in this study are women of color, whose lived experiences are especially important to understand because they comprise a population that is disproportionately impacted by IPV. The data indicate that IPV victims have diverse preferences with respect to method of participation in hearings, based on their varying needs, concerns, priorities, and circumstances. The current landscape of procedures across the country largely fails to account for this diversity by mandating a particular participation method or by allowing individual judges to do so in accordance with their own preferences. Based on the research results, this Article argues for codifying “accessible process pluralism” in state protective order statutes. This statutory framework would give petitioners the opportunity to indicate their hearing participation preference on the petition itself and require judges to follow these choices absent good cause, among other accessibility-focused provisions. By harnessing the innovations and lessons from the pandemic, this proposal promotes survivor empowerment and access to justice for both petitioners and respondents.