A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection

SamaelET · 2022-06-15T20:39:22+00:00

Are male victims of domestic violence provided the same protections as female victims? With increasing entanglement of custody and domestic violence law, the answer to this question is critical for fathers embroiled in disputes where allegations are sometimes made to secure custody of children. All non-impounded requests for Abuse Prevention Orders initiated in Massachusetts’ Gardner District Court, in the year 1997, involving opposite gender litigants were analyzed to determine if court response to the associated allegations is affected by the gender of those litigants. These orders were previously examined and male and female defendants were found similarly abusive. By studying the characteristics of each case, and overall court response at court hearings, a determination is made concerning any evident gender trends in the aggregate court response to requests for protection. Despite gender-neutral language of abuse prevention law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application of that law favors female plaintiffs.

Massachusetts’ domestic violence victims can first request protection from abuse at an Ex Parte Hearing before a district court judge. The defendant is usually not present during this hearing and therefore does not have the opportunity to defend him or herself. At the Ex Parte Hearing, a judge can issue an emergency Abuse Prevention Order. Within 10 days of the initial request for protection a judge may allow another hearing, called a Ten-day Hearing. This hearing is mandatory if an Abuse Prevention Order was granted at the Ex Parte Hearing. At the Ten-day Hearing defendants have the first opportunity to present a defense. At this time a judge must decide if an existing order is to be extended or a new order granted. Abuse Prevention Orders issued at Ten-day Hearings usually stay in effect for 1 year

Ex Parte analysis examines three possible responses available to a judge considering a plaintiff’s request for an Abuse Prevention Order at an Ex Parte Hearing. First, a judge can deny the request. If the request is denied, the order is not granted and the case is closed. Second, a judge can defer the request. In this case the judge also does not grant an emergency Ex Parte Abuse Prevention Order, but schedules a Ten-day Hearing

Ten-day analysis examines five outcomes possible at Ten-day Hearings. First, should the plaintiff not appear, the case is usually dismissed. [...] Second, a judge can deny the request. This response is only possible if no order was granted at an earlier Ex Parte Hearing. Third, the order can be judge vacated. In this case the judge decides not to extend an Ex Parte Abuse Prevention Order that was granted at an earlier Ex Parte Hearing. Fourth, the order can be plaintiff vacated. In this case the plaintiff requests that
an already existing Ex Parte Abuse Prevention Order not be extended. In these first four cases, a new order, or an extension to an already existing order, is not granted and the case is closed. Lastly, a judge can grant a new Abuse Prevention Order. In this circumstance the case remains active.

The different profils of protection order :

*A2 Defendant ordered not to contact the plaintiff

*A3 Defendant ordered to immediately leave and stay away

from plaintiff’s residence

*A6 Custody of children is awarded to the plaintiff

*A12 Defendant ordered to immediately surrender guns,

ammunition, gun licenses and FID cards

*A14 Police records are on file

Ex Parte Hearings :

Female requests were granted 91% of the time while male requests were granted only 66% of the time (Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail), p < 0.001). Inequality is primarily attributed to deferrals. Male plaintiffs were more than four times as likely to have a decision on their case deferred until a Ten-day Hearing was held (Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail), p < 0.001).

Deferring a decision often discourages a plaintiff from further pursuing their request. If a decision is deferred, a plaintiff may view the court as unresponsive to their request for immediate protection. At this point they may decide not to take additional time from work to attend the Ten-day Hearing. Also, if a defendant is allowed to contact the plaintiff during the time preceding a Ten-day Hearing, a defendant may discourage a plaintiff

from pursuing their request.

Analysis of the overall response of the court to requests at Ten-day Hearings, presented in Table III, shows that the most striking gender difference is the number of requests that are denied. Male requests were denied 16% of the time compared to 1% for female plaintiffs (Fisher’s Exact Test (two-tail), p < 0.001). Also, a large number of cases were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to appear or because they explicitly asked the judge to vacate the order. Cases involving female plaintiffs were dismissed or plaintiff vacated 29% of the time compared to 19% of the time for cases involving male plaintiffs.

Analysis of court response when a plaintiff pursues their request, presented in Table IV, shows that a female plaintiff who pursues their request at a Ten-day Hearing is less likely to have their request denied or vacated by the judge, and more likely to have their request granted than are their male counterparts. Females acquired Abuse Prevention Orders 94% of the time when they pursued their requests at Ten-day Hearings while males who pursued their requests acquired protection only 71% of the time.

Female plaintiffs were 288% more likely to receive custody of children. Male plaintiffs only received a custody award 8% of the time compared to 31% of the time for female plaintiffs. However, male plaintiffs simply did not secure long-term custody of their children with Abuse Prevention Orders. In our population a couple of male plaintiffs were temporarily awarded custody of minor children at Ex Parte Hearings, but none were awarded custody at a Ten-day Hearing, where the order usually stays in effect for a year.

Male plaintiffs were also 21% points, or 32%, less likely to have the judge order the defendant to surrender any firearms (A12). This was true even though male plaintiffs in this population more frequently alleged that women wielding dangerous weapons attacked them (Basile, 2004). Police were also 100% more likely to have been involved (A14) if the plaintiff was female. Police were involved 44% of the time if the plaintiff was female but involved only 22% of the time if the plaintiff was male. From our data, it is impossible to tell if police were less responsive to allegations of domestic violence committed against males, or if male plaintiffs were less likely to call the police for help. Males may not have called the police because they are traditionally not conditioned to think of themselves as victims of domestic violence, or because they feared that they may be arrested if they had used physical force to defend themselves.

Title	A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection
Author	SamaelET
Upvotes	6
Comments	3
Date	June 15, 2022 7:54 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/Male_Studies
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/Male_Studies/comments/vd33k3/a_measure_of_court_response_to_requests_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/Male_Studies/a-measure-of-court-response-to-requests-for.1215837 https://theredarchive.com/post/1215837

Comments