A qualitative examination of the impact of judges' decision-making processes on domestic violence protection order issuances

Background: Physical, sexual, and psychological domestic or intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a widespread and serious threat to women’s physical and mental health. In all 50 states, legislation mandates civil protective orders, known as domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs), which prohibit abusive partners from contacting, harassing, assaulting, or threatening the plaintiff. There is emerging evidence that DVPOs are effective for secondary prevention of IPV. However, due to the level of discretion that judges possess, wide variation exists in DVPO denial rates within and across states. Due to the potential negative consequences of not obtaining a DVPO, there is a need to understand the decision-making processes judges use to grant or deny these orders.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a stratified random sample of 20 district court judges in a single state in the Southeastern United States. Interview data were coded and analyzed using Atlas.Ti software to identify key themes relating to judges’ decision-making behavior.

Results: Two key themes emerged from the analyses: (1) Judges often rely on heuristics or internal rules for making decisions and (2) Judges experience anticipatory regret, in that they reported being worried that they would experience regret about their decisions regarding issuing a DVPO if the plaintiff or defendant suffered negative consequences.  

Discussion: Several changes to the process of seeking a DVPO may mitigate the impact heuristics and anticipatory regret have on DVPO decisions, including specialized domestic violence courts, increased domestic violence training for judges, and increased plaintiff access to court advocates.