Protected or Prejudiced? Assessing Race, Gender, and the Role of Minors in Order for Protection Cases

• In Event: Sources of Sentencing Disparities in Various Court Settings and Case Types

Abstract

Orders for protection (OFPs) are civil orders that prohibit contact between a petitioning party and a respondent if a judicial officer determines there is an immediate or present threat of harm. In assessing OFP petitions, judges may grant relief without a hearing (ex parte relief), grant temporary ex parte relief pending a hearing, order a hearing while denying ex parte relief, or deny the petition entirely. Denials often occur due to insufficient evidence of a petitioner’s claims of violence and abuse. However, research indicates that a petitioner’s race and gender, influenced by racialized and gendered controlling images around parenthood such as “welfare queens” or “matriarchs,” also affect case outcomes. Despite these findings, criminological research has yet to investigate how race and gender shape OFPs filed on behalf of minors or requests for specific relief, such as temporary custody. Utilizing a sample of OFP cases from a single Minnesota county (N=506), this research explores how racial and gender identity, along with the involvement of children, influence the likelihood of receiving ex parte relief. Identifying factors that impact judicial decision-making in such cases is crucial for enhancing victim safety and addressing how OFPs maintain and possibly worsen inequality for victims of violence.

Author

• Elizabeth Lyne, University of Missouri-St. Louis