NCJ Number
228688
Journal
Journal of Family Violence Volume: 24 Issue: 8 Dated: November 2009 Pages: 625-637
Date Published
November 2009
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Based on an examination of a random sample of 157 petitions for temporary restraining orders (TROs) in a California court that involved intimate partners, dating couples, and married persons, this study determined whether judicial decisions to grant TROs were biased against male victims of domestic violence.
Abstract
The study found that overall, male victims of domestic violence who were seeking TROs were not as likely to receive them as female victims in those cases where low levels of violence were alleged by the plaintiff; however, in cases where moderate to high violence was alleged by the plaintiff, there was no evidence of judicial gender discrimination in the granting of TROs. The study also found that only a small number of petitioners were men, perhaps because research has indicated that male victims of domestic violence are less likely than female victims to express fear of their partners. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that Sacramento Family Court judges may share beliefs consistent with the patriarchal paradigm that holds the view that only women are true victims of domestic violence. In order to compare the frequency with which TRO requests were filed by male and female plaintiffs, researchers conducted Chi-square analyses and calculated effect size using phi coefficients. The same analytical approach was used to examine the distribution of degree and type of alleged violence. Researchers conducted a multinomial logistic regression analysis in order to compare whether alleged violence differed as a function of plaintiff sex. Separate logistic regression analyses were used to examine the roles of sex and level of violence in predicting whether TROs were issued or the case was dismissed. 4 tables and 85 references