ROXANNA CHAVEZ

Does Marital Status Make a Difference in Obtaining an Order of Protection?

INTERNSHIP: WHO ARE WE

LITERATURE REVIEW: INFLUENCES TO IPV

SOCIETY

Gender Issues• Marriage• Level of Constraint

Dependency• Economic• Emotional

Latino Culture• Differences on immigration status and

length od time in the US

DV INTERFERES WITH DAILY LIFE

Employment• Latino Culture

ChildrenMental Issues• Sleep disturbances• Level of Commitment• Depression• Anxiety• PTSD

LIT REVIEW: HELP-SEEKING

HELP SEEKING PATTERNS

Latinas help-seeking difference

• Medical• Police

OvertimeMental Health

COURT SYSTEM

CriminalCivilO.P.

RESEARCH QUESTIONIn the current study we extend previous research by examining the relationship between clients that come to

@M to seeking out Emergency Order of Protection (EOP) and OP against their abuser and the difference in married and non-married victims' likelihood to obtain one of these types of protection. This research approach can determine how marital status impacts frequency in obtaining OPs against their abuser. This research paper will add to the existing evidence of IPV and the court system.

I hypothesize that non-married clients will obtain OPs at a much higher rate than married victims.

METHODSParticipants• Of the 60 participants 50% were single, 46.7% were married, and 3.3% were divorced. Of the 60 participants,

93.3% of the participants were identified as Hispanic and 6.7% as non-Hispanic. The racial background of the participants are as follows: 10% identified as white, 5% identified as black, and 85% identified as unknown. 98.3% of the participants were female and 1.7% were male.

• Those 60 participants reported their abusers as husband (43.3%), ex-husband (1.7), boyfriend (16.7%), ex-boyfriend (35%), wife (1.7%), and girlfriend (1.7%). Of those 60 participants 86.7% identified their abuser as Hispanic and 13.3% identified their abuser as non-Hispanic. Of those 60 participants 5% identified their abusers as white, 6.7% identified their abusers as black, 1.7% identified their abusers as Middle Eastern, and 86.7% identified their abusers as unknown. Those 60 participants identified their abuser as 96.7% as male and 3.3% as female.

Procedures▪ Informed Consent▪ Data Collection

RESULTSEOP

 Frequenc

y PercentValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid .00 5 8.3 8.3 8.3

EOP 30 50.0 50.0 58.3Interim 8 13.3 13.3 71.72nd Interim 9 15.0 15.0 86.7EOP denied case1

2 3.3 3.3 90.0

EOP denied case2

6 10.0 10.0 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0  

CivilOP

 Frequenc

y PercentValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid .00 18 30.0 30.0 30.0

plenary 14 23.3 23.3 53.3court denied 5 8.3 8.3 61.7client dropped case

23 38.3 38.3 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0  

CriminalOP

 Frequenc

y PercentValid

Percent

Cumulative

PercentValid .00 42 70.0 70.0 70.0

plenary 9 15.0 15.0 85.0client dropped case 9 15.0 15.0 100.0

Total 60 100.0 100.0  

Overall 70% of the cases were held in the civil court and 30% were held in the criminal court.

CHI-SQUARE

COMBINING BOTH THE COURT SYSTEMS

DISCUSSIONNo significant results but.....• The court did not deny the petition for the participant and this could be a result of the judge taking into

consideration the public’s interest or third parties.

• Findings did reveal that in the case of divorce victim status that the courts did not denied the victim any form of order of protection.

• Another definite finding was that half of the sample size dropped after obtaining an emergency order of protection and did not pursue for the final order.

• more married participants received the final in the civil court (n=8) than in the criminal court (n=3). The opposite is true for more single participants receiving the final in the criminal court (n=6) than the civil (n=6).

LIMITATIONS

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS