Domestic Violence Courts

Since the 1990s, a variety of legal responses to domestic violence have been adopted, including mandatory arrest policies and specialized prosecution units. Simultaneously, victim advocates have developed shelters and supportive programs for victims and children, and worked with other partners to create community interventions with the dual goals of protecting victims and decreasing abuse by perpetrators of domestic violence, such as batterer intervention programs.

Specialized domestic violence courts were informed by such reforms in the legal and advocacy communities as well as a broader problem-solving court movement, such as drug, mental health, community, and reentry courts. Although each problem-solving model has distinct goals and elements, some propose that these models are unified by an overarching shift in focus from the legal process exclusively to more substantive outcomes, such as reduced recidivism, enhanced victim services, and greater responsiveness to community needs. In fact, a 2009 national survey of domestic violence courts and victim advocates detected broad agreement concerning the overarching goals of domestic violence courts as victim safety and offender accountability. Since the earliest dedicated domestic violence courts opened in the mid1990s, more than 200 dedicated courts have been established to address criminal domestic violence cases across the United States. The same 2009 national survey identified domestic violence courts in 27 states across the country as well as internationally (there were more than 50 in Canada and nearly 100 in England by 2008). In addition, integrated or one family/one judge courts as well as courts addressing civil cases have been developed across the country.

This article provides an overview of the various models of domestic violence courts and reviews the underlying principles behind a dedicated domestic violence court.

Types and Models

In a criminal domestic violence court, criminal cases are heard on a separate calendar by one or more dedicated judges. Eligible charges vary by jurisdiction and may include misdemeanor- or felony-level offenses (or both). While some jurisdictions have specific penal code designating domestic violence charges, other common criminal charges may include assault, harassment, menacing, stalking, and criminal violation of a protective (restraining) order. Likewise, precise definitions of eligible relationships between parties vary by jurisdiction, with many courts requiring an intimate partner relationship (typically including parties that are or have been married or living together or that have children in common; in some jurisdictions, a dating relationship is sufficient).

A dedicated civil protective order docket utilizes a separate calendar whereby one or more specially trained judges hear all requests for civil protective (restraining) orders. Some civil protective order dockets also enforce the orders handed down by the court; others do not. Violations of civil protective orders may be heard in either civil or criminal court; some civil protective order dockets are able to handle both civil and criminal actions, whereas others hear only future civil proceedings.

The underlying idea behind integrated domestic violence courts is to bring before a single judge all of a family’s interrelated cases in which the underlying issue is domestic violence. Under this model, criminal domestic violence charges as well as civil protective orders and, in some jurisdictions, related civil cases such as child custody and visitation, abuse and neglect, and divorce actions are calendared before a single judge who can address interrelated family problems in a comprehensive manner.

Key Components

Unlike drug courts, domestic violence courts do not have a national trade organization or a nationally recognized set of core components. However, such courts are generally designed to promote victim safety and defendant accountability, informed judicial decision-making, consistent handling of all criminal domestic violence matters, efficient case processing, procedural fairness, and a concentration of social services for victims and their children. These specialized courts can also build upon other legal responses to domestic violence, including mandatory arrest, a dedicated domestic violence unit within the prosecutor’s office, and evidence-based prosecution (a method in which prosecutors rely on material evidence to prosecute a case rather than the cooperation of the victim). Toward these ends, domestic violence courts commonly implement the following components.

Dedicated Court or Docket for All Domestic Violence Cases

One or more dedicated judges preside over all domestic violence matters (either criminal or civil, or both). A specially trained judge can tailor his or her orders to address all issues, including—as appropriate—criminal and civil protective orders for victims; bail conditions, sentences, treatment mandates, and sanctions for reoffending perpetrators; and visitation and custody orders, support, divorce, and services and treatment services for children. A dedicated judge promotes consistency in handling domestic violence matters and, particularly in integrated models, enables the judge to access comprehensive case information.

Key to the dedicated domestic violence court model is courthouse safety considerations. Domestic violence courts typically create protocols to enhance courthouse safety, including additional court officers who monitor court grounds and parking lots, separate waiting areas for victims and their children, and staggered arrival and departure times for litigants.

Comprehensive Resources for Families

Domestic violence courts seek to provide services to both victims and perpetrators. In criminal domestic violence courts, referrals are often available to each person affected by the crimes. Through a resource coordinator or other specialized staff member, adult and child victims are connected to supportive services, while perpetrators are often mandated to a batterer’s program. Courts may also refer perpetrators to substance abuse programs, parenting classes, mental health services, or other treatment for issues co-occurring with the intimate partner violence. Family and integrated models enable the court to treat the entire family, referring adult and child victims to supportive services while holding the offender accountable through mandated programs. In addition, civil and integrated courts work closely with supervised visitation centers to ensure swift referral where necessary. Civil and integrated courts also seek to enhance litigant access to civil legal service, often having attorneys for both parties on-site for immediate referral.

Domestic violence courts seek to be culturally responsive to the needs of litigants, creating protocols and identifying resources that reflect the language and cultural needs of victims and perpetrators, such as specialized domestic violence tribal courts, innovative collaborations with deaf services, and training of court interpreters on domestic violence.

Compliance Monitoring

Typically, domestic violence courts hold regular compliance review calendars. Increased communication and coordination between the court, service providers, and probation is key to improving accountability for perpetrators. Some courts employ resource coordinators to facilitate this communication; representatives from accountability programs can also appear at court to communicate directly with the judge about the perpetrators’ compliance with mandated programs. With representatives from probation, the defense bar, the prosecutor’s office, and batterer’s programs present, the judge can make swift and consistent decisions if a perpetrator fails to comply with court orders. Judges in integrated and civil courts can also monitor compliance with civil protective order conditions, child support payments, supervised visitation referrals, and parenting-time plans. Responses to noncompliance may include more frequent court appearances, modified protective (restraining) orders, visitation or support, amending or revoking probation, or jail time. The resource coordinator is able to refer offenders to a multitude of programs, including substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and batterers’ programs.

Advocacy for Victims

Increased victim safety is a central goal of domestic violence courts. With that in mind, specialized courts work closely with community victim service providers and commonly have a dedicated victim advocate present during court sessions to provide domestic violence victims with safety planning, counseling, and access to services. Advocates communicate with the resource coordinator to ensure that victims and their children receive coordinated services. The victim advocate also ensures that victims know the status of their cases and is available to escort victims to meetings with the district attorney or other social service agencies. Domestic violence courts seek to coordinate advocacy services for victims to ensure that victims have access to both community-based and system-based advocates (e.g., through the prosecutor’s office).

Specialized Training

Judges presiding in domestic violence courts receive special training, which covers not only operational and legal matters but also the dynamics of domestic violence and the impact of domestic violence on children. Court personnel, such as clerks and court security, also receive specialized training, ensuring that all individuals staffing the court are sensitive to the unique dynamics surrounding domestic violence.

Community Partner Involvement

Domestic violence courts work closely with a network of stakeholders, including police, probation, prosecutors, defense counsel, civil attorneys, victim service agencies, batterers’ programs, mental health services, substance abuse treatment providers, and children’s services and lawyers for children. It is critical that the courts provide continuing forums for communication through regular meetings after implementation. These stakeholder meetings are an important avenue for information sharing and checking in; the meetings can also be a venue for ongoing education.

Data Collection

The active collection and analysis of data— measuring outcomes and process, costs, and benefits—are crucial tools for evaluating the effectiveness of operations and encouraging continuous improvement. Public dissemination of this information can be a valuable symbol of public accountability.

Research on Domestic Violence Courts

Research on the impact of domestic violence courts has been mixed. Criminal domestic violence courts have been most widely studied, with outcome evaluations examining criminal justice outcomes such as recidivism, case processing, dispositions, and sentences. Overall, rigorous quasi-experimental studies have found mixed results in terms of court impacts on recidivism. The impact of domestic violence courts on sentencing practice is similarly unclear. Various domestic violence courts have been associated with both a greater and a lesser use of jail sentences than traditional courts. Regarding conviction rates, although the results are far from unambiguous, multiple studies have linked the implementation of specialized domestic violence courts to increased conviction rates. In contrast, there is evidence that domestic violence courts are more likely than nonspecialized courts to mandate offenders to a wide range of special conditions; domestic violence courts are also more likely to connect victims to services than nonspecialized courts. Results with regard to case processing efficiency have also been more conclusive, with several rigorous studies finding that criminal domestic violence courts speed case processing.

A series of evaluations of the New York state integrated domestic violence model also found that, due to same-day scheduling of cases, integrated courts reduced the number of trips that litigants were required to make to courts, though individual cases generally take longer to reach resolution in the specialized courts. Integrated courts further appeared to detect more violations of protective orders and result in more mutually favorable outcomes in family court cases. As compared to criminal domestic violence courts, one site was found to result in more criminal convictions as well as more severe convictions. This finding was primarily attributed to the increased victim participation in integrated courts, where victims often have ongoing civil cases. Other New York findings were mixed. Findings from an evaluation of an integrated court in Vermont suggested decreases in both case processing time and reconviction; however, methodological issues mean that these findings should be interpreted with extreme caution. In general, research on integrated models suffers from methodological weaknesses; additional research on integrated models is called for.

Research on litigant and stakeholder experiences in domestic violence courts is generally positive.

Final Thoughts

Since the late 1990s, domestic violence courts have been making great strides to better reach their goals of enhancing victim safety and offender accountability. More recently, these courts have been looking at the large body of research on what works to reduce recidivism with the general criminal population and applying those evidence-based best practices into their court policies and procedures. Specifically, courts are using domestic violence risk assessments to inform decisions regarding compliance, supervision, protective order conditions, and parenting-time plans. Many are also focusing on improving compliance through enhanced procedural justice. While more research is needed to identify how these practices specifically impact outcomes in domestic violence cases, it is clear that domestic violence courts can learn from the growing body of research and strengthen their policies to better serve victims and offenders.

References:

1. Angene, L. (2000). Evaluation report for the San Diego County domestic violence courts. San Diego, CA: San Diego Superior Court.
2. Center for Court Innovation. (2011a). Criminal domestic violence courts: Key principles. New York, NY: Author.
3. Center for Court Innovation. (2011b). Integrated domestic violence courts: Key principles. New York, NY: Author.
4. Cissner, A. B., Labriola, M., & Rempel, M. (2013). Testing the effects of New York’s domestic violence courts: A statewide impact evaluation. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
5. Cissner, A. B., Picard-Fritsche, S., & Rempel, M. (2014, April/May). New York state’s integrated domestic violence court model: Results from four recent studies. Domestic Violence Report, 51–63.
6. Davis, R., Smith, B. E., & Rabbitt, C. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence cases: A field test in Milwaukee. The Justice System Journal, 22, 62–72.
7. Eckberg, D., & Podkopacz, M. (2002). Domestic violence court in Minneapolis: Three levels of analysis. Presentation, American Society of Criminology Annual Conference, November 15, Chicago, IL.
8. Goldkamp, J., Weiland, D., Collins, M., & White, M. (1996). The role of drug and alcohol abuse in domestic violence and its treatment: Court experiment. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
9. Gover, A. A. (2007). Specialized domestic violence court in South Carolina: An example of procedural justice for victims and defendants. Violence Against Women, 13, 603–626.
10. Gover, A. A., MacDonald, J. M., & Alpert, G. P. (2003). Combating domestic violence: Findings from an evaluation of a local domestic violence court. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 109–132.
11. Harrell, A., Newmark, L., & Visher, C. (2007). Final report on the evaluation of the judicial oversight demonstration, volume 2: Findings and lessons on implementation. Final report for the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
12. Harrell, A., Schaffer, M., DeStefano, C., & Castro, J. (2006). Evaluation of Milwaukee’s judicial oversight demonstration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Henning, K., & Klesges, L. M. (1999). Evaluation of the Shelby County domestic violence court: Final report. Shelby County, TN, Durham, NH.
13. Her Majesty’s Courts Service: Great Britain. Home Office. Crown Prosecution Service. (2008). Justice with safety: Specialist domestic violence courts review 2007-2008. London, UK: Great Britain. Home Office.
14. Hotaling, G., & Buzawa, E. (2003). Victim satisfaction with criminal justice case processing in a model court setting. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
15. Kelitz, S., Guerrero, R., Jones, A. M., & Rubio, D. M. (2000). Specialization of domestic violence case management in the courts: A national survey. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
16. Labriola, M., Bradley, S., O’Sullivan, C. S., Rempel, M., & Moore, S. (2009). A national portrait of domestic violence courts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
17. Newmark, L., Rempel, M., Diffily, K., & Kane, K. M. (2001). Specialized felony domestic violence courts: Lessons on implementation and impact from the Kings County experience. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
18. Peterson, R. R. (2004). The impact of Manhattan’s specialized domestic violence court. New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
19. Peterson, R. R. (2014). Case processing in Brooklyn’s integrated domestic violence court. New York, NY: New York City Criminal Justice Agency.
20. Quann, N. (2007). Offender profile and recidivism among domestic violence offenders in Ontario, Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Justice, Research and Statistics Division.
21. Sack, E. (2002). Creating a domestic violence court: Guidelines and best practices. San Francisco, CA: Family Prevention Fund.
22. Schlueter, M., Wicklund, P., Adler, R., Owen, J., & Halvorsen, T. (2011). Bennington County integrated domestic violence docket project: Outcome evaluation. Final report submitted to the Vermont Court Administrator’s Office and the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, Northfield Falls, VT: Vermont Center For Justice Research.
23. Shelton, D. E. (2007). The current state of domestic violence courts in the United States, 2007. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
24. Thompson, K. (2014). A study of the clay county domestic violence court: Offender and victim perceptions of procedural justice. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University.