The Honorable Judge Edelman heard 152 CPO cases. The Honorable Judge Anderson heard 119 CPO cases. The Honorable Judge Retchin heard approximately 10 CPO cases. The remaining 22 CPO cases heard were recorded as “other”.

Where the gender of the parties was recorded:

• 200 of petitioners were female and only 50 of petitioners were male.
• 171 of respondents were male and 68 of respondents were female. 

Where the perceived race of the parties was recorded:

• Of the cases where the race of the petitioner was recorded, 184 cases were brought by black petitioners, 12 cases were brought by Latino petitioners, 7 cases were brought by white petitioners, 4 cases were brought by Asian petitioners, and 96 cases were recorded as “other.”
• Of the cases where the race of the respondent was recorded, 150 were black, 13 were Hispanic, 11 were white, 1 was Asian, and 128 was recorded as “other”.
• According to the U.S. Census, about 50.7% of Washington, DC’s residents are black, 42.4% are white, 9.5% are Hispanic, and 3.7% are Asian. As shown on the graphs below, both petitioner and respondent’s race were majority black.

Relationship between parties:

• Of the 303 CPO cases, 50% of the relationships were not stated.
• 18% had a child in common, 17% previously dated, and 7% were married.

*People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%.

Outcomes of cases:

            Case Dismissal:

• Of the 303 CPO cases, 89 cases, about 29.6% of cases observed were dismissed. The majority of the cases that were dismissed were due to the petitioner being absent.  The following graph shows the breakdown of these cases.

Case Continuances:

• Of 303 cases CPO cases, 89 cases, approximately 29.6% of cases, the Judge ordered a continuance. The graph below shows the reason for the continuances. About more than half of continuances were given because there was no service of process.

Granted CPOs:

• 18 cases were granted by default; the respondent was served but did not appear. 9 other cases were granted by default due to other reasons.
• 58 cases were granted by consent order. 47 of the cases reached consent agreement prior to the hearing. 9 of the cases reached by consent agreement were consented with admissions.
• 12 cases were granted through a contested hearing. The judge explained the terms.  
• 19 cases were denied through a contested hearing. 

The findings in the mid-year report showed that the court was providing victims and respondents the opportunity to be heard and plead their cases with or without attorneys, but that SAFE clients were more likely to obtain a civil protection order either through a contested hearing or by a default hearing than those without a SAFE advocate.  The data also showed how often individuals were requesting continuances and why.  While strides need to be made in terms of court security in the DV Unit, the report was positive overall with judges showing consideration and patience for both sides in the proceedings.

The DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project was begun in January 2012 in its current form.  The mission of the DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project is to create transparency and data-driven information through court monitoring to ensure that all victims of domestic violence have equal access to a clear, fair and consistent judicial process that prioritizes victim safety and offender accountability.  Court Watch is a volunteer-staffed project in which trained observers record information about Civil Protection Order hearings.  The Court Watch Project provides advocates with information about how the court deals with domestic violence, and provides feedback to the Court regarding its treatment of domestic violence survivors. The goals of this project are to improve the court experience for those seeking relief, and to give survivors a larger voice in the court system.

Click the link to download a PDF:

DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project Mid 2012 Report (PDF)

Where the gender of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 167 females, 33 males. Petitioners were female in 84% of the cases;

Respondents: 51females, 118 males. Respondents were male in 70% of the cases.

Where the perceived race of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 162 black/African American, 9 white, 9 Hispanic, 0 Asian,  0“other”

Respondents: 119 black/African American,  8 white, 8 Hispanic, 0 Asian,  1 “other”

The racial break-down of cases recorded for parties were disproportionately African-American.

Where the relationship of the parties in the cases was recorded (with some overlap):

22 were married,   

48 previously dated or were romantically involved,

3 involved stalking, where in which, there was not necessarily a prior relationship,

38 had a child in common,

6 had a partner in common,

22 were relatives,

13 were roommates.

Where the outcomes of the cases were recorded:

Dismissals

Dismissed With Prejudice: 5,

Dismissed Without Prejudice: 50 ( 22 which were because Petitioner was absent, 3 of which were due to failure of service multiple times, and 25 of which were at Petitioner’s request–often because of failure to serve Respondent)

CPOs

70 granted (64 were through consent orders or default because Respondent did not appear, and 6 were in contested hearings);

1 denied (in contested hearing)

Continuances

94 granted (39 of which were because no service of process had occurred, 13 of which were at Petitioner’s request, 37 of which were ordered by the judge, and 5 due to trailing criminal case)

Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project! Please email kvandertuig@dcsafe.org if you are

A Civil Protection Order, while often life-saving, is a piece of paper. It allows the law to take action if it is violated, and is in essence reactionary, but also discourages further abuse for fear of punishment.  In situations when the CPO is issued in a default hearing – meaning the respondent was served with notice to appear in court, but did not appear in court and the CPO was granted anyway, the granted, default CPO must still be served on the respondent before it is considered enforceable.  The time right after a respondent is served with the CPO can be a very critical, and sometimes dangerous, period for a petitioner; justifiably, they may be worried about how this order can shield them.

In response to this predicament, that the state of New York has come up with part of a solution. In keeping with the times, many of New York’s counties have implemented the Statewide Automated Victim Information Notification Network, accessible through the NY-Alert system. It allows the petitioner to sign up for notices so that they are apprised immediately when the respondent is served with the CPO.  In its pilot stage the creators of the system hope to expand it to NYC within the next year. Immediate knowledge of the CPO’s “enforceability” could help survivors better plan for safety; the system allows users to be electronically updated through mobile and email alerts. This could be potentially useful for petitioners who feared that upon being served, respondents would become angry and likely to commit another act of domestic violence.

Is this a system that could work for DC? Let us know what you think!

Pooja Datta, Court Watch Project Intern

Where the gender of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 89 females, 24 males. Petitioners were female in 78% of the cases;

Respondents: 35 females, 79 males. Respondents were male in 69% of the cases.

Where the perceived race of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 85 black/African American, 11 white, 2 Hispanic, 1 Asian,  7“other”

Respondents: 86 black/African American,  11 white, 0 Hispanic, 1 Asian,  13 “other”

The racial break-down of cases recorded for parties were disproportionately African-American.

Where the relationship of the parties in the cases was recorded (with some overlap):

21 were married,   

39 previously dated or were romantically involved,

7 involved stalking, where in which, there was not necessarily a prior relationship,

19 had a child in common,

5 had a partner in common,

11 were relatives,

13 were roommates.

Where the outcomes of the cases were recorded:

Dismissals

Dismissed With Prejudice: 2,

Dismissed Without Prejudice: 29 ( 15 which were because Petitioner was absent, 2 of which were due to failure of service multiple times, and 8 of which were at Petitioner’s request–often because of failure to serve Respondent)

CPOs

41 granted (33 were through consent orders or default because Respondent did not appear, and 8 were in contested hearings);

2 denied (in contested hearing)

Continuances

47 granted (15 of which were because no service of process had occurred, 6 of which were at Petitioner’s request, 20 of which were ordered by the judge, and 6 due to trailing criminal case)

Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project! Please email kvandertuig@dcsafe.org if you are interested in getting involved. Check back in very soon to see our mid-year report on all data collected!

DC DV Court Watch Project volunteers sat in on 292 CPO cases.

Where the gender of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 232 females, 47 males. Petitioners were female in 83% of the cases;

Respondents: 73 females, 204 males. Respondents were male in 74% of the cases.

Where the perceived race of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 214 black/African American, 12 white, 14 Hispanic, 1 Asian,  13 “other”

Respondents: 192 black/African American,  7 white, 13 Hispanic, 1 Asian,  12 “other”

The racial break-down of cases recorded for parties were disproportionately African-American.

Where the relationship of the parties in the cases was recorded (with some overlap):

49 were married,   

124 previously dated or were romantically involved,

5  involved stalking, where in which, there was not necessarily a prior relationship,

43 had a child in common,

4 had a partner in common,

22 were relatives,

21 were roommates.

Where the outcomes of the cases were recorded:

Dismissals

Dismissed With Prejudice: 1,

Dismissed Without Prejudice: 79 ( 52 which were because Petitioner was absent, 9 of which were due to failure of service multiple times, and 18 of which were at Petitioner’s request–often because of failure to serve Respondent)

CPOs

94 granted (80 were through consent orders or default because Respondent did not appear, and 14 were in contested hearings);

2 denied (in contested hearing)

Continuances

90 granted (41 of which were because no service of process had occurred, 23 of which were at Petitioner’s request, 13 of which were ordered by the judge, and 13 due to trailing criminal case)

Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project! Please email kvandertuig@dcsafe.org if you are interested in getting involved. Check back in a couple weeks to see our mid-year report on all data collected!

When a case is Dismissed Without Prejudice, the judge dismisses the case from the court without entering a CPO.  No testimony is taken, no facts are entered into the official court record, and no parties are legally obligated to do anything further.   Cases are normally dismissed without prejudice for one of three reasons: the Petitioner is absent and does not appear before the court to bring his or her case, the Petitioner voluntarily agrees to drop the case and move on without a CPO, or the Petitioner is having repeated trouble serving the Respondent with a copy of the petition.  If a case is dismissed without prejudice, Petitioners always have the option to file another petition based on the same events.

On the other hand, when a case is Dismissed With Prejudice, the Petitioner does not have the ability to bring the case again.  The judge still dismisses the case from the court, and no CPO is entered, but the option to file another petition is not granted.  The issues addressed in the original petition will not be heard before the court ever again.  This is a relatively rare occurrence, and can be done to penalize Petitioners who are seen as persistently misbehaving (interrupting court proceedings, “acting out” in court, etc). The judge may also decide to dismiss a case with prejudice if the Petitioner has had many chances to try to get the respondent served (see “Continued”), but is  unsuccessful. The judge may perceive that the Petitioner is does not actually want the CPO or that the Petitioner is no longer in danger because they cannot locate the Respondent. Though this occurs rarely, it can still be problematic for Petitioners when the Respondent is effectively and consistently evading service.

Sometimes the court or the parties are unable to proceed with a case on the day that it has been scheduled for.  If this happens, the case may be Continued (rescheduled for another day, typically two weeks in the future).  Cases may be continued for many reasons; though they can pose problems for both the Petitioner and the Court, they are often necessary.  If a Petitioner wants more time to successfully serve the Respondent or seek legal representation, he or she may ask the court for a continuance.  As you will see in the data, continuances are routinely granted. Check out a previous post on the causes and repercussions of continuances with data gathered in February 2012.

If the Petitioner successfully serves the Respondent with the petition and an order to appear on the court date, the Respondent must appear.  If the Respondent fails to appear despite having received service, the Petitioner will likely receive a Default Judgment or Default Order.  In this situation, a CPO is entered and goes into effect based on the testimony of only the Petitioner.  Since the Respondent had the opportunity to defend against the allegations in the petition and the terms of the order, but chose not to, a CPO will be entered against him or her despite the absence.  Following a default judgment, a bench warrant will be issued for the Respondent’s arrest so that he or she can be brought before the court to explain the absence and be given a copy of the new CPO.

If both parties are present they may enter into a Consent Order before their case is ever called.  In this situation, the Petitioner and the Respondent both agree to have a CPO in effect, but the Respondent does not formally admit to any wrongdoing.  If Petitioner files another case against Respondent or chooses to pursue other options, the fact that the Respondent agreed to a consent order cannot be used as evidence of any misconduct on his or her part.  After the judge signs the consent agreement, the agreed-upon CPO will be in effect for one year.

If a consent order is not possible and the parties have no other recourse, they can proceed with a Contested Hearing.  A contested hearing represents a full adjudication of the issues between the parties, with the judge acting as the finder of fact.  Both parties will give testimony, the judge will decide who he or she finds more credible, and the judge will decide whether or not, based on the credibility of each side’s evidence, to grant a CPO.  Only a small percentage of cases end with contested hearings.

Based on the statistics that have been gathered by SAFE volunteers between January and May of this year, here is how the final decisions of cases have been distributed:

• 255 cases were Dismissed Without Prejudice (173 because Petitioner was absent, 73 by Petitioner’s request, and 8 because of repeated difficulties in serving the Respondent with the petition)
• 6 cases were Dismissed With Prejudice
• 66 cases ended with a Default Judgment
• 157 cases ended with a Consent Order
• 25 cases ended with Contested Hearings (20 Petitioners were granted CPOs, 5 were not granted CPOs)

In cases where Court Watch Volunteers were recording data, 47.8% of petitions filed so far this year ended with the entering of a CPO by the court.  Most of these CPOs were obtained through Consent Agreements.

The most common outcome for cases is to be dismissed without prejudice.  Over half of all cases filed so far this year recorded by Court Watch Project Volunteers, were dismissed.  The absence of the Petitioner accounted for the dismissal of 34% of all cases.  While it is important for Petitioners to make their court dates, there are many legitimate reasons for an absence.  For example, Petitioners may be too afraid of seeing the Respondent to appear before the court, Petitioners may have difficulties finding someone else to care for their children, or Petitioners may have difficulties getting to the courthouse, just to name a few.  There are many legitimate reasons for Petitioners to be absent, and if a Petitioner still feels strongly afterwards about getting a CPO, he or she is free to come to the courthouse and re-file a petition at any point.  Additionally, Petitioners have the option of meeting with a SAFE Court Advocate who can help the Petitioner safety plan around potential barriers that make it difficult, dangerous or impossible to come to court on the day of the  CPO hearing.

DC DV Court Watch Project volunteers sat in on 288 CPO cases.

Where the gender of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 184 females, 40 males. Petitioners were female in 82% of the cases;

Respondents: 53 females, 168 males. Respondents were male in 76% of the cases.

Where the perceived race of the parties was recorded:

Petitioners: 150 black/African American, 10 white, 9 Hispanic, 3 Asian,  0 “other”

Respondents: 138 black/African American,  6 white, 11 Hispanic, 2 Asian,  0  “other”

The racial break-down of cases recorded for parties were disproportionately African-American.

Where the relationship of the parties in the cases was recorded (with some overlap):

39 were married,   

89 previously dated or were romantically involved,

0 involved stalking, where in which, there was not necessarily a prior relationship,

44 had a child in common,

8 had a partner in common,

20 were relatives,

13 were roommates.

Where the outcomes of the cases were recorded:

Dismissals

Dismissed With Prejudice: 1,

Dismissed Without Prejudice: 114 (82 of which were because Petitioner was absent, 4 of which were due to failure of service multiple times, and 28 of which were at Petitioner’s request–often because of failure to serve Respondent)

CPOs

86 granted (81 were through consent orders or default because Respondent did not appear, and 5 were in contested hearings);

4 denied (in contested hearing)

Continuances

59 granted (27 of which were because no service of process had occurred, 14 of which were at Petitioner’s request, 6 of which were ordered by the judge, and 12 due to trailing criminal case)

You may notice in looking at this data that volunteers observed significantly fewer cases in the months of April and May than in previous months. This is partially due to the fact that many of our volunteers are students who are not in Washington, DC for the summer. The other reason that this is the case is because we have begun to stress more pointedly that the quality (i.e. a completely and accurately filled out form) is more important to the accuracy and richness of the data set and analysis than the quantity of cases recorded. Our volunteers have been doing an excellent job of ensuring that all possible data that can be collected is reflected correctly and fully on the form. You will notice that the proportion of data about the cases relative to the number of cases recorded by volunteers in April and May is much higher than in previous months.

Thank you for your continued interest in and support of the DC Domestic Violence Court Watch Project! Please email kvandertuig@dcsafe.org if you are interested in getting involved.

A total of 116 of Petitioners and 139 of Respondents have been recorded as represented by attorneys-most of the others were either pro-se or absent. Of the total 767 cases that Court Watch volunteers have sat in on this year, 368 had data recorded for both parties with respect to representation; the following percentages are out of those which all data was present (so n/368).

The breakdown in the graph below displays that while most often both parties were not represented (44% of the time), the second most common arrangement was when only the Petitioner had counsel (26% of the time). Both parties were represented quite frequently (24% of the time), as compared to when only the Respondent had counsel (6% of the time).

Around 32% of the time, at least one party has representation. —where Petitioners have attorneys more frequently than Respondents This may give one party an advantage because the attorney is better able to navigate Court proceedings. If the Petitioner is surviving a pattern of abuse, having representation may equal out the playing fields in Court in cases where the abuser, or Respondent, is very manipulative or threatening. Petitioners may be afraid to come to court due to real or perceived threats, they may be very anxious about seeing or speaking out against their abuser or the Respondent may be able to manipulate the situation to make the Petitioner look less credible; these threats are increased if the Petitioner faces other life-generated barriers such as age, language, fear of coming out, or immigration. Having an attorney may lessen these threats and make it easier for the Petitioner to come to court and get the CPO.

Additionally, representation for parties in CPO cases can become vital if the case is convoluted. And indeed, of the 521 cases where the question of complicating matters was answered, 27% were reported to have complicating related cases—where other issues complicated getting the protection order such as custody, child support, visitation, and criminal cases.

If a Petitioner or Respondent cannot get pro-bono services, they either must go pro-se—or if, they feel it is important enough—pay the costs of legal representation. This varies depending on whether the counsel is for-profit, how many hours are required, and what the case involved—but can easily be over $1000 for an average CPO case. It is vital that parties which cannot afford legal counsel but feel they very much need it to try to find a lawyer or organization that can give free or sliding-scale counsel or at least out-of-court guidance.

There are various legal organizations which can be helpful for Petitioners and Respondents—often even representing them in court. Such free counsel for family court issues like CPOs, custody, or child support can be found for either party at Catholic Charities, Children’s Law Center, Neighborhood Legal Services Program, Whitman-Walker Clinic (mostly for LGBTQ and people living with HIV/AIDS), Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless (for those facing homelessness in DC), American University Washington College of Law Domestic Violence Clinic,Catholic Universities of America Family Law Clinic , Tahirih Justice Center (for immigrant women/girls), Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) (for Latinos in DC), George Washington University Jacob Burns Community Legal Clinics, Georgetown University Family Advocacy Clinic, and UDC Law Clinics. All of these places will want to conflict-check, and some will decide not to help a Respondent or a Petitioner if they feel that person is a primary or predominant aggressor.

Also, anyone can get help—but not legal representation—at the Family Court Self-Help Center and Landlord-Tenant Resource Center on issues that relate or often go hand-in-hand in the CPO process, such as figuring out who has rights over a property when one or both names are on the lease. Similarly, DC SAFE helps Petitioners go through the process (such as helping them compose the petition) but then cannot represent the client directly. DC SAFE therefore tries to connect Petitioners with free legal representation from the following organizations—most of which will only represent Petitioners: the DC Volunteer Lawyers Project (DCVLP), Ayuda (for immigrants), Break the Cycle,DVLEAP, Legal Aid, Bread for the City, AARP (for the elderly), Our Place DC (for those who have spent at least one day in jail), and OAG. These organizations represent survivors free of charge and are especially knowledgeable about the nature and patterns of domestic violence.