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

2. INTERNSHIP: WHO ARE WE

3. 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
Children
Mental Issues
• Sleep disturbances
• Level of Commitment
• Depression
• Anxiety
• PTSD

4. LIT REVIEW: HELP-SEEKING
HELP SEEKING PATTERNS
Latinas help-seeking
difference
• Medical
• Police
Overtime
Mental Health
COURT SYSTEM
Criminal
Civil
O.P.

5. RESEARCH QUESTION
In 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.

6. METHODS
Participants
• 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

7. RESULTS
EOP
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 5 8.3 8.3 8.3
EOP 30 50.0 50.0 58.3
Interim 8 13.3 13.3 71.7
2nd Interim
9 15.0 15.0 86.7
EOP
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
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 18 30.0 30.0 30.0
plenary 14 23.3 23.3 53.3
court
denied
5 8.3 8.3 61.7
client
dropped
case
23 38.3 38.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
CriminalOP
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid .00 42 70.0 70.0 70.0
plenary 9 15.0 15.0 85.0
client
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.

8. CHI-SQUARE

9. COMBINING BOTH THE COURT SYSTEMS

10. DISCUSSION
No 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).

11. LIMITATIONS

12. RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS