“They Threatened to Call Immigration”: Challenges Faced by Civil Protection Order Applicants and Respondents

CPOs: Process and Eligibility Criteria

Since CPOs are issued through the civil court system, the victim, rather than the state, initiates the process. Importantly, victims do not need to obtain legal counsel in order to apply for a CPO. In fact, research to date suggests that most CPO cases are initiated pro se by the victims themselves and without legal assistance (Bell et al., 2011; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2014). In so doing, research documents that victims are able to restore some sense of control over the process and seek a wide range of relief depending on their individual needs (Eigenberg et al., 2003; Fischer & Rose, 1995; Goodman et al., 2016). Additionally, when compared to criminal DV cases, CPO cases require a lower burden of proof (Hamby, 2014; Jordan, 2004; Logan et al., 2006). As a result, victims are able to obtain relief without having to endure a longer and costlier criminal trial.

Eligibility for a CPO is typically based on the relationship between the applicant and respondent as well as evidence that an act of DV has occurred between the two parties. Some acts that constitute DV include physical injury, sexual assault, stalking, destruction of property, and trespassing. Threats to commit any of these acts also count as evidence of DV. To qualify for a CPO, applicants and respondents must either be related by blood or marriage, have a child in common, share a residence together, or are current or former dating and/or intimate partners.

The CPO process typically involves two steps. First, the victim (applicant) must apply for a temporary protection order (TPO), which is usually granted ex parte and can last up to a week. Second, the applicant and respondent must attend an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the TPO was justified. At that point, the judge listens to justifications as to whether or not protection can be extended to the victim. Depending on the state, the maximum statutory limit for POs varies (DeJong & Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Logan et al., 2006). As part of the finalized PO, the judge can include a wide variety of provisions including no contact orders, restricting respondents’ access to firearms, requiring counseling for parties involved, and assigning temporary visitation and custody rights.

Research Review: Immigrant Women’s Experiences With DV and Protection Orders

Recent scholarship highlights the need for continued research on violence as experienced by those most marginalized. Even though there are minimal accounts of immigrants’ experiences with the protection order process, there is a growing body of literature that highlights immigrant women’s experiences with domestic abuse. These are first summarized and provided as an example of differences in experiences for immigrant women compared to nonimmigrant women. Then, those few research projects highlighting immigrant women’s experiences with protection orders specifically are also reviewed. Overall, findings suggest that battered immigrant women’s experiences with CPOs highlight barriers associated with cultural sensitivity and language access.

Specifically, Acevedo (2000) finds that immigrant women’s perceptions of abuse include cultural factors associated with a victim’s background. Importantly, changes in attitudes about DV and help-seeking are associated with whether or not a culturally sensitive intervention had taken place via justice system and/or community services. Notably, access to services and service providers that speak immigrants’ primary language was a key component to victim’s help-seeking. Correspondingly, Bui (2003) also documents cultural, structural, and organizational factors associated with Vietnamese women’s experiences with DV services where acculturation and the availability of culturally sensitive victim services helped to facilitate battered women’s help-seeking beyond family and friends.

In comparing the degree of domestic abuse reported by immigrant women both before and after seeking a CPO, McFarlane and colleagues (2002) found that both U.S. and immigrant women shared similar levels of DV yet their understandings with the protection order process was different due primarily to language barriers experienced by those that were immigrants. This important finding highlights language as a barrier in help-seeking and echoes more recent studies that show how battered women with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience language barriers that “impede their ability to communicate effectively with police” (Ammar et al., 2012, p. 341).

For example, research completed by Ingram and colleagues (2010) interviewed immigrant women as they were going through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petition process to obtain legal status. Findings of this research note numerous barriers to victim’s help-seeking during a process where the Act requires them to work with law enforcement. Namely, participants of this study talked about how they felt trapped and isolated. They also worried about costs associated with their VAWA petition, and how their case could potentially impact their immigration status overall. Worries about deportation were also a concern that all immigrant victims articulated. Overall, findings suggest that immigrant victims experience worry over reporting abuse particularly when their immigration status is pending.

Additionally, Ammar and colleagues (Ammar et al., 2013; Ammar et al., 2012) found that cultural and religious perceptions of DV impact immigrant Muslim-identified women’s experiences with help-seeking behavior postvictimization. Findings from these projects discuss how cultural influences are associated with reasons why battered immigrant women stay in abusive relationships or seek help. Particularly, these projects also note concerns that victims have regarding their immigration status and processing of immigration cases.

When scholars, Ammar et al. (2012), focused on battered immigrant women’s experiences with CPOs, results suggest that many women experience multiple types of abuse while their immigration status is pending. Overall, the vast majority of immigrant women interviewed had very little understanding of the protection order process. Yet they acknowledged that having a culturally sensitive advocate—particularly someone to help with language barriers—was helpful.

Even though very little research has examined factors related to barriers faced by immigrant women as they access civil court systems for orders of protection, what research there is notes that their experiences are different than those of nonimmigrant women as they encounter language, cultural, religious barriers, as well as worries about deportation. Clearly, there is still a need to research DV and justice system involvement(s) at the intersection of race, class, gender, and immigration status (see Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). Battered immigrant women require the assistance of advocates and justice system providers who have been trained in the unique dynamics of DV in immigrant relationships/families. Additionally, these individuals should be knowledgeable about battered immigrants’ rights to access a range of services and benefits available to them. This project contributes to the need to examine battered immigrant individuals’ experiences with CPOs and helps fill in gaps associated with this area of research.

Research Site Location

The courtroom under study was located in a civil justice facility in a large county in a western urban location. This courtroom was selected for observation because it operates as a specialized protection order court where, each year, between 8,000 and 11,000 protection order hearings occur. More so, this courtroom is the only one in this county that issues protection orders against acts constituted as DV. Protection order hearings were conducted Monday through Thursday during morning (9:00 a.m–12:00 p.m.) and afternoon (1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m.) sessions. Two judges presided over this one courtroom; one was female, and one was male. In this jurisdiction, protection order court judges are judge-supervised judicial officers who were selected for the position through an election process. Both judges were required to attend annual DV training seminars and practiced family law for over 15 years. In this jurisdiction, the maximum length of time a protection order can be granted for is 1 year. It is up to the judge’s discretion whether or not to grant the CPO for the full year or for less.

Procedure

The data for this study are part of a larger sociolegal interdisciplinary research project dedicated to understanding the experiences of victims accessing civil court systems for orders of protection. Ethnographic observations occurred over the course of 2 years. In order to increase consistency, observations were conducted both individually (i.e., single researcher observed) and collectively (i.e., multiple researchers observed simultaneously). Prior to accessing the courtroom, institutional review board approval was received where a memorandum of understanding with the court was agreed. Fittingly, research team members included two graduate students, both of whom (and of which) are not native English speakers.

Observations were conducted both during the morning and afternoon sessions for at least 2 of the 4 days per week when CPO cases were heard. The length of each observation varied depending on how many cases were on the docket for the day. Researchers sat toward the back of the courtroom. Because of the small size of the room—and the fact that applicants and respondents can only speak when instructed by the presiding judge—we were able to reliably hear all interactions occurring between the presiding judge, lawyers present (if any), applicants, and respondents. Additionally, researchers were able to document interactions with court-employed interpreters, marshals, and any friends and/or family in the courtroom with applicants and respondents. The research team’s observation schedule was never shared with courtroom personnel (judges, lawyers, marshals, interpreters, and so on). Thus, observations were conducted based on the research team’s availability and not at the request of courtroom personnel.

In order to document what was occurring during each CPO hearing, ethnographic field notes were created. Research team members were trained and instructed on field note–taking techniques. Particular importance was given to victim’s description of abuse, rulings made and their legal reasoning, conversations between legal actors and parties present, as well as an array of descriptors associated with those present in court (i.e., physical gestures). For instance, nonverbal demeanors were also recorded including facial expressions, headshaking, folding of arms, sitting or standing, and a range of other emotive gestures (i.e., crying, yelling, whispering). Ethnographic field notes were then transcribed and coded independently and collectively.

Data Analysis and Coding

Qualitative data analysis procedures involved open- and line-by-line coding techniques (Charmaz, 2006; Cresswell, 1998; Esterberg, 2002; Feldman, 1995). Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) framework for conceptualization was also utilized. Open coding analysis first allowed researchers to identify reoccurring themes present within the data. For the cases used throughout this article, open codes for “immigration,” “immigrant,” and “deportation” were used. Again, of the 303 cases observed, a total of 30 were found to discuss immigration-related issues. Then, these 30 cases were compared more systematically to assess any differences or similarities noted between them and the remainder of cases where immigration was not brought up. Then, axial and line-by-line coding of immigrant cases helped to build detailed conceptual themes. To strengthen the validity of these codes and categories, cases were first reviewed and analyzed by each of the authors. Then, pair coding proved beneficial and helped to determine when concepts became repetitive.

Threats of Parental Kidnapping and Child Abduction Across Country Borders: “He Threatened to Take the Child to Mexico”

The first theme highlights unique worries about child abduction and parental kidnapping across country borders. Here, three of the most relevant examples are used to illustrate immigrant women’s concerns, worries, and fears of being separated from their children. In protection order cases, victims often articulate a compounded fear of their children’s safety and well-being (see Hardesty & Ganong, 2006; Zeoli et al., 2013). Yet this worry is heightened for battered immigrant women as they face the very real possibility that their children could be kidnapped and taken across state and country borders. This “immigration-related” concern is something that U.S. women or women with citizenship status do not experience as frequently as immigrant applicants/victims (see Ammar & Orloff, 2006; Raj & Silverman, 2002).

This first example involves a Spanish-speaking applicant who retained legal counsel. A Spanish-speaking respondent is also present but without counsel. The parties have two children together: a 2-year-old and a 5-month-old baby. After everyone is sworn in, the victim’s attorney requests an extension to the TPO currently in place and informs the court that the youngest child may be at risk of being abducted to Mexico:

“He [respondent] threatened to abscond with the child.” Judge responds: “Is there any risk of him actually doing that? Leaving with the child?” Legal counsel replies that when the applicant suggested getting a divorce, “He threatened to take the child to Mexico. He was yelling and started kicking out in front of him, towards her.” Judge asks: “Was this kicking directed at her?” Counsel responds affirmatively: “Yes. And he punched a hole in the wall next to her. Then he threatened to punch her. Later that same day, he even sent her pictures of his bloody knuckles.”

A second example involves another Spanish-speaking female victim seeking to extend her initial TPO against her abuser. Since the applicant has LEP, a court-employed Spanish interpreter is requested. The respondent is not present for the hearing even though he received notice of the court date. In explaining her need for protection, the applicant via court translator, states:

“I am here today for my life. Because my life and my son’s life are in danger. Because he said he was going to disappear. Go back to Mexico. He said he would take all of my money and my son and go back to Mexico.” Judge asks: “Do you take this as a legitimate threat or is he trying to get a reaction out of you?” Applicant seems confused by the question and looks up to the translator for clarification then responds: “He is always trying to get me to fix the papers, so it might be a reaction.”

A third example involves a female Spanish-speaking applicant requesting an extension to her protection order. Since this applicant is also LEP, the court requested a Spanish-speaking interpreter. The respondent is not present for this hearing. The judge notes that, since the respondent was not served, the hearing cannot continue. Then, the applicant is informed of the service requirements. She seems confused and states:

“He threatened me, though. He has problems in Mexico. He has family that does things outside of the law.” […] Judge suggests, “I can give you four weeks. I suggest a third-party process service. If you can’t find him, there is nothing I can do to help you, unfortunately.”

If something else happens to her? Or to her daughter? Unfortunately, the court does not follow-up with these important questions. Due to service complications, this young woman’s protection order was only extended for an additional month. Additionally, since the respondent was never served, the applicant was then asked to hire a local third-party service entity. Toward the end of this hearing, the judge also acknowledged that language barriers further complicated the case: “It’s difficult enough when English is the spoken language to understand the process.” Similar to the two prior examples, concerns regarding future abuse and the offender absconding with shared child(ren) were never fully addressed in court.

In sum, the majority of immigrant victims’ cases observed successfully resulted in obtaining an order of protection. However, due to visitation rights, many of these victims still have to come in to contact with their abuser in the future. As these cases demonstrate, power and control dynamics also include the use of children to threaten and manipulate immigrant victims in unique ways. Specifically, children are used in a context associated with threats of abduction across state and country borders.

Since, presumably, the father can drive the child(ren) across the U.S. Mexico border, cross-border child abduction is a fear for women from Mexico specifically. However, due to requirements specifying that one parent flying internationally with child(ren) must provide notarized consent from the other parent, this fear might not be as prevalent for victims from other countries. These threats are unique to battered immigrant women as they attempt to make sure that their children are not taken away from them—from their state and country of residence. Thus, threats of abuse are further complicated by threats of child kidnapping and cross-border abduction.

Concerns About Legal Immigration Documents: “I Got a Few Belongings. The Important Legal Paperwork”

This second theme also displays unique experiences faced by immigrant women accessing the civil court system for protection orders. Again, three of the most salient examples are provided here. In describing their need for protection, battered immigrant applicants often mention the importance of being able to access and retrieve their immigration documents or other forms of government-issued identification. These include passports, visas, birth certificates, marriage licenses, social security cards, and permanent resident cards. These documents serve as proof of legal status and allow them to legally live and work in the United States. Being in possession of these important legal documents is a paramount reality for immigrants especially given the current political climate.

The first example involves a Mandarin-speaking applicant who showed up to court accompanied by a female friend. The respondent is a Spanish-speaking male. Since the DV incident resulted in the offender’s arrest, he participates in the hearing via live video recording from jail. The victim requests an extension to her original order of protection. Concerns regarding legal documents transpire toward the end of the case. In addressing the court, she starts crying and states:

“I fear for my life. He told me he would kill me. He applied to become a cop and he told me that if I made him fail he would kill me. He told me he would kill me if his brother left the house, which the brother ended up leaving.” […] In response, the Judge states, “There was an assault. You were forced to walk home, and a physical assault occurred when you went to get the child. He choked you.”

The second example involves a female immigrant applicant and male immigrant respondent. Both parties have retained legal counsel and do not speak throughout this hearing. The victim’s lawyer requests to extend a TPO currently in place. Visible to everyone in court is a large bruise on the victim’s arm. The victim’s lawyer continues to explain how they (both parties and lawyers) have already agreed to extend the protection order for a year. However, they are requesting that the judge include several stipulations as part of the order. First, the victim’s lawyer informs the judge that her client has a few items to recover from the offender’s house. These include two passports and additional travel documents. The offender quickly denies being in possession of any of these items. Applicant’s lawyer states that it is “paramount for my client to be in possession of these documents.” The judge sets up a time and date when the applicant can go to the residence, accompanied by police officers, to safely look for and secure these immigration documents.

Then, the victim’s counsel introduces, as evidence, pictures of her client after the DV incident took place. Even though both lawyers agreed to a yearlong extension of the PO, the judge only grants a 6-month extension. As this case reveals, this battered immigrant women’s main concern includes finding and securing her legal paperwork, a task that seems difficult given the reality that the abuser denies being in possession of these items.

A third example involves a Spanish-speaking female applicant asking the court to extend her original order of protection. The respondent, a Spanish-speaking male, is also present for the hearing. Since both parties are LEP, a courtroom-employed translator is requested. In expressing her need for protection, the victim informs the court that:

Even today, we live in the same apartment. Just today, he waited around my place until I came out. Then he followed me all the way around the apartments and then outside. Then to the grocery store. He followed me all the way through until here [the facility where the courtroom is located]. He was zigzagging on the road.

Similar to the first theme highlighting unique worries of child abduction, this theme also illustrates additional concerns immigrant applicants and respondents have throughout protection order hearings. Specifically, battered immigrant women are not only worried about their life and their safety but they are also worried about the safety of their children. Additionally, they worry about their ability to retrieve important immigrant paperwork and passports. Without these legal documents in their possession, these applicants, respondents, and potentially their children are not able to travel, work, or show proof of legal status.

Yet, what was observed included situations where obtaining these documents could potentially mean that these victims would have to continue to communicate with their abusers. Whether or not the battered woman is an immigrant (Examples 1 and 2) or the abuser is an immigrant (Example 3), the reality is that contact with abusers will still continue. This is mainly due to the need to locate and secure these legal forms. These experiences are similar to research on White U.S. women who are citizens, exiting violent relationships yet still experiencing “paper abuse” as a form of continuous control and manipulation (see Logan et al., 2008; Miller & Smolter, 2011).

Threats of Deportation: “They Threatened to Call Immigration”

This third theme further illustrates unique worries about and/or actual threats of deportation experienced by either applicant or respondent. Here, three examples are used to demonstrate how threats of deportation of immigrant victims and offenders are articulated in court. Similar to the above examples, threats of deportation are made as a way to exert control over the undocumented party. The unique inclusion of cases with male applicants and respondents sharing deportation concerns are used here to highlight that, for any immigrant accessing the U.S. court system, worries about deportation are compounded with concerns about protection and safety.

This first example involves a Spanish-speaking female applicant seeking to extend her original TPO. The respondent, a Spanish-speaking male, is present via live recording from jail as he was arrested for the DV episode. In describing her need for protection, the victim via court-employed translator states that:

On the night of the incident, she came home, and the offender argued with her, slapped her, and then told his sister to beat her as well, which she did. Then they threatened to call immigration. And took her car and wallet. They went to the bank and withdrew money from her bank account.

For this female immigrant applicant, DV occurred at the hands of her partner and his sister. Additionally, she received threats that they would call immigration as well as threats to her life. Despite her testimony and evidence of abuse, this victim was only granted a 60-day extension to her TPO. Similar to prior cases summarized, this case exemplifies the reality that, for many, experiences with DV are further complicated by threats of deportation. Again, these compounded threats are specific only to immigrant populations.

A second example involves an older male applicant seeking to extend his original order of protection. The respondent is also a male, but not present for the proceeding. The applicant wishes to extend his protection order until the end of the year and is requesting a 6-month extension. He asks the judge: “Can you deport him back to Africa?” The judge seems surprised by the question and simply replies “No.” Applicant goes on to explain that the offender, “Is my stepson and his mother and I got together and brought him to America to have a life.” Judge reiterates, “I am not saying it is not possible, but it is not something I can do.”

In explaining his need for protection, the applicant states:

“For me, I have other children in the house and the other children are imitating their brother. He is 24 years old and cannot get his life together” […] He continues, “Since he used the words he used with me I don’t want him in my house.”

Unlike the first example where a female applicant received threats of deportation from the respondent and his family, in this second example, an older male applicant is asking the court to deport the respondent. This case is unique in that both parties are male. Even though this case falls outside of the norm for protection order cases, we believe it is important to include it as it further highlights the reality that, for immigrants using the U.S. system, concerns over deportation are pronounced.

This third example involves a Spanish-speaking female applicant wishing to extend her original order of protection. The respondent, a Spanish-speaking male, is present during the hearing and opposes the extension. Since both parties are LEP, the court requests the presence of a Spanish-speaking courtroom-employed interpreter. The victim begins by stating:

“He follows me and threatens me. I was trying to escape from him.” and has “moved four times already” because of this. She then describes an incident where the offender “spray-painted her car black” and that their shared “child witnessed this.” The offender denies the allegations and starts yelling at the applicant. The judge asks questions about the shared child and “what specifically happens when he threatens you?” Via translator, the applicant informs the court that she “was denied a protection order last year and is frustrated with the process.” The applicant starts crying.

As these three examples of this last theme demonstrate, concerns about either applicant or respondent being deported are articulated in court. These concerns complicate an already stressful civil court experience. Even when victims and offenders have lawyers and/or interpreters with them in court, concerns over deportation are pronounced as well as threats of violence. The court, unfortunately, did not provide any clarification on these issues of deportation and instead left them unaddressed.

Limitations

Although thematic findings noted herein are timely and important, there are some limitations. First, since data for this project were gathered through ethnographic observations, the research team was only able to observe and document what was occurring in court before, during, and after each protection order hearing. Thus, we were not able to observe/read what was actually written on protection order applications. Information included in these applications may not have been communicated in court. Second, since the vast majority of cases in this sample included requests to extend existing and/or TPOs, we were only able to observe these second (or third) hearings. We were not present for initial protection order hearings. Therefore, it could be that earlier conversations about threats of kidnapping, concerns over legal immigration documents, and threats of deportation occurred during these initial hearings.

Third, demographic information was determined based on information presented in court via parties involved, namely requests for Spanish, Mandarin, and Tagalog translators. Fourth, we also want to acknowledge that our presence in court might have had an impact on the judicial decision-making process. However, we attempted to minimize any “researcher effects” by never sharing our observation schedule with courtroom personnel (i.e., judges, interpreters, bailiffs, victim advocates). Also, important to note is the fact that these protection order hearings are open to the public, thus applicants and respondents oftentimes show up to court accompanied by friends, family members, or victim advocates. Because of the public nature of this court, courtroom personnel are used to having a variety of people step through their doors. Regardless of these limitations, we believe much is still learned from observations of immigrant applicants’ and respondents’ experiences with CPO courts.