Do Judicial Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic Violence?

The Influence of Plaintiff Gender on the Judicial Decision to Grant Civil Restraining Orders

“…The demographic characteristics of the study site, small male sample size, and limited statistical analysis all suggest caution in generalizing Basile's conclusions. Muller et al (2009) examined the influence of gender on the issuance of civil restraining orders in Sacramento County, California. This study is the object of the present replication.…”

“…Paralleling Basile's (2005) finding and, consistent with the national data (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), female victims in Sacramento County file such applications at approximately five times the rate of males. Consequently, the Muller et al (2009) sample contains 131 female (83.6%), but only 26 male plaintiffs (16.4%). Muller et al (2009) report that 88.0% of all TRO (Temporary Restraining Orders) requests were granted by the court.…”

“…Consequently, the Muller et al (2009) sample contains 131 female (83.6%), but only 26 male plaintiffs (16.4%). Muller et al (2009) report that 88.0% of all TRO (Temporary Restraining Orders) requests were granted by the court. The study also found that males received TROs in 57.7% of their requests compared to 94.6% of female submissions (p < .001).…”

“…The overall finding of gender discrimination at this decision-making level consequently relies upon only 12 cases involving male plaintiffs in the low severity category where 25.0% (N = 3) of male plaintiffs-compared to 91.2% (N = 52) of female plaintiffs-received a TRO. From a logit model containing only plaintiff gender as the independent variable, Muller et al (2009) concluded that "judges were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner" (p. 625). This confuses the meaning of odds ratios with probabilities.…”

“…The analysis, therefore, is not substantially advanced by the use of logistic regression. Muller et al (2009) confine their analysis to the issuance of TROs and PROs. As we noted in our summary of procedures section, the denial of a temporary order does not preclude the issuance of a permanent order since judges can, and do, issue PRO hearing dates to plaintiffs denied a temporary order.…”