Threats, Violence, and Weapon Use Against Children in Domestic Violence Protection Orders.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Childhood exposure to domestic violence is common, but the overlap between threats and violence against children and weapon/firearm use has not been well studied. The objectives of this study were to: assess differences in respondent firearm access and the use of weapons in granted domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) with and without minors (individuals <18 years of age); and characterize the frequency and characteristics of threats and acts of violence against minors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of a random sample of granted DVPOs from 2014-2020 in King County, Washington. We examined the use of threats, violence, and weapons by restrained individuals (ie, respondents) by reviewing and abstracting information from DVPO case files. RESULTS: Respondent weapon use and firearm possession were more common among DVPOs including minors than DVPOs not including minors (weapon use: 38.2% and 33.0%; firearm possession: 23.1% and 19.1%, respectively). Almost 2 in 3 DVPOs including minors (1338 of 2029) involved threats or violence directed at a minor perpetrated by the DVPO respondent. About 1 in 3 (32.5%) DVPOs documented explicit threats, and 1 in 2 (48.9%) documented violence. Over two-thirds (680 of 993, 68.5%) of acts of violence directed at minors included a weapon. CONCLUSIONS: We found higher lethality risk (weapon use and respondent firearm access/ownership) among DVPOs including minors. Many minors experienced threats and acts of violence involving weapons and firearms by DVPO respondents. Evidence-based safety planning strategies and training of judicial officers are needed.

Use of immigration status for coercive control in domestic violence protection orders.

In the context of domestic violence (DV), immigration-related circumstances can be exploited by an abuser to coerce and manipulate their partner. Using an intersectional structural framework, we examine how social structures overlaid with immigration-specific experiences operate to further enhance opportunities for abuse against immigrant women. We conducted a textual analysis to identify how socially constructed systems interact with a victim-survivor's immigration status to introduce more tools for abusers to engage in coercive control and/or acts of violence in a random sample of petitioners (i.e., victim-survivors) who were granted a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) in King County, WA (n = 3,579) from 2014-2016 and 2018-2020. We hand-reviewed textual petitioner narratives and identified n = 39 cases that discussed immigration-related circumstances and related acts of violence and coercion. These narratives included threats to contact authorities to interfere with an ongoing immigration process, deportation threats, and threats that would separate families. In many cases, petitioners indicated that immigration-related threats prevented them from leaving the violent partner, seeking help, or reporting the abuse. We also found mention of barriers for victims to receive protection and gain autonomy from further abuse including a lack of familiarity with US protections and laws, and restrictions on authorizations to work. These findings demonstrate that structurally created immigration-specific circumstances provide opportunities for threats and retaliation against victim-survivors by abusers and create barriers to seeking help initially. Policy should respond to anticipate these threats in the immigrant community and engage early responders (e.g., healthcare providers, law enforcement) to support victim-survivors from immigrant communities.

Saving Lives: Working across Agencies and Individuals to Reduce Intimate Homicide among those at Greatest Risk.

This special issue of the Journal of Family Violence offers insights on intimate homicide prevention from leading researchers and practitioners. The insights offered are timely, given the pervasiveness of domestic violence (DV), including some data since the emergence of COVID-19 noting an increase in DV-related  cases with severe  injury and police calls. Contributors in this special issue argue for interagency advocacy, protection orders, and firearm removal, along with reimagining data capture, risk assessment, firearm protocols, and fatality reviews to improve equitable services and care for DV survivors at the highest risk of homicide.

Extreme risk protection orders in King County, Washington: the epidemiology of dangerous behaviors and an intervention response.

BACKGROUND: Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a promising gun violence prevention strategy. ERPO laws allow specific categories of people (law enforcement in all states, family in most) to petition a court to request that an individual be temporarily prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms because that individual is behaving dangerously and at risk of violence, either to themselves or others. In 2017 Washington State's ERPO law took effect. King County developed a comprehensive approach to implementing the ERPO law. The early experience of King County offers important insight into how early adopters of these laws are incorporating EPROs into their approach to gun violence prevention. METHODS: We systematically reviewed, abstracted and coded data from every ERPO petition filed in King County in 2017 and 2018, and all ERPO court records associated with those petitions. We conducted descriptive analyses of the coded data. RESULTS: Seventy-five ERPO petitions were filed in King County during the study period. Judges granted a temporary ERPO in all 75 cases; 65 (87%) of these cases resulted in a one-year ERPO. Law enforcement initiated 73 (97%) of these petitions, and family members filed the remaining two. The 75 petitions filed described respondents' risk as to "themselves only" in 30 cases (40%), to "others only" in 20 cases (27%) and "to themselves and others" in 25 cases (33%). Five cases where the threat was to "others only" met a definition of mass shooting threat. For 95% of the temporary ERPOs issued, the courts' reasoning for issuing ERPOs included either current violence or brandishing a firearm. Court records for the 75 cases detail firearms removed and/or include receipts for removed firearms in 61 cases (81%) either as part of ERPO precipitating events (n = 13, 17%) or in conjunction with ERPO service (n = 48, 64%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that Washington's ERPO law is being applied when someone is threatening violence to self or others, or brandishing a gun and at least one other risk factor is present. The early experience of King County provides insight into how this law is being implemented in one jurisdiction and how courts are evaluating such cases.