Advocates support diverse survivors through complex legal systems; this study explores their (n = 20) perspectives on structural barriers in obtaining civil protection orders (POs). Using frameworks of structural intersectionality, access to justice, and access to safety, we identified three major structural barriers for parents seeking POs: limited childcare, transportation, and time. Findings elicit who struggles to access civil POs, why these barriers exist, and whether justice and safety are attainable. The discussion highlights the need for systemic reforms and sustainable resource investment to improve the civil PO process and enhance survivor safety.
BejinariuA.TroshynskiE. I.MietheT. D. (2019). Civil protection orders and their courtroom context: The impact of gatekeepers on legal decisions. Journal of Family Violence, 34(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9999-7
3.
CostelloJ.DurfeeA. (2020). Survivor-defined advocacy in the civil protection order process. Feminist Criminology, 15(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085119891250
4.
CrenshawK. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics (vol. 139). University of Chicago Legal Forum.
5.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
6.
Domingo-CabarrubiasL.WoodlockD.AlexanderC.SatoM.GrantG.WeinbergJ. (2023). The role of technology in improving access to justice for victims of family violence: Challenges and opportunities. Law, Technology and Humans, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.2469
7.
DurfeeA. (2021). The use of structural intersectionality as a method to analyze how the domestic violence civil protective order process replicates inequality. Violence Against Women, 27(5), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220958495
GaurP.GangulyA. P.KuoM.MartinR.AlvarezK. S.BhavanK. P.KhoK. A. (2024). Childcare needs as a barrier to healthcare among women in a safety-net health system. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1608. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19125-1
11.
GezinskiL. B.Gonzalez-PonsK. M. (2021). Legal barriers and re-victimization for survivors of intimate partner violence navigating courts in Utah, United States (pp. 1–13). Women & Criminal Justice.
12.
HefnerM. K.BaboolalA. A.Fleury-SteinerR. E.MillerS. L. (2021). Mediating justice: Women’s perceptions of fairness in the civil protection order process. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), 3331–3352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518775749
LoganT.ShannonL.WalkerR.FaragherT. M. (2006). Protective orders: Questions and conundrums. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 7(3), 175–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838006288930
15.
MentovichA.PrescottJ. J.Rabinovich-EinyO. (2023). Legitimacy and online proceedings: Procedural justice, access to justice, and the role of income. Law & Society Review, 57(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12653
16.
MessingJ. T.Bagwell-GrayM. E.Ward-LasherA.DurfeeA. (2021). ‘Not bullet proof’: The complex choice not to seek a civil protection order for intimate partner violence. International Review of Victimology, 27(2), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758021993338
RagusaA. T. (2013). Rural Australian women’s legal help seeking for intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 685–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512455864
20.
RhodeD. L. (2004). Access to justice. Oxford University Press.
21.
RichieB. E. (2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. New York University Press.
22.
RussellB.CoxJ.HamelA.MacNeilE.StewartH. (2025). A systematic review of intimate partner violence protection order research: A decade of insight. Partner abuse, 16(2), 159–220. https://doi.org/10.1891/pa-2024-0050
23.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
24.
SandefurR. L.TeufelJ. (2020). Assessing America’s access to civil justice crisis. UC Irvine Law Review, 11(3), 753. Retrieved fromhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/33d7w37b
StokolsD.HallK.VogelA.Haire-JoshuD.McBrideT. (2013). Transdisciplinary public health: Core characteristics, definitions, and strategies for success. In Haire-JoshuD.McBrideT. D. (Eds.), Transdisciplinary public health research, methods, and practice (pp. 3–30). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
27.
TolmieJ.SmithR.WilsonD. (2024). Understanding intimate partner violence: Why coercive control requires a social and systemic entrapment framework. Violence Against Women, 30(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231205585
28.
VelonisA. J.DaoudN.MathesonF.Woodhall-MelnikJ.Hamilton-WrightS.O’CampoP. (2017). Strategizing safety: Theoretical frameworks to understand women’s decision making in the face of partner violence and social inequities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3321–3345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515598953
WeiszA. N.SchellM. (2020). Responding to intimate partner violence: Urban women’s decisions about getting personal protection orders when other resources are scarce. Violence Against Women, 26(10), 1242–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219854537
