Domestic Abuse Restraining Order

Last updated
Restraining order successfully petitioned by a woman named Angela against her abuser under Wisconsin's domestic abuse laws Temporary Order of Protection.jpg
Restraining order successfully petitioned by a woman named Angela against her abuser under Wisconsin's domestic abuse laws

A Domestic Abuse Restraining Order (DARO) is a form of restraining order or order of protection used under the domestic abuse laws of the state of Wisconsin [1] [2] and enforceable nationwide under invocation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Violence Against Women Act (18 U.S.C.   § 2265). It is a legal intervention in which one person (the respondent) who is deemed to be hurting, threatening or stalking another person (the petitioner) is ordered to stop—and often cease all direct and indirect contact—with the goal of reducing risk of further threat or harm to the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent will generally be in certain specific relationships such as a spousal or sexual relationship. If the petitioner is in an unwanted stalking relationship with the respondent, however, a closely related form of injunction, a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) may be more appropriate. [3] [4]

Contents

Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 813.12, domestic abuse for the purposes of obtaining either type of restraining order is defined to include intentional infliction of physical pain, physical injury or illness; intentional impairment of physical condition; sexual intercourse under Wis. Stat. § 940.225; [5] [6] sexual contact under Wis. Stat. § 940.225; [5] [6] stalking under Wis. Stat. § 940.32; [7] [6] damage to property under Wis. Stat. § 943.01; [8] [6] or a threat to do any of the above. A petitioner whose has experienced domestic abuse, under this definition, can file for either type of order for free. [9] [10] Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 813.125, other forms of harassment for the purposes of obtaining a harassment restraining order include striking, shoving, kicking, or other physical abuse; or repeated intimidating acts. Petitioning for a harassment restraining order that does not qualify as domestic abuse requires the payment of a fee. [4]

Provisions and process

In Wisconsin there are similar processes for obtaining a domestic violence or harassment restraining order. [3] The first step is ordinarily for the woman—the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence generally refers to petitioners as female as most are women [11] —to file an initial petition with the court. [1] It is free of charge to file a petition for a domestic abuse restraining order. The harassment restraining order sometimes requires a fee but this is waived if the abuse also qualifies as domestic abuse, which it often does. The matter is considered a civil, not a criminal, case and the petitioner has no automatic right to an attorney, although she can retain an attorney if she can afford one. [12] The woman often begins the process under extreme stress and overwhelmed with emotion. She must provide a detailed written statement of the facts supporting the granting of the order. [13] She may request that a temporary restraining order be granted for a period of up to 14 days. The temporary restraining order may be granted ex parte—without the abuser having the opportunity to appear in court. Unlike in some states, in Wisconsin an ex parte order can be granted on the basis of past abuse, with no further evidence of the likelihood of future abuse being needed. [14]

The woman will also request that a full hearing—at which the abuser will be present—be held to determine whether to grant a permanent restraining order. [1] Wisconsin courts will have jurisdiction to hear the case if the petitioner resides in Wisconsin—even if the respondent does not also reside in Wisconsin. [15] The overall process does not usually last more than three to four weeks. [16]

The temporary restraining order does not go into effect until it is served to the person being restrained. Serving the restraining order is the responsibility of the petitioner. Service can be carried out by the Sheriff's Department of the county where the harasser lives or works, or by any adult who is not a party named in the case. [1] Judges are assigned to restraining order hearings on a rotating basis, with each judge handling restraining order hearings for one week every few months. At the full hearing, petitioners are seated on one side of the courtroom, and respondents on the other side. The hearing usually lasts about 15–30 minutes. [13] At the hearing, both parties will have an opportunity to testify and present evidence, and the judge will make a decision. The permanent restraining order, if granted, may be in effect for up to four years, and the judge must, if granting it, grant it for as long as the petitioner requests up to four years. [4] The order may also be granted, or extended, up to ten years if there is a substantial risk that the respondent may commit homicide or sexual assault against the petitioner. [6] Respondents are supposed to be held by the bailiff for 15 minutes after the hearing ends to allow petitioners to leave safely, but this rule isn't always followed. [13]

An HRO or DARO can require the harasser to stop harassing the victim, and/or avoid the victim's residence or temporary place of accommodation. [3] Like a DARO, subsequent to 17 April 2014, an HRO may also require that the harasser avoid all contact with the victim. [17]

GPS monitoring for respondents

Wisconsin is considering requiring GPS monitoring for all persons subject to a harassment or domestic abuse restraining order. At the present time, a pilot program will provide funds for testing such a program in some counties before it is implemented statewide. [18] [19] Once implemented, the program would make Wisconsin the only state in the country to order GPS monitoring for those who are under, but who have not violated, a restraining order. The program has not yet been implemented by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), however. The DOJ claims that current law does not permit judges to order GPS tracking for those who have not violated a restraining order. The governor's office has pledged to tweak the language in the next budget so the program can go ahead. [20]

Punishment for violation

Law enforcement must make an arrest if they have probable cause to believe that the abuser has violated a HRO or DARO. Upon conviction, the penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or a prison term of up to 9 months. [4] Violators may be subject to global positioning system tracking based upon a risk assessment by the department of corrections. The victim may be referred to a domestic violence or sexual assault victim service provider. [21] An exclusion zone will be created which the violator is not permitted to enter under GPS tracking. [22]

NCIC registration and firearms restrictions

The HRO or DARO will generally be registered in the Protection Order File of the National Crime Information Center. At the state level, a domestic abuse restraining order will automatically trigger a restriction on owning or possessing firearms. For a harassment restraining order, such restrictions are at the discretion of the judge granting the order and are not automatic.

Federal restrictions on firearms may also apply. The NCIC entry will include a "Brady indicator" indicating whether the restrained person is prohibited from owning firearms under federal law, with a "Y" indicating yes (the restrictions do apply), "N" for no, and "U" for unknown. Generally the Brady indicator will be set to "Y" only if certain relationships exist between the parties, such as a sexual/romantic relationship or a parent/child relationship. If the restraining order does not specify the relationship, an attempt is made to determine the relationship from other available data before setting it to "U". [23] The federal Brady indicator restrictions, which are automatic if, and only if, certain conditions apply are distinct from possible state restrictions on HRO or DARO respondents possessing firearms. For an HRO, a state restriction on the respondent possessing firearms will depend on whether the judge, at his or her discretion, feels the respondent is a risk to use a firearm to harm others, but it is not automatic. [6]

Types of Restraining Orders in Wisconsin

The domestic abuse and harassment restraining orders are among the several types of restraining orders used in Wisconsin. The DARO is similar to the HRO but requires that certain specific relationships exist or did exist between the parties. [1] The child abuse restraining order is also similar but is used where the victim of the abuse is a minor. [24] Unlike the HRO, both the domestic abuse and child abuse restraining orders carry an automatic requirement not to possess firearms under state law. [6] The individual at risk restraining order is a restraining order designed to protect adults with significant impairment in their ability to care for themselves. [25]

The petitioner will sometimes have a choice as to whether to file a domestic abuse or harassment restraining order. The differences between the two orders have grown less over the years. In the past the penalties were less for violating a harassment restraining order, and a full no contact order could not be issued in a harassment restraining order hearing. A petitioner whose request for a temporary restraining order was denied was formerly entitled to a later injunction hearing only for domestic abuse restraining orders. If the respondent and petitioner shared a residence, the respondent could, in the past, not be ordered to avoid that residence under a harassment restraining order. These differences have been significantly reduced. Harassment and domestic abuse restraining orders now have the same penalties for violation, and a full no contact order can now be made in either case. The respondent can now be ordered to avoid the petitioner's residence in either case. A full hearing will now be granted in either case even if the temporary order is denied provided that, in the case of a harassment restraining order, the harassment also meets the definition of domestic abuse. [26] [17] The significant difference between the two types of orders that remains is the fact that the domestic abuse order carries an automatic firearms ban, while the harassment order does not. Sometimes petitioners who are eligible for both will opt for the harassment order because they don't want to force the respondents to give up their firearms. This can carry significant risks for petitioners, as guns are the most common cause of domestic abuse homicides in Wisconsin. Between 2000 and 2010, there were 213 domestic abuse murders in Wisconsin by guns, more than the 194 murders by knives, other weapons, or other means combined. As such, a petitioner stipulating to a harassment restraining order rather than a domestic abuse order must be questioned to the judge as to whether she entered into the stipulation voluntarily and understands the differences between the two types of orders. The petitioner must be fully informed of the consequences of opting for a harassment restraining order. [26] [27] [28] [2]

Out of state orders, including from any state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, a tribal court, [29] or a province or territory of Canada, [30] may be enforced in Wisconsin with similar penalties for violation as if the out of state order was actually a Wisconsin domestic abuse restraining order.

Petitioner success rates

A 2006 Wisconsin study showed that female petitioners were successful about 62 percent of the time in seeking restraining orders at the full hearing where the respondents had the chance to be present. The success rate appeared to be higher if the petitioners were represented by advocates or attorneys. [13] The success rate is about 83 percent with an attorney and 32 percent without an attorney. [31] In 2017 in Dane County, 393 petitions for a domestic abuse restraining order were filed, resulting in 186 long term injunctions being issued, for an overall petitioner success rate of about 47 percent. [32]

Support for petitioners

The University of Wisconsin Law School operates a clinic, the VOCA Restraining Order Clinic, to support petitioners for domestic abuse restraining orders in Dane, Jefferson, Rock, and Sauk Counties. The program is named after the Victim of Crimes Act. Under the program, second and third year law students provide support to petitioners, including writing petitions, appearing with them in court, and providing direct and cross examination services. The program is intended to improve success rates for petitioners as well as teach both legal skills and empathy to law students. Students will make a commitment to be involved with the program for a semester. During that time it is expected that they will represent two or three petitioners. The short time frame for restraining order hearings will allow students to see complete cases through to completion. The program is operated in partnership with domestic abuse agencies such as Domestic Abuse Intervention Services. [32] [16]

The director of the clinic is Ryan Poe-Gavlinski. During the first year that the program was in effect, students helped 62 petitioners for restraining orders. [31] The assistance was offered to varying degrees: some were represented in court while others were advised only by phone. [33] In circumstances where the petitioner could not be represented in court, a trial prep meeting or call was arranged to help the petitioner prepare. Secondary trauma can be a concern for students and attorneys participating in the clinic and stress reduction techniques such as meditation are taught. [31]

Another program in Milwaukee County brings together the Sojourner Family Peace Center and the Marquette University Law School to provide support for petitioners through pro bono legal representation. A 2019 study of this program found that those with legal representation were more than twice as likely to have their restraining order approved, and were also more likely to appear in court to face their abuser. [12]

Effectiveness

Experts disagree on whether restraining orders are effective in preventing further harassment. A 2010 analysis published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law reviewed 15 U.S. studies of restraining order effectiveness, and concluded that restraining orders "can serve a useful role in threat management." [34] However, a 2002 analysis of 32 U.S. studies found that restraining orders are violated an average of 40 per cent of the time and are perceived as being "followed by worse events" almost 21 per cent of the time, and concluded that "evidence of [restraining orders'] relative efficacy is lacking," and that they may pose some degree of risk. [35] A large America-wide telephone survey conducted in 1998 found that, of stalking victims who obtained a restraining order, more than 68 per cent reported it being violated by their stalker. [36]

Threat management experts are often suspicious of restraining orders, believing they may escalate or enrage stalkers. In his 1997 book The Gift Of Fear , well-known American security specialist Gavin de Becker characterized restraining orders as "homework assignments police give to women to prove they're really committed to getting away from their pursuers," and said they "clearly serve police and prosecutors," but "they do not always serve victims." De Becker also observed that restraining orders are most effective when the emotional involvement is lowest—for example, when used following a brief, unsatisfactory, dating relationship as opposed to with an ex-spouse. In the case of stalking, de Becker advised that restraining orders are most effective if the woman rejects once, and then obtains the restraining order immediately following any further unwanted contact. If she continues to allow contact for an extended period after an initial firm rejection, any eventual restraining order may be less effective. [37]

Related Research Articles

Injunction a legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counterinjunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction.

A court order is an official proclamation by a judge that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. Such ruling requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case. A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdictions may also require it to be notarized.

The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called the "Lautenberg Amendment", is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence except for military/police officers charged of felonies under 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1). The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg. Lautenberg proposed the amendment after a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving underenforcement of domestic violence laws brought under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. President Bill Clinton signed the law as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1997.

Restraining order order used by a court to protect a person or entity

A restraining order or protective order is an order used by a court to protect a person, business, company, establishment, or entity, and the general public, in a situation involving alleged domestic violence, assault, harassment, stalking, or sexual assault. In the United States, every state has some form of domestic violence restraining order law, and many states also have specific restraining order laws for stalking and sexual assault.

Ex parte is a Latin legal term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) was a United States federal law signed as Pub.L. 103–322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.

An exclusion zone is a territorial division established for various, case-specific purposes.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Act of the Parliament of India

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to protect women from domestic violence. It was brought into force by the Indian government from 26 October 2006. The Act provides for the first time in Indian law a definition of "domestic violence", with this definition being broad and including not only physical violence, but also other forms of violence such as emotional/verbal, sexual, and economic abuse. It is a civil law meant primarily for protection orders and not for meant to be enforced criminally.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Law of the United Kingdom

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. On introducing the Bill's second reading in the House of Lords the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern said "The aim of this Bill is to protect the victims of harassment. It will protect all such victims whatever the source of the harassment—so-called stalking behaviour, racial harassment, or anti-social behaviour by neighbours." Home Office guidance on the Act says "The legislation was always intended to tackle stalking, but the offences were drafted to tackle any form of persistent conduct which causes another person alarm or distress."

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass.

In Australia, domestic violence is defined by the Family Law Act 1975 as "violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful".

Stalking is unwanted and/or repeated surveillance by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The term stalking is used with some differing definitions in psychiatry and psychology, as well as in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.

A Civil Harassment Restraining Order (CHO) is a form of restraining order or order of protection used in the state of California. It is a legal intervention in which a person who is deemed to be harassing, threatening or stalking another person is ordered to stop, with the goal of reducing risk of further threat or harm to the person being harassed. Some restraining orders are limited to domestic partners, but the CHO is not. It is frequently used with the purpose of preventing harassment by co-workers, neighbours, strangers and acquaintances.

Domestic violence in the United States

Domestic violence in United States is a form of violence that occurs within a domestic relationship. Although domestic violence often occurs between partners in the context of an intimate relationship, it may also describe other household violence, such as violence against a child, by a child against a parent or violence between siblings in the same household. It is recognized as an important social problem by governmental and non-governmental agencies, and various Violence Against Women Acts have been passed by the US Congress in an attempt to stem this tide.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to domestic violence:

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i>

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

A non-molestation order is, in English law, a type of injunction that may be sought by a victim of domestic abuse against their abuser. It is one of two types of injunction available under Part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, the other being an occupation order. A non-molestation order is aimed at stopping harassment from a partner or ex-partner and also applies to any children that a victim of abuse may have. A breach of such an order is considered a criminal offence in English law.

Red flag law Gun control law which permits temporary removal of firearms

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question. Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense. After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.

The term boyfriend loophole refers to a gap in American gun legislation that allows access to guns by physically abusive ex-boyfriends and stalkers with previous convictions. While individuals who have been convicted of, or are under a restraining order for domestic violence are prohibited from owning a firearm, the prohibition only applies if the victim was the perpetrator's spouse, cohabitant, or had a child with the victim. The boyfriend loophole has had a direct effect on people who experience domestic abuse or stalking by former or current intimate partners. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1996 made stricter restrictions on gun control in the US, however, definitions for intimate partner brought reasons for this loophole. Several states have tried closing this loophole by legislation, but were generally not successful.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "Domestic Abuse Restraining Order". Women'sLaw.Org. National Network to end Domestic Violence. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  2. 1 2 "Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 26 May 2016.
  3. 1 2 3 "Harassment Restraining Order". Women'sLaw.Org. National Network to end Domestic Violence. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "Harassment restraining orders and injunctions". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  5. 1 2 "Sexual assault". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Restraining Orders in Wisconsin" (PDF). WCADV. Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved 8 Jul 2017.
  7. "Stalking". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  8. "Damage to property". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  9. "Civil actions; fees of the clerk of court". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  10. "Petition for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Petition and Motion for Injunction Hearing" (PDF). State of Wisconsin, Circuit Court. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  11. "Process for Obtaining a Restraining Order in Wisconsin" (PDF). WCADV. Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 March 2016. Retrieved 12 Jan 2014.
  12. 1 2 Williams, Cassidy (25 March 2019). "New study shows powerful impact of being represented by attorney in domestic abuse cases". WITI . Retrieved 29 Feb 2020.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Elwart, Liz; Emerson, Nina; Enders, Christina; Fumia, Dani; Murphy, Kevin (December 2006). "Increasing Access to Restraining Orders for Low Income Victims of Domestic Violence: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Proposed Domestic Abuse Grant Program" (PDF). State Bar of Wisconsin. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 2016-12-12.
  14. Stark, Debra; Choplin, Jessica (2017). "Seeing the Wrecking Ball in Motion: Ex Parte Protection Orders and the Realities of Domestic Violence". Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society . University of Wisconsin Law School . Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  15. "Personal jurisdiction, grounds for generally". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  16. 1 2 "UW Law School launches clinic to aid domestic violence victims". University of Wisconsin. 25 October 2018. Retrieved 6 April 2019.
  17. 1 2 "2013 Wisconsin Act 322". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  18. "State budget committee rejects GPS monitoring expansion". Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved 14 Jan 2014.
  19. "Global positioning system pilot programs; grants". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 14 Jan 2014.
  20. "Wisconsin DOJ never launched GPS program". Madison.com. Archived from the original on 2014-09-20. Retrieved 19 Sep 2014.
  21. "Global positioning system tracking". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 5 Jul 2013.
  22. "Global positioning system tracking for persons who violate certain orders or injunctions". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  23. "Protection Orders and Federal Firearms Prohibitions" (PDF). www.atf.gov. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Retrieved 22 Dec 2013.
  24. "Child Abuse Restraining Order". Women'sLaw.Org. National Network to end Domestic Violence. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  25. "Individual at Risk Restraining Order". Women'sLaw.Org. National Network to end Domestic Violence. Retrieved 29 May 2012.
  26. 1 2 Meuer, Tess (Jan 2010). "Harassment Orders Become More Parallel to Domestic Abuse Orders" (PDF). Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. p. 9. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  27. Meuer, Tess (Jan 2010). "Conversion from Domestic Abuse to Harassement" (PDF). Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. p. 11. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  28. "Wisconsin Domestic Violence Homicide Report 2010". Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 2011. p. 34. Retrieved 24 Nov 2017.
  29. "Uniform interstate enforcement of domestic violence protection orders act". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  30. "Uniform Recognition and Enforcement of Canadian Domestic Violence Protection Orders Act". Wisconsin Legislature. Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  31. 1 2 3 Paukner, Michaela (5 March 2020). "UW restraining-order clinic offers life-changing help to survivors". Wisconsin Law Journal . Retrieved 18 May 2020.
  32. 1 2 Treleven, Ed (24 November 2018). "New UW clinic will help domestic abuse victims seeking legal protection from abusers". Wisconsin State Journal . Madison.com . Retrieved 6 April 2019.
  33. Speckhard, Lisa (30 April 2019). "UW law clinic helps victims attain restraining orders". Cap Times . Madison.com . Retrieved 13 July 2019.
  34. Benitez, MD, Christopher T.; McNiel, PhD, Dale E.; Binder, MD, Renée L. (2010). "Do Protection Orders Protect?". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 3. 38 (3): 376–385. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  35. Spitzberg, Brian H. (October 2002). "The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management". Trauma, Violence and Abuse. 4. 3 (4): 261–288. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  36. Tjaden, P.; Thoennes, N. (April 1998). "Stalking In America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey". National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (NCJ 169592): 1–19.
  37. De Becker, Gavin (1997). The Gift Of Fear And Other Survival Signals That Will Protect Us From Violence. New York: Dell Publishing. pp. 223–229. ISBN   0-440-22619-8.