{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01634241245136187, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0038910505836575876, 'mean_word_length': 5.732984293193717, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Intimate Partner Abuse.

Since the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was signed into law, women seeking safety from intimate partner violence have increasingly sought civil protection orders. Each year, approximately 1 million civil protection orders are issued in the United States. Research suggests that protection orders can help to reduce intimate partner abuse. Moreover, protection orders can offer a variety of reliefs to survivors, including stay away orders, division of property, and custody and visitation stipulations. However, little research has examined factors related to specific conditions of protection orders, particularly around visitation. Given that batterers often use children and visitation as a further tactic of power and control, it is important to reveal which variables are related to visitation decisions and conditions within protection orders. Structured observations of protection order hearings were conducted in family courts involving women seeking orders against male partners. Visitation arrangements determined by judicial officers in hearings tended to be informal; the court provided little support or information. Legal representation only mattered for offenders. Implications for judicial training and for systems advocacy will be discussed.