Remote Justice & Domestic Violence: Process Pluralism Lessons From the Pandemic

43 Pages Posted: 27 Feb 2023 Last revised: 5 Oct 2023

See all articles by Andrea Kupfer Schneider

Andrea Kupfer Schneider

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Heather R. Hlavka

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - College of Liberal Arts

Sameena Mulla

Emory College of Arts and Science

Erin Schubert

Sojourner Family Peace Center

Aleksandra Snowden

Marquette University

Date Written: February 23, 2023

Abstract

Domestic violence procedures, like so many court processes around the world, were forced to go online and remote during the pandemic. The impact was dramatic—there were fewer restraining order petitions filed in the first place and an even lower amount granted. In short, domestic violence survivors, among the most vulnerable in our court system, were even more challenged in the last two years. Like many court systems, Milwaukee will never go back to being fully in-person for all procedures in conjunction with domestic violence. The evolving hybrid choices could provide additional access to justice, or these processes could create additional barriers to successful filing of restraining orders in court and accessing needed social services for survivors.

Interestingly, the shift to remote and online processes has been successful and effective in other contexts. How can we explain the difference? Using the lens of process pluralism, this Article addresses four key factors: (1) context—recognizing that domestic violence survivors are a unique set of court clients and present specific challenges; (2) process plurality—the use of different and hybrid technological options considering party access to technology and advocate support, synchronous versus asynchronous modes, efficiency, and benefits versus costs of video/face to face interactions; (3) imagination—the need to evolve and create new process options to meet the concerns of particular contexts and courts; and (4) justice—ensuring that processes are both procedurally and substantively just, providing voice, legitimacy and fair outcomes to participants. In conjunction with empirical research conducted on survivors and service providers in the Milwaukee County area during the pandemic, this Article will review each of these principles and outline crucial next steps for the court to protect the most vulnerable.

Suggested Citation

Schneider, Andrea Kupfer and Hlavka, Heather R. and Mulla, Sameena and Schubert, Erin and Snowden, Aleksandra, Remote Justice & Domestic Violence: Process Pluralism Lessons From the Pandemic (February 23, 2023). 52 Stetson Law Review 231 (2022), Cardozo Legal Studies Research Paper No. 720, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4368553

Andrea Kupfer Schneider (Contact Author)

Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law ( email )

55 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10003
United States

HOME PAGE: http://cardozo.yu.edu/directory/andrea-schneider

Heather R. Hlavka

University of Minnesota - Twin Cities - College of Liberal Arts ( email )

Department of Sociology
Minneapolis, MN
United States
+1 612 624-0201 (Phone)

Sameena Mulla

Emory College of Arts and Science ( email )

Atlanta, GA 30322
United States

Erin Schubert

Sojourner Family Peace Center

619 W. Walnut Street
Milwaukee, WI 53212
United States

Aleksandra Snowden

Marquette University ( email )

United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
59
Abstract Views
264
Rank
648,767
PlumX Metrics