The pandemic forced courts (and every other part of society) to do things differently. These changes continue to be a gold mine for scholars as we continue to learn lessons about the impact of these changes. Professor Wechsler’s article is a wonderful example of looking at one specific area, civil protection hearings for survivors of intimate partner violence, and examining COVID-19-generated lessons that could improve the process moving forward. The article is grounded in original empirical research with survivors and legal services providers and focuses on procedural justice, empowerment, and access. Although civil protection orders are the most common legal remedy sought by survivors of intimate partner violence, this article examines how different options for filing protective order petitions and hearing participation are important to survivors.
The article is based on two complementary and original empirical studies. The first is a survey of intimate partner violence survivors in New York City family courts who sought protective orders during the pandemic. Notably, 85% of participants were women of color, ensuring that the study centers the voices of those disproportionately impacted by intimate partner violence but who are often marginalized in policy debates. The second was a survey of legal services providers nationwide, documenting changes in protective order procedures before, during, and after the pandemic restrictions. Methodologically, this dual approach gives the article both depth and breadth with rich qualitative accounts from survivors themselves, combined with a broader procedural landscape from practitioners’ perspectives. Importantly, Professor Wechsler builds on prior scholarship without duplication, providing new empirical insights.
Professor Wechsler’s key findings included comparing in-person vs. virtual hearings. She found that whether survivors preferred in-person or virtual hearings was driven by individual safety concerns, technology access, and perceptions of fairness. She found that virtual hearings can reduce barriers for some survivors (due to transportation costs, childcare needs, and risk of encountering the abuser in person) but can disadvantage others (due to those lacking private space or fearing reduced credibility before the court). She found that many jurisdictions returned to pre-pandemic practices, eliminating virtual options, despite their benefits to certain groups.
By introducing a statutory framework of “accessible process pluralism,” Professor Wechsler not only critiques going back to pre-pandemic practices but also charts a realistic, implementable path forward—one that balances fairness, safety, and empowerment. This framework would allow survivors to choose the method of filing and hearing participation. It would require judges to honor these preferences absent good cause. And it would integrate accessibility features that reduce procedural burdens on pro se petitioners, who constitute the majority of protection order seekers.
This article’s reach is broad and practical. Professor Wechsler offers judges, court administrators, and advocates data-driven reasons to adopt procedural flexibility. She gives legislators a statutory blueprint ready for implementation. For legal scholars, it contributes to the literature on access to justice by demonstrating how procedural flexibility can be systematically embedded into statutes to promote fairness and efficacy. Its conceptual framing — linking process pluralism to empowerment theory — enriches both fields and provides a transferable model for other contexts where litigants face significant barriers to participation.
This article is a deep dive into an important area and a powerful argument of why courts should move away from “one size fits all” processes, while giving concrete recommendations on how to make a flexible process approach work for one often disadvantaged and disempowered group.
