Abstract
In 2009, Muller et al. examined the process of obtaining temporary and permanent restraining orders in Sacramento County, California. The findings of the study indicate a gender difference in relation to the granting of both temporary and permanent orders, with male plaintiffs obtaining both orders less often then female plaintiffs. As a result, the authors conclude that judicial discrimination exists against male victims of intimate partner violence. However, multiple issues can be observed throughout the article. Because these issues have the potential to affect the results, it is important to revise the original methods and create a replication study. The data for the following replication was collected at the Sacramento Family Court in Sacramento, California, and aims to examine the process of obtaining a temporary and permanent restraining orders. However, the study bases its findings on improved methods that include a larger sample with an equal number of male and female plaintiffs and an extensive group of control variables. In addition to the quantitative data, the current study incorporates qualitative data. These qualitative data, including judicial comments, offer important insight regarding the judicial decision-making process. The replication reveals a smaller gender difference in obtaining a temporary restraining order than the original study, with the qualitative data suggesting an alternative explanation for this observed disparity. No statistically significant gender difference in the issuance of permanent orders is noted. The replication does not therefore support the original study’s claim of judicial discrimination in the issuance of these orders.