Copyright © 2001 Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Congress passed the full faith and credit provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to establish nationwide enforcement of civil and criminal protection orders in state and tribal courts throughout the country. Section 2265 of the VAWA explicitly directs that states, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes enforce protection orders issued by sister states, territories, and tribes, however, it does not prescribe the specific enforcement procedures that jurisdictions must adopt to comply with its mandate. In fact, pursuant to the federal law, the only requirement for interstate or interjurisdictional enforcement of a protection order is that the foreign order be valid as that term is defined in the Act.
Because the full faith and credit provision of the VAWA is not self-executing, states, U.S. territories, and Indian tribes must establish their own procedures for honoring foreign protection orders. Since Section 2265 was enacted in September of 1994, the majority of states have addressed the issue of enforcement of out-of-state protection orders by amending their state domestic violence codes or statutes. At present, there is considerable variation among states in terms of full faith and credit implementation. On the one hand, many states have adopted legislation that makes it relatively easy for battered women to get their foreign protection orders enforced. On the other hand, a few states have established enforcement procedures for out-of-state orders that are somewhat cumbersome for battered women and may even expose them to risk or harm. What follows is a synopsis of recently enacted full faith and credit laws.
Forty-seven (47) states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have passed some type of full faith and credit enabling legislation. [1]
Thirty-three (33) states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) explicitly direct that foreign protection orders shall be afforded full faith and credit and enforced in the same manner as in-state orders.
Five (5) states (Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Utah and Vermont) enforce foreign protection orders provided that they are similar to orders issued within their state.
Twenty-four (24) states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming [2] ) explicitly enforce foreign protection orders issued by tribal courts.
Three (3) states (Alaska, Montana, and Pennsylvania) mandate that filing and/or registration of foreign protection orders are necessary requirements for enforcement.
Thirty-one (31) states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) provide that filing and/or registration of out-of-state protection orders are optional for purposes of enforcement.
Seventeen (17) states (Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Virginia) require that an affidavit be attached to a foreign protection order at the time of filing/registration confirming the order remains in effect or verifying the opposing party received notice/service when the order was issued.
Twenty-five (25) states (Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin) direct that if a protected party is filing or registering a foreign protection order, it must be a certified copy of the original order.
Two (2) states (Louisiana and Missouri) send notice to the opposing party if/when a foreign protection order is filed/registered in their state.
Seventeen (17) states (California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming) explicitly direct that violations of foreign protection orders constitute crimes in their jurisdiction.
Thirteen (13) states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin) explicitly authorize law enforcement officers to arrest offenders who have violated foreign protection order.
Sixteen (16) states (Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin) direct law enforcement officers to enforce foreign protection orders provided the orders appear valid on their face.
Three (3) states, Maryland, Missouri and Utah, direct law enforcement officers to enforce foreign protection orders provided the orders are certified/authenticated.
Five (5) states (Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas) permit a law enforcement officer to rely on the statement of a protected party that a foreign order exists provided a copy of the order has also been presented to the officer.
Eighteen (18) states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) permit a protected party to present a copy of a foreign protection order to a law enforcement officer for purposes of enforcement.
Eight (8) states, Arizona, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont and Virginia, permit a law enforcement officer to rely solely on the statement of the protected party or third party that a foreign protection order remains in effect.
Fifteen (15) states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin) expressly provide immunity to law enforcement officers who enforce foreign protection orders while acting in good faith.
Twenty-one (21) states (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) permit foreign protection orders to be entered into their statewide protection order registry.
The foregoing summary reveals that there has been considerable legislative activity on the state level related to enforcement of foreign protection orders. Most states have passed full faith and credit implementing legislation that is consistent with the full faith and credit mandate, but several states have enacted statutes and procedures that in some ways undermine the intent of the federal law.
For a more detailed explanation of individual state codes, refer to the Full Faith and Credit Matrix that has been prepared by the Full Faith and Credit (FFC) Project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. In addition, the FFC Project has developed a Model FFC Enabling Statute. The model legislation can be used by jurisdictions that are considering the adoption a full faith and credit enabling statute, or amending their existing full faith and credit legislation. In particular, states are encouraged to enact provisions similar to those contained in the model code to promote uniformity and consistency in full faith and credit implementation procedures across the country. For a copy of the FFC Matrix or the Model FFC Enabling Statute, contact the FFC Project at (800) 256-5883 ext. 2 or (202) 265-0967 ext. 2.
[1] "Full faith and credit enabling legislation" means any type of state law that addresses how foreign protection orders will be enforced.
[2] Pursuant to Wyoming's Tribal Full Faith and Credit Act (WTFF&CA, state courts are required to recognize judicial records, orders, and judgments of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho tribes as long as tribal courts recognize Wyoming's judicial records, orders and judgments.
This document was not developed by Violence Against Women Online Resources. The document's author or sponsoring organization granted VAWOR permission for placement on this site. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This web site is a cooperative project of Office on Violence Against Women and Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse at the University of Minnesota and is supported by grant number 2004-WT-AX-K075 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Additional information about this site can be obtained by reading Email us for more information and assistance.
©Copyright 1998-2005 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA)
File Last Modified on: 15