Abstract
Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence (MR-IPV) is a controversial topic. This study examined the practice of MR-IPV by investigating what factors were associated with MR-IPV experience among victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). The study also investigated the experiences of IPV victims who have experienced MR-IPV, to better understand the consequences of MR-IPV. Eighty-six IPV victims were recruited through help services and administered a questionnaire about their experiences with IPV and MR-IPV. Multivariate logistic regression was used to explore statistical predictors of having experienced MR-IPV. Candidate predictors included IPV characteristics and risk factors, sociodemographic/contextual variables, and contact with the help services. IPV severity and persistence were of particular interest, as these define the threshold for whether MR-IPV applies in Norwegian law. IPV victims with MR-IPV experience were asked questions about the experienced consequences of MR-IPV. Neither characteristics of the IPV victimization, risk factors, sociodemographic variables nor contact with the help services were predictive of MR-IPV experience. However, having perpetrated severe psychological aggression was predictive of MR-IPV experience (OR = 4.99). Participants with MR-IPV experience (n = 39) reported both positive and negative consequences of MR-IPV, but generally more positive consequences for themselves. A majority agreed that, overall, they were better off after MR-IPV was used. Our results indicate that the Norwegian MR-IPV law might not be practiced as intended. The consequences of MR-IPV for IPV victims appear complex and warrant further study. However, overall, the use of MR-IPV led to positive reported consequences for the majority of the participants in this study.