The PDF in which this article appears can be found in Bifocal Vol. 46 Issue 5.
June 24, 2025
The Power of Personal Protection Orders for Older and Vulnerable Adults
By Emily J. Miller/Program Director- Crime Victim’s Legal Assistance Project, Michigan Statewide Advocacy Services
As a civil legal aid attorney representing survivors of elder abuse, I am constantly reminded of the profound and devastating effects that mistreatment has on older and vulnerable adults. My clients often experience a cascade of psychological harm, financial ruin, physical harm, and, in our worst cases, death. These outcomes are born out in national statistics showing that elder abuse victims experience mortality rates three times higher than that of non-victims, increased hospitalization due to higher rates of depression and social withdrawal, and financial losses over $28 billion.
Clients who reach out for legal assistance often report that the recent bruises are just the tip of the iceberg – a physical manifestation of the emotional coercive control that had been present and building over years. In fact, the most common forms of older adult mistreatment are financial exploitation, neglect, and psychological abuse. Further, those who experience the abuse are often reluctant to report because their perpetrator is someone they care for and do not want to get in trouble with law enforcement. The National Center of Elder Abuse reports that that vast majority of perpetrators - 60% - were reported to be family members or non-family caregivers, while only 6.7% victims reported not knowing the identity of their abuser. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that only 1 in 24 cases of abuse are reported to authorities.
Despite these statistics, many states lack effective civil legal remedies to allow older and vulnerable adults, who find themselves in unsafe situations with people they love, to seek safety and stability on their own terms. Much of the focus in “fighting” elder abuse has been on training law enforcement and increasing prosecution of these crimes. Although punishing perpetrators of elder abuse is certainly a piece of the puzzle, it is not a holistic response. Our civil legal systems need to provide a mechanism for survivors, regardless of age or disability, to pursue their own remedies and not simply rely on the priorities of a state’s criminal justice system. Enacting specialized civil restraint laws that empower survivors of these abuses to pursue their own protections is an essential part of upholding the dignity and safety of this community of individuals.
Every state in the U.S. has some form of civil protective order (CPO). These orders allow a “petitioner” to request injunctive relief against a “respondent” who has engaged in some type of abuse, harassment, stalking or threating behavior. Courts frequently grant these orders on an emergency ex parte basis, which is designed to prevent retaliatory abuse by the respondent after service of a petition, pending a hearing. The injunctive relief available to a petitioner includes a range of protection (no contact provisions, protection of pets, restrictions on gun possession) that can be tailored to the needs of the survivor. Unlike criminal restraining orders, which arise from criminal charges and are driven by prosecutors who represent the state, CPOs are initiated and enforced by survivors themselves. This civil option can be a less punitive measure for survivors who want safety but do not want to initiate a criminal case against their loved one.
The majority of states, however, do not provide any specific civil protections for the types of abuses experienced by older or vulnerable adults. Further, because the majority of CPO laws nationally are designed to interrupt intimate partner violence they do not allow individuals (like, for example, the parent of an abusive adult child) to petition for a CPO because they do not have the requisite “intimate” relationship with their abuser. As a result of this agist/ablest gap in our civil legal systems, adults victimized by caregivers, family members, or “friends” are more likely to experience ongoing abuse or neglect. In my experience as a civil legal aid attorney, this is particularly problematic, for older and vulnerable adults lack of access to civil safety mechanisms, is more likely to lead to dire social consequences, including, premature mortality, depression, cognitive decline, physical injuries, financial devastation, guardianship, removal from their home and community, and premature mortality.
One of the most common scenarios experienced by the older and vulnerable adults – who would benefit from specialized CPO protections – involves what my program has coined the “unwanted abusive occupant.” A classic example is an adult child, down on his luck, who needs a place to stay, and a parent, in need of support, who offers temporary respite. These cases usually start as mutually consenting. The adult child may offer some caregiving services to the parent initially and the parent may forgive any contribution to the bills knowing that the arrangement is not indefinite and symbiotic. When the adult child, however, stops providing caregiving, begins using financial resources without authorization, is abusing drugs or alcohol in the home, and becomes increasingly aggressive (verbally and/or physically), then the parent’s role changes from “host” to “prisoner.” This transition to a relationship of coercive control frequently results in the victim’s increasing isolation, a deterioration in their physical and mental health and loss of financial control.
Individuals seeking safety in these cases may have very few options available to them. Typically, they cannot temporarily flee to domestic violence shelters because they are not victims of intimate partner violence. They are often turned away by law enforcement because the child has lived in the home for a significant time and appears to be more of a resident than a trespasser and the abusive dynamic is unclear. They cannot evict their child because this would result in potentially lethal retaliation during the months of pending litigation while still residing together. They cannot abandon their home because it is often where they have lived for decades and, given their age or vulnerability, mobility is a barrier.
Further, individuals seeking financial protection have even fewer options for meaningful relief. These cases often involve victims who initially gave authorization to the offender (whom they trusted) to use their finances, perhaps to assist with basic needs, such as grocery shopping or obtaining medications. It is often unclear, however, at what point the offender over-stepped that authorization and began engaging in exploitative behaviors. For this reason, victims who report to law enforcement are often told “it’s a civil matter.”
Civil law suffers from similar limitations. Most states have a variety of civil claims that can be brought to remedy theft (conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud, etc.) but these cases are complex and not easily accessible to in pro per litigants. Even for experienced civil litigators, these cases are often difficult to prove due to the evidentiary challenges in proving when the relationship became exploitive. This creates a particularly problematic system for individuals who are low income and even a minor monetary loss could place them at risk of homelessness. Indigent adults cannot afford to hire an attorney to recover their stolen money and, even if a contingency fee arrangement is available, the amounts at issue are often too small to justify the cost of litigation, thus making the judicial system inaccessible. Additionally, filing a civil action to recover money is often slow. Unfortunately, in most cases involving financial exploitation, “once the money is gone – it’s gone.” Our existing civil legal system does not accommodate this reality.
There are a handful of states that have recognized the need to craft unique protections aimed at ensuring equal access to safety and financial stability for older and vulnerable adults. These jurisdictions have passed laws that create specialized CPOs to meet this need. These laws provide protection to adults over 60, 65 or 70 years or older. Similarly, most states recognize a separate category of eligibility for vulnerable adults, though a variety of terms are used including, for example, “dependent adult,” “at-risk-adult,” and “incapacitated adult.” Each specialized law, at a minimum, allows Courts to order no contact provisions and move out orders. Provisions that address the prevalence of financial exploitation in this population include restrictions on serving as the victim’s fiduciary, the ability to freeze accounts, return of stolen funds or property, and the allowance of attorney’s fees and costs. In addition to their specialized protection, these laws also account for the unique harm experienced by this population, including financial exploitation, neglect, withholding or withholding/preventing access to goods, services, or basic amenities, engaging in a pattern of harassment that exploits the individual’s vulnerabilities, and exercising coercive decision-making authority. Because these CPOs are tailored to protecting older and vulnerable adults, they are more accessible to these survivors and have a greater impact on their safety and stability.
Studies show that people with greater self-determination are healthier, more independent, and better able to recognize and resist abuse. Creating civil legal mechanisms that empower individuals to obtain survivor-centered protection is a meaningful way to provide older and vulnerable adults with greater self-determination, while also closing the gap in access to justice.