Purpose <p>This study examines how safety risk indicators and employment status influence civil protection order (CPO) outcomes for first-time filing mothers. While statutory provisions aim to protect IPV victims, judicial discretion may introduce inconsistencies, particularly for economically marginalized petitioners.</p> Methods <p>Using CPO case data from a jurisdiction with a progressive statute, we analyzed whether safety risk indicators (e.g., violence history, lethality risk) and employment status predicted temporary CPO issuance and protection duration. Robust logistic regression was conducted to assess these relationships while controlling for legal representation.</p> Results <p>Findings revealed that safety risk indicators, including violence severity and lethality risk, were not significantly associated with either temporary CPO issuance or protection duration. Employment status was not a significant predictor. An interaction between petitioners’ employment and lethality risk emerged, indicating differing patterns for employed and unemployed mothers.</p> Conclusions <p>These findings raise questions about potential gaps between statutory intent and judicial practices, particularly regarding how unemployed mothers may experience the CPO process. The results highlight the need for further research and may inform efforts related to judicial training on IPV dynamics and implicit bias, as well as policy discussions aimed at improving equity and consistency in CPO outcomes.</p>