Written by Isabel Perez-Morina, Ph.D. Chief Executive Officer, Advocate Program, Inc. | ipmorina@advocateprogram.org

The purpose of this article is to inform and engage family court stakeholders on handling cases involving intimate partner violence. There is a considerable amount of literature that suggests that victims of intimate partner violence are at a disadvantage in family court for several reasons. Many articles have been written about how common strategies used re-victimize non-offending caregivers. While this can be true in some cases, this article is not meant to undermine the family court system and those that navigate it, but rather to present a perspective that leads to a shared framework and language promoting individual safety, healing, and well-being.

The World Health Organization defines intimate partner violence as “behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviors.”[1] This same source notes the median lifetime prevalence of physical abuse in the United States as 26%. Psychological abuse by contrast is much higher at 34%. These issues, however, are prevalent in over half of all divorce cases. To ensure the safety of all parties, it is necessary to all stakeholders to be properly trained and knowledgeable on these issues.

Common Myths & Misconceptions

1. If it’s true, why did they stay?

Why do victims stay in abusive relationships? The answer is complicated. But I will present two statistics. Research shows that for many individuals that suffer abuse, it takes about 7 attempts to permanently leave the abuser, but the decision is not an easy one to make.[2]  The decision to leave a relationship, even one that is toxic, can be challenging. In fact, most individuals can identify with this concept. Many of us engage in behavior we know is not good for us, but we somehow rationalize why we continue on the same path. I often wonder why we expect a higher standard from victims of abuse. It’s as if they should possess some superhuman ability to make the healthiest choices despite the unique challenges they face. Survivors will often express that abusers are not “bad” 100% of the time. In fact, many of these relationships have positive memories that make the decision to separate difficult, especially when the abuser appears remorseful. Often in a relationship, parties hold on to what could be, rather than what is. It is important to understand that survivors of domestic violence can still experience a deep loss for the relationship, even one that caused them harm. Financial issues are also a reason to stay. In cases of coercive control[3], abusers use tactics such as isolation, intimidation, and control, often without physical violence. One common controlling tactic is to control or restrain an individual’s ability to make money or be financially independent. Victims often make the decision to stay because they cannot afford to leave or support their children. And the most common and counterintuitive reason for staying; sometimes it’s just safer.  A victim of abuse is often at the highest degree of danger when they attempt to separate or after separation. Data from the Miami-Dade County Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team showed that in 67% of intimate partner homicides, the victim and abuser had been separated for 6 months[4]. When the decision to leave is made, it is often intentional and with a coordinated effort to keep the survivor and the children safe.

2. If it’s true, how come there was never a call to police?

How is it that a person can be in danger, yet there was not one police report or arrest that demonstrates a history of prior violence? There are common sense reasons for not calling the police. Some women report being unable to call police because the abuser may either threaten them or their children with more violence, or physically unable to access the phone. Many report that they do not want their partner to be arrested, but rather they just want the abuse to stop.[5] Another important consideration is that not all cases of intimate partner violence involve physical abuse. In fact, psychological abuse and coercive control without physical abuse are far more common. They are unfortunately, much harder to prove. For those that represent survivors, the best suggestion here is to find trained experts that are capable of interviewing and identifying the patterns associated with these forms of abuse. But in general, every practitioner in the family court system should be aware that nonphysical forms of abuse occur, and they can often lead to a higher incidence of lethal violence. In fact, data from the Domestic Violence Fatality Review team shows that a prior police report was present in only 38% of all cases involving lethal violence.[6]

3. Victims often provoke their partners.

Most of us can agree that violence is not the answer and should not be excused. Dr. Lenore Walker documented the cycle of violence that described a general pattern of abuse in a relationship[7]. During the initial stage, tension builds. In this stage victims can sense that something is about to happen. The stage the follows is the incidence of violence, followed by reconciliation, and then calm. Interestingly what has been shown is that victims of domestic violence may use provocation to better time the violent incident or simply get it over with. This is a tactic that is often used to protect children in the home. For example, the children are due to be home from school or an outing and the victim may provoke an incident to prevent the children from being present or harmed. While the behavior may be portrayed as provoking or aggressive, in actuality it demonstrates the victim’s ability to protect the children in the home.

4. Domestic violence is about impulse control and anger management.

Individuals that perpetrate intimate partner violence do so to gain power and control over the victim. Cases involving any aspect of intimate partner violence should never be referred to anger management. This has been shown to increase potential harm and risk to the victim. Anger Management does not address the dynamic involved in a relationship and can significantly minimize the behavior. Most individuals that engage in intimate partner violence have complete control over their anger and emotions. Anger management fails to address nonphysical forms of aggression, coercive control, and many of the factors in relationships that have the potential to cause lethal harm. The failure to intentionally address abuse completely and holistically and minimize this to learning strategies on controlling ones temper, will not disrupt the cycle of violence and will not increase safety to victims and their children[8].

5. All perpetrators of domestic violence are the same.

There are many different reasons why some individuals perpetrate violence on others. For some, it is part of a learned behavior. They saw the same dynamic as a child and are repeating the same cycle. Others suffer from mental illness and other forms of trauma and act out to control their fears as it relates to interpersonal relationships, such as a fear of abandonment or betrayal. Many perpetrators suffer from substance misuse disorders and engage in harmful behaviors as part of a pattern of addiction. Others engage in general violence and respond to all conflict with anger. Finally, some perpetrators are narcissistic, entitled, and believe that they have the right to control their partner and home. Not all perpetrators of violence will admit to wrongdoing. But many can and do a process a desire to act differently. Effective intervention models help these individuals with accepting accountability, not necessarily as a form of judgment and punishment, but as a motivator to make the choice to change. Understanding each individual’s backstory is critical to creating a plan for sustainable change. Effective systems use a nonjudgmental care approach with perpetrators. This can be accomplished while still being driven by victim and child safety[9].

6. The children are not physically harmed, they never saw the violence, so they are not affected.

Children always know. Most of us that grew up in two parent households, always knew when our parents were fighting or not getting along, even if we didn’t witness the argument. Children are intuitive and can sense when dynamics change. Nonverbal children and infants exposed to violence in the home show signs of poor cognitive development and have demonstrated changes to their developing brain[10]. The documented research on the negative impacts of family violence is vast.  The problem is that often this is used to set up victims to fail, portraying them as incapable of protecting their children. Victims are somehow expected to control the abusers’ behavior and the subtle actions that demonstrate protective abilities are often ignored.

Suggested Solutions: The dos and don’ts

Do hold perpetrators of intimate partner violence accountable.

Keeping victims and their children safe means holding perpetrators accountable. This is done simply by refraining from finding an excuse to the behavior. Instead focus the conversation on how to create a path where the perpetrator can access the services needed that will make them a better parent and allow for a safe separation from the victim.

Do listen to victims.

Research shows that the number one indicator that a victim is in danger is their perception that they are in danger. While false accusations do occur, they are rare. In cases where physical evidence is lacking, consider hiring experts that can provide an opinion as to the dynamics and risks.

Do refer perpetrators of abuse to batterers intervention programs.

I am not necessarily a fan of the title, especially because not all abusers engage in battering behavior. That notwithstanding, these programs focus on power and control. They also facilitate a comprehensive assessment to identify behavioral health issues and ensure that perpetrators of violence have access to needed services. Many perpetrators have a desire and a capacity to change. Motivating perpetrators of abuse to engage in care is a critical part of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence.

Do improve access to services to victims of abuse.

Many victims of abuse develop substance abuse and mental illness. They may have difficulty developing a sense of self-efficacy and may have developed “learned helplessness”. Pathways to healing are necessary. A victim’s rights to autonomy, making decisions on their children’s care, and privacy are critical.

Do find common ground.

Another barrier that is commonly observed are the parties own bias and distinct perspectives relating to intimate partner violence, those that abuse, and those who survive the abuse. The question I often hear asked is, “can someone who perpetrates intimate partner violence be a good parent?” And if I were to take a poll, the readers of this article would fall into three categories: Yes, No, or It Depends. I’d like to submit that we are asking the wrong question. Instead, ask, is perpetrating abuse on the parent of your child a good parenting practice? And almost universally, we can agree that it is not. Achieving common ground around this concept can help us problem solve and reach agreements that help to create a healthy and safe environment for children, while respecting everyone’s rights and ability to change, recover, and heal.

Don’t require couples counseling where victims must be negotiated directly with a perpetrator of intimate partner violence.

Victims are at a disadvantage in these settings because the power dynamic favors the abuser. It takes a considerable amount of time and work to change this dynamic and putting victims in these situations often leads to revictimization, regression, and trauma. It is to everyone’s benefit, including the children involved, that all parties establish a sense of equity. Couples counseling and co-parenting models are often not an effective tool in these cases. Instead consider utilizing trained mediators that can reach agreements through separate meetings and negotiations.

Don’t refer perpetrators of domestic violence to anger management.

For reasons already explained, anger management can cause more harm than good in these cases.

Don’t hold victims accountable for perpetrators behavior.

Therapists have a saying, when you point a finger, four point right back at you. Each party must own their behavior. Victims, generally through no fault of their own, have to deal with the consequences of someone else’s behavior. They have to decide to heal. Perpetrators must be the ones responsible for stopping the abuse.

Above all, within your individual scope and role, strive to do no harm.

Adversarial processes focused on winning can often get personal. In family court, this often leads to poorer outcomes for children and families. When we remove the personal and understand each other’s roles, we can focus on creating win-win situations. Before pointing fingers and assuming intent, we can best serve our families by understanding that everyone is doing the best job they can. The school of social work, counseling, and mental health works under a very important principle – do no harm. We are still able to achieve good results, but can use our roles to advocate or establish rulings that prevent harm to the parties involved.

[1] Violence info – intimate partner violence (2022) World Health Organization. Available at: https://apps.who.int/violence-info/intimate-partner-violence/.

[2] Bell, K.M. and Naugle, A.E. (2005) Understanding Stay/Leave Decisions in Violent Relationships: A behavior analytic appraoch. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.5210/bsi.v14i1.119.pdf

[3] Stark, E. (2023) Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[4] Perez-Morina, I. (2006) Domestic Violence Fatalities: A preventable crime?, https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/DVFatalityReviewTeamComprehensiveReport.pdf. Edited by A. Celaya.

[5] Fleury, R.E. et al. (1998) ‘Why don’t they just call the cops?: Reasons for differential police contact among women with abusive partners’, Violence and Victims, 13(4), pp. 333–346. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.13.4.333.

[6] Perez-Morina, I. (2006) Domestic Violence Fatalities: A preventable crime?, https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/DVFatalityReviewTeamComprehensiveReport.pdf. Edited by A. Celaya.

[7] Walker, L.E. (1987) The battered woman. New York u.a., NY: Harper and Row.

[8] Gondolf, E.W. and Russell, d (1986) ‘Case Against Anger Control Treatment Programs for Batterers’, Response to the Victimization of Women and Children, 9(3), pp. 2–5.

[9] Romans SE, Poore MR, Martin JL. The perpetrators of domestic violence. Med J Aust. 2000 Nov 6;173(9):484-8. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2000.tb139302.x. PMID: 11149306.

[10] Mueller, I. and Tronick, E. (2019) Early life exposure to violence: Developmental consequences on brain and behavior, Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6629780/ (Accessed: 03 August 2023).