DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & CHILD CUSTODY Issues for Clinicians

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & CHILD CUSTODYIssues for Clinicians Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC www.divorce-conflict-solutions.com Capitol Associates, LLC Madison, Wisconsin Wisconsin Psychological Association Conference Resilience, Recovery, and Relationships April 18, 2008

Welcome toDomestic Violence & Child Custody • While you wait for the program to begin: • FYIO – please complete 10-item Survey of Beliefs about Intimate Partner Abuse. • Please read – Three Anecdotes (p. of handout). • John and Carol • A rural Wisconsin couple • A friend’s story • Thank you.

QuizWhat You May Have Learned about DV In the general population of heterosexual couples… • …men commit almost all verbal and emotional abuse and controlling behaviors. • …in DV involving physical aggression by both partners, men usually strike the first blow. • …upwards of 75% of PHYSICAL ABUSE is perpetrated by the man.

QuizWhat You May Have Learned about DV (2) In the general population of heterosexual couples… • …upwards of 75% of BATTERING is committed by the man. • …upwards of 75% of traumatic emotional sequelae are suffered by the woman. • …fathers or male companions of mothers perpetrate most child maltreatment (neglect and abuse).

QuizYour Experience Considering your own intimate partner experience with DV and DA – and that of friends, family members, colleagues, and clients… • …does your personalexperience confirm or contradict these assertions? • …have these assertions been confirmed or contradicted in your professional experience: intherapy with individuals…with intact or separated couples and families…in divorce mediation… in custody/access evaluations?

Reading Capaldi, DM & HK Kim (2007), Typological approaches to violence in couples: Critique and alternative conceptual approach, Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 3, 253-265. Whitaker, DJ, et al. (2007), Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV, American Journal of Public Health, 97, 5, 941-947. ***** Murphy, CM & CI Eckhardt (2005), Treating the Abusive Partner: An Individualized Cognitive-Behavioral Approach, Guilford, New York. Sandra, Stith & Eric McCollum, book on COUPLES TREATMENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, forthcoming, summer 2008.

Reading (2) Dutton, DG (2007), The Abusive Personality—Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships, Guilford, New York. Dutton, DG (2006), Rethinking Domestic Violence, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. Hamel, J & TL Nicholls (2007), Family Interventions in Domestic Violence: Handbook of Gender Inclusive Theory and Treatment, Springer, New York. NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER,www.nfvlrc.org. ***** Gondolf, EW (2004), Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task showing some effects and implications, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 605-631.

IntroductionHow I Came to this Subject • Dissonance • Family Court child custody/access mediation and evaluation • Victim advocate DV training • Reducing Dissonance: “independent study”

IntroductionReducing Dissonance • Academic & Prof’l Education x • Practice Experiencex • Advocate DV Training x • Research Literature (support for “gender-inclusive” and gender-specific DV formulations) ???

Agenda & Objectives • DV in the general population: behavioral science research pertinent to clinicians • “Gender paradigm” in mainstream beliefs about DV • Professional “mind-set” that flows from this presumably authoritative view of DV • DV gender paradigm’s uncritical acceptance within child custody/access related professions • Efficacy of the presumed DV treatment of choice: .BIP psycho-education • Logic of individual and dyadic IPV treatment options • IPV assessment and treatment in light of evidence-based clinical practice

Clinical BallparkPolitics & Practice • DV’s ~ 40-year politicized, emotionally charged history: in legislative, judicial, and law enforcement arenas, in popular culture, and in child custody/access evaluation and litigation. • For ~30 years, DV’s increasingly contentious, politicized field of academic research (whose leading voices sometimes seem to represent opposing “camps,” rather than “schools of thought”). • These controversies are highly significant for clinical practice. • Today’s focus: research findings of immediate clinical interest.

Clinical BallparkFindings • We have much more research data about male perpetrators and about female victims than about men and women who are, respectively, DV victims and perpetrators. • Three decades of large sample, general population survey research has consistently found women as well as men attributingIPV perpetration and victimization to themselves and to their partners. • These community sample findings are more indicative of DV-affected Family Court litigants than crime victim data or descriptions of DV shelter residents and batterer intervention group members.

Clinical BallparkFindings (2) • Consistently, over three decades, largesample Canadian and USgeneral population research has found IPV perpetration and victimization to be mostly non battering and/or gender-inclusive. That is: • DV is more frequently “minor” than “severe”; • ~half of IPV is bi-lateral and reciprocal; • of the remaining ~half of severe and minor IPV, which is unilateral, ~50% is male-perpetrated and at least 50% is female-perpetrated (Stets & Straus, 1992; Dutton, 2006); • More heterosexual men than women are batterers (“intimate terrorists”); but this ratio ofmale : female battering may be closer to 3:2 than the often cited 9:1 or 19:1.(Laroche, 2005)

Clinical BallparkFindings (3) • “Erring on the side of safety” (Johnson, 2005a) is not without cost. When custody/access evaluators’ and Family Court officers’ judgments are based on mistaken findings regarding family violence, mothers as well as fathers, their children, and family relationships likely suffer. • When men decide to strike or lose control, other things equal, their greater physical capacity to injure may make them more responsible for the consequences of IPV, but not necessarily for its instigation, dynamics, and events.

Clinical BallparkQuestions • Is intimate partner abuse and violence better understood and treated as an imposition of gender hierarchy and family power and control, or as a deviancy or disorder of human intimacy? • If and when are IPA and IPV better addressed via usual modalities of individual or dyadic psychotherapy than by “batterer” group psycho-education?

Big PictureChildren’s Exposure to DV • Each year, between three and ten million American children witness domestic violence. (Clarke, 2006; Straus, 1992) • Children are harmedby witnessing IPA as well as direct targets of abuse. (English, et al., 2003; Fergusson & Harwood, 1998; Johnston & Roseby, 1997; Mahoney, et al., 2003) • Unknown whether children who “only” witness inter-parental violence are less adversely affected than children who are its direct targets. (Kitzmann, et al., 2003)

Big PictureChildren’s Exposure to DV (2) • Children who witness family conflict, abuse, and violence are more at risk: • for childhood emotional and behavioral problems (Cummings, et al., 2004; Davies, et al., 2006; Litrownik, et al., 2003; Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998): and • to abuse parents and dating partners during adolescence. • Adults who, as children, were abuse targets and others who “only” witnessed family violence,are equally likelyto abuse their own intimate partners and children. (Ayoub, et al., 1999; Kaura & Allen, 2004; Langhrinrichen-Rohling, et al., 1995; Straus, 1992)

Big PictureChildren’s Exposure to DV (3) • Mothers who assault husbands are as likely to hit their children as fathers who assault wives. (Appel & Holden, 1998; Margolin & Gordis, 2003; Straus & Smith, 1990) • Whether abused by their mother or by their father,adult children of family violence abuse their own intimate partners and children at similar rates. (Ayoub, et al., 1999; Kaura & Allen, 2004; Langhrinrichen-Rohling, et al., 1995; Straus, 1992)

Big PictureDV-affected Custody/Access Disputants • No empirical evidence or reason to believe DV-affected custody/access disputants are: • unrepresentative of DV-affected marriages and intimate partnerships in the general population… • …including those with histories of severe and controlling domestic abuse (“battering”; “Intimate Terrorism”). (Stets & Straus, 1992; Laroche, 2005; McDonald, et al., 2006)

Big PictureSymmetrical IPV in the General Population • Over three decades, studies of large,non selective Canadian and UScommunity samples, have consistently reported “symmetrical” (gender-inclusive) IPV victimization and perpetration. Reports of such findings not cited elsewhere, here include: Archer, J (2002); Arriaga, XB & VA Foshee (2004); Bland, R & H Orne (1986); Cercone, JJ, SRH Beach, & I Arias (2005); Graham-Kevan, N & J Archer (2005); Hendy, HM, K Weiner, J Bakerofskie, D Eggen, C Gustius, & KC McLeod (2003); Schumacher, JA & KE Leonard (2005); Straus, MA (2006); Straus, MA & IL Ramirez (2002). • Straus (2006) found symmetrical IPV among university students across 32 European and non European nations.

Big PictureSymmetrical IPV in the General Population (2) • In the general population: • IPV is ~50% bi-lateral and reciprocal; • of the remaining ~half of DV that is unilateral, ~50% is male-on-female and at least 50% is female-on-male; • DV is more frequently “minor” than “severe”; • more heterosexual men than women are batterers (“intimate terrorists”); but • this male : female ratio of “intimate terrorists” may be closer to 3:2 than the often cited 9:1 or 19:1.(Laroche, 2005)

Big PictureSymmetricalIPV in the General Population (3) • Other recent findings (Capaldi, et al., 2007; italics added): • With a sample of shelter residents, McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, and Minze (2006) “conducted a study of children's adjustment in families with severe [male perpetrated] violence toward the mother….according to only the women's reports…96% of the men and 67% of the women had engaged in severe violence toward the partner.…” • Further, studies summarized by Tolan et al. (2006), suggest “couples with unidirectional violence actually report fewer forms and acts of violence than do bidirectional violent couples…, [and to involve] acts…less likely to lead to injuries and further violence.”

“Gender Paradigm”DV Research Literature Dutton (2005a; 2006) identified a “gender paradigm” in the DV research literature – i.e., a persistent but mistaken premise that heterosexual IPV is gender-specific (i.e., gender role-linked). Some elements: • IPV is culturally/politically normative – • IPV is a culturally expected and sanctioned exercise of male “power and control” over women; • men (and women) learn this “male entitlement” through customary processes of socialization.

Gender Paradigm(2) Elements of gender paradigm(cont’d): • IPV is also statistically normative: • men are DV perpetrators, women (and children) are their victims; • battering (“intimate terrorism”) is exclusively male-perpetrated. • “Context” (a): mothers are protectors, bystanders, and conduits of male-perpetrated child abuse. • “Context” (b): female perpetrated IPV is almost always considered justifiable, i.e., as “Violent Resistance” undertaken in self-defense or to protect children.

Gender Paradigm(3) Elements of gender paradigm(cont’d): • Men are dominant aggressorsor male IPV is consequential and female IPV is not: • differential size, strength, capacity to injure; • differential physical injury. • Women’s allegations are veridical, understandable, and believable. • Men’s denials or claims of reciprocal (reactive or bi-lateral) abuse are expected and defensive (“in denial”), and neither credible nor acceptable.

Gender Paradigm (4) • Jaffe & Geffner (1998): [Although] violence and domestic violence are commonly used, the most accurate term is maltreatment of women and children, because women and children represent the vast majority of victims. Men are also abused, but in most instances, men’s violence against women creates greater injury, pain, and suffering, and a large proportion of women’s violence toward men is in self-defense.” (Italics added.)

Gender Paradigm (5) • DV’s presence in custody/access (C/A) litigation requires a… paradigm shift away from prevailing notions of the increasing role of fathers, preference for joint custody and shared parenting…emphasis on mediation and conflict resolution, and the…'friendly parent' construct….[by which a] victim who attempts to limit contact with an abuser may be deemed hostile and unfriendly, and punished for her protestations and hypervigilance. Abused women often face continuing risks from their partner after separation. DV violence is often overlooked by family courts and court-related services. (Jaffe, Crooks, & Poisson, 2003)

Gender Paradigm (6) • Jaffe, Crooks, & Poisson (2003) substantiated these assertions by conducting a qualitative study of 62 female victims of domestic violence involved in child custody disputes…who had access Family Court services after separation from an abusive partner. Participants were recruited through letters sent to women who had access to legal aid and court assessment (evaluation) services to ascertain their interest in the study. In addition, advertisements and letters were sent to domestic violence service providers seeking participants for the research project.

Gender Paradigm (7) • Feminist sociologist Michael Johnson, author of a highly influential IPV typology (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; see, also, Ver Steegh, 2005), dismisses Dutton’s gender paradigm analysis by reiterating five of its tenets (Johnson, 2005a) : Theoretically…patriarchical traditions and structures [norms]…suggest ...[h]eterosexual … intimate terrorism will be largely male perpetrated…. • …the [empirical] evidence … confirms [this expectation]. • [Therefore,] we need to err on the side of safety… • [by assuming]…all violence [is male-on-female] • intimate terrorism • until proven otherwise.(Italics added)

“Mind-Set”(New York Times, 2.23.07) In North America and Western Europe, the women’s movement has served to correct many – not all – gender-related inequities and abuses. Following the US and Australian Opens’ lead, in 2007 the All England Club (Wimbledon) began offering prize money to female competitors equal to that availed to male athletes. The Times reported Billie Jean King’s observation: …it was definitely hard for [Wimbledon] to change because of theculture and the psyche behind it…. Every time we change a benchmark like this, it helps people ask in their daily life, “are we insisting on equality for our sons and daughters?”

Gender Paradigm “Mind-Set”Custody/Access Related Professions • Cursory examination of • government and professional association web sites (Slides 37-40, below; Dutton, et al., 2008) • social work and law school curricula (Meuer & Greipp, 2006) • CLE on DV (“AJ,” et al., 2001; Daugherty-Leiter, 2006), and MH Prof’l CE incidental to DV reveals professional training and practice conforming to patriarchical theory, gender paradigm research, and victim advocate lore.

GP Mind-SetChild Custody & Divorce Mediation Literature • Less than one-third of 292 Mediation Satisfaction Questionnaires were returned in an Australian study comparing DV-affected and non affected, voluntary, court-based divorce mediation clients. DV-affected clients most closely resembled Johnston & Campbell’s (1993) separation-related DV type. Davies, B, S Ralph, M Hawton, & L Craig (1995). Davies, B & S Ralph (1998)

GP Mind-SetChild Custody & Divorce Mediation Literature (2) • Johnston and Campbell (1989) reported • Males (13.6%) no more likely than their female partners (13.5%) to have been dominant aggressors throughout the intact relationship among high conflict custody disputants. • 19.3% to have participated in a pattern of mutual assault. • Almost half, 46.7%, of intimate partner relationships to have been physical violence-free until the period of separation and divorce.

GP Mind-SetChild Custody & Divorce Mediation Literature (3) • Finding: “males who reported abuse as a significant issue generally felt that the [mediator] did not acknowledge their concerns regarding the abuse.” • Speculation: this inattention might derive from “the mind-set adopted by the [mediators] in focusing on the females as the [only likely] victims….” Davies, et al. (1995)

GP Mind-SetChild Custody & Divorce Mediation Literature (4) • Davies, et al. further report and conjecture: …78% of men who report domestic violence as a significant issue perceive both themselves and their partners as victims of physical and emotional abuse. [This] study does not allow us to know what specific acts men are referring to. This attribution of joint responsibility is possibly a reflection of men’s denial of their responsibility for abuse. However, 42% of women also describe both themselves and their partners as victims…. This high level of joint attribution is possibly a result of self-blaming by abused women.” (Italics added) Admittedly, the researchers have no empirical support for these inferences.

GP Mind-SetFamily Court Handout, Table 1: Percentage Endorsement of Gender Paradigm Consistent and Inconsistent Beliefs among Family Court Professionals, Family Law Attorneys, & Family Court Judges

GP Mind-SetAPA “Resolution on Male Violence Against Women” (2008)(http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/maleviol.html) • Research: • most recent citation is 1998 • most citations are 1996 or earlier. • Of twelve “whereas’s”: • eight cite "violence against women“ – as if identical toDV; • none refers to “IPV.” • Conclusions are GP tenets (italics added): • “genderand gender relations play critical roles in directing male violence toward women"; • "cultural norms and expectations…[critically promote and shape]…male violence against women....";

GP Mind-Set “Resolution on Violence Against Women”(2) Conclusions (cont’d) • "…understanding male violence against women requires examining the power inequalities between men and women…"; • “… violence has multiple causes [about which the APA Resolution is silent, except that DV is]...shaped by sociocultural norms and role expectations that support female subordination and perpetuate male violence. Preventing violence against women, among other things [?]…requires interventions [to] focus on cultural conceptions of the masculine gender role.”

GP Mind-Set “Resolution on Violence Against Women”(3) Conclusions (cont’d) • "…research focused on violence against...lesbians...is limited.” • (Not so: Dutton (2006) cites numerous studies of violence in lesbian relationships, including Lie, et al., (1991) who found “rates of verbal, physical, and sexual abuse…all significantly higher in [prior] lesbian relationships than in [prior] heterosexual relationships.”)

GP Mind-Set “Resolution on Violence Against Women”(4) Conclusions (cont’d) • "…levels of assaultive and lethal violenceagainst women remain high, despite two decades of increased awareness and legislation.” (Italics added) • True, but…recent research reports: • non lethal IPV in the general population is most injurious for women when it is bi-lateral and reciprocal, • more of which is initiated by the female than the male partner. (Capaldi, et al., 2003)

Gender ParadigmClinician Mind-Set? • Follingstad et al. (2004) showed clinical psychologists vignettes of verbal and non verbal behaviors, e.g., “asking someone for their whereabouts.” Ss more often judged scenes “abusive” when enacted by males than by females. This suggests that “professionals…asked to 'substantiate’ [abuse] may not substantiate actions equally by gender and may be primed to see [only male-perpetrated] abuse when hard evidence is lacking.” (Dutton, et al., 2008)

Efficacy of “Duluth Model”Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs) • Psychotherapy efficacy studies across treatment modalities report client improvement in ~70% of cases. • Feder & Wilson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of BIP treatment efficacy. Babcock, et al., (2007) summarize: Based on partner reports, treated batterers have a 40% chance of [staying] nonviolent, and without treatment, men have a 35% chance of remaining nonviolent….this means that a woman is 5% less likely to be re-assaulted by a man who was arrested, sanctioned, and went to a batterers treatment program than by a man who was simply arrested and sanctioned.

BIP Efficacy(2) What explains this ~65% difference between psychotherapy and BIP treatment effects? • In contrast to increasingly evidence-based psychotherapy, BIPs remain rooted in patriarchical ideology. • One tenet of this socio-cultural formulation is that, in patriarchy, “abuse is normal [but criminal] male behavior…not a sign of psychological problems, and not the result of dysfunctional relationship dynamics.” (Babcock, et al., 2007) • In viewingIPV as criminal – not disordered, deviant, or culturally abnormal – violations of intimacy, BIP regards psychotherapy to be neither a warranted nor an appropriate “intervention.”

BIP Efficacy (3) • Within this approach, the “Power and Control Wheel” is used to explain that DV is “part of a pattern of behavior…including intimidation, male privilege, isolation, and emotional and economic abuse…. [BIP aims] to help men refrain from using the behaviors on the power and control wheel…and to adopt the behaviors on the ‘equality wheel,’ the basis of egalitarian relationships….”(Babcock, et al., 2007)

BIP Efficacy (4) • “...group facilitators lead consciousness-raising exercises…to challenge men’s ‘right’ to control and dominate his partner. Didactic and confrontational approaches are used to attack…defenses, excuses, and devaluation of [the] partner.” (Babcock, et al. 2007)

BIP Efficacy (5) • Within the Duluth model, a chief cause of battering is the violent man’s socially induced misogyny and sexism. • However, “only 2% of North America males agree that it is permissible to ‘hit your wife to keep her in line,’ [and <] 10% of North American marriages are male dominant….”(Dutton, et al., 2008)

BIP Efficacy (6) • “…there is no conclusive research evidence to suggest that males with more sexist attitudes are more likely to be violent.... personality factors account for more of the variance in domestic violence than do beliefs about male dominance….”(Babcock, et al., 2007; italics added) • "... men in [BIPs] are not more likely than non-abusive men to endorse sexist beliefs in male privilege or regarding women's roles and rights, as indicated by over a dozen…controlled studies…” (Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)

BIP Efficacy (7) • Few research data support a patriarchical formulation of IPV. The construct validity of core concepts, such as “power and control” is yet to be established. “When rare efforts to examine construct validity are undertaken, expected correlations among the dimensions are not found, indicating that empirically, power has yet to be validated as a construct.” (Malik and Lindahl, 1998, cited by Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005, emphasis added)

BIP Efficacy (8) • IPV is not uniform across situations/couples/families. • Most IPV is not battering. • DV perpetrators/participants are not almost all male. • A “one size fits all,” criminal justice-oriented “intervention” protocol: • does not account for perpetrator individual differences; and • does not (nor is it intended to) accommodate differing perpetrator  victim couple or family dynamics.

BIP Efficacy(9) • Typically, BIPs incorporate CBT methods – “to address anger, self-control, and alternatives to aggression.” (Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005) However: • contrary to most CBT, BIP group leaders confront members with patriarchical “generalities, not..the idiosyncratic cognitions of [each] individual…. As such, the psychoeducational model can…[fail] to engage and connect with [individual] men on an emotional level.” • BIP groups are “scripted” and, as such, do not address the individual’s pre-offense history, or his experience and view of the violent episode or relationship – other than that he learn to take full responsibility for (stopping) it. (Babcock, et al., 2007)

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & CHILD CUSTODY Issues for Clinicians