It is time to get back to writing some posts! My previous focus was corrections, offenders, and forensic matters in the criminal realm. My focus has turned to criminals who are not behind bars but are offending in plain view of family courts. In much of my recent research and work, many references include “the invisible” perpetrator. Statistically, men or fathers and their abuse of their partners and children remain invisible, and they have been quite successful in shifting the court’s spotlight onto their female victims, whose children ultimately suffer. Women and children in family courts are often victims of Intimate Partner Abuse (IPV) and Coercive Control (CC). The following paragraphs will reference these terms interchangeably as IPV/CC as they often coexist.
What is IPV? IPV, formerly known as “domestic violence”, is defined as the physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of an intimate partner. “Domestic violence” previously referred to two people living together in a relationship. Intimate partner violence has become more inclusive of any relationship, whether or not the partners reside in the same home. Four domains of IPV include physical and sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression. Aggression may be verbal and include insults, name-calling, derogatory comments, or statements that cause fear, worry, or confusion about a comment’s intended meaning.
Coercive control, also referred to as psychological terrorism, describes behaviors or patterns of behavior over time intended to humiliate, intimidate, or psychologically harm a partner. Assaults or threats can be forms of coercive control that create fear of one’s partner and can assume many other forms. Stalking, harassment on the job, statements made to family or friends that create distance or isolation, control of your time, questions or intimidation about who you speak to or spend time with, accounting for your time or money, asking more of you in the relationship than is reciprocated, blaming you for their behavior or the problems in the relationship, or even what or how much you eat or what you wear. Whereas “domestic violence” implies observable injuries as well as the potential for necessary medical care and official records, coercive control leaves fewer visible marks or bruises that are more difficult to report.
A slow erosion of one’s autonomy begins to cause them to doubt their decisions, feel guilty for failures in the relationship, and assume responsibility for the problems that arise. Coercive control typically leads to mental health issues, such as severe anxiety, depression, fear, trauma, alcohol or substance abuse, and suicide. Although coercive control certainly includes physical and sexual assault, the shift to psychological terrorism leaves invisible injuries that may be more difficult to prove. But, they’re not all that difficult to prove. There are always patterns.
In a brief online review, as of 12/2019, only 15 states require judicial training on IPV/CC, which has possibly changed with fatality rates rising. Likewise, 15 states require mental health providers to IPV/CC training, which should be ongoing if working in family courts. Judicial training is available on national websites like the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). Although many states offer training, and judges’ manuals are readily available, it is unclear who is required to attend or when. Some states mandate that all new judges complete some level of training while other states require yearly training or updated information. A simple or clear answer was not contained in one search and left more questions than answers.
Family courts label a custody case as “high conflict”, which is inaccurate. “Conflict” suggests two people actively engaged in disagreement although only one person is pursuing or escalating the difficulties of a case. Rather, research now supports the ongoing IPV/CC in family courts as post-separation abuse. This extension of IPV/CC leads to litigation and financial abuse, which judges are tasked to identify and control. Although the current statistics indicate these cases represent slightly less than 5%, the most dangerous outcomes need consideration if any IPV/CC has occurred towards the mother.
Family courts have become increasingly represented in national news with the deaths of a man’s female partner (femicide) and her children. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) provides statistics on different forms of abuse. These forms include physical or sexual assaults, stalking, child victims of IPV/CC, and homicide. According to NCADV, 72% of murders/suicides involve an intimate partner with 94% of victims being women. Other victims included in this statistic are family members, witnesses, neighbors, or bystanders. Children witness a form of IPV/CC 90% of the time, and other research supports that their exposure is intentional. A partner engaging in IPV/CC that involves a child witness now has control over both the victim and the child or children. Evaluators and expert witnesses should have this information nearly memorized.
https://ncadv.org/
When judges or attorneys are unaware of the many forms of IPV/CC, family court becomes a mother’s nightmare. Again, statistically, fathers paint their ex-partners as incapable while they have caused her trauma and subsequent mental health issues. Judges and attorneys, particularly Guardians ad Litem, who do not pursue adequate training follow traditional patriarchal and outdated beliefs. Ample information exists detailing exactly how perpetrators and victims present very differently in court, and 40-60% of IPV/CC targets children. What better way to hurt a partner one can no longer control than to harm her children?… And her mental health symptoms will increase and intensify.
Persons charged to represent the children, typically Guardians ad Litem (GAL), can be attorneys, mental health professionals, or may or may not be licensed in any form. Most state statutes require a specific number of hours of training but few clear guidelines allocate the number of hours needed in the study of IPV/CC. In a recent consultation, the GAL clearly stated the children “seemed perfectly normal with the father” when IPV/CC was alleged by the mother towards her and the children. Severe physical abuse was evident, with one child receiving medical therapeutic services for traumatic brain injury by the father.
This GAL lacked training in why children behave so well in the presence of the perpetrator of IPV/CC. The children were trained by their perpetrator to “behave or else”. The “or else” was known to the children that physical assault towards them or their mother was a likely outcome if they showed any fear or hesitation. Even if the GAL did recognize good behavior with the father and poor behavior with the mother, this should have been an immediate red flag for the impact of IPV/CC on the children. It was, in fact, alleged in court documents with professional records. This person had little or no training in IPV/CC towards children as it affects and changes their behavior with each parent. They are little survivors.
If you have not heard of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), it was a study initially conducted by Dr. Vincent Felliti (along with several other co-authors) in conjunction with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Kaiser Permanente*. The study focused on seven risk factors contributing to a myriad of physical, psychological, or unexplained medical problems. The study, which originally focused on adults, has now expanded to 10 areas of risk beginning with infants, children, and adolescents with similar physical or mental health issues. Exposure to four or more ACEs can contribute to unexplained medical illnesses and substantially shorten the life span. Evaluators or expert witnesses should know about ACEs concerning IPV/CC clients and cases, as should judges and attorneys.
A study conducted by Dr. Daniel Saunders** that was funded by the Department of Justice was pivotal in advising courts about risks to children when IPV/CC is not factored into custodial decisions. Dr. Saunders warned of risks associated with sole or joint custody, the importance of supervised visits, and direct or indirect physical or psychological abuse of children. Most importantly, IPV/CC needs to be detected, particularly in custody evaluations. The study found that approximately one-third of evaluators “always” use IPV/CC screening instruments and another third “never” use such instruments. Some victims will not directly report IPV/CC although statistics are rising that patterns are more frequently identified.
Mental health professionals, however, are steering clear of such evaluations more regularly due to the high risk of litigation or threats to licensure. In one state, research emerged indicating 76% of its complaints came from family courts in comparison to any other categories. Complaints can be filed in retaliation by a IPV/CC perpetrator or to bully or suppress future involvement in their case. The underlying motives of others involved in a case may be another factor, which widely varies in their reasons. The reality is, it happens.
Although I cited specific references, I continue to review the research, books, and articles created by Dr. Evan Stark, Barry Goldstein and Veronica York, and many others working diligently to change outcomes in family courts. The factual information I present is based on scientific research, and family courts need change. I hope to continue being a part of that change.
*Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):245-58. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8. PMID: 9635069.
**Saunders, Daniel G., Ph.D. (2015) Research Based Recommendations for
Child Custody Evaluation Practices and Policies in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence, Journal
of Child Custody, 12:1, 71-92, DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2015.1037052
