As mentioned in my previous post, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)/Coercive Control (CC) is increasingly problematic in family courts. Defining IPV includes many forms of physical, emotional, verbal, psychological, and sexual abuse, harassment, stalking, and controlling behaviors that begin insidiously and can end in fatality. Coercive control consists of humiliating, shameful, and intimidating patterns of acts intended to isolate, punish, harm, or create intense fear in victims. “Patterns” are important as perpetrators do not limit their behaviors to one relationship but their behaviors existed in prior relationships. These patterns extend to children, family members, and friends, and sometimes communities, agencies, and institutions. There are always patterns. However, partner and child victims are the focus of this piece.
Books, research articles, and other sources of information consistently specify that IPV/CC statistically occurs most often in men towards women. It is clearly understood that these relationships include LGBTQ and same-sex partners. The references to “men” and “women” as perpetrator and victim predominate the statistics and are the deferred terms for simplicity. No one is intentionally excluded, and no one is immune from the reaches of IPV/CC, which also does not discriminate based on socioeconomic status, race, religion, age, or any other groups of people. I am a gender-neutral clinician and have successfully defended men as protective fathers against similar IPV/CC mothers. In treatment, same-sex partnerships are also represented in my practice.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) estimated that 20% of family court cases involved seeking “justice” with approximately 5% creating extended litigation. As with many kinds of caseloads, the common phrase “90% of time is devoted to 10% of the cases” is true here as well. However, 5% of cases with extensive litigation creates forms of “litigation abuse” as well as “financial abuse”. Literature also refers to men as typically having greater financial resources than women, which is a significant area of threat perceived by women who are seeking protection for themselves and their children. To be even more clear, the intimate partner perpetrator may be a father, a stepfather, or a boyfriend who is not the father of the child or children. The children may be biological or stepchildren, or simply the children of the girlfriend. Regardless, children can become a means to an end.
When courts and evaluators engage in bias towards victims, primarily women, the literature consistently documents initial questions such as “Why didn’t she report abuse?” A report of abuse comes with retaliation, being threatened to lose her children, or being threatened with her life. Other threats include harm to the children or family members. Statements or reports to others invite additional, and possibly more dangerous, physical or sexual abuse as well as increased isolation. The likelihood that abuse or assaults against her will become more violent and intense increases. If children are involved, this threat includes increased threats to their physical, psychological, and sexual safety.
The inevitable next question is “Why didn’t she just leave?” She has been judged, criticized, controlled, assaulted, forced to either not work or turn over her paycheck, and her every move and contact has been monitored by the hour. Her perpetrator has likely driven friends or family members away to isolate her, sometimes moving the family to another state. Further, coercive or violent sexual assaults may have occurred either to satisfy her partner, to endure as a punishment, to “teach her a lesson”, or she has given in to protect her children from abuse. Overall, she and her children are not safe, may have no financial resources, and may have poor social support.
Judicial guides are available that provide descriptions of how a victim appears in court, also referenced as the “at-risk parent”. This parent appears anxious or numb, has problems finding words, seems unable to focus, displays distress when hearing the perpetrator speak, and may seem angry with aggressive tones when speaking. Consistent with not reporting abuse, the at-risk parent feels certain she will not be believed. She has been told many times this will be the case, or may have experienced a lack of support from others.
Perpetrators of abuse may appear calm or arrogant, may attempt to align with others perceived as making decisions, claims to be “the real victim”, may anger easily, verbalize strict gender role beliefs, or minimize or deny abuse while blaming others. Perpetrators may make derogatory remarks about the at-risk parent and is likely unable to see the perspectives of others. Perpetrators’ behaviors are not “out of control” as they may claim, and they are impulsive but are well-controlled and even planned.
In family courts, perpetrators rely on three tactics to shift the focus of the courts from their behavior to that of the mother. This allows the perpetrator to remain “invisible” while mothers are forced to defend themselves. One of these tactics is introducing the mother’s “unstable mental health”. Informing anyone who will listen that “she’s crazy” is one of the first tactics. To be clear, much literature recognizes that perpetrators of IPV/CC do not respond to treatment and are more likely to have personality disorders. Since personality disorders are generally life-long and treatment-resistant, providing treatment to the perpetrator is most commonly unsuccessful.
Since the victim’s claims may seem extreme or unusual, possibly unknown to judges or attorneys, the perpetrator’s claim appears credible. Despite having no history of mental illness, or even developing symptoms of trauma or alcohol/substance abuse after trauma, the court’s focus shifts to the at-risk parent’s mental health as being unsafe for the children. Courts fail to recognize the perpetrator’s behavior that led to the victim’s mental health state. The victim’s mental health, however, is likely temporary, has no negative outcomes for the children, and will respond to treatment.
Another tactic involves accusing the protective parent of “Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)”, which should by now be a well-known “junk science” theory. This “theory” was introduced by Dr. Richard Gardner in 1985, who insisted that mothers in custody cases intentionally alienate children from fathers by falsely claiming they or the children were abused by the father. This theory has been rejected by the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11) as having no scientific validity or basis. Further, since Gardner’s theory could not be tested, it cannot pass a Frye or Daubert challenge in any state. This fact is stated in manuals for judges in family courts. (Richard Gardner committed suicide by stabbing himself repeatedly after overdosing on a prescribed medication in 05/2003.)
The last tactic to remain “invisible”, or shift the spotlight to the victim, is to “Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)”. Once a perpetrator denies his behavior, the attack begins on the actual victim, resulting in the potential for disbelieving her. The attack becomes a reversal of the perpetrator and victim role, and he becomes the perceived victim. The spotlight then shifts to statistically proven gender bias against women in family courts. The victim in these cases find themselves having to prove, and relive, numerous incidents of physical or sexual assaults.
Research by AbiNader et al. (2023)* shows that IPV/CC accounts for 50% of women and 6% of suicides documented between 2019-2022 by the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) and Uniform Crime Reporting-Supplementary Homicide Reports (UCR-SHR, homicides). Previous statistics showed that approximately 66-75% of these women reported experiencing physical violence prior to their deaths. According to NCDAV, the presence of a weapon increases the chance of death by 500%, approximately 46% of rapes against women were in the IPV/CC context, and 1 in 7 women experienced stalking in IPV/CC incidents. Statistics are also available for male and LGBTQ victims on these public and government reporting sites, and limitations are included in their statistical gathering.
I have not yet mentioned family pets, but IPV/CC towards women and children can include threats to their beloved animals. Animal cruelty is a key component of psychopathy and criminal behavior, which should add concern to the validity of a threat to a family pet. The message sent by this kind of threat is simple; if he would do that to the dog I love, what would he do to me? Perpetrators often kick dogs who are “being annoying” although it is certainly calculated, intentional, and not the dog’s fault. My clients have had dogs who mysteriously died, and the children were devastated.
The information presented here may seem dark, but it is supported by a growing body of research. It is not intended to incite fear, but to shed light on the reality of IPV/CC by perpetrators towards victims. It is also intended to show the importance of this information reaching your family court judge, Guardian ad Litem, or your attorney. Although I have included much information here, a wealth of knowledge is available to you as well if you would like to increase your own awareness. My ultimate goal is to increase your safety and the outcome of your case in family court.
*AbiNader, M. A., Graham, L. M., & Kafka, J. M. (2023). Examining Intimate Partner Violence-Related Fatalities: Past Lessons and Future Directions Using U.S. National Data. Journal of family violence, 1–12. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00487-2
