1. Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
4/8/2011
State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LITIGATION Practical and Legal Consequences IPV—From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
Madison, WI
April 8, 2011
This first part of today’s program will touch on aspects of social science research on Intimate Partner (Domestic) Violence useful to Family Lawyers.
Contrast what women’s shelter researchers and victim advocates say about IPV to the findings of general population and community researchers.
Provide a sampling of these research findings.
I would have us consider what we—across professions—believe DV “is,” and how the way we think about DV is different from the way we investigate and assess other (5) component “factors” of CBIs.
I will suggest: … what we believe and how we think about IPV matters in reaching sound recommendations and decisions about CBIs.
SKIP TO SLIDE 3 

2. From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
4/8/2011
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Before the program to begins, please
Complete Domestic Violence Quiz
Read Three Anecdotes
John and Carol
Rural Wisconsin couple
Friend’s story
THANKS TO LISA ELSINGER!
BINDER ITEMS
Because of their critical place in (5)(13) and (2), I’ll discuss mandated referral of adjudicated DV perpetratrors to the WBTPA-cerified programs.
David Kowalski, “Certification of Batterers’ Treatment Programs and Providers Pursuant to Wisc. Stat ,” Wisc J Family Law, 29, 2 (2009), discusses this statutory basis.
J A, COMMENTARY [non evidence-base political document]—WBTPA Standards /Certified Male Batterers Treatment.
DV Outside the Box –highlights IPV research findings .
Gender  Paradigm Mind Set in the APA Resolution
Moffitt, T. E. & Caspi, A. (1999). Findings About Partner Violence From the Dunedin Multidisciplinary, Health and Development Study, NIJ, publ #
Domestic Abuse in Dating Relationships.
Evan Stark and D. Dutton—7-part Debate between Two Leading DV Authorities.
 SKIP TO TITLE SLIDE 2

3. From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
4/8/2011
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Objectives
To challenge what “everyone knows” about IPV- affected custody/placement (C/P) litigation:
compare mainstream social science and “gender paradigm” ideological methodologies as ways of thinking about IPV- affected C/P litigation;
present sampling of long-established research data that contradicts what “everyone knows” about IPV.
In the next hour, I’ll be asking lots of questions.
Let’s begin with the recent FamLaw list-serve discussion re. AB 54.
Consensus? – Generally, explicit statutory CBIs is not good public policy.
Likewise, I suggest:
Implicit presumptions are also contrary to rational, evidenced- based determinations of CBIs.
Such unspoken presumptions are made when we apply conventional wisdom—”what everyone knows” — about IPV to
767.41(5)(13) – “evidence of inter-spousal battery … or domestic abuse.”

4. From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
4/8/2011
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Objectives
Ask Wisconsin’s …
Family Law Attorneys, including Guardians ad Litem
and
Family Court Judges, Commissioners, and case study Professionals
… whether their frame of reference for IPV-affected C/P litigation is evidence-based or reflects an ideological gender paradigm “mind-set.”
The core belief of this conventional wisdom:
IPV is something men do to women.
This presumption / prejudgment / “mind-set” can too easily
skew Family Court investigation / assessment / determination of CBIs.

5. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Wisc. Stat. 767(5)(13):
If and how should social science research inform:
Assessment  adjudication  disposition of IPV allegations, defenses, and counter-claims in determining children’s best interests?
Mind-set or research-informed and evidence-based “blind” justice?
… when I say “Perpetrator” … do you think: man?
… when I say “Victim” … does a female image come to mind?
If IPV-affected Family Court litigants are like Ps and Vs as found in Batterer Intervention groups and Victim Shelters …
… these cognitive associations would be accurate.
But if IPV-affected Fam. Ct. litigants typify IPV-affected couples in the general population or the community at large …
… then your male P and female V short-cut mental images would also be correct … but only half the time.
In its language, 767(5)(13) is gender-neutral re. Ps and Vs.
Is it in practice?

6. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Procedural Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Procedural Questions
Compared to other allegations, defenses, and counter-claims arising in C/P disputes …
(e.g., regarding AODA, child abuse or neglect)
… does the “behind closed doors” nature of IPV warrant different standards of investigation, assessment, and judicial determination?
Compared to other allegations, defenses, and counter- claims arising in C/P disputes …
(e.g., about AODA, child abuse or neglect)
… does the “behind closed doors” nature of IPV warrant different – i.e., non evidence-based, “presumptive” – standards of investigation, assessment, and judicial determination?
In practice, is a V’s assertion of her heterosexual partner’s abuse and violence presumptively factual?
To “err on the side of ‘safety,’” should we give her accusation the benefit of the doubt, and discount his defense / counterclaim as … “denial”?

7. From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
4/8/2011
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Objectives
To call for the same standards of thorough, evidence-based investigation, assessment, and decision making about IPV as should occur regarding any other Wisc. Stat (5) factor.
In principle, most here would agree – no different from any other factor:
standards of thorough, evidence-based investigation, assessment, and decision making should occur regarding allegations of IPV no less than any other Wisc. Stat (5) factor.

8. Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
4/8/2011
Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
Generic anecdotes abound about harm resulting from family courts’ misapplying
Wis. Stat (5)(am)13 (“evidence of inter-spousal battery … or domestic abuse”):
father-child restricted contact for weeks or even months and “alienation”
after limited court scrutiny of women’s IPV allegations;
mothers and children’s “re-victimization”
by family court officers’ ignorance of men’s insidious, abusive uses of power and control behind closed doors.
Male and female C/P litigants alike – and their advocates – portray unjust consequences of Fam. Ct. system responses to their IPV allegations and denials :
 From fathers: restricted contact for weeks or even months and “alienation” from children – after limited court scrutiny of women’s IPV allegations;
 From mothers: their and their children’s “re-victimization” by FC officers’ ignorant of men’s insidious, abusive uses of power and control “behind closed doors.”

9. Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
4/8/2011
Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
Despite contradictory anecdotes of misguided system response to IPV, few social science data are available of IPV allegations, actual incidence, and disposition in family court cases.
Professionals’ perceptions and beliefs often echo empirically unfounded, governmentally endorsed allusions to the distribution and nature of IPV in the community at large.
These familiar, polarized complaints persist, in part, because we lack data:
of the actual incidence and characteristics of Ps and Vs among FC litigants;
or about how FC systems address and resolve IPV claims and counter-claims.
The absence of good data creates a vacuum filled by TEGWAR:
“The Exciting Game Without Any Rules.”
Just as in other political arenas, ends justify means: the factual basis of advocate claims matter less than what the claims can accomplish with naïve constituencies.

10. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Is power and control the single, universal motivation for all IPV perpetration …
… for any other human phenomenon?
What else in human behavior or experience is explainable by a single factor?
Is IPV a unique phenomenon, warranting a special kind of explanation?
I suggest:
we’ve also learned to think inside a “special case” box … of non scientific “gender paradigm” beliefs about IPV that include
reduction of male perpetrator behavior to a single-factor explanation (“power & control”) …
… with little empirical evidence that female domination or subjugation is a prime drive or aim of male-perpetrated IPV.

11. Power and Control Wheels
4/8/2011
Power and Control Wheels
Co-habiting Adults
Non co-habiting Intimate (?) Partners
Heterosexual
“Male Privilege”
Lesbian/Gay
Using “Privilege”
External Homophobia
Internalized Heterosexism
Teen Dating
Young Adult Dating Couples
Gender neutral / inclusive references to perpetrators and victims
The “P & C” explanation has been adapted to various categories of IP relationship. E.g.:
when applied to abuse and violence in homosexual relationships
cultural causation changes from “Patriarchy” to “Homophobia”
“male privilege” becomes “privilege”
women’s “learned helplessness” becomes “heterosexism.”
At first glance, these explanations may seem plausible … except – beyond what “everyone knows” must be true – no evidence is presented to support them.

12. Lawyer - (Female) Client* Power and Control Wheel
4/8/2011
Lawyer - (Female) Client* Power and Control Wheel
“USING”:
Attorney Privilege
Information Abuse
Economy Abuse
Emotional Abuse
Minimizing, Denying, & Blaming
Coercion & Threats
Terrorism & Assault
Isolation & Guilt *(
Closer to home, an attorney-client “Power & Control Wheel” (REFER TO SLIDE, ABOVE.)
Of course, some attorneys sometimes mistreat clients.
But, is every case of attorney bad behavior completely explained by the dynamics set forth (above)?
If so, where’s the evidence – beyond what “everyone knows”:
attorneys enrich themselves – at their clients’ expense.
On occasion, might a client’s bad behavior go beyond an attorney’s ability to “manage”?
Of course, the presumptively more powerful, professional is responsible for his/her own bad behavior.
Does this necessarily excuse a difficult client from all responsibility for any part of a relationship run amuck?
What purpose is served by such all-or-none, zero-sum “explanations”?

13. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Is the heterosexual equivalent of IPV
Violence Against Women (and children)?
Does all (severe) heterosexual IPV have the same
perpetrators
victims
causes
patterns
dynamics
consequences
remedies
Two more questions:
Is heterosexual IPV limited to:
Violence Against Women (and children)?
Does all (or all severe) heterosexual IPV have the same
Perpetrators Victims?
Causes Patterns?
Dynamics Consequences?
Remedies?
4/4/2011

14. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Are Power & Control Wheel markers – ascribed only to male intimate partners – equally applicable to females?
Threats
Intimidation and domination
Humiliation
Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse
Minimization, denial, and blame
Jealousy, possessiveness, isolation from family and friends, stalking, relational intrusion
Using children
Male (female) “privilege”
In troubled marriages or highly conflicted divorcing, heterosexual couples, do only male partners use methods such as these to get their way (above) ?

15. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Is IPV ever justified/justifiable?
Is partial “responsibility” for IPV ever properly attributable to a purported victim?
Should an alleged perpetrator’s claim of reactive or responsive violence always be dismissed as only minimization or denial of all responsibility for the abuse?
(Should answers differ by victim and perpetrator gender?)
Perhaps more provocative:
Above

16. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Undisputed: female victims suffer IPV’s worst physical consequences ...
Are there other meaningful differences between female and male victims?
Are there meaningful similarities between male and female IPV perpetrators and victims?
What, if any, is the emotional fall-out for children exposed to– but not directly targeted by – adult family violence?
Is the harm to children different, when the IPV victim is a male or female attachment figure?
There’s little disagreement that, overall, female victims suffer IPV’s worst physical consequences.
Current research also indicates:
Female victim findings suggest: IPV’s emotional fallout can be more debilitating than from its physical injuries.
Male IPV victims can suffer the same emotional consequences as female victims – e.g., anxiety, depression, lowered self- esteem.
Boys and girls can be affected by “mere” exposure to IPV, even when they’re not direct targets of hands-on abuse.
These childhood consequences are the same, whether the IPV perpetrator is male or female.

17. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
When and how should IPV Ps and Vs be distinguishable (legally and otherwise) not only by the physical consequences of the violence?
Is most IPV a zero-sum – P-or-V – phenomenon?
When and how should the “primary aggressor” be identified?
When might sanctioning and/or treating only the “primary aggressor” not be a useful recidivism- prevention strategy?
More questions:
Should IPV Ps and Vs be distinguishable (legally and otherwise) not only by the physical consequences of the violence?
Is most IPV a zero-sum – P-or-V – phenomenon?
When and how should the “primary aggressor” be identified?
When might sanctioning and/or treating only the “primary aggressor” not be a useful recidivism-prevention strategy?

18. Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
4/8/2011
Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
♂ ♀
90 – 95%
INTIMATE TERRORISM
♂   ♀
2.5 – 5.0%
Situational Couple Violence
♂  ♀ %
Violent Resistance
Shelter and Criminal Justice Data Allusion to General Population IPV
Shelter and Criminal Justice Data Allusion to General Population IPV
(portrayal not to scale).

19. Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Research Findings not Everyone Knows
4/8/2011
Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Research Findings not Everyone Knows
♂  ♀
25%
Male on Female
Unilateral IPV
♂   ♀
50 %
Bilateral
(reciprocal and retaliatory)
“Mutual” IPV
♂  ♀
Female on Male Unilateral
IPV
30 Years of Gender Inclusive IPV General Population Survey Findings
30 Years of Gender Inclusive IPV General Population Survey Findings

20. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Lacking IPV data for custody/placement (C/P) litigants
which other data sets …
shelter resident reports and criminal justice records
general population and community research …
best frame expectancies about C/P litigant IPV
incidence
type/s
victim/perpetrator gender
In the absence of “harder” – non anecdotal, non “clinical” – information about IPV among C/P litigants, should we believe (and expect) …
the incidence, types, and genders of Ps and Vs be as
shelter researchers and victim advocates predict, or as
general population and community researchers report?
Why should this matter to Family Law attorneys?
What we “see” and find – in practice with difficult, highly conflicted cases – may be “presumed” by what we believe.
That is – “Mind set” matters.

21. 4/8/2011
Situational Couple Violence (SCV) When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, and Minze (2009) studied “children's adjustment in families with severe [male perpetrated] violence toward the mother.…”
asked shelter residents about their own IPV perpetration:
These female victims in shelter reported 96% of their heterosexual partners and 67% of themselves as having engaged in “severe violence” toward the intimate partner.
To date, only one study has inquired with shelter residents about their own as well as their male partner’s perpetration.
Every other shelter study reports only what female victims say about their partner’s perpetration.
McDonald, et al. (2009) found:
female victims in shelter reported 96% of their heterosexual partners and 67% of themselves as having engaged in “severe violence” toward the intimate partner.

22. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
McDonald, Jouriles, Tart, and Minze (2009) studied “children's adjustment in families with severe [male perpetrated] violence toward the mother.…”
asked shelter residents about their own IPV perpetration:
These female victims in shelter reported 96% of their heterosexual partners and 67% of themselves as having engaged in “severe violence” toward the intimate partner.
SCV = Situational Couple Violence
“Everyone knows” all IPV is “battering” (Intimate Terrorism) – resulting from “opposites attracting” –
a Powerful & Controlling Male
+ / 
a powerless, subjugated female
Although McDonald, et al. (2009) casts some doubt, this may be the case for many severely abused women in shelter .
However, this characterization is not applicable to IPV- affected couples – surveyed in the general population …
… because – like “birds of a feather” – aggressive males and females may mutually attract and stay together.

23. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
“…one stereotyped portrait of a battered woman is someone who shrinks from conflict in fear of a violent reprisal ... quick to back down from an argument, and ... overly accommodating of the abusive man's need for dominance. However, [in laboratory] studies … [among] couples that have experienced husband-to- wife violence, both partners engage in more critical, aversive, defensive, and hostile communication ... compared to partners in distressed, but nonviolent relationships…”
(Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)‏

24. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
Many violent couples present as trapped within a closed loop of “back-and-forth … belligerence, contempt, disgust, and overt hostility [that is] longer lasting and ... more negative [than found] in…nonviolent couples.”
(Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)‏
Skip to Slide 28 
Quiz results

25. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
What is the impact, if any, of mandated Batterer Intervention Program (BIP) psycho- education on adjudicated offender recidivism?
What variables best explain why some men re-offend and others don’t?
If found to have engaged in inter-spousal battery or domestic abuse ( [5][13]), eligibility for custodian rights and responsibilities can be regained by completing “certified batterers treatment.”
(See discussions of BIP certification and efficacy in binder.)

26. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Should any act or result of IPV be judged equally severe to any other perpetration?
Is all IPV “battering” aka “intimate terrorism”?
More questions:

27. Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Procedural Questions
4/8/2011
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Procedural Questions
Is investigation and judicial procedure competent when it does not ask if an alleged victim may
be subjectively (normally) distorting?
be incompletely or selectively recalling?
have contributed to an incident or pattern of IPV?
To avoid “victim blaming” or for any other reason, should court professionals and hearing officers not ask such questions?

28. From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
4/8/2011
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Key Family Court Actors *
(no. correct responses to 10 items)
FCPs FLAs/Judges
Mean SD
* Hamel, J, Demarais, SL, Nicholls, TL, Malley-Morrison, K & Aaronson, J. (2009). Domestic violence and child custody: Are family court professionals’ decisions based on erroneous beliefs? Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 2,
Take a moment, to count the no. of your False responses to the DV Quiz.
Dividing this number by 12  the % of correct responses … … according to general population survey research.
An earlier version of the Quiz – distributed to FCPs, FCJs, and FLAs – yielded the results on the screen.
Skip to Slide 33 

29. What Makes Social Science“Science”?
4/8/2011
What Makes Social Science“Science”?
Scientific theory is empirically testable:
Results may be independently replicated.
No necessary agreement about the results’ meaning.
Can be falsified – refuted / proved wrong as well as confirmed (at a given level of probability).

30. What Makes Social Science“Science”?
4/8/2011
What Makes Social Science“Science”?
Scientific theory is changeable:
it values negative results (corrective “feedback”)
evidence can change beliefs and way of thinking
all the data is never in—there’s no “final analysis”
Scientific belief systems are:
open and flexible, with
permeable boundaries between – what’s “true” today and what might be thought true tomorrow.

31. How Ideology is not Social Science?
4/8/2011
How Ideology is not Social Science?
Like science, ideology is a way of thinking:
negative findings are devalued, denied, dismissed, rationalized, etc.
closed, rigidly bounded, and certain
what is true today will certainly be true tomorrow.

32. How Ideology is not Social Science?
4/8/2011
How Ideology is not Social Science?
Ideological propositions are not …
subjected to alternative hypotheses
changed by contrary facts
When methodology and facts contradict theory
 “cognitive dissonance”  (choice):
assimilate (revise/interpret) facts  fit the theory
accommodate facts (revise theory) or
change mind  abandon belief system

33. 4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science (Gelles, R.J. (2007). The politics of research: the use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—the cases of intimate partner violence, FCR, 45,1, )
TEGWAR (“The Exciting Game Without Any Rules”)
Recent Advocate “Factoids”
“Batterers” always escalate abuse and violence
IPV may begin with emotional abuse but eventually it escalates to physical attacks and severe violence
Batterers never desist on their own.
In a paper entitled The politics of research: the use, abuse, and misuse of social science data, Gelles (2007) examined the empirical support for familiar, grain-of-truth “factoids,” disseminated by governmental agencies and government-sponsored organizations opposed to Violence Against Women.
One of these claims (above) …

34. Advocacy and Science “Batterers” always escalate
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
“Batterers” always escalate
(reported by severely abused victims in shelter)
General population data controlled for
high, moderate, and low risk to reoffend;
violence severity and frequency;
criminality;
psychopathology
 most IPV perpetrators do not escalate their abuse types or severity
When the contributions to recidivism of variables, such as
risk to reoffend;
violence severity and frequency;
criminality; and
psychopathology
are accounted for …
… most IPV perpetrators do not escalate their abuse types or severity.

35. Advocacy and Science “Batterers” always escalate
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
“Batterers” always escalate
(Feld & Straus, 1989, re-analysis of 1985 National Family Violence Survey)
one-third of severe offenders desist without intervention
In addition (above)

36. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
There is... considerable evidence [for] a mutual escalation theory of partner violence Most notably, the correlation between the levels of aggression reported for two members of a couple are very high, often in the .6 to .7 range…. if one partner is frequently aggressive, the other partner also tends to be frequently aggressive.”
(Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)
Murphy & Eckhardt (2005) cite
“... considerable evidence [for] a mutual escalation theory of partner violence. ... the correlation between the levels of aggression [between] ... two members of a couple are very high, often in the .6 to .7 range …. [i.e.,]
... if one partner is frequently aggressive, the other partner also tends to be frequently aggressive.”

37. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
Studies summarized by Tolan et al. (2006):
“... couples with unilateral violence reported fewer forms and acts of violence than do bidirectional violent couples …, [and] acts … less likely to lead to injuries and further violence.”
(Capaldi)
Also contrary to conventional wisdom, studies summarized by Tolan et al. (2006):
“... couples with unilateral violence reported fewer forms and acts of violence than do bidirectional violent couples …, [and] acts … less likely to lead to injuries and further violence.”

38. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
In some couples, one partner’s learning nonviolence is “highly dependent on whether the other partner also stops hitting.”
(Feld & Straus, 1989; Gelles & Straus, 1988)‏
Above, then
Skip to Slide 44 

39. SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
4/8/2011
SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators
.... prevalence of any physical aggression toward … new partners was 32% .... for the couples who stay together, [male partner] violence ... at age was just as well predicted by his partner’s prior physical aggression as by his own …. change ... in violence for each partner over time was strongly associated, indicating ... [intact] partners [tend] to [reciprocally].... increase or decrease in violence … factors related to the partner – and dyad – are critical…to the continuance of intimate partner aggression and violence.”
(Capaldi & Kim, 2007)
Capaldi & Kim (2007) compared
heterosexual male perpetrators who left the abused partner and re-coupled with another woman to
perpetrators who remained with the abused woman:
“ ... prevalence of ... physical aggression toward … new partners was 32% .... for the couples who stay together, [male partner] violence ... at age was just as well predicted by his partner’s prior physical aggression as by his own ….[C]hange ... in violence for each partner over time was strongly associated ... [Intact] partners [tend] to [reciprocally] ... increase or decrease in violence … factors related to the partner [of the male abuser] – and [the] dyad – are critical…to the continuance of intimate partner aggression and violence.”
Skip to slide 41

40. 4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
[Mandatory] arrest effectively prevent re-offense.
One follow-up study found less re-offense by employed arrestees than by men not arrested.
Unemployed arrestees were more likely to re-offend than non arrestees.
Recent findings suggest abused women may be less likely to call 911, after a first call resulted in abusive partner’s arrest.
Above

41. Advocacy and Science Skip to Slide 45 
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
Only men are violent in abusive families.
… the [empirical] evidence … confirms [this “suggestion”].
[Therefore,] we need to err on the side of safety…
... [by assuming]…all [sic] violence [is male- on-female]
intimate terrorism
until proven otherwise. (Italics added.)
Next Factoid: Only men are violent in abusive families.
When it comes to domestic violence, feminist sociologist Michael Johnson (2005) counsels – it’s always “better to be safe than sorry”:
“…we need to err on the side of safety [by assuming] … all [domestic] violence [is male-on-female] intimate terrorism [i.e., battering] until proven otherwise.”
In fact – apart from shelter studies that ask severely abused women only about their male partner’s assaults of them, the facts alleged in (1), (3), and (4) are false.
Skip to Slide 45 

42. Advocacy and Science Only men are violent in abusive families.
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
Only men are violent in abusive families.
“Qualitative” shelter resident reports are almost always not crosschecked or corroborated
i.e., reports of most severely abused female victims
asked only about male partner perpetration

43. Advocacy and Science Only men are violent in relationships
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
Only men are violent in relationships
Compared to selective, shelter sample studies, general population and community sample research almost always:
involves much larger data sets: hundreds to thousands (vs. < 100) respondents
tests hypotheses quantitatively
includes male and female respondents
asked about their own and their partner’s abuse and violence

44. Advocacy and Science  Skip back to Slide 40
4/8/2011
Advocacy and Science
Arrest is an effective intervention, which brings about a cessation of violence.
 (Mandatory arrest is good public policy.)
Based on a single, 1984 study of arrest and recidivism in Minneapolis.
Several subsequent studies, including by the same researcher, failed to replicate the original findings.
Above … then
 Skip back to Slide 40

45. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
4/8/2011
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Batterers intervention programs (BIPs) that employ the Duluth model are effective
Per heterosexual partners reports of male BIP group members :
Men who declined or dropped out had a 35% chance of staying nonviolent
40% of BIP-completers remain nonviolent
(CONT’D)
 Wisc. Stat (2)(d) [in part]:
“ …if the court finds … that a party has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery … or domestic abuse … there is a rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and contrary to the best interest of the child to award joint or sole legal custody to that party. T[his] presumption … may be rebutted only by a preponderance of evidence of all of the following [including]:
“... The party who committed the battery or abuse has successfully completed treatment for batterers provided through a certified treatment program or by a certified treatment provider and is not abusing alcohol or any other drug.”
 Above

46. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
4/8/2011
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Thus, a woman is only 5% less at risk for re- assault by a male intimate partner who was arrested, sanctioned, and completed BIP than by a man who was simply arrested and sanctioned.
Meta-analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental studies of BIP treatment efficacy
(Feder & Wilson, 2005) .

47. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
~ 65% difference in treatment effects between psychotherapy and BIP. Why?
BIPs view and treat IPV
neither as mentally disordered or socially deviant violations of intimacy, nor
as a result of “dysfunctional relationship dynamics,” instead
as culturally endorsed, normative male behavior – i.e., behavior men are taught and expected to enact.
(Babcock, et al., 2007)‏
What might explain a 65% difference between re-offense reduction (5%) following court-mandated Batterers Intervention group re-education, compared to symptom reduction from psychotherapy of mental disorders (70%)?
BIPs view and treat IPV
neither as mentally disordered violations of intimacy, nor
as resulting from “dysfunctional relationship dynamics.”
Instead BIPs view and “treat” IPV perpetration
as culturally endorsed, normative male behavior – i.e., behavior men are socially taught and expected to enact
(Babcock, et al., 2007)‏
4/8/2011

48. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
All perpetrators are not alike.
Most IPV perpetrators are not batterers.
IPV perpetrators are not almost all male.
IPV is not uniform across situations/couples/families.
In addition (above)
4/8/2011

49. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
4/8/2011
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
A “one size fits all,” criminal justice-oriented “intervention” protocol does not address:
perpetrator individual differences;
perpetrator personality traits
differing (perpetrator – victim) couple and family dynamics;
environmental conditions and stressors
Consider also (above)
Skip to Slide 51 

50. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
4/8/2011
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Whether the dynamic of conflict-driven SCV is ...
dysfunctional communication or problem solving or conflict resolution skill deficits or
abusive uses of “power and control”
... might perpetrators experience – and resist – BIP as more of the same?
Above
Skip to Slide 54

51. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Within the Duluth re-education 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 less than] 10% of North American marriages are male dominant….”
(Dutton, et al., 2008)‏
Within the Duluth re-education model, a chief cause of battering is the violent man’s socially induced misogyny and sexism.
Little of this shows up in general population IPV surveys:
“... only 2% of North America males agree that it is permissible to ‘hit your wife to keep her in line,’ [and less than] 10% of North American marriages are male dominant….”
(Dutton, et al., 2008)‏
4/8/2011

52. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
“… no conclusive research evidence ... that males with more sexist attitudes are more prone to IPV 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 ... male privilege or [sexist beliefs about] women's roles and rights, as indicated by over a dozen…controlled studies…”
(Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)‏
"... men in [BIPs] are not more likely than non-abusive men to endorse ... male privilege or [sexist beliefs about] women's roles and rights, as indicated by over a dozen…controlled studies…”
(Murphy & Eckhardt, 2005)‏
“… no conclusive research evidence ... that males with more sexist attitudes are more prone to IPV. ... personality factors account for more of the variance in domestic violence than do beliefs about male dominance….”
(Babcock, et al., 2007; italics added)‏
4/8/2011

53. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Contrary to effective psychotherapy’s therapeutic alliance, BIP’s “confronting” group members’ “denial” and “minimization” seems adversarial.
“…Many batterers react against frequent and intense confrontation with vociferous counterarguments, silence, ‘phony’ agreement, or termination of treatment.
“People rarely listen to alternatives to their own beliefs unless they feel heard and understood….”
(Babcock, et al., 2007)‏
What else might explain BIP ineffectiveness?
(Above)
Skip back to Slide 50
4/8/2011

54. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
AODA
“Alcohol abuse is among the most robust correlates of IPV. ... men seeking treatment for alcohol problems … [are] four to six times [more likely to be partner-abusive] than demographically similar, non alcoholic men.
(CONT’D)
Another factor –
Despite the apparently powerful dis-inhibiting effect AODA may have on IPV, AODA treatment is portrayed as “secondary” … … as if BIP is the demonstrated “treatment of choice.”
Despite the absence of empirical evidence, cornerstones of the the gender paradigm, BIP re-education model haven’t changed in the past quarter-century:
IPV results from Patriarchy, and
IPV is not “caused” by AODA.
Above
4/8/2011

55. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
4/8/2011
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
“…among men seeking treatment for substance abuse, those who perpetrated IPV had more severe alcohol problems...and higher levels of illicit drug use…
“…individuals who achieve stable sobriety show substantial reductions in partner violence and are much less likely to continue violence when compared to relapsed patients.”
Murphy & Eckhardt (2005)
Skip to Slide 57

56. Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
More socially stable and integrated men may:
feel humiliated and appalled – not rigidly defensive or justified – by their behavior and the immediate, personal consequences (arrest and jailing)
sufficient incentives not to (risk) re-assault?
openness / responsiveness and readiness to benefit from psycho-education?
more easily set aside their partners’ (real or perceived) parts of the abusive episode / dynamic?
less motivated to externalize their own contributions?
Some men seem to benefit from “Batterers” Intervention
Above
4/8/2011

57. Advocacy and Science SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
Advocacy and Science SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Couples counseling is never appropriate in cases of IPV
Wishing the abuse and violence to stop, but not necessarily wanting the relationship to end, 20% - 80% of “battered” women stay, or return to their abusive partner.
(Babcock, et al. 2007)‏
4/8/2011

58. SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Couples counseling is never appropriate in cases of IPV
When SCV men are involved in gender-specific group counselling (as in BIPs), the contributions of their mates and of their IP interaction are less likely to be attended or modified. (Stith, et al., 2005)‏
Thus, not involving both SCV partners in counselling can be less efficacious, and riskier to abused individual/s who remain coupled with situationally violent partner/s.
In some couples, one partner’s learning nonviolence is “highly dependent on whether the other partner also stops hitting.”
(Feld & Straus, 1989; Gelles & Straus, 1988)‏
4/8/2011

59. SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC
IPV / Wisconsin State Bar PINNACLE Seminar
Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC
16 N. Carroll Street, Suite 702, Madison, WI
Phone: Fax:
SCV: Partly a Dyadic Process?
Couples counseling is never appropriate in cases of IPV
“... a longitudinal…community sample of young couples found … significant [persistence of] physical and psychological aggression toward a partner by both the young man and woman, if the couple remained intact from late adolescence to young adulthood. However, if the young man was with a new partner, there was no significant [carry-over] in physical or psychological aggression (as reported each partner)….
Capaldi, Shortt, and Crosby (2003)
 Skip back to Slide 56
4/8/2011