Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC Madison, WI 53703 April 8, 2011 State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar DOMESTIC.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC Madison, WI 53703 April 8, 2011 State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar DOMESTIC."— Presentation transcript:

1 Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC Madison, WI April 8, 2011 State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LITIGATION Practical and Legal Consequences IPVFrom Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom

2 From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom Before the program to begins, please Complete Domestic Violence Quiz Read Three Anecdotes o John and Carol o Rural Wisconsin couple o Friends story 2 2

3 From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom Objectives To challenge what everyone knows about IPV-affected custody/placement (C/P) litigation: o compare mainstream social science and gender paradigm ideological methodologies as ways of thinking about IPV-affected C/P litigation; o present sampling of long-established research data that contradicts what everyone knows about IPV. 3

4 From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom Objectives o Ask Wisconsins … 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. 4

5 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 childrens best interests? Mind-set or research-informed and evidence-based blind justice? 5

6 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? 6

7 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. 7

8 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 womens IPV allegations; mothers and childrens re-victimization by family court officers ignorance of mens insidious, abusive uses of power and control behind closed doors. 8

9 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. 9

10 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? 10

11 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 11

12 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 *(http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Power%20Control%20Wheel%20Lawyer%20Client%20by%2.C.%20Wheeler_2009.pdf) 12

13 Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions Is the heterosexual equivalent of IPV V iolence A gainst W omen (and children)? Does all (severe) heterosexual IPV have the same perpetrators victims causes patterns dynamics consequences remedies 13

14 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 14

15 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 perpetrators 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?) 15

16 Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions Undisputed: female victims suffer IPVs 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? 16

17 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? 17

18 Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Urban Legends Everyone Knows Shelter and Criminal Justice Data Allusion to General Population IPV – 95% INTIMATE TERRORISM 2.5 – 5.0% Situational Couple Violence % Violent Resistance

19 Beyond Power & Control Wheels: Research Findings not Everyone Know s 19 25% Male on Female Unilateral IPV 50 % Bilateral (reciprocal and retaliatory) Mutual IPV 25% Female on Male Unilateral IPV 30 Years of Gender Inclusive IPV General Population Survey Findings

20 Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions Lacking IPV data for custody/placement (C/P) litigants which other data sets … o shelter resident reports and criminal justice records o general population and community research … best frame expectancies about C/P litigant IPV o incidence o type/s o victim/perpetrator gender 20

21 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. 21

22 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. 22

23 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) 23

24 SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators o 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) 24

25 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 dont? 25

26 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? 26

27 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? 27

28 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,

29 What Makes Social ScienceScience? 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). 29

30 What Makes Social ScienceScience? Scientific theory is changeable: it values negative results (corrective feedback) evidence can change beliefs and way of thinking all the data is never intheres no final analysis Scientific belief systems are: open and flexible, with permeable boundaries between – whats true today and what might be thought true tomorrow. 30

31 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. 31

32 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 32

33 Advocacy and Science (Gelles, R.J. (2007). The politics of research: the use, abuse, and misuse of social science datathe cases of intimate partner violence, FCR, 45,1, ) TEGWAR (The Exciting Game Without Any Rules) Recent Advocate Factoids Batterers always escalate abuse and violence o IPV may begin with emotional abuse but eventually it escalates to physical attacks and severe violence o Batterers never desist on their own. 33

34 Advocacy and Science Batterers always escalate (reported by severely abused victims in shelter) General population data controlled for o high, moderate, and low risk to reoffend; o violence severity and frequency; o criminality; o psychopathology most IPV perpetrators do not escalate their abuse types or severity 34

35 Advocacy and Science Batterers always escalate (Feld & Straus, 1989, re-analysis of 1985 National Family Violence Survey) o one-third of severe offenders desist without intervention 35

36 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) 36

37 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) 37

38 SCV – When Perpetrators are Victims and Victims Perpetrators In some couples, one partners learning nonviolence is highly dependent on whether the other partner also stops hitting. (Feld & Straus, 1989; Gelles & Straus, 1988) 38

39 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 partners 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) 39

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

41 Advocacy and Science Only men are violent in abusive families. 1.… the [empirical] evidence … confirms [this suggestion]. 2.[Therefore,] we need to err on the side of safety… [by assuming]…all [sic] violence [is male-on-female] 4. intimate terrorism 5.until proven otherwise. (Italics added.) 41

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

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

44 Advocacy and Science Arrest is an effective intervention, which brings about a cessation of violence. (Mandatory arrest is good public policy.) o Based on a single, 1984 study of arrest and recidivism in Minneapolis. o Several subsequent studies, including by the same researcher, failed to replicate the original findings. 44

45 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 : o Men who declined or dropped out had a 35% chance of staying nonviolent o 40% of BIP-completers remain nonviolent (CONTD) 45

46 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy o 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). 46

47 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy ~ 65% difference in treatment effects between psychotherapy and BIP. Why? BIPs view and treat IPV o neither as mentally disordered or socially deviant violations of intimacy, nor o as a result of dysfunctional relationship dynamics, instead o as culturally endorsed, normative male behavior – i.e., behavior men are taught and expected to enact. (Babcock, et al., 2007) 47

48 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. 48

49 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy A one size fits all, criminal justice- oriented intervention protocol does not address: o perpetrator individual differences; o perpetrator personality traits o differing (perpetrator – victim) couple and family dynamics; o environmental conditions and stressors 49

50 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy Whether the dynamic of conflict-driven SCV is... o dysfunctional communication or problem solving or conflict resolution skill deficits or o abusive uses of power and control... might perpetrators experience – and resist – BIP as more of the same? 50

51 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy Within the Duluth re-education model, a chief cause of battering is the violent mans socially induced misogyny and sexism. 1. 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) 51

52 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy 2. … 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) 3. "... 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) 52

53 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy Contrary to effective psychotherapys therapeutic alliance, BIPs 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) 53

54 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy AODA 1. 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. (CONTD) 54

55 Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy 2. …among men seeking treatment for substance abuse, those who perpetrated IPV had more severe alcohol problems...and higher levels of illicit drug use… 3. …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) 55

56 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? 56

57 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) 57

58 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 partners learning nonviolence is highly dependent on whether the other partner also stops hitting. (Feld & Straus, 1989; Gelles & Straus, 1988) 58

59 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) 59


Download ppt "Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPC Divorce Conflict & Partner Abuse Solutions, LLC Madison, WI 53703 April 8, 2011 State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar DOMESTIC."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google