Presentation on theme: "Differentiation of Domestic Violence (IPV) Differentiation of Domestic Violence (IPV) Arizona Training Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D."— Presentation transcript:
Differentiation of Domestic Violence (IPV) Differentiation of Domestic Violence (IPV) Arizona Training Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
Problem: Allegations of domestic violence Is there a factual basis? Is there accompanying criminal behavior? Substance abuse? What kind of violence is it? Is evidence sufficient to sustain findings in court? How does violence affect access to children?
Prevalence Physical assault by intimate partner experienced by: 22% of women 7% of men National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in survey of 16,000 adults Partner aggression decreases with age. Ages 15 to 35 and over 70 highest rates Daniel O;Leary, 2004
Frequency Similar rates of violence initiated by males and females in US, Canada, New Zealand Straus & Gelles, 1996; Kwong, Bartholomew&Dutton, 1999; Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, Newman, Fagan & Silva, 1997 (as reported by Drozd, Kuehnle, Walker, 2004) Male initiated violence more severe than female initiated and results in more serious injury or death
Divorce Custody Dispute Sample 105 children of 68 families DV between parents reported in almost 65% 52% of children reported to have witnessed violence between their parents Ayoub, Deutsch, & Maraganore, 1999)
Definitions of Domestic violence Physical –Slap, shove, twist arm, pull hair –Kick, punch, bite, throw things –Choke, weapons, burn, cut Psychological (Verbal and Emotional) –Cursing, demeaning, yelling –Isolating, threats –Stalking, harassing, inducing fear, other forms of intimidation, isolation Sexual Sexual –Unwanted force sex, rape, coercion Financial –Withhold money and information Straus, et al., 1996
Domestic Violence: a broad concept It is not “one size fits all” Not all violence is the same Differentiation assessment leads to differentiated parenting plans
Context vs. One size fits all ContextPatternsSafety
New thinking Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts cosponsored by NCJFCJ and AFCC February 2007 Family Court Review July 2008
Differentiating Variables Frequency and intensity of violence Potential for lethality Risk of future violence Presence for other forms of intimidation –Sexual coercion or abuse –Verbal abuse –Psychological maltreatment: chronic attempts at control and misuse of power; includes threats –Isolation –Financial control
Indicators of dangerousness History of violence History of abuse Availability of weapon Substance abuse High depression and rage Possessiveness/obsession with partner/dependency on partner Disregard/contempt for others History of mental illness Threats of serious harm Recent stressors Relationship problems Control –Ellis and Stuckless (2005) and Johnston
Patterns Battering and controlling (coercive- controlling violence) Situational or common couple violence (conflict instigated violence) Violent resistance Separation instigated violence Violence as a result of mental illness including substance abuse
Coercive, Controlling (Battering) Sometimes called intimate terrorism Ongoing pattern of coercive means to dominate, intimidate, control, induce fear through power Primarily male perpetrated, though 5 to 13% women Most prevalent pattern in shelter samples In large representative samples lower than situational couple violence Often escalates after victimized partner leaves relationship Jaffe et.al, 2003; Johnson, 2005, Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnston & Campbell, 1993;
Power and Control Wheel adapted by Duluth Minnesota Domestic Violence Program Using intimidation: making her afraid by using looks, actions, gestures, smashing things, destroying her property, abusing pets, displaying weapons. Using emotional abuse: putting her down, making her feel bad about herself, calling her names, making her think she's crazy, playing mind games, humiliating her, making her feel guilty. Using isolation: controlling what she does, who she sees and talks to, what she reads, where she goes, limiting her outside involvement, using jealousy to justify actions.
Power and Control Wheel adapted by Duluth Minnesota Domestic Violence Program Minimizing, denying, and blaming: making light of the abuse and not taking her concerns about it seriously, saying the abuse didn't happen, shifting responsibility for abusive behavior, saying she caused it. Using children: making her feel guilty about the children, using the children to relay messages, using visitation to harass her, threatening to take children away. Using male privilege: treating her like a servant, making all the big decisions, acting like the "master of the castle", being the one to define men's and women's roles. Using economic abuse: preventing her from getting or keeping a job, making her ask for money, giving her an allowance, taking her money, not letting her know about or have access to family income. Using coercion and threats: making and/or carrying out threats to hurt her, threatening to leave her, to commit suicide, to report her to welfare, making her drop charges, making her do illegal things.
Common couple violence (situational) Sometimes called conflict-instigated Violence perpetrated at similar rates by both partners Identified in community samples 9% to 12% men and 12% to 13% women. Limited conflict resolution skills Power coercion and control not central dynamics –men do not hold misogynistic views –Jaffe et.al., 2005; Johnson, 2005; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Ver Steegh, 2005
Common couple violence (2) Most common forms of violence are minor, not lethal, e.g. push, shove, grab Usually include cursing, yelling, name calling Accusations of infidelity, but not controlling or harassing Injuries not common but can escalate Partners not usually fearful of each other Generally stops after separation (2/3)
Violent resistant Partner uses violence to defend against violence by partner.
Separation-instigated violence Isolated acts of violence perpetrated by either partner as reaction to the stress of the separation and divorce. No history of previous violence Generally ends once parents are separated
Violence as a result of mental illness and substance abuse Partner uses violence to defend or respond to abuse/ battering by partner In shelter samples, women identified as this type
Impact of exposure to domestic violence on infants and toddlers Increased irritability Increased sleep disturbances Regression in previously learned behaviors such as language and toileting Fears of being alone/separation difficulties Emotional distress Withdrawal (Osofsky, 1999)
Impact of exposure to domestic violence on school age children Increase depression, anxiety, aggression, withdrawal Increased sleep disturbances Distractibility Intrusive thoughts Poorer problem solving skills, compared to children not exposed (Blakely & Engleman, 1996; Osofsky, 1999)
Impact of Domestic Violence on adolescents High levels of aggression and acting out Increased anxiety Behavioral problems School problems Truancy Revenge seeking (Osofsky, 1999)
Traumatic response Direct correlation between children who witness domestic violence and the presence of post- traumatic stress symptoms (Ayoub, Deutsch, & Maraganore, 1999; Famularo, Fenton, & Kinscherff, 1993) Symptoms of exposure to domestic violence not mediated by frequency or intensity (Ayoub et.al.; Kilpatrick & Williams, 1997) Overlap of exposure to DV AND abuse or neglect results in significant increase in depression, ODD, PTSD than exposure to either DV or abuse or neglect.
Long term effects of exposure to DV Increased psychological distress, lower self-esteem, poorer and adult relationships (McNeal & Amato, 1998)
Protective Factors that may predict fewer negative responses to DV Strong relationship with a competent, caring, positive adult, especially parent Community safe haven Characteristics of the child including average or above average intelligence Good interpersonal skills Good attention
Access arrangements: Risk- Benefit Analysis 1. Protect children from violence and abuse 2. Protect safety and well-being of parents who are victims of abuse 3. Empower victims to make own decisions 4. Hold perpetrators accountable 5. Allow children access to both parents Johnston, 2006
Risk-Benefit Analysis Protection on the bottom: priorities flow up
Considerations for Access Recommendations Child safety first Child’s exposure to parental conflict limited Minimize transitions if ongoing conflict
Parenting arrangements Coercive, controlling violence –Visitation issues and exchanges of children often create opportunities for violence –Threats of abduction or refusals to return child may occur
Double Whammy Children who live in homes with violence between their parents are more likely to become victims of physical abuse Approximate co-occurrence of spousal abuse and physical child abuse is 40% (Appel & Holden, 1998)
Weight of the child’s preferences Rejection of violent parent Anger, fear, and resistance Alignment with abusive parent and rejection of victimized parent Fear of abandonment, self-blame, sadness and loss