jon aaronson, phd, lpc divorce conflict & partner abuse solutions, llc madison, wi 53703 april...
Post on 28-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Jon Aaronson, PhD, LPCDivorce Conflict & Partner Abuse
Solutions, LLCMadison, WI 53703
April 8, 2011
State Bar of Wisconsin PINNACLE Seminar
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LITIGATION
Practical and Legal ConsequencesIPV—From Behind Closed Doors into the
Courtroom
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Before the program to begins,
pleaseComplete Domestic Violence QuizRead Three Anecdotes
oJohn and CaroloRural Wisconsin coupleoFriend’s story
22
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
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Objectiveso Ask Wisconsin’s …
• Family Law Attorneys, including Guardians ad Litemand
• 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
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?
5
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
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. 767.41(5) factor.
7
Beyond Power & Control Wheels:Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
Generic anecdotes abound about harm resulting from family courts’ misapplyingWis. Stat. 767.41(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.
8
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
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
Power and Control Wheels
Co-habiting AdultsNon co-habiting Intimate (?) Partners
Heterosexual“Male Privilege”
Lesbian/Gay Using “Privilege” External
Homophobia Internalized
Heterosexism
Teen Dating
Young Adult Dating CouplesGender neutral / inclusive references to perpetrators and victims
11
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
Rethinking IPV in C/P Litigation: Substantive Questions
Is the heterosexual equivalent of IPVViolence Against Women (and children)?
Does all (severe) heterosexual IPV have the same
perpetrators victims causes patterns dynamics consequences remedies
13
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
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?)
15
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?
16
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
Beyond Power & Control Wheels:Urban Legends “Everyone Knows”
Shelter and Criminal Justice Data Allusion to General Population IPV
18
♂ ♀
90 – 95%INTIMATE
TERRORISM
♂ ♀
2.5 – 5.0%
Situational Couple
Violence
♂ ♀
2.5 - 5.0%
Violent Resistance
Beyond Power & Control Wheels:Research Findings not Everyone Knows
19
♂ ♀
25%
Male on Female
Unilateral IPV
♂ ♀50 %
Bilateral(reciprocal and retaliatory)
“Mutual” IPV
♂ ♀
25%
Female on Male
UnilateralIPV
30 Years of Gender Inclusive IPV General Population Survey Findings
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 incidenceo type/so victim/perpetrator gender
20
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
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
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
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
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?
25
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
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
From Behind Closed Doors into the Courtroom
Key Family Court Actors *
(no. correct responses to 10 items)
FCPs FLAs/Judges
Mean 3.11 3.17
SD 2.01 2.32
* 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, 37-52.
2828
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).
29
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.
30
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
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 system32
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, 42-51.)
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
Advocacy and Science
“Batterers” always escalate(reported by severely abused victims in shelter)
General population data controlled foro 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
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
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
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
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)
38
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 20-23 ... 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)
39
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 partner’s arrest.
40
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…
3. ... [by assuming]…all [sic] violence [is male-on-female]
4. intimate terrorism
5. until proven otherwise. (Italics added.)
41
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
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 quantitativelyo includes male and female respondentso asked about their own and their
partner’s abuse and violence
43
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
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(CONT’D)
45
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
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
~ 65% difference in treatment effects between psychotherapy and BIP. Why?
BIPs view and treat IPVo 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
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
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
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
Whether the dynamic of conflict-driven SCV is ...o dysfunctional communication or problem
solving or conflict resolution skill deficitsor
o abusive uses of “power and control”
... might perpetrators experience – and resist – BIP as more of the same?
50
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.
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
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
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)
53
Theory in Practice: BIP Efficacy
AODA1. “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)
54
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
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
Advocacy and ScienceSCV: 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
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)
58
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
top related