Article by Barry Goldstein & Veronica York
The men in the batterer program where Barry taught often volunteered excuses, explanations, assumptions and other false ideas about why their partner complained about their abuse. The instructors explained that the answer was actually much simpler and clear. She just wanted him to stop. In domestic violence (DV) custody cases, the alleged abusers similarly offer their spin, but the accurate answer is the same. Mothers and children are not trying to hurt the father, gain control, get even, take financial resources or undermine his relationship with the children. They just want his abuse to stop. The accurate explanation is rarely discussed in the family courts but would greatly improve the discussion and the court’s understanding of DV.
The research is clear that only accountability and monitoring have been effective in changing abuser’s behavior.1 Approaches that are based on mental health therapy or anger management cause great harm by creating the illusion of doing something while helping abusers avoid any meaningful accountability. The best and most ethical batterer programs are accountability programs. Courts need to be careful, however, because some programs copy the language without actual accountability.
Some people may be surprised that in the accountability program Barry taught in, the perspective recognized that society focuses too much on law enforcement. Other parts of society must also be involved in providing accountability. Friends, family and colleagues should interfere or at least express clearly their disapproval of abusive behavior. DV should be disqualifying for many jobs, particularly government positions. Journalists must avoid requiring two sides to any issue because some issues like the Holocaust, sexual abuse, coercive control, or DV only one legitimate side. Religious leaders must help victims of abuse and understand peace and safety are more important than maintaining a marriage.
The Role of Custody Courts
Accountability must be front and center when family courts respond to reports of DV. Obviously, reports of abuse are subject to proof, but contrary to unscientific and biased alienation theories, deliberate false reports of DV by mothers are rare.2 Economic abuse is part of almost all DV custody cases, and the resulting economic disparity provides an unfair advantage for abusers. During the relationship, most abusers control the finances, hide information from their victims and often grab most of the FAMILY’S financial resources before or at the time of separation. Courts often choose to wait until after trial to address any financial remedies. This means the father gets to use the mother’s money to win the litigation. It also means these resources are unavailable for the children during the litigation. In many cases the victim cannot afford an attorney, expert witnesses, discovery or even basics like food and shelter. Some abusers use the resources to in effect bribe the children.
Courts have the authority to level the playing field by requiring the wealthier parent to pay for legal and other fees. The basis of our jurisprudence is that the court can make the best decision when each party presents their best case. This doesn’t work when one party has most of the family’s assets. Courts also have the power to force abusers to pay any expenses made necessary by their abuse, including therapy. Abusers often seek to hide resources and delay responses to discovery. The court might consider looking at lifestyle and legal tactics. We have seen cases where the abusive father has two attorneys for each court appearance while the victim must act pro se. The court might say they can adjust the resources after trial but after trial is likely to be too late.
As DV experts, we look at the alleged abuser’s tactics to help recognize his abuse. One very common example is refusing children independent therapy because they are afraid the child would reveal his abuse. The larger picture is that courts usually assume both parents are acting out of love for the child but in most DV custody cases the abuser seeks custody (often despite limited previous parenting) to regain power and control and to hurt the mother. We look for behaviors and tactics, usually actions that harm the child, to demonstrate their actual motives.
We often face an interesting conundrum in that if we raise an issue about the abuser’s tactics, he can improve his litigation position by temporarily changing his actions. Even though revealing the significance of his harmful actions hurts the mother’s litigation position, we do it anyway because it benefits the children.
The larger point is that custody courts often realistically have a larger role than law enforcement in providing abusers with the accountability they need. Courts can use legal tactics by the abuser that hurt children to recognize the father’s motives. Courts can penalize these harmful tactics. Abusers should not be given a free shot to steal money from their ex-partner and children. If they are caught, there should be significant consequences like dividing assets more favorably to the victim. The history of abuse should disqualify the abuser from custody or shared parenting. He should be required to complete an accountability program and then prove his behavior is changed before anything beyond supervised visitation can be considered. Children do benefit from having both parents in their lives but only if both parents are safe. Children always benefit from being protected from an abusive parent.
One of the difficulties courts have is viewing DV as incident based. In one of Barry’s batterer classes, a man proudly talked about what a wonderful husband he was because he “let” his wife pick out the furniture. Barry explained that the word “let” was revealing and the man assumed that because he was the husband, he had the right to make the decision but did not care about the furniture so “let” his wife pick it out. The man told Barry he misunderstood and tried a few more times to express it differently. Each time he said the same thing because he believed he was entitled to make such decisions. After a while the other men started laughing and eventually the man joined the laughter. Obviously, he did nothing wrong in allowing his wife to select the furniture. He is an abuser because he believed that as a man he is entitled to make the important decisions. It isn’t that he commits DV incidents but rather that is who he is and what he believes. ACE (adverse childhood experiences) studies tell us it is the fear and stress abusers cause from a long pattern of controlling and coercive behavior that will ruin children’s lives if they are not protected.3 Courts cannot protect children’s safety and wellbeing if they look for excuses to avoid holding abusers accountable.
Probably the most successful program to prevent DV was the Quincy Model. A county that had averaged 5-6 DV homicides a year enjoyed several years in a row with no murders. Sarah Buel, the assistant district attorney in charge of the DV office, would regularly meet with defendants and their attorneys. She told them she was doing them a favor by prosecuting them for misdemeanors so that they and others would not see their lives ruined when they graduated to more severe crimes. Ms. Buel was right that she was doing these men a favor by holding them accountable. Family Court Judges may believe they are doing fathers a favor by minimizing their abuse to keep them in their children’s lives. In reality, the best favor judges could do for the fathers, and their children is to use the court’s authority to hold them accountable to stop their abuse before they ruin or end lives.
- [1] R. Davis, M. Labriola & M. Rempel, “Does Judicial Monitoring Deter Domestic Violence Recidivism? Results of a Quasi-Experimental Comparison in the Bronx.” Violence Against Women, Vol. 14 (2) (Feb. 2008).
- [2] Nicholas M.C. Bala et al., Allegations of Child Abuse in the Context of Parental Separation: A Discussion Paper (Department of Justice, Canada, 2001), https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.562161/publication.html
- [3] Vincent J. Felitti, Robert F. Anda, D. Nordenberg, D. F. Williamson, AM Spitz, V. Edwards., MP Koss, et al. “The Relationship of Adult Health Status to Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998; 14:245‐258. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635069