Central California Public Social Services Training Academy
California Common Core Training for
Child Welfare Workers
Training Manual:
Intimate Partner Violence and Child
Welfare Practice
Serving the Central California Region:
Calaveras County
Fresno County
Kern County
Kings County
Madera County
Mariposa County
Merced County
San Luis Obispo County
California State University, Fresno
College of Health and Human Services

Santa Barbara County
Stanislaus County
Tulare County
Ventura County
California State University, Stanislaus
Master of Social Work Project
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK!
Intimate Partner Violence
COMPETENCIES and LEARNING OBJECTIVES
RELEVANT CHILD WELFARE OUTCOMES
Safety 1
Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect
Well-being 1
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Knowledge:
K1.
The trainee will be able to recognize the existing interaction between intimate
partner violence and
a. screening, emergency response and ongoing services;
b. physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children;
c. participatory planning and decision making;
d. visitation.
K2.
The trainee will be able to identify interventions for family members (parents,
caregivers, youth, children) experiencing intimate partner violence (including
violence in dating relationships) in the context of child welfare practice.
K3.
The trainee will be able to recognize the existing interactions between culture,
poverty, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, and substance abuse in the
dynamics of intimate partner violence.
K4.
The trainee will be able to identify how exposure to intimate partner violence
typically affects children and adolescents.
K5.
The trainee will be able to identify strategies, resources and services that the trainee
will utilize to effectively assist families that experience intimate partner violence,
including:
a. strategies
i. sample interview questions,
ii. the concept of lethality assessments
b. resources
i. possible criminal sanctions against the perpetrator,
ii. protection orders,
iii. online resources
c. services
i. batterer interventions,
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
3
ii. the importance of partnerships with intimate partner violence
treatment service providers to foster support services
K6.
The trainee will be able to identify the combinations in which intimate partner
violence exists outside of the context of male-on-female violence, such as same-sex
partners, mutual combatants, female-on-male violence, and teen violence.
K7.
The trainee will be able to identify the effect of trauma on the decision making of
survivors of intimate partner violence.
Skills:
S1.
Using a case example, the trainee will be able to describe factors relevant to an
accurate assessment of safety and risk in families where there is intimate partner
violence.
S2.
Using a role play or case scenario, the trainee can effectively present the effects of
intimate partner violence on children, adolescents, and families involved in child
welfare services.
S3.
Using a case example, the trainee will be able to use a completed safety assessment
to develop and present strength-based safety plans and interventions that protect
children, adolescents and parents affected by intimate partner violence.
Values:
V1.
The trainee values working in partnerships providing multi-disciplinary cross systems
interventions in protecting and supporting children, adolescents, and families that
experience intimate partner violence.
V2.
The trainee values understanding the challenges faced by families in effectively
protecting their children and adolescents from exposure to intimate partner violence
(including violence in adult and adolescent dating relationships).
V3.
The trainee values balancing efforts to facilitate the autonomy of survivors of
intimate partner violence with efforts to address critical safety concerns.
V4
The trainee values using effective evidence-based and/or promising practices when
working with families exposed to intimate partner violence.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
4
Intimate Partner Violence and Child Welfare
Practice
Agenda
•
Welcome and Introductions, training day warm-up; review of learning objectives
•
Exploring the dynamics of intimate partner violence and the Child Welfare
response
•
Intimate partner violence and Child Welfare Decision points: Special
considerations
•
Correlations between intimate partner violence and child maltreatment; impact of
trauma on children and adolescents
•
The intersection between intimate partner violence and substance abuse
•
Aggressor and victim/survivor profiles; assessing dangerousness and lethality;
conducting a Child Welfare safety and risk assessment when intimate partner
violence is present
•
Assessment, family engagement and services planning; intimate partner violence
safety plans
•
Cultural issues in intimate partner violence
•
Facilitating cross-system communication and collaboration; promising and
evidence-based resources
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
5
Intimate partner violence and Child Welfare
practice
Key concepts
•
The highest priority for Child Welfare Services workers in working with families
in intimate partner violence settings is to keep the adult victim (most often a
woman) and children safe from harm while holding aggressors of violence
accountable.
•
Witnessing family violence is a traumatic event for children and will affect their
brain development as well as future relationships and problem solving
approaches.
•
Violence is learned behavior, not a natural human response.
•
Intimate partner violence is endemic in society and occurs at all socioeconomic
levels, in all cultures and ethnicities. It is a closely guarded secret in many
families that becomes an important hidden element in the assessment process.
•
Intimate partner violence is less about violence (since not all behaviors in intimate
partner violence are physical) and more about emotional dependency of the
aggressor and his need for power and control of another.
•
Assessment of lethality and dangerousness is an essential role in Child Welfare
safety planning.
•
Substance abuse, particularly alcohol, has been correlated with increased
likelihood of intimate partner violence.
•
Children living in homes with intimate partner violence are more vulnerable to
physical abuse and general neglect by both the aggressor and the adult victim.
•
Victims of intimate partner violence can’t or don’t leave these harmful
relationships due to a set of complex social, family and emotional reasons. Their
behaviors are a strategy for survival.
•
Fifty percent of all homeless women are fleeing an intimate partner violence
situation. Forty percent of first physical assaults occur during the woman’s first
pregnancy. Thirty percent of all female homicides are family violence-related.
•
Intimate partner violence is believed to be the most common, but least reported
crime in our society.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
6
Defining Intimate Partner Violence in California
Intimate partner and family violence is defined as a recurring and escalating pattern of
behaviors, including physical, sexual and emotional abuse, coercion, economic control,
isolation, threats and stalking, that are focused on maintaining control of restrict the
independence of an individual within an intimate or domestic relationship.
California Penal Code Section13700 defines Intimate Partner Violence as:
“Abuse against an adult or fully emancipated minor who is the spouse,
former spouse, cohabitant or former cohabitant, or a person with whom the
suspect has had a child or has a past or present dating or engagement
relationship.”
Abuse, under this penal code definition, includes causing as well as attempting to cause
bodily injury as well as (intimidation strategies) threats—“placing another person in
reasonable apprehension of imminent, serious bodily injury to himself or another,” i.e.,
you fear you will be hurt.
Key to this definition is the understanding that these behaviors are not a single event, but
a pervasive and systematic use of behaviors in order to control another.
Domestic partnerships or relationships are specified as being between adults or legally
independent minors who have had a past or present intimate relationship. This
relationship may not necessarily include current or past sexual involvement.
Individuals in domestic relationships may be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Married or have been legally married,
Living or have lived together,
Dating or have dated,
Engaged or have been engaged in a sexual relationship,
Related by blood or adoption,
Related or formerly related by marriage,
Engaged or formerly engaged to be married, or,
Have a child in common.
Intimate partnership violence may also involve children or other family members within
the household, though specific charges filed in these circumstances may vary. Victims
may be engaged in same gender intimate partnerships or marriages. In addition, while
victims are overwhelmingly female, these laws pertain to intimate partner violence
situations where there are mutual combatants or when the female partner abuses the male
partner.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
7
Other Penal Code statutes may be violated during an episode of intimate partner violence
and the specific charges filed are specifically associated with the nature of the
relationship between suspect and victim.
All intimate partner violence incidents require a written report by law enforcement,
and if there is sufficient evidence and/or the victim chooses to prosecute, law
enforcement is required to make an automatic arrest.
California legislation (Assembly Bill 2647, implemented in 1997) requires that the Child
Welfare Services Emergency Response Protocol incorporate screening procedures to
assess whether abuse of another family or household member is occurring. That is, is
there evidence of intimate partner violence in the home? Moreover, if the case is
petitioned before the Juvenile Court, the court is required to give preference for
placement of a child to the adult victim/survivor if they can provide a plan that will
protect the child.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
8
Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence
While the main objective of aggressors is to maintain power and control over their
partner in order to keep them in the relationship, the behaviors used by aggressors vary.
These behaviors are focused on instilling fear, powerlessness and helplessness. These
behaviors are systematic, progressive and cyclic. These behaviors do not always involve
physical violence, nor do men always perpetrate these behaviors.
Physical Violence: Physical violence tends to be the form of intimate partner violence
that is the last resort compared to other behaviors. Physical violence includes behaviors
that physically hurt, control and degrade the partner by hitting, slapping, kicking,
punching, hair pulling, head banging, strangling, forced kneeling, restraining, burning
and shoving. These behaviors are focused on the physical control, degrading or forcing
submission of the victim.
Physical violence may involve use or threat of use of weapons or throwing of objects to
produce terror, and reckless driving. Physical violence also includes preventing a person
from use of a telephone (a felony) or leaving the home, refusing to assist a sick or injured
partner or abandoning the partner in dangerous places.
Sexual Abuse/Partner Rape: Sexual violence includes forced participation in sexual
activities, inappropriate touching of sexual parts of the body, including in public and
rape. This abuse is used to demean and gain power and control the partner.
Financial or Economic Abuse: The partner is systematically isolated and restricted
through control of funds, restricting free to work or causing the partner to lose their job,
requiring surrender of all earned money and making the victim beg for food or other
necessities.
Isolation: The aggressor may monitor and question their partner’s movements, who they
see or talk with, or restrict their partner’s ability to go out into the community.
Additionally, the aggressor may limit their partner’s ability to be involved in activities
outside the home with friends, work or social activities and may accuse the partner of
infidelity, disloyalty or embarrassing the aggressor.
Emotional Abuse: This form of abuse is a systematic pattern of demeaning or
controlling the partner through name-calling, insults, statements about the inferiority,
dependence, motives, intelligence or stability of the victim and using verbal arguments to
manipulate the partner into feeling guilty or devalued. This form of abuse also involves
blaming the partner for any violence that occurs.
Threats and Intimidation: The aggressor seeks to instill fear and gain control by using
facial expressions, actions, gestures, raised voice, smashing or destroying belongings,
displaying weapons, stalking, hurting or threatening to hurt children or animals. Threats
may involve direct or subtle threats to harm the partner, family members or to harm self.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
9
Aggressors may also threaten with reports to immigration authorities or social services or
public assistance agencies.
Control of partner through children: The aggressor may threaten to take custody of the
children if the partner leaves the relationship, to have the children removed by Child
Welfare Services, engage in brutal custody disputes, encourage a child to disobey, resist
or assault the partner and send messages of intimidation through the children.
Oppression and Privilege: The partner is treated as a slave or servant in the home and
the aggresspr sets expectations for rules, roles and responsibilities and makes all the
household decisions.
(Sources: Ganley, A.L. and Schechter, S. (1995) and Wilson, K.J. (1997) “When Violence Begins at Home: A
Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending Domestic Violence.”)
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
10
POWER AND CONTROL WHEEL
hysical and sexual assaults, or threats to commit them, are the most apparent forms of domestic violence and are usually
P
the actions that allow others to become aware of the problem. However, regular use of other abusive behaviors by the
batterer, when reinforced by one or more acts of physical violence, make up a larger system of abuse. Although physical assaults may occur only once or occasionally, they instill threat of future violent attacks and allow the abuser to take control of
the woman’s life and circumstances.
he Power & Control diagram is a particularly helpful tool in understanding the overall pattern of abusive and violent behaviors, which are used by a batterer to establish and maintain control over his partner. Very often, one or more violent
incidents are accompanied by an array of these other types of abuse. They are less easily identified, yet firmly establish a pattern of intimidation and control in the relationship.
T
VIOLENCE
l
a
c
si COERCION
y
AND THREATS:
Making and/or carryph
ing out threats to do
something to hurt her.
Threatening to leave her,
commit suicide, or report
her to welfare. Making
her drop charges.
Making her do illegal
things.
INTIMIDATION:
Making her afraid by
using looks, actions,
and gestures. Smashing
things. Destroying her
property. Abusing pets.
Displaying weapons.
EMOTIONAL ABUSE:
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.
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.
POWER
AND
CONTROL
USING CHILDREN:
ph
ys
Developed by:
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project
202 East Superior Street
Duluth, MN 55802
218.722.4134
Making her feel guilty
about the children. Using
the children to relay
messages. Using
visitation to harass her.
Threatening to take the
children away.
ic a
se
xu
al
l
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.
ISOLATION:
Controlling what she does,
who she sees and talks to,
what she reads, and where
she goes. Limiting her
outside involvement.
Using jealousy to justify
actions.
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.
x
e
s
l
a
u
VIOLENCE
Produced and distributed by:
4 6 1 2 S h o a l C r e e k B l v d . • A u s t i n , Te x a s 7 8 7 5 6
512.407.9020 (phone and fax) • www.ncdsv.org
CCTA | Common Core Training | Intimate Partner Violence & CW Practice | November 2011
11
Prevalence and manifestation of intimate partner
violence in America
•
Almost two million women annually are physically abused by their
husbands/boyfriends. An estimated 5.3 million incidents of intimate partner
violence occur each year against women. In 2000, an estimated one in 200
households acknowledged tat someone in the household experienced some form
of intimate partner violence.
•
Between 12 and 15 million American women have been physically abused at least
once in their adult lives.
•
A woman is battered every 15 seconds in the United States; the most dangerous
place for a woman in the U.S. is in her own home. She is nine times more likely
to be injured there than on the street.
•
Seventy-six percent of attacks on women are committed by her current or former
“significant other.”
•
Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault;
one-third required medical care as a result. Medical costs associated with injuries
to women by their partners total more than $44 million annually. Females
account for 39 percent of hospital emergency room visits from violence-related
injuries and 84 percent of persons treated for injuries caused by an intimate
partner.
•
Women are more often victims of family violence than burglary, muggings,
automobile accidents, and rape combined. Battering is the leading cause of nonaccidental injury to women in America.
•
Over one-third of Americans have witnessed at least one incident of intimate
partner violence.
•
Severe physical assaults of women occur in 8 to 13% of all marriages; in twothirds of these relationships, the assaults recur. According to the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, violence is the leading cause of injury to women
aged 15 to 44 years.
•
One third of homicides of women are committed by a current of former intimate
partner. This percentage has held steady for almost two decades (Fox and Zawitz,
2000). When a woman is killed, 43 percent of the cases involves a murderer who
is an intimate male partner.
•
A woman is at greatest risk of assault when:
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
12
o She leaves. Seventy-five percent of women are killed by their aggressors
when or because they’ve left or are leaving. Further, 70% of intimate
violence incidents occur when/because the woman has left/is leaving.
o She is pregnant. Approximately eight to 15 percent of pregnant women
being treated in public and private clinics for injuries due to intimate
partner violence. She is three times more likely to be injured when
pregnant and to be injured in the breasts, abdomen.
o She is young. Females between the ages of 16 and 24 years are most
vulnerable to intimate partner violence.
•
Sexual assault typically accompanies these beatings—and is underreported, as a
great many women do not realize that forced sex, even with a mate, is against the
law. Eight percent of women report intimate partner rape.
•
When a woman self-reports, on average she has endured at least six beatings prior
to calling the police for help.
•
An estimated five percent of reported intimate partner violence cases are males
who are physically assaulted, stalked or killed by a current or former female
intimate partner.
•
According to the Department of Justice, 95 percent of all intimate partner
violence assaults are committed by males against women. Eighty-five to 90
percent of all victims of intimate partner violence are female.
•
Adult intimate partner violence is found in 41 percent of the families experiencing
critical injuries or deaths of children due to child abuse or neglect (Oregon
Children’s Division 1993).
•
Family crimes against adults accounts for nearly 15 percent of total crime costs in
America, according to the National Institute of Justice.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
13
Troubling trends in teen dating relationships
•
According to Teenage Research Unlimited (survey completed in March 2006),
19 percent of teens in a relationship have been threatened by their partner.
•
Prevalence of violence in college student dating relationships are reported
consistently between 20 and 33 percent in the United States (as cited in Fincham,
Cui, Braithwaite and Pasley, 2005).
•
Females aged 16-24 years are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence than
any other age group at a rate almost triple of the national average (U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report, Intimate
Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1999)
•
Of teens that have been in a relationship, 30 percent said that they have been
concerned for their physical safety.
•
One in teen teens have reported being verbally or physically abused by a partner
who was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
14
Principles of Child Welfare Intervention in
Families Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence
Effective intervention with families who are suffering with issues of intimate violence
involves a set of inherent strengths-based and client-centered principles that focus on
safety of family members and appropriate accountability of aggressors.
Our institutionalized practices in public agency settings have evolved from a largely
patriarchal control model that viewed women as subordinate in the family structure and
unequally valued in society. A male partner’s right to beat his wife was not formally
limited until the 1870s and statutes to protect women from violence were not developed
until the early 1900s as part of the Women’s Rights Movement.
Until the 1970s, women who were victimized by their intimate partners had no formal
avenue to obtain help, either physically or legally. Most initial efforts at protection of
women and children as victims within their homes were “grass roots” in nature and
focused on three primary principles: creating shelter and support services for women who
experienced violence in their relationships and children, strengthening legal and criminal
responses to intimate partner violence and raising public awareness about family
violence.
Until relatively recently in Child Welfare practice, it was common practice to substantiate
allegations against the female partner for general neglect and failure to protect in
situations of intimate partner violence in order to establish Juvenile Court jurisdiction,
while allowing the criminal justice system to consequence aggressors.
Through the efforts of the Battered Women’s Movement, best practice has shifted to
adopt a set of foundational principles to guide the intervention efforts of Child Welfare
Services agencies working collaboratively across systems to serve victims and their
children. These principles include:
•
Safety as the highest priority for partners who are victims and their children.
Focus of intervention should strive to identify and safety plan for all adult and
child victims and keep them safe from harm while making every effort to
maintain or restore the family. When the family cannot safely remain together,
efforts are made to have the non-offending parent maintain care and custody of
the children.
•
Holding aggressors accountable. The system needs to develop a response plan
that places the burden of responsibility on the abusive partner. Interventions
should be based upon holding aggressors responsible for their violent and
threatening behaviors and focus efforts on monitoring accountability and
rehabilitation while maintaining safety for the victim and children.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
15
•
Recognition that child witnessing of intimate partner violence is a traumatic
event. Witnessing of these events can have a profound effect on development of
the neuro-developmental template formed for all relationships.
•
Partners who have been victims of violence shall have a right to selfdetermination. These partners must be allowed to choose their own path in
addressing intimate partner violence issues, including making their own decision
about whether to remain with or leave an abusive partner. In response to this
right of self-determination, Child Welfare professionals should focus efforts on
the least intrusive intervention needed to protect children.
•
Advocating for adult victim and child rights across system. Child Welfare
professionals should promote awareness, communication and information sharing
between family serving systems while maintaining the family’s right to privacy.
(Sources: Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Administration of Children and Families, 2003 and Safe from the Start, Guidelines on the Co-Occurrence of
Domestic and Child Maltreatment, 10th Judicial District, Johnson County, Kansas, January 2004.)
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
16
Other California statutes governing intimate
partner violence
Due to the variations in the nature of intimate partner violence and variations in types of
intimate partnerships, charges against aggressors of intimate partner violence will vary in
severity and type. Some of the Penal Code statutes listed below (and many others) may
be seen on criminal histories of individuals who commit intimate partner violence.
Penal Code 273.5
Spousal abuse or inflicting corporal injury
Penal Code 242
Simple battery
Penal Code 243 (d) Battery – felony with serious injury
Penal Code 243 (e) Battery – misdemeanor
Penal Code 240
Assault
Penal Code 166.4
Contempt of court order
Penal Code 602.5
Trespassing
Penal Code 594(b)
Vandalism
Penal Code 591
Malicious destruction of a telephone
Penal Code 273.6
Violation of any domestic violence restraining order
Penal Code 245(a)(1) Assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce
great bodily injury
Penal Code 422
Criminal threats
Penal Code 646.9
Stalking
Penal Code 597
Cruelty to animals
Penal Code 207
Kidnapping
Penal Code 236
False imprisonment
Penal Code 27.262 Spousal rape
Penal Code 28.653 Threatening or harassing telephone call
Penal Code 12021
Firearm possession by subject of a domestic violence
protection order
Penal Code 12028.4 Family violence/firearm seizure
Penal Code 166 (c)(1) Misdemeanor – domestic violence order issued during
probation.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
17
The Cycle of Intimate Partner Violence
Phase 1:
TensionBuilding
Phase 2:
Violence Episode,
Acute Battering or
Explosion
Phase 3:
Remorse,
Reconciliation or
Honeymoon Period
Lenore Walker wrote a seminal text entitled “The Battered Woman” in 1979 and in it, she
described a common repeating and escalating pattern of family violence focused on
maintaining control of an intimate partner through fear, intimidation and degradation. This
pattern involves a three-stage cycle that increases in frequency and severity.
Phase 1: The Tension Building Phase
Tensions within the aggressor and their partner increase, with the aggressor becoming
overcritical, moody, threatening and unpredictable. The aggressor’s partner and children
often experience a feeling of “walking on eggshells” and respond by attempting to keep the
peace and prevent a crisis. During this period, the aggressor’s partner will minimize minor
incidents, deny that tensions will escalate and blame themselves for the aggressor’s
unhappiness.
Phase 2: Acute Battering, Violence Episode or Explosion Phase
During this brief period, the aggressor loses control of his or her anger, escalates his or her
rage to the point of physical violence or verbal explosion. During this episode, the
aggressor’s partner may or may not seek help or fight back and often experiences shock
and disbelief that the violence has occurred.
Phase 3: Remorse, Reconciliation or Honeymoon Period
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
18
Following an acute explosive episode, the aggressor generally becomes remorseful and this
phase keeps his or her partner engaged in the relationship. The aggressor will apologize for
violent or explosive actions, promise to change and even agree to take steps to change the
behavior. The aggressor will engage in courting their partner and may offer gifts. Both
partners will tend to believe that the abuse will not reoccur and the aggressor’s partner will
often remain in the relationship out of this hope and belief that the aggressor loves them.
During this period, the aggressor will begin to play on the guilt feelings and sympathy of
their partner and will seek validation from others regarding changed behaviors.
A word about “Mutual” Intimate Partner Violence
Perpetrators of intimate partner abuse may accuse their partner of being equally abusive.
Research clearly shows, however, in cases where males are injured in violent incidents, the
severity and costs of treatment of these injuries is far less than those of women.
In evaluating cases of alleged mutual combatants, workers will need to evaluate verifiable
evidence carefully concerning:
•
•
•
Who is afraid of whom?
Who controls the relationship?
Who has more financial and economic resources?
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
19
Violence is Learned Behavior
As Dr. Bruce D. Perry has so effectively communicated, violence is learned behavior, not
innate to the human species. Patterns of intimate partner violence involve modeling
behaviors between generations that have historically had few negative consequences for the
aggressor
Learned behavior is witnessed and experienced by children who eventually grow to be
adult aggressors and their victims. The behaviors are condoned by inaction and silence of
the family and community. Further, children learn that violence is an accepted and
effective coping strategy during conflict. Aggression and passivity is often seen in the
behaviors of children who live in families with intimate partner violence.
During adolescence, these patterns emerge in dating relationships and ultimately become
violence in adult intimate partnerships.
(Source: Cappell, C. and Heiner, R. (1990) The Intergenerational Transmission of Family Aggression, Journal of Family
Violence.)
Family
approval and
silence in sue
of violence
Next generation is
born
Observations
of family
violence
Use of violence
in adult
partnerships
Use of violence
in dating
relationships
during teens
Family approval and
silence in the use of
violence
Victimized by
family violence
Violence
becomes
coping
response in
family
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
Family approval and
silence in the use of
violence
20
Understanding the Dynamics of Intimate Partner
Violence
As explained previously, the vacuum to which violence is most attracted is the
one created by a power differential. However, the mere existence of a power
differential is not a guarantee of violence—after all, many relationships are based
on this (parent – child; older sibling – younger sibling; master – apprentice, etc.).
The exploitation of this power differential increases the potential for violence,
and once violence has occurred a power differential most definitely influences
future interactions.
•
Patterns of intimate partner violence are generally considered to be the
cause of individual, marital, and family pathology rather than the result.
•
The battering cycle tends to escalate in severity and frequency over time.
It has an extremely low spontaneous cure rate. Once started, there is a
high likelihood it will be established as an ongoing pattern. Recidivism
rates are high even after treatment, ranging from 15 to 40% more than one
year after treatment. 12 * The most potent predictor of future abuse is
past abuse.
•
Intimate partner violence is best viewed as a public health and/or criminal
justice issue rather than family pathology for two reasons. It (1) removes
the veil of secrecy typically afforded to “family problems” and (2) allows
for a coordinated community approach to intervention and prevention
efforts. Systems working together to intervene with these families have
been shown to be more effective than single-agency responses.13
•
Both the victims and the aggressors of partner and child abuse are likely to
deny and/or minimize the severity of the problem even when the abuse is
extreme, which puts the service provider in the position of having to
identify a problem that none of the parties wants to acknowledge. Another
common dynamic is the shame-blame dance—the aggressor’s projection
of responsibility and of shame and humiliation in a shameful act of abuse
on the victim as a way of discharging all his disowned self-loathing. This
projection needs a partner dynamic in the victim, which is referred to as
introjection, or a swallowing whole of the violence and humiliation, thus
calling the aggressor’s self-loathing and shame her own.
•
The highest periods of abuse occur during pregnancy and following
separation. Any person or event that threatens the aggressor’s access to
and exclusivity over his partner is a perceived threat.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
21
Culture Wheel
CULTURE
ES
AR
RN
T
ME
NT
L
VIO LEN C E
SEX
UA
I N S T IT U T I O N S
L
N
O
IC A
R
WO
CULTURE
K
ES
RO
VE
YS
EC
ES
O
NO
MI
IC
RV
HE
G
PH
ES
SE
S
Using
Children
NC
IAL
FAD
Threats
DA
SOC
Sexual
Abuse
S
ION
Economic
Abuse
POWER
&
CONTROL
Intimidation
INE
Using Male
Privilege
Emotional
Abuse
DIC
ME
MED
IA
Isolation
SE
XU
AL
REL
PO
LI
CE
VIOLENCE
IT
AD
TR
AL
S IC
Y
PH
ED
UC
AT
CS
S
N
NORMS
INSTITUTIONS
IO
RIT
UA
LS
T
UR
O
C
LA
NG
UA
G
E
IGIO
ES
U
L
VA
HE
RO
IN
Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project
Duluth, Minnesota
We can ALL help end domestic violence -- Ask. Listen. Learn.
For more information, call the Virginia Family Violence & Sexual Assault Hotline: 1.800.838.8238 (v/tty)
CCTA | Common Core Training | Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
22
Intimate partner violence and issues of culture,
race and class
Intimate partner violence occurs within all races, ethnicities, neighborhoods, and across all
socioeconomic boundaries. Rates of violence do vary based upon specific demographics,
however, as highlighted below. The family violence awareness movement has been
criticized for focusing on the needs of Caucasian and American-born victims while failing
to acknowledge or provide effective intervention for individuals who are victims of abuse
in other groups.
When assessing and intervening with families suffering with intimate partner violence,
conscious consideration of the impact of institutionalized bias and discrimination according
to race, class and gender as well as the impact of cultural values and norms is essential.
Poverty
Families living at and below the poverty level experience higher rates of violence,
regardless of specific race or ethnicity. When individuals living in poverty are faced with
making the choice of leaving the relationship to create safety for themselves and their
children, they may find themselves homeless and without basic needs met. This fact is
particularly true for individuals of color, who are disproportionately impacted by poverty
and economic disadvantage. Further, rates of violence in poor homes tend to be higher,
highlighting the importance of focusing on economic and vocational self-sufficiency as a
means for decreasing violence in some homes.
Over 80 percent of very-low income mothers have been victims of physical or sexual abuse
and a third of them required medical treatment.
Participants of focus groups consisting of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrant women
sponsored by the Family Violence Prevention Fund stated that a primary factor in the
prevalence of intimate partner violence in immigrant populations was poverty.
Race and ethnicity
Intimate partner violence rates are statistically consistent across racial and ethnic
boundaries, however, races and ethnicities who are disproportionately poor or who have
experienced internalization of historic trauma show higher rates of family violence.
Gender and sexual orientation
Women are overwhelmingly identified as the victims of male aggressors in intimate partner
relationships. Notwithstanding this fact, intimate partner violence occurs proportionately
in gay and lesbian partnerships as well. In addition, male victims of female aggressors
often do not have equitable access to community resources for protection and societal
norms regarding male dominance may result in bias regarding assessment and intervention.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
23
Gay, lesbian and transgender families tend to be underserved by community response to
intimate partner violence.
According to the National Institutes of Health, 34 percent of gay men are psychologically
abused by a partner, 22 percent are physically abused and 5 percent are sexually abused.
An estimated 20-35 percent of lesbian, gay and transgender individuals experience intimate
partner violence.
Regionalism
Rates of intimate partner homicide rates are higher in southern and western states in
American and per capita rates of violence in urban areas tend to be higher.
Disabled individuals
Individuals with special developmental and physical challenges, as well as mentally ill
persons, are more vulnerable to intimate partner violence and more easily isolated from
protective services. Twenty-five percent of teen girls with cognitive 31 percent of
individuals with physical disabilities and 36 percent of multi-disabled children in
psychiatric hospitals have a history of sexual violence.
Cultural norms, values and behaviors
In each culture, there are values, traditions and rituals that support the maintenance of both
healthy and non-violent and abusive intimate partnerships. Development of cultural
sensitivity and competency in the behaviors of Child Welfare workers in shaping a
protective intervention with families is essential.
Individuals from some cultures may refuse help due to cultural values regarding shame of
family disclosure or pressure from family members regarding maintaining the balance of
the extended family system.
Language
Lack of sufficient translation services is a major barrier in assessment and development of
protective interventions with non-English speaking individuals who are victim of violence.
Particularly in situations of intimate partner violence, use of minor children, relatives and
partners as interpreters can be harmful and ineffective in appropriately assessing levels of
dangerousness and creating a safety plan. Reasonable efforts to provide sufficient
translation services that allow access of services to victimized individuals is essential.
Additionally, providing written information and public service announcements in the native
languages spoken within each community is important.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
24
Immigration status
Individuals who are undocumented immigrants or non-English speaking refugees face
additional risks of intimate partner violence as well as additional barriers to accessing
protective and support services. Immigrant women suffer higher rates of battering than U.S.
citizens due to these factors.
Many immigrant women may face the loss of economic supports if their aggressor is
incarcerated or deported and their lack of documentation may make them ineligible for
public assistance. Lack of familiarity of legal protections, mistrust or fear of law
enforcement and public agencies, fear for family members in their country of origin and the
real potential for deportation and separation from children places the undocumented parent
at particular disadvantage. Workers must consider the special circumstances faced by these
individuals when evaluating their safety and the safety of their children. Immigrant women
have voiced their opinion that Child Welfare Services agencies did not address intimate
partner violence in their families in any comprehensive way.
Family Violence Prevention Fund reported a recent study in New York City that 51 percent
of intimate partner homicide victims are foreign-born.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
25
Public Health and Work Place Costs of Intimate
Partner Violence
Health Care Costs
•
Intimate partner violence accounts for increased annual health care and mental
health costs related to more than two million injuries and 1,300 deaths to women.
The Centers for Disease Control report that women’s annual health care costs are
twice that of men, largely due to the impacts of intimate violence.
•
According to a 2003 CDC study, intimate partner violence accounts for direct
health care costs of $4.1 billion annually with another $1.8 billion in productivity
losses in the work place associated with these injuries.
•
In 1994, 37 percent of all women seeking care in a hospital emergency room did so
for violence-related injuries from an intimate partner.
Work Place and Economic Impacts
•
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence cited a 2005 CDC survey that
found that 21 percent of full-time employed adults are victims of intimate partner
violence and that 75 percent of aggressors used workplace resources to engage in
behaviors of the intimate partner violence cycle.
•
According to the CDC, lost time from employment and decreased productivity in
the work place costs employers $727.8 million annually.
•
Intimate partner violence victims lost nearly 8 million days of paid work and nearly
5.6 million days of household productivity due to violence.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
26
Signs and Indicators of Possible Intimate Partner
Violence
Physical Signs and Indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Injuries that cannot be caused by accident or don’t fit the explanation of the cause
Stories of being accident-prone
Injuries apparent on more than one member of the family
Injuries in various stages of healing on multiple parts of the body as well as injury
to parts of the body less likely to be injured, such as face, throat, neck, chest,
abdomen and genitals
Injuries occurring during pregnancy
Bruises, burns or wounds that are shaped like objects
Frequent medical attention for injuries
Not seeking medical attention for serious injuries
Emotional and Mental Health Indicators
•
•
•
•
Depression
Somatic complaints of headache, backache, fatigue, sleep and appetite problems,
panic attacks
Substance abuse
Suicide attempts
Social Indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Couple avoids being around others, staying home or going out alone
One person appears to be making all the decisions for both partners
Avoidance of discussion regarding relationship problems or focusing only on
good qualities
Demonstration of quick and inappropriate anger by one partner or alternating
moods.
One partner appears to take all the blame for problems in the relationship
Name calling, belittling and yelling at a partner in public
Demonstration of obsessive jealousy and statements of suspected infidelity
One partner is always accompanied by the other partner, who insists on remaining
close and answering questions directed to the other
Frequent intense arguments between partners
Needs of one partner appears to outweigh the needs of the other
Withdrawal from connections with family, friends, employment and church
Demonstration of fear in response to anger of the partner
Indications of secretive behavior between partners
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
27
Collateral indicators of intimate partner violence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adult has history of physical or psychological abuse as a child or witnessed
violence in their family.
Criminal history involving Penal Code statutes commonly related to intimate
partner violence, particularly a history of violent crimes or prior violations of
protective orders.
History of suicide behaviors or ideation on the part of one partner.
Child Welfare Services referrals with prior allegations of intimate partner
violence.
A pattern of calls for service to the home related to domestic disputes.
Rigid opinions regarding gender role stereotypes and viewing partner as a
possession.
Records of the use of or access to weapons, including marital arts and similar
training during prior incidents.
Reports by family members or friends of severe jealousy.
(Sources: National Women’s Health Information Center, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
Wilson, K.J. (1997) When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Ending
Domestic Abuse, Child Welfare Services With Families Experiencing Family Violence, 2003.)
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
28
Special Situations That Pose Greater Safety Risk
•
When the partner who has been victimized is preparing to leave the relationship,
seek shelter, or initiate legal action to protect herself and her children, with or
without the assistance of a helping professional.
•
When the partner who is victimized is pregnant.
•
When the aggressor learns of Child Welfare Services investigations of allegations
of abuse or involuntary services that will be offered to the family.
•
When the aggressor is confronted directly with allegations of intimate partner
violence or child maltreatment.
•
When the aggressor asks for information regarding the whereabouts of his or her
partner and children.
•
When children are being removed from the home.
•
When Child Welfare agency moves forward with legal options for permanency
through adoption and termination of parental rights.
•
When an aggressor is released from jail.
•
When a aggressor is faced with serious criminal charges and possible incarceration.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
29
How Issues of Intimate Partner Violence Affect
Decision Points
Intake and Screening:
•
Assessment for intimate partner violence should occur in every Child Welfare
Services child abuse and neglect report.
•
Common questions used during the hotline call should include:









•
Is any adult in the home being hurt by a partner?
Have police ever responded to the home for domestic disputes?
Have the children said that one of their caretakers is a victim of
abuse?
Have weapons been used to threaten or harm a family member?
If so, have the children ever intervened or been physically harmed?
If so, what information is present regarding the batterer abusing the
children?
Has the abuser made threats of homicide or suicide?
Does the abuser have access to a dangerous weapon or firearms?
Is the non-offending parent able to protect themselves and the
children in the home and if so, how?
Response determination should consider any information about situations that are
currently occurring or indicators of heightened levels of dangerousness.
Initial Assessment and Investigation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recognize that inquiry from a public agency is viewed as a threat by the potential
abuser.
In addition to safety threat and risk assessment that includes intimate partner
violence safety planning, assessment must include an assessment of lethality and
dangerousness of the abuser.
When attempting contact with the family, do not leave resource information,
business cards or messages that may be intercepted by the abuser.
Making direct contact with the partner alleged to be abuse and children are
essential and efforts should be taken to avoid the alleged aggressor. Seek
alternative methods and locations for contacting victim and children.
Assure that interviewing of victim and children are conducted separately from the
potential aggressor
If meeting with all family members, collect only general information and avoid
any direct inquiry about intimate partner violence issues.
Collaborate cross-system with an intimate partner violence expert before, during
and after contact with the family.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
30
•
•
•
Engage the adult partner alleged to be abused in discussion about options for
keeping herself and her children safe and ask about what has been tried before.
Assist the victimized partner in identifying and creating a plan for gathering and
securing important documents and personal items in the event of an incident.
Consideration should be given to substantiating founded allegations related to
intimate partner violence as “Emotional Abuse” against the aggressor rather than
“General Neglect – Failure to Protect” against the partner who has been
victimized unless that individual or children clearly need this jurisdictional
leverage to obtain needed services for protection.
Assessment of safety threat and safety planning
•
Assessment should consider nature, severity and chronic nature of the violence,
impact on children and adult who has been victimized in the home, protective
factors of the partner who is victimized, patterns of help-seeking and survival
strategies of the victimized partner, the presence of substance abuse or mental
health issues and the practical availability of resources and services.
•
The assessment must consider the imminence of peril to the victimized partner
and children and concrete identification of specific intimate partner violencerelated safety threats.
o Factors that would indicate that children can safety remain in the home
with a supported plan of safety include:







Evaluation of efforts by partner who was victimized to seek and
maintain protection,
Aggressor acknowledging responsibility and participating actively
in services,
Children’s level of behavioral and emotional trauma is minimal,
Children have a supportive adult to maintain contact with,
Violence is not escalating and prior history does not include
serious episodes,
Meaningful links to support system,
Other issues such as substance abuse and mental health conditions
are not posing safety threats.
o Factors that would indicate that children are in need of out-of-home
placement include:



Other types of child abuse pose safety threats
Adult substance abuse or mental health problems pose safety
threats
Aggressor continues to have unauthorized contact with the children
that may pose safety threats
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
31


Aggressor’s history includes serious violence
The children in the home have increased vulnerability and inability
to seek help.
Case planning
•
Primary focus of case planning should enhancing child and victimized parent safety
and to create appropriate protective boundaries from the aggressor.
•
Service planning should include cross-system consultation and collaboration with
intimate partner violence experts.
•
Services planning should be approached in manner that maintains boundaries and
separation between aggressor and their partner and children.
•
Services must be planned around client-centered goals for the family for a route to
developing safety and stability.
•
Joint or family services are not appropriate for many intimate partner violence case
plans until sufficient progress by both the aggressor and their partner have been made
and the trauma symptoms of children have been stabilized.
•
Services should be specifically relevant to addressing the safety and recovery efforts
of the parent who was victimized and the children.
Placement decisions
•
Care should be taken to assure confidentiality of placement of children in relative or
licensed foster care and youth in care should be counseled regarding the importance
of maintaining a safe location.
•
When considering relative placement, consideration must be given as to whether the
relatives have sufficient distance and security to assure safety of themselves and the
children from the aggressor.
•
School, medical, dental and community service providers should be advised of the
need to limit information being provided to the abuser that may jeopardize the safety
of the children, care provider or parent who was victimized.
•
Efforts should be made to maintain close but safe proximity to the victimized parent
so that regular contact and services can be maintained.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
32
Team Decision Meetings and/or family meetings
•
Focus of TDM and family meetings in an intimate partner violence situation should
be on establishing and maintaining a plan of safety for the victimized parent and
children that uses available natural supports.
•
Intimate partner aggressors should not initially be included in TDM or family
meetings for safety, placement or case planning. They may be included over time to
improve accountability and support services when sufficient treatment progress is
made.
•
Meetings should be conducted at the agency office or public location and as
necessary, assistance should be sought from law enforcement to assure the safety of
all attendees.
•
Avoid verbal confrontations or debates with the aggressor as these behaviors may
escalate the possibility of violence.
Visitation
•
Consideration should be given to creating a safe location for visitation between parent
who was victimized and children and details of the visitation times and locations
should be kept strictly confidential.
•
Before considering if and how visitation with the aggressor parent is appropriate,
conduct an assessment of the trauma response of the children.
•
Any visitation with the aggressor parent should be initially supervised and the
aggressor parent should be actively participating in intimate partner violence
treatment programs and making adequate progress.
•
Visitation should consider any existing protective orders of the court.
•
Aggressors may be very adept at manipulating and persuading others through charm
and behaviors of remorse and care needs to be taken to assure proper precautions are
in place for visitation.
Decisions to reunify
•
In addition to successful completion of any mandated intimate partner violence
treatment programs, the victimized parent and the aggressor should be able to
identify, recognize and respond to the effects that intimate partner violence has had
on the children.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
33
•
Visitations with the children should be progressive leading up to a decision to reunify
with the parent who suffered abuse and children should be able to describe feeling
safer and what accounts for this feeling.
•
The victimized partner has demonstrated a pattern of accessing relevant support
services, information and safety options.
•
No new child maltreatment reports have been substantiated or found as inconclusive.
•
The victimized partner and children have a continuing connection with intimate
partner violence services and those professionals support the step of reunification.
•
The victimized parent and children have reasonable safety plans and know how to
practically implement them.
•
The aggressor, their partner and children will be regularly monitored to address any
new behaviors with immediate intervention.
Decisions to proceed with alternative permanency plan
•
Case stakeholders should be aware that efforts to commence termination of parental
rights and placement of children for adoption will likely create heightened arousal
and anxiety in the aggressor, making violence more likely during and immediately
after this legal step. Care should be taken to assure the safety of the worker, court
stakeholders, substitute care provider, children and parent who suffered abuse during
this process, particularly at court.
Case closure
•
In addition to factors noted during a decision to reunify, further progress in all areas
should be noted.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
34
Effects of Intimate Partner Violence on Children
“One of the most precious gifts a man can give his children is to love their
mother.”
—Anon.
Although intimate partner violence and child maltreatment have been strongly
correlated, Child Welfare Services agencies and workers have paid little attention
to the impact of intimate partner violence on family functioning and child safety.
Categories of How Intimate Partner Violence Impacts Children
Child hearing and witnessing: Children in families with patterns of intimate
partner violence are at risk of hearing and viewing acute incidents, seeing the
aftermath and results of an incident in damage to the home, injuries to adults or
children, separation or incarceration of the aggressor and being deprived of
parental care and attention.
Being a used or intervening in an abusive event: Children in homes with
intimate partner violence may receive “indirect” injuries during violent episodes
while being used as a shield or attempting to intervene to protect the parent being
abused. They may be the ones to call law enforcement or family members for help
or become an informant to being attention to the violence behaviors. In addition,
some children may trigger their own abuse in an effort to reduce tension or divert
the abuser from the other parent.
Becoming a aggressor: Some children and youth may engage in battering
behaviors by assaulting or killing the aggressor, assaulting siblings, or assaulting
dating partners.
Child abuse and neglect: Lenore Walker (1984) found that mothers were eight
times more likely to hurt their children while they are being battered themselves
than when they are not.
Children in homes with intimate partner violence are abused and neglected at a rate 15
times higher than the general population. In one major study of more than 9000 children
at intimate partner violence shelters, 70 percent had been physically or sexually abused.
Further, research is revealing a higher rate than norm (25 to 30%) of these mothers are
physically abusive toward their children, for a myriad of complex reasons. 33
The more serious and chronic the violence, the more likely that the children are also
being physically abused. For example, an Oregon State DHR study in 1993 found that in
42% of the state’s 1992 child fatality cases, the mother identified herself as a victim of
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
35
intimate partner violence. 34 Each additional act of male-on-female violence increases the
odds of physical abuse of children in the home, particularly the male, by 12 percent.
Incidence and Prevalence Data
The overlap between intimate partner violence and child abuse is profound; research
studies too numerous to mention here demonstrate this sad reality. Incidence and
prevalence data outlined below is a representative sample of the copious research, which
paints a picture of the violence that children in these homes are forced to either witness
and/or endure.
•
Forty-five to 50 percent of families investigated for child abuse/neglect in America
involve a woman who is being victimized by intimate partner violence. Between 41
and 43 percent of cases involving a critical injury or child fatality involved intimate
partner violence.
•
An estimated 10 to 10 percent of all children in American are at risk for exposure to
intimate partner violence (Carlson, 200). Estimates of 3.3 million (Carlson, 1984) and
10 million (Straus, 1991) children being at risk of witnessing intimate partner abuse
annually were noted in two studies. One in eight teens in one survey can recall an
incident in which one partner physically hit the other. Children are present in
approximately 40 to 55 percent of homes were law enforcement is called to intervene.
•
One-third of the children in America will witness a parent hurting another over the
course of their childhood.
•
Many studies show men that beat their spouses also beat their children; the average
rate is between 23 and 50 percent.
•
While many parents think their children are not aware of the violence, in most cases
the children are in the same or an adjacent room.
•
Children in these homes are highly vulnerable to neglect: the aggressor lacks
empathy for/interest in their trauma, and the parent being abused is most likely
preoccupied, dissociated, and depressed and, therefore, unavailable, at least
emotionally, to her children at a time when they need her the most.
•
Many battered women finally leave when/because of their concern for their children.36
Effects on Children of Witnessing Intimate Partner Violence
When intentional acts of cruelty perpetrated on beloved adults are
witnessed, it causes trauma as it shatters trust and induces betrayal.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
36
Children exposed to violence have typically only one choice in the moment, and that is to
incorporate it—to swallow it whole, so to speak, as they are young and vulnerable and
have few resources to ward off this highly charged (and, therefore, un-ignorable)
experience. If they are forced to re-experience this behavior without trauma intervention,
their acute symptoms will eventually give over to a more chronic response style. The
response pattern chosen, unique to each child, will be whatever seems to “work” in at
least in getting them through while maintaining some degree of ego integrity. Typically,
children will develop the following erroneous beliefs, that:
•
They are somehow at least partially to blame for the violence;
•
They should somehow be able to stop it;
•
If they don’t stop the violence, they are responsible for the ensuing damage,
hurt.
A child’s response to family violence exists on a continuum between the capacity to use
internal resiliencies and protective factors to mitigate effects of exposure to significant
maladaptive responses.
Six factors have been correlated with influencing the impact of exposure to intimate
partner violence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The nature of the violence
Use of coping strategies and skills
Age of the child (younger tend to exhibit higher levels of distress)
Elapsed time since event
Gender (boys externalizing, girls internalizing)
Co-occurrence with child physical or sexual abuse.
Five Practice Guidelines for Working with Children in Intimate Partner Violence
Cases:
•
Children need for their adult caregivers and themselves to be safe
•
Children need to experience warm, supportive and nurturing relationships
with their parents and caregivers
•
Children need to live in families that have basic needs met
•
Children need to receive support from their extended family, natural support
system, and services system that is respectfully, knowledgeable and culturally
competent
•
Children and their families should be able to receive proactive and strengthsbased interventions to help them become safe, reduce need for out-of-home
care and avoid long-term problems.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
37
Exposure to Community and Media Violence
•
Academic research demonstrates repeatedly a strong link between media violence and
violent actions on the part of exposed children. To deny this flies in the face of
overwhelming reality—a reality that the advertising industry annually spends trillions
of dollars supporting via multi-media exposure of products to the potential American
consumer.
•
The average American child views 26,000 murders on TV by age 18; children’s
weekend TV is three to six times more violent than adult weeknight programming.
•
Much of the increase in violence in the US, which has doubled since the 1950’s, has
been among adolescents and young adults ages 15-24. 30
•
Children in inner-city neighborhoods are being exposed to high rates of violence. 31
•
Marans & Cohen, 1993: 40% of high school students reported witnessing at
least one violent crime during the past year, and almost all 8th-grade
respondents knew someone who’d been killed.
•
Richters & Martinez, 1993: 32% of child respondents reported being victims
of violence and 72% of them had witnessed some type of violence.
•
Osofsky et. al., 1993: 91% of child respondents reported having witnessed
some type of violence in past year.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
38
The Role of Substance Abuse in Intimate Partner
Violence
National Statistics: Interaction Between intimate partner violence and
substance abuse
•
One-fourth to one-half of men who commit acts of intimate partner violence also
have substance abuse problems.
•
Significant percent of convicted aggressors are Adult Children of Alcoholics
(ACOAs). One study of ACOAs found them to be 10 times more likely to have
witnessed violence in their family of origin than non-ACOAs.
•
Women who abuse substances are:
o More likely to be intimate partner violence victims.
o The battering is more likely to lead to physical injury.
•
While 16% of women in America are assaulted by their partners, in the substanceabusing populations, the overlap is 50%.
•
Substance abuse by one parent increases the likelihood that the substance-abusing
parent will be unable to protect children if the other parent is violent.
•
Women in recovery are likely to have a history of violent trauma and are at high
risk of being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
•
A recent study of men who were accused of murdering their partners revealed
more than half the defendants—and then half their victims—had been drinking
alcohol at the time.
•
A study of incarcerated aggressors revealed 80% of them had histories of
substance addiction. Additionally, all but one aggressor in this study self-reported
having been under the influence at the time the battering occurred.
Alcohol/Drug Factors
The aggressor who also drinks/uses alcohol and/or drugs does not batter because he is
under the influence; he batters AND he is under the influence. In other words, he has two
problems, not one, and needs to deal with both of them. Substance abuse does not
“cause” intimate partner violence. That said, research repeatedly demonstrates a strong
correlation between violence and alcohol/drug consumption.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
39
Aggressors may point to their intoxication as a cause of and excuse for their violent
behavior, fueling their tendency to externalize responsibility and blame for their
behavior. Often, family members will focus on the substance abuse problem rather than
addressing abusive behaviors. When violent behavior is not addressed, but substance
abuse ceases, intimate partner violence tends to continue.
The inability to control anger and aggression has long been associated with substance
use, both inside and outside of the family. Alcohol abuse is common among aggressors,
ranging from a frequency of 15 to 80 percent. A substantial number of child abuse
incidents involve a parent using alcohol at the time of the incident. Alcohol problems
don’t necessarily increase the frequency or possibility for intimate partner violence
incidents, but intoxicated abusers are more likely to inflict more serious injuries or
sexually attack those they victimize.
Alcohol and drug use and intimate partner violence have a correlated rather than causeand-effect relationship. Alcohol abuse is among a variety of factors that contribute to a
pattern of intimate partner violence.
Dis-inhibition: Some theories suggest that use of intoxicating substances tend to impair
judgment and decrease personal control of inhibitions and impulses, which may trigger
arguments and lower an individual’s violence threshold.
Research has provided evidence that disputes this theory, showing that alcohol impacted
fine motor skills whether or not they knew they were drinking alcohol while individuals
judged to be most aggressive were those who believed they were drinking, regardless of
whether they were actually consuming alcohol or not.
Research also has correlated use of amphetamines and stimulants in partners who batter
with increased potential for violence. Stimulants can trigger psychotic symptoms and
rage episodes that result in violence. In addition, a history of substance related arrests is
related to an increase in intimate partner violence.
Individuals with have alcohol problems at an early age are more likely to have family
violence problems within their families. Aggressors with serious substance abuse
problems may have more difficulty in engaging in treatment for either their substance
abuse or their violent behavior.
Victim Self-Medication: Victims of violence may use alcohol or other drugs to numb or
control the physical and emotional pain associated with family violence. Being a victim
of intimate partner violence increases the risk of substance abuse and addiction.
Women who have alcohol and drug problems experience higher levels of violence and
verbal abuse than women who are not impaired by substances and women with alcohol
and drug problems are less able and willing to seek help for intimate partner violence due
to the legal consequences and shame associated with substance use.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
40
Aggressors and their victimized partner may use the partner’s use of alcohol or drugs as a
excuse for the intimate partner’s abuse. The partner may be less alert to cues of
impending violence when using substances and less capable of avoiding or escaping
injury. Further, the impaired judgment of the victim may result in mutual combat, which
may increase the chance of serious injury.
Aggressors may threaten to disclose their partner’s illicit drug habit as a means to control
the partner within the relationship. Aggressors tend to thwart their partner’s effort to
achieve recovery from substance abuse.
Comparison of Characteristics of Substance Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence
In comparing the characteristics of families dealing with chemical dependency and
intimate partner violence, several striking parallels and some differences are evident:
Similarities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Behaviors of denial and minimization
Progressive and chronic deterioration of functioning
Endemic across all socioeconomic and ethnic groups
Family members adjust roles and boundaries
Isolation and secrecy
Intergenerational transmission of accepted behavioral patterns
Legal, financial, health and relationship impacts
Differences
•
•
•
While equal numbers of men and women are chemically dependent, aggressors
are overwhelmingly male and female are overwhelmingly the victims of abuse;
Intimate partner violence is a criminal act difficult to prosecute, substance abuse
may or may not involve criminal consequences.
Substance abuse has widely been viewed from a medical model, while intimate
partner violence is seen as a deliberate and intentional learned behavior.
(Source: Wilson, K.J. (1997) “When Violence Begins at Home: A Comprehensive Guide to Understanding
and Ending Domestic Abuse.”)
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
41
Profile of the Aggressor
“The moment I hit her, I didn’t care about her. She wasn’t even a person
to me. All I cared about was, I didn’t want to feel this bad anymore.”
—Anon.
While it is true that no variable stands out that will predict who will become a victim of
intimate partner violence, the same cannot be said for being an aggressor. Most
researchers believe a complex interaction of biological, developmental, and
environmental (both interfamilial and societal) factors set the stage for becoming an
aggressor.
Environmental and Family Factors
The aggressor probably grew up witnessing his father or male parent surrogate(s) batter
his mother, and has long ago desensitized to his feelings about those events. This
variable correlates with being an aggressor of intimate partner violence more
significantly than any other. Aggressors learn what we all learn in childhood: how one
is supposed to treat members of the opposite sex, by observing the actions of one’s
primary caregivers.
•
•
One-third of children who are exposed to intimate partner violence occurring
between their parents become violent adults.15
Boys exposed to intimate partner violence are more likely to become aggressors
of violence than boys growing up in nonviolent homes.16
The aggressor can be from social or economic class, racial, ethnic, or religious group.
The aggressor probably grew up in an environment that reinforced an attitude of male
domination over and entitlement towards women, which biases his interpretation of her
behavior as well as provides a schema for his range of possible responses to it—among
them, violence as a way of controlling her and/or extinguishing the unwanted behavior.
•
Men raised in patriarchal families that fostered rigid sex-role stereotyping are
significantly more likely to batter their partners.17
•
Athletic teams, religious organizations, and other organizations may socialize
male youths toward condoning violent behavior.
He may have had a male entitlement attitude reinforced as a youth by involvement in a
culture of violence among peers, through gang involvement. This is especially true if no
consistent and benevolent male mentor has been involved with him during his youth.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
42
Being male in a society that glamorizes violence through popular media/culture further
cements this thin braggadocio veneer of masculine identity, which is tenuous and easily
threatened.
•
Exposure to pornography has been shown to increase male aggression toward
women, particularly when the man believes that he has been insulted or provoked
by a woman.18
•
Studies show that media (television, movies, etc.) exposure to violence against
women leads to callous acceptance of violence towards them.19
Developmental / Clinical Factors
•
The aggressor likely has a DSM-IV Axis II diagnosis and co-morbid chemical
dependency diagnosis. Common personality disorders include: Antisocial,
Narcissistic, Borderline.
•
The aggressor lacks empathy for his victims, as developmentally he is arrested at
the borderline level or below. Instead, he denies and projects both responsibility
and blame. His own needs and feelings are what matters to him. Therefore, he is
typically shocked and enraged about being arrested and held accountable for his
actions, and typically blames her.
•
The affective dynamic underlying the violent behavior is not anger; it is
humiliation or shame. This feeling—so loathsome to all humans—is instantly
(and most likely, unconsciously) transformed into rage and immediately (or premeditatively) discharged onto the victimized partner, for the purpose of relieving
the anxiety built up from the shame experience. The ensuing attempts to assume
power and control over the partner spring from the overwhelming need not to reexperience this shame, which emanates from a sense of real or imagined rejection.
•
When he is left he becomes more dangerous because he comes face-to-face with
his own dependence and vulnerability to rejection and is humiliated once again, as
he most likely was in childhood.
•
Shame experiences as precursors of violence.21 The primary response to rejection
is not anger; it is shame. Shame is a physiological, painful experience—it occurs
in the body, not the mind. If the shamed person cries, it is from pain rather than
sorrow. Rejection is most profoundly painful and intense when:
•
The “rejecter” is a highly significant other.
•
The act of rejection is witnessed by significant others.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
43
•
The individual being rejected is vulnerable to rejection. Vulnerability means
the degree of separation/individuation and the amount of shaming experiences
one has been exposed to.
•
The act of rejection is a sudden surprise.
•
The rejection is of the whole self rather than only an aspect of the self.
•
The aggressor tends to be highly isolated for two reasons. First, being
emotionally stunted, he lacks the ability to sustain meaningful relationships with
others. Second, his efforts to isolate and control his significant other
paradoxically serve to isolate him as well. It takes time and energy to
monitor/control where she goes, who she talks to, what she wears/buys, how often
she gets out, etc. This can take on obsessive proportions and increases lethality
risk.
•
He can be very charming, loving, comforting, and repentant after the abuse. This
is one of the reasons that partners who have been victimized stay. However the
remorse is typically motivated by the need not to re-experience rejection and
shame rather than the concern for the welfare of his partner.
Other Correlated Features:
The aggressor may be less educated than the abused partner.
The aggressor may come from a lower socioeconomic group than the abused partner.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
44
Behaviors that may be indicators of aggressor
Rapid Relationship Commitment: The aggressor may engage in efforts to establish
significant relationship commitment quickly. Many couples with intimate partner
violence set up households quickly after beginning to date.
Possessiveness and jealousy: The aggressor frequently accuses their partner of
disloyalty or flirting, resents time spent with family and friends, engages in checking on
the partner through stalking behaviors.
Controlling: The aggressor will tend to control all decisions and aspects of their
partner’s life, including time spent away from the home, appearance, children and
household. The partner may have to ask permission to leave the home and may not have
access to funds.
Expectation of aggressor that partner will meet all needs: The aggressor expects that
the intimate partner should meet all emotional and physical needs and demonstrate
intense personal need.
Verbal abuse: The aggressor will tend to say hurtful and insulting things to their partner,
and make degrading and shaming statements, sometimes not allowing the partner to
withdraw from the verbal conflict.
Use of force during conflict: Any use of restraint, shoving or pushing during an
argument is a danger signal for physical violence.
Threatening statements and property destruction: Threats of violence may precede
actual violence and also be a means to control the partner. During arguments, the
aggressor may throw objects and break objects in order to intimidate their partner.
Isolation: As isolation within a relationship increases, so does the risk of intimate
partner abuse. Efforts may be made to keep the partner who is abused from any system
of support including friends and family. Relocation, restriction of employment,
telephone access and transportation may be involved.
Blaming: A potentially abusive partner may tend to blame others for their misfortune and
mistakes, particularly their partner. In addition, the aggressing partner will tend to blame
their anger and other feelings on their partner and will use this linkage to manipulate the
partner.
Hypersensitivity: The abusive partner will tend to feel personally attacked or insulted
easily when normal life events occur.
Violence toward children or animals as a result of inappropriate expectations:
Related to the two factors above, the aggressor will tend to blame and harshly punish
animals and children for behaviors beyond reasonable expectation.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
45
Use of force during sex: The aggressor may engage in playful use of force during sex,
may coerce or manipulate their partner into unwanted sex.
Rapid mood changes: The aggressor will tend to fluctuate between being easy going
and upbeat to explosive anger, usually associated with their hypersensitivity.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
46
Assessing Dangerousness
Intimate partner violence involves a range of types and levels of violence on a continuum
between rare use of physical violence to daily use of physical violence. Some aggressors
only are abusive toward family members, while others may generalize their violent
behavior toward others in the community. Some aggressors have a heightened likelihood
of engaging in violence that inflicts serious injury or death.
Dangerousness is a situation/set of circumstances that places others in reasonable fear of
harm. In assessing the aggressor, care needs to be taken to thoroughly assess the
likelihood of this individual inflicting continuing, escalating and serious violence on
family members and others. Several risk factors have been correlated with a greater
likelihood that serious violence is imminent. The greater number or present intensity of
risk factors creates a higher likelihood of life-threatening attacks.
When assessing dangerousness, what are we predicting? We are assessing likelihood of
future harm, interacting with:
•
•
•
Expected magnitude of harm (how severe)
Expected frequency (how much)
Its imminence (how soon)
The threshold for risk goes down as the above variables increase.
General intimate partner violence risk factors (in order of highest
correlation):22
o Violence in family of origin
o Correlates even more highly than having been a sexual abuse victim;
o Even so-called “minor” violence as a child is a risk factor;
o Highest risk factor is having both witnessed intimate partner violence and
being sexually abused.
o Demographic and/or situational factors
More prevalent among men with lower income/education;
Unemployment;
Pregnancy;
Differences in income/education between the partners, and woman has a
higher income and/or is better educated;
o Partners are from different religions.
o
o
o
o
o Alcohol and drug use
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
47
o 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violence are alcoholics/alcohol
abusers.
o Behavioral Deficits
o Less assertive than other men;
o Poor verbal/interpersonal skills;
o More irritable, reactive.
o Psychopathology
o Axis II disorders, especially antisocial and narcissistic;
o Distrustful, isolated, insecure, alienated, obsessively concerned with own
masculinity.
o Violence toward children
o 50% overlap (see above);
o Beatings are more severe than a slap or a spanking.
o Anger control problems
o The type of situation makes a difference, with violent men scoring higher
on tests that are relationship-specific.
o The anger arises when women seemingly break the rules of the patriarchy.
o Life and employment stress
o Gets converted into anger, displaced onto the woman obsessively;
o May have suffered a loss: illness, job, or death.
o Low self-esteem
Risk Factors for Severe Spousal Assault23
•
When defining an assault as severe, consider:
o Use of a weapon and/or object;
o Severe beatings—potentially life-threatening;
o Partner who is victimized requires medical treatment and/or emergency
room services.
o Generalized aggression
•
The aggressor is more likely to be violent both outside and inside the home.
o Therefore, the aggressor is more likely to have a criminal/arrest history —
pattern of past assault.
•
Drug/alcohol abuse
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
48
o Related to criminality in general;
o Correlation with degree of injury until “...too drunk to do damage.”
•
Abuse by parents
o Aggressor was child abuse victim.
o Aggressiveness learned as a childhood trait; this trait appears to be stable
over time.
o Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as another reaction to being
a sexual abuse victim, coupled with alcohol abuse to deaden the pain =
“de-individuated violence” (violence reaches a state of frenzy and stops
only when the aggressor is exhausted).
•
Personality disorder with anger, impulsivity, or behavioral instability
•
Sexually assaultive/sexual jealousy;
•
Abuses the children;
•
Criminal lifestyle: history of robbery, gambling, drug arrests, etc.
•
Past violations of probation/parole (i.e., not appropriate for community
supervision programs);
•
Pattern of failing to honor restraining orders, other court orders.
•
Blames their partner;
•
Justifies their violence;
•
Shows no remorse;
•
Rigidly traditional sex role beliefs;
•
More contact with friends who support intimate partner violence (i.e.,
intimate partner violence is reinforced by culture of peers);
•
More transient relationships; multiple partners over time;
•
Less stable residences
•
Lower income
Lethality Factors to Consider
o Aggressor has access to victimized partner
o Patterns of abuse, including
o Frequency, severity of abuse in current, concurrent or past relationships
o Use and presence of weapons
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
49
o Threats to kill
o Hostage taking, stalking
o Past violent criminal record
o State of mind:
o Obsession with victim, jealousy
o Ignoring negative consequences of violence
o Depression/desperation
o Special issues:
o
o
o
o
Substance Abuse
Psychosis
Certain medications
Brain damage
o Suicidal behaviors of any party
o Abused partner’s use of force
o Children’s use of force
o Situational factors:
o Separation and autonomy of victimized partner
o Presence of other major stressors
o Past failures of system to respond adequately
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
50
Profile of the Partner Who Has Been Abused
“Factors that have been at one time or another linked to women’s likelihood of
being raped or battered are: passivity, hostility, low self-esteem, alcohol and
drug use, violence in the family of origin, having more education or income
than their intimate partners, and the use of violence toward children. However,
based on a critical review of all 52 studies conducted in the prior 15 years that
included comparison groups, Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) found that the only
risk marker consistently associated with being a victim of physical abuse was
having witnessed parental violence as a child. And this factor characterized not
only the women who were abused, but also their male assailants. Recent studies
also found no specific personality and attitudinal characteristics that make
certain women more vulnerable to battering…. Although alcoholic women are
more likely to report moderate to severe violence in their relationships than
more moderate drinkers, the association disappears after controlling for alcohol
problems in their partners.... On the basis of findings such as these, several
writers have concluded that the major risk factor for battering is being a
woman.” 39
Caution should be taken in attempting to answer the question “Why does a woman stay in
a violent relationship?” as the context of the victimized individual should be fully
understood before that question—for her—can be answered. Further, it always bears
stressing that the problem behavior in this relationship is not hers—it is her
batterer’s. If he were not beating her, they might or might not have other relationship
problems, but violence would not be one of them.
It is important to point out that many of the characteristics of victims of intimate partner
violence tend to result from the abuse they suffer, rather than the reason that they are in
an abusive relationship. Victims come from all backgrounds.
Given the above two parameters, it is important to fully explore why a partner who is
being abused stays in a violent relationship, as it is essential to accurate risk assessment,
safety planning, and case management.
Reasons for Staying in the Battering Relationship
Fear: A partner who is being battered understands well that she is in greater danger if
she leaves than if she stays. This is one of the great and tragic paradoxes of intimate
partner violence. She most likely has heard many threats of harm and has been exposed
to terror tactics to intimidate her into staying.
Prior history of being abused: Either as a child or an adult, an individual with a prior
history of being abused is at a higher risk for being victimized in the future.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
51
Hostage mentality and self-blame: The emotional trauma of individuals who have been
abused result in behavioral and emotional characteristics similar to those of hostages.
The individual being victimized will tend to accept blame for her own abuse and accepts
increasing responsibility for the aggressor’s behavior. Victimized individuals will tend to
accept guilt for their own abuse. They will experience a sense of learned helplessness as a
result of the ongoing victimization.
Love/Hope: This is after all a relationship that—at one time, at least—was an
affectionate bond. The person who abuses is familiar to the person being abused in a real
intimate sense. When the aggressor promises to change or enters treatment, she hopes for
the best—as we all do with those we love.
Equates love with jealousy and violence: The partner who suffers abuse believes that
aggressor loves them and jealousy is evidence of the aggressor’s love for them.
Children: The partner being abused may stay out of fear of losing her children,
supported by her aggressor’s threats to take them or call Child Welfare Services. Or, she
may be bound to the marriage by her culture’s sanction to not deprive her children of
their father.
Low self-esteem: The partner who suffers abuse will tend to demonstrate helplessness
and submission regarding the abusive behavior and will tend to accept blame for their
abuse. The aggressor capitalizes on feelings of shame, guilt and ongoing devaluation of
self.
Minimization: The partner who has been abused, particularly in the honeymoon and
tension building phases, will deny the seriousness of the intimate partner violence or the
continuation of violence. They may believe the aggressor will change or that continued
abuse will not occur.
Insufficient support from or under-reaction by the natural support system or community
of the person being abused.
Economic dependence: She may not have had any access to the family’s spending
money, have no money of her own, and no way to get it if her aggressor is disallowing
her from working. Over time, she may come to believe what her aggressor tells her about
her inability to take care of herself: “Who would hire you!?”
Isolation: Over time, most individuals who have suffered abuse report giving up contact
with friends and family. Initially they do it to “keep the peace”; “not have one more
thing to hassle about”; “it’s just too hard to walk on eggshells all the time.” Later,
however, they may be isolating themselves in order to protect family and friends from the
dangerous behavior to which they are being subjected. Finally, isolating the victimized
partner becomes an obsessive form of control for the aggressor, to make certain no one
else has access to their partner. Isolation from others who offer a different point of view
disallows the opportunity to challenge the aggressor’s opinion of his partner and the
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
52
reasons for the abuse, i.e., Entropy sets in, and the person being abused begins to isolate
herself because, after all, “...she really is no good and has nothing to offer, and others
would have the same opinion of her as her agressor does.”
Prior attempts to leave: Perhaps she has left before, but was unable to sustain staying
apart because of inadequate prior planning or community supports. Perhaps those she
turned to—church, friends, and family—did not believe her or support her leaving. Most
important, prior attempts to leave may have resulted in serious physical injury and threat
of death, should she attempt to leave again.
Fear of deportation: The victim of abuse lives with the reality of the tenuousness of
community supports for her if she is not a citizen/is undocumented. Her aggressor’s
threats of exposure are all too real.
Cultural beliefs about marriage: “It’s my duty”; “Divorce is taboo.”
(Sources: K.J. Wilson (1997) “When Violence Begins at Home)
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
53
Efforts to Survive and Cope with Violence
•
Fighting back and defying
•
Pleasing, complying and placating – walking on eggshells
•
Masking – keeping secret the abuse
•
Staying and hoping things get better
•
Leaving and hoping things get better
•
Avoiding contact with the aggressor
•
Sending the kids away
•
Repetitive efforts to get help
•
Abandoning efforts to get help in order to stop abuse
•
Lying and manipulating
•
Numbing by use of alcohol or drugs
•
Covering for the aggressor
•
Submitting to violence to protect the children
•
Working on the relationship
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
54
Effects of intimate partner violence on child
development
Behavioral, social and emotional problems
Higher levels of aggression, anger, hostility, oppositional behavior and disobedience are
seen in some children, particularly males. Some may identify with the aggressor.
Children may feel ambivalence about both the aggressor and the abused parent or take
responsibility for the abuse. Higher levels of fear, anxiety, withdrawal, depression, poor
peer, sibling and social relationships and low self-esteem are seen in other children,
particularly females. Sleeplessness and nightmares, somatic complaints, temper
tantrums, delinquent behaviors, truancy, efforts to overachieve,
Cognitive problems
Children who are placed into a chronically aroused fear state are vulnerable to lower
cognitive functioning, delayed or impaired gross and fine motor development, delayed
language development, poor school performance and problems with attention, lack of
problem solving skills, errors in perception.
Long-term problems
Exposure to intimate partner violence has been correlated with higher levels of adult
depression, substance abuse trauma symptoms and vulnerability to adult intimate partner
violence in teen dating and adult relationships.
Developmental stages and reactions to violence
Developmental Tasks of Childhood

Attachment with safe and available caregiver

Self-regulation of mood, behavior and thoughts

Social and peer competence
Infants and preschoolers
o Perry, 1997: Children who are physically abused early in life develop
brains that are exquisitely tuned to danger. Because the brain neuron
maps develop in sequence, these early experiences of stress form a neural
template around which later brain development is organized. Early abuse/
exposure to trauma is therefore particularly pervasive and damaging.
o Behavioral manifestations: regressions in toileting, language, somatic
complaints, night terrors, anxious attachments, and emotional distress.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
55
Latency-age children37
o Boys: externalizing behavior problems (aggressive, delinquent)
o Girls: internalizing (withdrawn, anxious, school phobia, fearfulness);
o Failures at mastery;
o Peer-group relationship problems (fighting, avoidance).
Adolescents
o High levels of aggression, revenge-seeking;
o Gang activity, delinquency, truancy, school problems, and runaways.
o Self-destructive and vulnerability to victimization.
Clinical Issues Associated to Exposure to Violence
•
Emotional flooding and its aftermath
o Typically occurs in moments of intense experience;
o Interferes with normal development of emotion regulation;
o Interferes with the toddler-to-preschool-age developmental task of
learning to differentiate one’s various emotional states and building a
language for expressing them verbally rather than behaviorally;
o Leads to a disruption in the development of empathy and other pro-social
behaviors;
o When flooded, therefore, these kids resort to the only defenses they know
(because of lack of pro-social modeling coupled with the presence of
antisocial modeling) = FIGHT and FLIGHT (i.e., behavioral aggression or
withdrawal).
•
Identification with the aggressor
o Child’s needs to be chronically psychically numb gives over to an
acceptance of the “normalcy” of the behavior: there seems to be a
cumulative risk to desensitizing to the violence.
o Becomes part of the child’s repertoire of behaviors for managing anxiety
and abandonment depression.
o Sets the stage for the intergenerational transmission of violence in intimate
relationships.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
56
•
Attachment disturbances
o Insecure/anxious attachments (borderline-level functioning);
o No attachments (antisocial-level functioning);
o Exploitive attachments (narcissistic-level functioning);
o Violent attachments (all of the above).
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
57
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
A growing number of researchers are coming to the conclusion Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder is the most accurate diagnosis for victims of intimate partner
violence. 40
What causes it?
•
•
Experiencing or witnessing an event that involved real or threatened death or
serious injury to self and others, and,
A response that includes intense fear, helplessness and horror.
PTSD is a normal reaction to abnormal events. DSM-IV criteria for diagnosis:
•
Existence of a Recognizable Stressor: Exposure to catastrophic event
involving actual or threatened death/injury.
•
Significance: Victim experiences significant emotional, social, and/or
occupational stresses.
•
Symptoms:

Increased arousal: hyper arousal; startles easily; sleeps poorly; panic
attacks; phobias; hyper vigilance which lasts long after the abusive
situation is over.

Persistent re-experiencing of the trauma: breaks spontaneously into
flashbacks, nightmares; can evoke terror, dread, and last for decades;
“intrusive recollections.”

Psychic numbing: avoidance of stimuli associated with trauma and
general numbing of responsiveness: victim alters her state of
consciousness as a way to escape; disconnects from reality;
experiences a state of dissociation; appears almost calm, disinterested
to others; emotional anesthesia.
Battered Women’s Syndrome: Women who meet the diagnostic criteria for and
Seligman’s concept of Learned Helplessness. This explains why women stay, remain
passive, and then one day, may snap and engage in violent reactions.
•
Repeated abuse brings about a hopeless cognitive style—a distorted
perception that she has no choices and cannot escape.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
58
PTSD and Children in the Child Welfare System
A research study (Pecora et al., 2005) of 659 young adults who had been placed in foster
care as children found that one in four (25.2%) of these foster care “alumni” had
experienced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder within the previous twelve months. This rate
of PTSD is nearly double that of United States war veterans.
PTSD significantly undermines a child’s wellbeing. Left untreated, it can put children at
risk for school difficulties, attachment problems, additional psychological disorders,
substance abuse, and physical illness. Child welfare workers must be able to recognize
the signs of PTSD and they must be prepared to respond in an appropriate and timely way
when they come across it.
Normal, immediate reactions to trauma cover a wide range and can include
overwhelming feelings of helplessness, fear, withdrawal, depression, and anger.
Reactions may last for weeks or months but more commonly show a swift decrease after
the direct impact subsides. Child welfare workers should look for and be able to spot the
age-specific reactions to trauma.
•
Ages 5 and younger: may fear being separated from parent, crying,
whimpering, screaming, immobility and/or aimless motion, trembling,
frightened facial expressions, and excessive clinging. May regress –
return to behaviors exhibited at earlier ages (e.g., bed-wetting, fear of
darkness). Children of this age are strongly affected by the parents’
reactions to the traumatic event.
•
Ages 6 to 11: may show extreme withdrawal, disruptive behavior, and / or
inability to pay attention. Regressive behaviors, nightmares, sleep
problems, irrational fears, irritability, refusal to attend school, outbursts of
anger and fighting are common. Child may complain of stomachaches or
other bodily symptoms that have no medical basis. Schoolwork often
suffers. Depression, anxiety, feelings of guilt, and emotional numbing or
“flatness” may be present as well.
•
Ages 12 to 17: may exhibit responses similar to those of adults, including
flashbacks, nightmares, emotional numbing, avoidance of reminders of
traumatic event, depression, substance abuse, problems with peers, and
antisocial behavior. Also common are withdrawal and isolation, physical
complaints, suicidal thoughts, school avoidance, academic decline, sleep
disturbances, and confusion. May feel extreme guilt over his or her failure
to prevent injury or loss of life, and may harbor revenge fantasies that
interfere with recovery.
It is important to note that many children experience great distress from traumatic events,
but do not, for one reason or another, qualify for a diagnosis of PTSD. However, these
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
59
children should also be screened and, if appropriate, treated by a qualified mental health
professional.
Research has shown that if it goes untreated, PTSD affects children, teens, and adults in
various ways:
•
Multiple Diagnoses. PTSD frequently occurs in conjunction with
disorders such as depression, problems of memory and cognition, anxiety
disorders such as separation anxiety and panic disorder, and externalizing
disorders such as attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder, oppositional
defiance disorder, and conduct disorder. Substance abuse is also a
problem.
•
Relationships and Behavior. Children who have experienced traumas
often have relationship problems with peers and family members and
problems with acting out.
•
Physical Health. PTSD increases a person’s risk for serious and chronic
disease, including circulatory, digestive, musculoskeletal, endocrine,
respiratory, and infectious diseases. Trauma victims are less likely than
other to take steps to protect their health.
•
School Performance. Because it contributes to difficulties with behavior,
relationships, mental health, attention, concentration, and memory tasks,
PTSD has also been linked to school failure.
Preventing PTSD In Children
Parental support influences how well children cope after a traumatic event. Birth, foster,
and adoptive parents, kin caregivers, and professionals can help children by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Providing a strong supportive presence
Modeling and managing their own expression of feelings and coping
Establishing routines with flexibility
Accepting children’s regressed behaviors wile encouraging and supporting
a return to age-appropriate activity
Helping children use familiar coping strategies
Helping children share in maintaining their safety
Allowing children to tell their story in words, play, or pictures to
acknowledge and normalize their experience
Discussing what to do or what has been done to prevent the event from
recurring
Maintain a stable, familiar environment
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
60
The Importance of Trauma Resolution
The best therapy for a child traumatized by exposure to violence is a “good enough
mother”—one who says, right now: “What is happening is not OK; it’s not your job to
protect me and, therefore, not your fault this has happened, and I am doing everything in
my power to keep you safe and keep you from being exposed to it again.” Therefore,
the best way to help a child is to help that child’s mother to obtain and maintain
safety for herself and her children, and to hold the aggressor accountable. All
intervention and treatment services should have these goals as their overriding
priority.
However, children cannot be required to wait for help. A “lost year,” so to speak, in an
adult victim’s life, as she prepares to—and then does—leave a violent relationship and
rebuild a life for herself, is a sad waste. However, this same “lost year” in her 3- or 4year-old child’s life is a tragedy of profound dimensions, as her child may most likely
suffer permanent, lifelong psychic damage and developmental loss. Therefore, the
question is not “Who receives help first—the mother or her children?” but rather, “How
can this mother be helped, once safety is attained, to orient herself to her children
quickly, so as to begin the process of empathically repairing their—and her —trauma?”
Trauma to children is caused by more than exposure to intimate partner violence,
however. Other related variables are also experienced traumatically: ongoing marital
conflict, maternal depression resulting in reduced social support and nurturance, living
with secrecy, dislocations as the mother relocates to seek safety, economic and social
disadvantage, and interactions with police/courts/child welfare.38
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
61
Risk Assessment—Intimate Partner Violence
Guiding Principles of Intervention
•
The preferred way to protect in most referrals and cases with intimate partner
violence is to join with the partner being victimized in safety planning for herself
and her children,
•
AND to hold the aggressor accountable.
Things to Remember
•
Many women will not be ready to leave the situation—be aware of their
ambivalence and recognize their right to self-determination.
•
Expect statements and behaviors of minimization, denial, rationalization from
partners who have experienced violence, and be conscious of your own frustration
with these dynamics.
•
The parent who is suffering from violence may not disclose much information due
to a multitude of factors.
•
Just your presence can increase the risk of violence.
•
Child Welfare Services is one player in a multi-disciplinary team of community
agencies that can assist these families—use their assistance. Unless specifically
trained, most CWS workers are not experts in intimate partner violence.
•
Do not underestimate your role as educator, carrier of the community’s values
around violence in the home—many individuals who suffer from intimate partner
abuse do not know help is out there for them, that it is not OK to be battered, and
that it leaves profound, lasting scars on them and their children.
•
Assess whether the victim’s functioning will return to a higher level if the
aggressor is gone.
•
Gathering of evidence is essential, as is third-party information (witnesses: law
enforcement, family members, neighbors, children, etc.). This establishes a
pattern of abuse over time, which is essential to both accurate risk assessment as
well as ultimately, to a petition, if it is determined this is necessary.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
62
Safety threat and risk assessment in intimate
partner violence cases
Features of a risk assessment in Child Welfare Services when intimate
partner violence is present:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nature and extent of family violence
Impact on child and parent who is being abused
Identification of imminent safety threats to partner and children
Identification of risk level to partner and children
Evaluation of help-seeking and survival strategies of the partner
The alleged aggressor’s level of dangerousness
Evaluation of the service and safety needs of the family
Precision of fit planning for access to community resources and services
Potential Safety Threat and Risk Factors in Cases Involving Intimate Violence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Age of children (under age 5 or teenagers)—were they present? Involved?
Pregnancy;
Previous and/or current attempts to leave; past help-seeking behaviors, their
outcomes, and victim’s perceptions of efficacy of help;
Economic dependency (aggressor and their partner);
Drug/alcohol use;
Special needs children;
Previous history of violence in home/frequency and severity of violence—is it
escalating?
Lack of empathy for how violence is affecting children; or lack of information
due to lack of attention/interest;
Weapons—possession or access—used to threaten;
Stalking;
Extreme power/control exerted over victim;
Criminal activity/violation of RO/history of violence against others;
Aggressor’s pattern of being hostile to authority;
Animal abuse;
Obsessive pre-occupation about partner and/or family;
Threats of suicide/homicide;
Unemployment/environmental stressors;
Isolated, secretive, uncooperative.
Identified Safety Threats That Indicate A Need For Protective Removal
•
The children are younger (or are adolescents) and are victims of the violence
themselves, or are “caught in the middle” in a very concrete way.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
63
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parents have little or no empathy for how the violence is affecting the children.
The partner may be so traumatized/immobilized that she is unable to protect.
The family is uncooperative, secretive, and isolated.
The aggressor has a lengthy history of violence and is hostile to authority.
Weapons and/or drugs are involved.
There is a high degree of denial.
Violence is extreme in frequency, severity and/or duration.
Chronic drug/alcohol history.
An adult or child has been injured
Aggressor threatens to kill or seriously harm self or others
Stalking of abused partner or children
Non-abusive parent forced to flee and leave children with aggressor
Guidelines for Interviewing Families About Intimate Partner Violence
•
Assess safety of all individuals present, identifying who is in the home.
Emergency Response workers should ask to see all children present in the home
to assess immediate safety.
•
Create a setting to interview the child or parent who may have been abused that
allows them to safely speak freely. Focus your conversation on safety and discuss
alternatives and options that the individual might consider. If there may be
imminent risk, immediately help the individual make contact with their assigned
worker, a intimate partner violence program hotline or shelter.
•
Develop trust by creating a climate of respect and safety for children and the adult
victim. In a safe setting away from the abuser, ask about the individual’s
experience in a direct and nonjudgmental fashion. Gradually build rapport and
trust and allow the adult or child to talk about their experience, feelings, and
goals. Don’t pressure an individual to talk, but give voice to your observations to
allow them an avenue for expressing themselves. Victims of intimate partner
violence are conditioned to keep silent about their situation and talking about
what you observe may provide them with an essential opportunity to express
themselves and obtain help.
•
Routinely inquire about intimate partner violence during initial reports and in
assessment of every family member, whether or not allegations of intimate partner
violence have been made. Explain that CWS routinely asks questions about
intimate partner violence with all families.
•
When intimate partner violence is known or suspected, it is recommended that
family members be interviewed in the following order: parent alleged to be
abused, children and then alleged aggressor.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
64
•
Provide information about safe alternatives and bring family access to intimate
partner violence resources.
•
Avoid questions or statements that imply that the parent being abused is to blame
for the aggressor’s behavior.
•
When intimate partner violence is disclosed, the worker should immediately make
efforts to develop a safety plan for the abused parent and the children.
•
Learn to observe signs, indicators and cues of intimate partner violence in
survivors and children. Know the behavioral signals in children that are
indicators of exposure to intimate partner violence. Make note of what you
observe and share this information with the assigned social worker.
•
Respond to the individual with positive encouragement about the courage it took
to share their story, the availability help and support for their situation, the
expertise and experience of your agency’s team and their right to be safe.
•
Encourage the individual to talk with a specialist in intimate partner violence or
their assigned worker about developing a safety plan before taking direct action.
Explain that intimate partner abuse situations are unpredictable and a planned
approach decreases risk. Gather information about intimate partner violence
resources and services in your area that you may be able to offer the individual.
•
Remember to document your interactions and observations in a timely fashion
and directly notify the assigned worker of this information, rather than relying
upon their review of your contact notes. Time may be of the essence.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
65
Interviewing questions to assess for intimate
partner violence
Routine questions for the parent who is being abused should include:
o Could you tell me about your relationship with your partner?
o All couples argue. How do you and your partner argue?
o What happens when you and your partner disagree and your partner wants
his or her own way?
o Have you every felt afraid of your partner?
o Has your partner every hurt or threatened you or your children?
o What do your children do when your partner becomes aggressive?
o How frequently do these conflicts occur?
o Have police ever been called to your house because of a fight?
o Do you feel safe to stay in the house tonight?
Routine questions to ask children in the home should include:
o
o
o
o
What happened before we got here?
Tell me about how mommy and daddy fight?
Does anyone get hurt when mommy and daddy fight?
Do you feel safe to stay with mom or mom and dad tonight?
Questions that can be used to assess intimate partner violence patterns of behavior:
o Physical Assaults
o Has your partner used physical force against you or have you used
physical force against your partner?
o Has your partner pushed, shoved, grabbed or shaken you?
o Has your partner restrained, blocked your way or pinned you down?
o Has your partner hit you? With hand? With an object?
o Has your partner ever choked you? Used weapons against you?
o Has your partner every assaulted you physically in any other way?
o Sexual Assaults
o Has your partner pressured you for sex when you did not want it? If so,
describe how.
o Has your partner manipulated or coerced you into sex at a time or in a way
you did not want? If so, how?
o Has your partner forced you to have sex at a time or in a way that you did
not want? Has your partner injured you sexually? Forced you to have
unsafe sex? Prevented you from using birth control?
o Emotional Assaults
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
66
o Has your partner threatened violence against you, your children, others or
self?
o Has your partner used violence against the children, friends, family or
others?
o Has your partner attacked property or pets, stalked, harassed or
intimidated you in any other way? How does your partner frighten you?
o Has your partner humiliated you by using put-downs or calling you
names?
o Does your partner attempt to keep you from seeing others? Attempt to
control your time, activities or friends? Does he follow you, listen to your
phone calls or open your mail?
o Economic Coercion
o Who makes financial decisions? How are finances handled?
o Has your partner tried to control you through money?
o Use of children
o Has your partner threatened or used violence against your children?
Sexual abuse against children?
o Does your partner use the children against you? How?
o Does your partner sabotage your parenting? Obstruct visitation?
o Has your partner taken or threatened to take the children?
o Has your partner ever made the children watch or participate in hurting
you? Made the children spy on you?
o Has your partner interfered with your care of your children?
o Has your partner ever threatened to report you to Child Welfare Services?
Questions for assessing the impact of violence on the adult victim and children:
o What kind of injuries or health problems have you or your children had due to
family violence?
o What kind of emotional or psychological problems are you having?
o Are their any behaviors in your children that concern you?
o How do your children do with friends and neighbors?
o How do the children respond to your efforts to set limits?
o Has an episode of violence ever gotten in the way of your parenting
responsibilities?
Questions to assess for protective capacity:
o What are the abused parent’s personal and natural support resources?
o Resistance to abuse
o Belief in self
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
67
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Willingness to see help
Use of money, time and material goods
Work skills
Parenting skills
Ability to plan for children’s safety
Acknowledgement of the abuser and situation
Health and physical strength
Use of safety strategies
o What are the abused partner’s past help seeking behaviors?
o Do family or friends know about the violence and what has been the
response. Who do you feel safe in talking with about this problem?
o How have people who know about the violence responded? Have you felt
supported?
o Have police been called? Who called them? To press charges? To get a
divorce?
o Have you ever gone to court for an emergency protective order?
o Have you ever gone to a counselor or medical personnel for help with this
issue?
o Have you ever used a battered women’s services program? What
happened?
o Have you ever gone to a counseling program for intimate partner
violence?
o What are the children’s personal resources?
o
o
o
o
o
o
Age and developmental status
Positive relationships within family and with natural supports
Actions during violence episodes
Help-seeking behaviors
Knowledge of what to do when an episode occurs
Ability to care out a safety plan.
o What are the community resources for victim safety and aggressor
accountability in this case?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Shelter and support resources
Legal interventions
Family or civil interventions
Health care
Faith-based communities
Friends and family
Formal programs for batterers
Accessible substance abuse treatment
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
68
o What are aggressor’s resources for changing abusive behaviors?
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Able to halt abuse during formal intervention
Acknowledgement of abusive behavior as a problem
Acknowledgment of responsibility to stop the behavior
Awareness of negative consequences of abusive behaviors on all family
members
Cooperation during interviews
Commitment to victim safety
Willingness and ability to comply with court orders
Respect for limits set by agency
Consideration of best interests of children.
Questions to ask alleged aggressors:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
What are your expectations of your partner and your relationship?
What kinds of things do you expect from your partner? Your children?
How do you communicate?
How would you describe your partner?
What do you do when you and your partner disagree?
What happens when you become angry?
How do you feel about your partner spending time with family and friends?
How do you and your partner manage household responsibilities and money?
Have people told you that your temper was a problem?
How would you describe your children?
How do you discipline your children?
How do you think the children are impacted when they see you and your partner
fighting?
Did you ever see violence between your parents when you were a child?
Were you ever harmed as a child?
When was the last time you drank or used drugs?
Have you every attended a drug or alcohol treatment program?
Have you ever had problems with violence in other relationships?
Evaluating Responses
Questions to ask once you have completed gathering information:
1. Do the facts match the stories given by various family members?
2. What is the victimized parent’s view of the violence on self, children?
3. Does abused partner have a safety plan? If not, will he or she participate in
safety planning with the worker? Is it do-able/reasonable? Is there an
alternate “fall-back” plan?
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
69
4. Frequency/intensity/duration of violence: has the abuse been long term and
chronic, thus in all probability, rendering the abused parent so severely
traumatized that her judgment is seriously impaired?
5. Has the violence been serious enough that the abused partner has required
medical intervention? Emergency room services?
6. Is abused partner also presenting with behaviors that put children at risk?
7. Is the child being physically abused by either parent?
8. Are parents able to give concrete detailed observations re: how children are
being impacted by the violence (i.e., assessing their degree of sensitivity
to/awareness of their children)?
9. Does abused parent have a long-standing chronic history of victimization that
may be affecting her ability to protect because she knows no different way to
live?
10. Past attempts to get help: what has been tried and what is her view of help?
11. Where were the children during the violent episodes? What did they see/do?
What attempts, if any, were made to prevent the children from being in harm’s
way?
12. Does abused parent blame self or children, or has other external attributions
for batterer’s violence? Who does aggressor blame? Children?
13. If abused parent is also violent, assess for mutual combat vs. self-defense:
a. Who holds control in relationship?
b. Who has access to resources?
c. Who is isolated?
d. Who ends up in the Emergency Room?
e. Who is afraid of whom/who has the greater physical strength and/or size?
f. What does the law enforcement history reflect re: this dynamic? (They
are required to address this question at the scene.)
14. Are children being hit also? If so, how much, how often, where, etc. (i.e., a
child physical abuse investigation may become necessary).
15. Are children afraid of the aggressor? Are they assisted with safety planning
by the abused parent? Are they in need of medical/psychological treatment as
a result of living in the violence, and not getting it?
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
70
Crisis Intervention Options
When NOT to Do Safety Planning: Emergency Safety Planning or Crisis
Intervention
What constitutes “Immediate Risk?”
1. Social worker hears, or hears of, a direct threat from the aggressor (suicide;
homicide; assault—ideation, threats, gestures).
2. Social worker observes an assault.
3. Social worker assesses violence is imminent.
Possible intervention options
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Call 911.
Request law enforcement assistance with weapon removal.
Assist parent who is abused and children with emergency relocation.
Assist parent who is abused with obtaining a TRO or EPO.
Request assessment re: involuntary hospitalization of aggressor.
Recommend court order removing aggressor from home.
Remove children from home.
Safety Planning
Benefits of Safety Planning
A.
B.
C.
D.
Possibility of a more well thought-out plan;
Condenses valuable information into a single focus;
Empowers the parent who has been victimized to take action to protect
Creates a vehicle for the abused parent and the social worker to enter into a working
partnership;
E. Creates a tool for further risk assessment;
F. Serves as a valuable segue to the community service provider.
Elements of an Effective Safety Plan
A. Strategies for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Keeping the children safe;
Leaving without needing to return;
What to do in an emergency;
Staying safe in public and at work.
B. A safety net of trustworthy allies
C. Restraining Orders
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
71
Safety Planning Guidelines
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Cover maintaining safety for children.
Reinforce the need to keep the safety plan secret from the aggressor.
Be as specific and detailed as possible.
Build in a way to know if the plan is/is not working.
Build in a way to alert the social worker if the plan is not working.
Create a “Plan B.”
Have as much of the plan as possible based on the abused partner’s choices and
actions.
H. Understand the unique risk factors of each abused partner and consider these in any
case plan.
IV. Safety Options: Partner Is Choosing to Leave the Aggressor
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Who are the people she can count on to help her?
What can she and others do so her aggressor will not find her?
What community or legal resources will help her to be safe?
What will she need to take with her, so as not to return?
When will she know it is safe to go?
Where can she go where she will be safe?
How will she travel safely to and from work and to pick up children?
Will a TRO help or hurt?
Would she call the police for help?
Safety Options: Partner Is Choosing to Stay with the Aggressor
A. Who will she call in a crisis? Police? P.O.? Relative? Friend?
B. What:
1. Will be her “This is it” event, i.e., what behavior would be the last straw that
tells her she now must leave the aggressor?
2. Will she need to take with her, so as not to return? List may include the
following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Birth certificates;
Social Security card;
Marriage and driver’s licenses;
Money;
School records;
Copy of restraining order; other court documents;
Welfare and immigration documents;
Medication, prescriptions;
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
72
i. Emergency phone numbers, addresses for friends, family, community
resources.
j. Clothing, comfort items for her and the children.
k. Keys.
C. Where:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is the nearest phone?
Would she go if she needs to flee immediately?
Are the best escape routes from the residence?
Are the weapons and/or most dangerous locations in the residence?
D. How would she safely leave, with the children?
Safety Options: Partner Has Chosen to Leave the Aggressor
A. Abused partner safety
1. Does she need to keep the Restraining Order (RO) up-to-date?
2. If aggressor is incarcerated, does she know his release date? The name and
phone number of his P.O./Parole Officer?
3. Does the restraining order need to cover locations where she works?
4. Does she need to change jobs, if he knows where she works?
B. Residence
1. Should she move?
2. If not, how can she make her residence more secure?
a. Change locks on doors?
b. Install a security system?
c. Change phone number?
d. Tell neighbors the batterer is gone and ask them to inform her if he
returns.
C. Children
1. Do they need to be included on the restraining order?
2. Should protection be extended to the school grounds?
3. Should they be taught some basic safety planning strategies?
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
73
Case Planning
Elements of a Sound Case Plan
A. Abused partner case plan—sample recommendations:
1. Obtain a restraining order for self and for children, if appropriate.
2. Develop a workable safety plan for self, children.
3. Develop an understanding of how exposure to intimate partner violence has
affected your children; take appropriate steps to help them overcome their
trauma.
4. Seek to understand: the dynamics of intimate partner violence, “red flag”
indicators of violent personalities.
B. Aggressor’s case plan—sample recommendations:
1. Attend and show progress in an approved 52-week batterer’s treatment
program.
2. Do not behave in a manner that is verbally, emotionally, physically, or
sexually abusive.
3. Do not involve your children in attempts to control or intimidate your partner.
4. Demonstrate an understanding of how intimate partner violence has affected
your partner and children; take appropriate steps to help them overcome their
trauma.
5. Follow all conditions of parole/probation.
6. Respect restraining orders.
Inappropriate Recommendations in Child Welfare Services cases when intimate
partner violence is present.
1. Couples’ therapy or mixed group therapy (i.e., aggressors and their partners in
the same group)—at least in the early stages of treatment.
2. Anger management programs as sole intervention: This focus is necessary but
not sufficient. The batterer’s treatment programs certified by the Probation
Department all contain a segment on anger control.
3. Any visitation order that compromises the safety of the abused partner or
children.
4. Placement of the children with any party who minimizes the violence, blames
the partner, would not preserve the safety of the partner and/or children.
5. Providing the same therapist for both the aggressor and their partner.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
74
Ongoing Assessment
The goal of ongoing case management is not to get the partner who has been abused to
leave the aggressor, but to assist both adults with ensuring the safety of their children by
eliminating future exposure to violence in the home. The means whereby each partner
does this is different, necessitating working with them differently and always in ways that
enhance the potential for separation and individuation.
Case Management
Safety assessment and planning is an ongoing process, to be brought up and
discussed throughout the life of the family's activity with Child Welfare Services.
The reality is that many women who suffer intimate partner violence who initially
leave violent relationships return to them. Some return several times before they
finally “leave for good,” and still others seem caught up in a series of violent
relationships, unable to break a pattern oftentimes learned in childhood. It is also
true that aggressors can—and many do—get better.
Abused Parent
2. On each face-to-face visit with the partner who has suffered intimate
partner violence, review:
o The red-flag indicators of violent personalities;
o The partner’s Safety Plan.
Aggressor
1. Face-to-face meetings with the aggressor should similarly focus on his
Relapse Prevention Plan and his efforts to atone for having injured his partner
and children.
2. Risk is most likely ameliorated if he:
o Understands his cycle of violence;
o Takes full responsibility for the damage done;
o Develops empathy for those he has hurt;
o Demonstrates behaviorally, nonviolent alternatives to violence in the areas
of problem solving, child discipline, and general communication skills.
3. For those couples that reunite, many partners who have been abused find it
very helpful and illuminating to meet with the social worker and the aggressor
prior to moving back together, for the express purpose of having the
aggressors’s Relapse Prevention Plan reviewed and explained for her. She
can, at this meeting, ask for further clarification or make suggestions for
additions, based on her own observations and experiences.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
75
Services
Shelter Housing
Most women who experience intimate partner violence do not require the services
of Battered Women’s shelters. If, however, she should need to vacate her
residence due to imminent danger to herself and her children, first brainstorm
with her whether she has shelter resources in her extended family or community
where she would be safe.
Treatment—Aggressor
Group therapy is preferable to individual treatment in most instances because:

Isolation and shame are eroded via support of others who have gone
through similar experiences.

Peers can challenge thinking errors typical of aggressors of intimate
partner violence.

Those aggressors convicted of battery have been ordered by criminal court
into a 52-week Batterer’s Group treatment program and are legally
required to fulfill this commitment.
Use only those programs certified by both Adult Probation and our
credentialing/monitoring body, the TERM Team.
The credentialed providers are disallowed -- by law -- to offer marital counseling
to the clients who are enrolled in their group treatment programs.
Treatment—Abused Partners
Therapy as a means of trauma resolution may be indicated, for the following
reasons:
o Abused partners are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with either
Major Depression (63% versus 9.3% of women in general population) or
PTSD (40%).
o If abused partner has a dual diagnosis or a chronic history of child abuse
and/or serial violent relationships.
The most effective assistance for women who do not have a substance abuse or
mental health disorder appears to be the following:
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
76
o Intimate partner violence survivor support groups;
o Advocacy.
The partner who experiences intimate partner violence may need explicit parent
training on nonviolent disciplinary practices, especially if children are acting out
aggressively. Further, she may need help understanding why her children are
behaving as they do, rather than labeling them as “being just like their father.”
Generic parenting classes typically will not be helpful as they do not cover this
issue fully—look for a specialist in intimate partner violence for parenting classes.
Treatment—Children
o Developmental assessments, including psychosocial, motor, academic, speech,
and neurological, are recommended.
o Group counseling for school age and older children, in a group with others who
have had similar experiences and led by an intimate partner violence specialist.
o These groups should be structured and have an information-sharing as
well as group process component.
o Necessary components: understanding intimate partner violence, selfprotection planning, nonviolent conflict resolution skill building,
responsibility taking, having fun.
o If individual therapy is indicated, the therapist should be expected to be focused
on the issue at hand and to consult regularly with other therapists treating family
members.
o If child is diagnosed as ADHD, rule out alternate diagnosis of PTSD.
o Conjoint therapy with the parent who also suffered abuse should be encouraged
whenever it is appropriate and that parent has strengths/supports to share with the
child. All efforts should be made to decrease attachment disturbances in the
parent – child bond.
o Conjoint treatment with the aggressor parent only when:

He takes full responsibility for his behavior.

He demonstrates, in “trustable” ways, remorse over how his
partner and children have suffered because of his behavior.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
77

He can demonstrate a realistic understanding of how—specifically
—he has indeed caused suffering in significant others (indicating
he has individuated enough from them to perceive their needs and
empathically attend to them).
o The conjoint treatment should be with the approval of the abused partner
and their therapist’s approval and support, and the abused partner’s
therapist does the conjoint treatment (or at least is present and partnering
in the treatment sessions).
o Sibling work may need to be done, if disturbances exist in this important
relationship (e.g., one sibling assaultive towards another, etc.)
Special Treatment Considerations—Substance Abuse Population
Safety of the abused partner and children is most important issue: consider housing
in community shelter or substance abuse treatment program that provides
interventions for both issues.
Both intimate partner and substance abuse providers should be assessing for the
existence of both problems at intake.
Treatment plans in both substance abuse and intimate partner violence programs
should include both relapse prevention plans and safety planning.
As long as the child’s safety is not compromised, abused partners who needresidential
treatment to recover should not be separated from their children. The expansion of
substance abuse residential treatment programs offering housing/services for both
women and their children should be encouraged.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
78
Predicting Recidivism in Aggressors
Recidivism rates for untreated aggressors is alarmingly high:
o Most intimate partner violence behaviors are repeated: 67% of abusers repeat
within the first year, averaging about 6 intimate partner violence incidents.24
o Over time, intimate partner assaults:25
•
Are more likely to occur in public settings;
•
Become more easily predicted by the partner of the aggressor (“I saw them
coming”);
•
Aggressor becomes less likely to apologize, justify the abuse.
o Aggressor less likely to view arrest/social condemnation as a severe
consequence—a lack of respect for, or fear of, authority.
After treatment, recidivism rates vary depending upon completion of programming:26
o 52% of those who drop out of treatment prior to completion;
o 28 to 45% (average = 36%) of those who finish treatment.
Intimate partner aggressors who relapse tend to be:
o
o
o
o
o
o
Younger;
Abuse drugs and alcohol
Are diagnosed with antisocial or narcissistic personality disorder
Lower income/education;
Having an arrest record;
Exhibit sexual jealousy.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
79
Legal Options to Protect Survivors of Intimate Partner
Violence
Understanding the legal system
Legal avenues that survivors can use to protect themselves and their children include both
criminal and civil processes.
A criminal process involves arrest and prosecution for the crime of intimate partner
violence. In California, crimes of intimate partner violence are considered a crime
against the state so that aggressors can be prosecuted regardless of whether or not the
abused decides to take action. In California, law enforcement is required to attempt to
determine who the primary aggressor of the incident is and to avoid mutual arrest of both
partners, which may then require out of home care for the children. Unfortunately,
intimate partner abuse, while a crime, has been difficult to successfully prosecute,
particularly with physical injury is not evident.
A civil process deals with protections that be put into place including divorce and legal
separation, custody orders, civil protection orders, property judgments, financial recovery
for injury,
Civil Orders of Protection
An abused partner can request that a judge order the battering partner to stop abusing,
harassing and threatening them and their children and order the battering partner to stay
away. In addition, a civil protection or restraining order can include orders regarding
child custody, visitation, financial support, eviction of the abuser from the family home,
prohibitions regarding contact, financial remedies and other orders.
Emergency Protective Orders are temporary restraining orders that can be obtained at any
hour by law enforcement responding to a domestic incident. These orders are valid for
three to five days and must be followed up by a petition requesting a more permanent
restraining order.
A Temporary Restraining Order can be issued and served pending a hearing to establish
more permanent restraining or stay away orders for up to 25 days.
New legislation regarding stalking behavior has added the Stay Away Order as part of
criminal orders issues in intimate partner violence cases where stalking and harassment is
suspected.
Divorce, Separation and Custody
An abused partner should file needed paperwork to establish legal separation and divorce
proceedings as well as defined custody and visitation orders that include orders regarding
supervision and duration of visitation by the abusive parent.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
80
Cultural considerations
Cultural processes interact with relationship violence in a myriad of complex ways. The
separate but parallel process of acculturation further complicates clarity. Additionally,
the late 20th century historic transformation of women’s roles and resultant
realignment of American social institutions (e.g., work, marriage, child raising, etc.) also
plays a profound role in understanding this issue. These concepts will be separated out,
as best as is possible given their inextricable connectedness, and discussed one at a time.
Transformation of Women’s Roles: Societal Influences
Women have only recently emerged to take their places as equal partners in relationships
and all other human endeavors, in our country. Throughout Euro-American history,
wives were essentially seen as their husband’s property. This lack of status was
codified in many other statutes.
Examples:
1. In 1824, the Supreme Court of Mississippi upheld the right of a husband to
beat his wife.41
2. Same as above, 1868, North Carolina.42
3. Rape entered the law not as a violent act heinous unto itself, but rather as a
property crime of man against man, the “property” being, in this instance, the
woman.43
4. Rape within marriage was considered an impossibility, as marriage laws
assumed husbands had the right to use force to satisfy themselves sexually.44
Women remain third class citizens in many countries (behind men and animals). Some
come to our shores with this way of seeing themselves and their world deeply patterned
into their behaviors and attitudes.
A power differential does not create abuse; however, it is the vacuum to which potential
for abuse is most drawn. Therefore, while it is not our job—even should it be our
desire—to superimpose an ethic of egalitarianism on these abusive relationships (for we
may indeed be treading on valued cultural norms), it is our duty to understand this
vacuum and its historical underpinnings, and assist each partner toward achieving a goal
of nonviolence in his/her relationships. It was not that long ago that it was typical for
women to passively accept relative powerlessness as their lot in life, and for men to adopt
an attitude of property toward their women—an attitude of entitlement supported by the
dominant culture. Indeed, in many locales and subcultures of our country, this attitude of
strictly circumscribed sex role typing remains dominant and challenging these
perceptions is met with great resistance by all.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
81
It is reasonable to presume our dominant culture’s recent adoption of gender
egalitarianism must create friction, or cognitive dissonance for those subcultures among
us that continue supporting a patriarchal pattern governing relationships, and that this
friction may be a factor in the increase in violence in intimate relationships. Further
research in this area would be welcome.
Culture
How cultural and social attributions affect perception by aggressors, their partners,
children and natural support systems:
o A woman’s socialization experiences influence her interpretation of her
partner’s abusive behavior, for her culture profoundly imprints the
expectations of gender roles in relationships.
o Cultures can emphasize either internal or external causes of intimate
partner violence. With external causation, a woman is less likely to leave.
The abuse is seen as the result of external forces, i.e., “Something else is
responsible for this behavior, not him.”
Examples:
• “It’s not him, it’s Society.”
Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and other minority women are aware
of the many race-related frustrations that their men and boy children face.
They may feel their men are not victimizing them, but rather their behavior is
merely a reflection of the treatment they receive from the world at large. It is
viewed as angry frustration.
• “It’s not him, it’s the unjust legal system.”
They may feel their partners will not receive justice and/or be unduly
mistreated by police, legal system, etc. This would make a person more
hesitant to report, to trust these systems, and to advocate that he be jailed.
This concern has been borne out by research. “It is better to trust the devil
you know than the devil you don’t know.”
• “It’s not him, it’s me.”
Their culture may support the notion that the abuse happens because of her
failures rather than his. For example, the culture (community, church, etc.)
may strictly dictate what is proper behavior. A woman who transgresses by
being in an improper place (e.g., a bar, a motel room, etc.) or acting/dressing
improperly (e.g., not wearing a bra, showing bare arms, speaking out, etc.)
“has it coming.”
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
82
Culture’s expectations
Expanding on the above, the culture plays a key role in influencing the partner who
experiences intimate partner violence’s decision to stay/leave, given the culture’s
attributions of the violence coupled with her internalization of her culture.
Examples:
1. The religious community with which the abused partner affiliates may have a
strong spiritual/salvation ethic. She, thus, may perceive herself as helping to
“save” her husband and gain eternal salvation. Additionally, the religious
culture may support strong beliefs and expectations regarding the privacy of
the marital relationship, the sanctity of marriage, keeping the family together,
and so on.45
2. The dominant culture may hold stereotyped notions of minority women that
further cement them into the violent relationship. Some examples are as
follows:
•
The “Submissive Asian” woman who just accepts abuse;
•
The “Strong Black” woman who “can take it”;
•
The Hispanic woman who is looking for a strong, controlling bully-type
partner to dominate her.
3. The culture’s group response may not support the woman’s right not to be
physically abused, such as:
•
“Don’t defame our heroes” (e.g., O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, football
stars, etc.);
•
“Don’t air our dirty laundry, thus giving the dominant culture another
reason to hate us” (e.g., Gay and Lesbian community).
4. Or, the dominant culture may superimpose a single solution that does not
honor the mores of the partner’s culture, thus making it hard for her to ask for
help (e.g., an expectation of egalitarianism in intimate relationships as being
the only antidote to intimate partner violence).
Acculturation
Immigration: In California, with its huge infusion of immigrants, this issue cannot be
overlooked. Many immigrants arrive from countries wherein:
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
83
o Women are still considered as property and their cultures support physical
abuse in intimate relationships.
o Law enforcement is not a means of support/safety and not seen as being
helpful.
o Even if laws exist prohibiting intimate partner violence, the legal system
overlooks it.
Marriages of undocumented persons: Some counties in California have large military
bases. This may mean a higher percentage of foreign-born wives, whose understanding
of our laws and resources is perhaps minimal and who live under the implied or actual
threat (by their batterer) of divorce/deportation, should they seek help. Lack of
citizenship may also mean:
o Greater difficulty getting employment;
o Denial of access to social services should they want to separate;
o Greater economic and social dependence upon their aggressor.
Undocumented Persons: All of the above problems relate to this population in addition
to the threat of exposure/deportation/loss of children, should she defy her aggressor. A
perverse variation on this theme is the aggressor’s threat to kidnap the children and take
them across the border into hiding.
Our response: While respecting each culture’s mores, a line must be drawn that does
not support violence in relationships. Even though our country is one of the most violent
on earth (and thus, we leave many pondering whether we are “the pot calling the kettle
black”), we also embrace a nonviolent ethic in intimate relationships, as evidenced in our
legal statutes. Do not underestimate your power to intervene by educating, for many
people newly arriving to our country do not know intimate partner violence is illegal here
and that our justice system takes it very seriously—and that there are resources available
to help, in most of our local minority communities.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
84
Strategies for Building Collaborative Responses
to Families Experiencing Intimate Partner
Violence
Child Welfare workers are not typically trained in the comprehensive treatment of issues
of intimate partner violence and each worker should make proactive efforts to build
collaborative relationships that allow consultation and joint response to families
experiencing intimate partner violence.
Methods of Building Relationships and Building a Collaborative Response
o Visit local programs working with families experiencing intimate partner violence
and shadow program specialists in their duties to increase knowledge and create
personal relationships.
o Look for opportunities to cross-train and cross-educate with intimate partner
violence specialists.
o Create agreements regarding regular consultation with intimate partner violence
specialists in cases where intimate partner violence is present and invite
specialists to team decision meetings and case planning meetings.
o Encourage family members to sign release of information consents to allow you
to discuss their situation openly with an expert or to facilitate joint home visits
with adult victims and children.
Guiding principles for developing a collaborative partnership
o Begin with discussions regarding the similarities and differences in roles,
responsibilities, information sharing rules and other issues that help to clear up
any mistaken perceptions about the other provider.
o Create alignment on a shared purpose and mission and the guiding values for
providing intervention with shared families.
o Advocate for system change across system to support families in accessing
multiple systems for service.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
85
Evidenced based and promising practice
programs
The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare has information under
their website Topical Areas link on well-supported and promising practices in intimate
partner violence treatment programs. For more information on these four and other
evaluated programs, go to the Clearinghouse website at
www.cachildwelfareclearninghouse.org.
Evidence Based and Promising Practices for Adult Victims and Children
Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT): “Trauma-Focused
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is a conjoint child and parent psychotherapy model for
children experiencing significant emotional and behavioral difficulties related to
traumatic life events. It is a components-based hybrid treatment model that incorporates
trauma-sensitive interventions with cognitive behavioral, family and humanistic
principles.”
The model is based upon the acronym PRACTICE: P – Psychoeducation and parenting
skills R – Relaxation Techniques A – Affective expression and regulation C -- Cognitive
Coping and processing or cognitive reframing T – Trauma Narrative I – In vivo exposure
C – Conjoint parent/child sessions and E – Enhancing Personal Safety and Future
Growth. Its scientific rating is 1: Well Supported by Research Evidence and its relevance
to Child Welfare rating is 1:High.
Child Parent Psychotherapy for Family Violence (CPP-FV) CPP-FV is a
psychotherapy model that integrates psychodynamic, attachment, trauma, cognitivebehavioral, and social learning theories into a dyadic treatment approach to restore the
parent-child relationship and the child’s mental health and developmental progression
that have been damaged by the experience of intimate partner violence. Child-parent
interactions are the focus of six intervention modalities aimed at restoring a sense of
mastery, security and growth and promoting congruence between bodily sensations,
feelings and thinking on the part of both parent and child in their relationship with one
another. Its scientific rating is 2: Supported by Research Evidence and its relevance to
Child Welfare rating is 1: High.
Project SUPPORT: Project SUPPORT was developed to address child conduct
problems in situations where the mother has sought refuge in a women’s shelter because
of intimate partner violence and at least one child has conduct problems. The
intervention includes two main components: providing instrumental and emotional
support to the mother during her transition from the women’s shelter and teaching the
mother to implement a set of child management and nurturing skills that have shown to
be effective in the treatment of clinical levels of conduct problems. Its scientific rating is
3: Promising Research Evidence, and its relevance to Child Welfare rating is 2: Medium.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
86
The Community Advocacy Project: This project involves home- and community-based
advocacy services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Highly trained
paraprofessionals, receiving intensive supervision, work with survivors of intimate
partner abuse (and their children) helping them to obtain the community resources and
social support they need. This is an empowerment-based, strengths-focused intervention
designed to increase women’s quality of life and decrease risk of re-abuse. Its scientific
rating is 2: Supported by Research Evidence, and its relevance to Child Welfare rating is
2: Medium.
Kids Club and Moms Empowerment: This promising practice involves two 10-session
programs designed to coincide with each other and are most effective when both mother
and child participates. Kids Club is a preventative intervention program that targets
children’s knowledge about family violence, their attitudes and beliefs about families and
violence, their emotional adjustment, and their social behavior in a small group. The
program is phase-based and progressive. Moms Empowerment is a parenting program
that provides support to mothers by empowering them to discuss the impact of the
violence on their child’s development, to building parenting competence, to provide a
safe place to discuss parenting fears and worries and to build connections for the mother
in the context of a supportive group. Scientific Rating: 3 – Promising Research Evidence,
Relevance to Child Welfare 2: Medium.
Promising Practices for Aggressor Treatment
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP): This program was designed in 1981 as a
Coordinated Community Response (CCR) and includes law enforcement, civil and
criminal courts and human service provides working together to make communities safer
for victims. This is a 28-week education program for offenders and uses a curriculum
Creating A Process of Change for Men Who Batter. Scientific Rating 3 – Promising
Research Evidence, Relevance to Child Welfare Rating 2: Medium.
AMEND, Inc. (Abusive Men Exploring New Directions): This is an organization that
provides treatment for men voluntarily seeking or court-ordered to seek intimate partner
violence counseling. Following an initial assessment, counselors design a treatment plan
for the client focusing on awareness of the problem, taking responsibility, enhancing selfesteem, building anger management, conflict resolution, communication, stressmanagement skills and remaining chemically free. Specific groups discuss family of
origin, addictions, sexuality, irrational beliefs, gender stereotypes and parenting.
Scientific Rating 3 – Promising Research Evidence, Relevance to Child Welfare Rating
2, Medium.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
87
Resources
Child Welfare Services Information Gateway: This constantly updated
information website for Child Welfare information contains a intimate partner violence
resource section that includes information on federal and state programs and
organizations. Resources listed below are a sampling of information provided. For the
most current information, refer to the National Organization section of the Child Welfare
Information Gateway at www.childwelfare.gov/organizations/index.cfm.
ABA Center on Children and the Law
740 15th Street NW
Washington D.C. 20005-1022
(202) 662-1720
http://www.abanet.org/child/
The ABA Center on Children and the Law seeks to improve the laws, policies and
judicial procedures affecting children by supporting legal representation for youth,
facilitating coordination between attorneys and case workers, reducing court delays and
providing training to court professionals involved in child welfare.
Domestic Violence Resource Network (NVRN)
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
6400 Flank Drive, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(800) 799-SAFE
http://www.nrcdv.org/
Funded by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, the DVRN strives to
strengthen the existing support systems serving battered women, their children and other
victims of intimate partner violence. Each of five resource centers partners with
community-based intimate partner violence programs, state coalitions, local, state and
federal government agencies.
Major Initiatives:
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence – http://www/nrcdb.org
Battered Women’s Justice Project – http://www.pcadv.org/coalition.html
National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence – http://wwwfvpf.org/health/
National Domestic Violence Hotline – http://www.ndvh.org
National Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF)
383 Rhode Island Street, Suite 304
San Francisco, CA 94103-5133
(415) 252-8900
http://endabuse.org
The Family Violence Prevention Fund works to end violence against women and children
around the world. Strongly advocating for the Violence Against Women Act, passed by
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
88
Congress in 1994, the FVPF has expanded its scope by reaching out to new audiences.
Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma (IVAT)
10064 Old Grove Road
San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 527-1860
http://www.ivatcenters.org/index.htm
The Family Violence Sexual Assault Institute is an international resource, research and
training center that includes all areas of violence, abuse or trauma.
Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA)
School of Social Work, University of Minnesota
105 Peters Hall
1404 Gortner Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108-6142
(612) 624-0721
http://www.mincava.umn.edu
The Center’s mission is to support research, education and access to violence related
resources. It provides up to date educational resources about all types of violence.
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1603
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 839-1852
http://www.ncadb.org
The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence is a membership organization that
works to stop violence in the lives of women and children by representing a network of
shelters, safe homes and counseling programs to increase federal funding, producing
publications, sponsoring conferences and operating a clearinghouse for information and
technical assistance.
National Council on Child Abuse and Family Violence (NCCAFV)
1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20036
(202) 429-6695
(800) 799-7233
http://www.nccafv.org
The National Council on Child Abuse and Family Violence is a non-profit organization
serving private sector response to the problems of child, spousal and elder abuse through
public awareness, education, professional development and organizational development.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
89
Endnotes
1
NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and
Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey, NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2
Surgeon General’s 1985 Annual Report.
3
National Institute of Health. (1999). Treatment Improvement Protocol: Executive
Summary and Recommendations on Substance Abuse Treatment and Domestic
Violence, National Institute of Health, Washington D.C.
4
NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and
Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey, NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
5
National Institute of Health. (1999). Treatment Improvement Protocol: Executive
Summary and Recommendations on Substance Abuse Treatment and Domestic
Violence, National Institute of Health, Washington D.C.
6
NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). Prevalence, Incidence, and
Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey, NIJ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
7
Dutton, 1988, Bennett, 1995.
8
FBI 1988-91 Uniform Crime Reports.
9
DOJ Stats, 1988.
10
Personal communication, Gael Strack, San Diego City Attorney’s Office.
11
Gondolf, E.W. (1995). Batterer Intervention: What We Know and Need to Know.
Paper prepared for the Violence Against Women Strategic Planning Meeting,
National Institute of Justice, Washington D.C. Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training
Institute, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
12
Edelson, J.L. & Tolman, R.M. (1992). Intervention for Men Who Batter: An
Ecological Approach. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
13
Syers. M. & Edelson, J.L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice
intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7, 490-502.
14
Fishbein, D. H. (1992). Biological perspectives in criminology, Criminology 28(1), 2772.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
90
15
Widom, C.S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin 10, 3-28.
16
Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence in
the American Family. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
17
Ibid.
18
Linz, D., Wilson, B.J., & Donnerstein, E. (1992). Sexual violence in the mass media:
legal solutions, warnings, and mitigation through education. Journal of Social Issues
48, 145-172.
19
Donnerstein, E. & Linz, D. (1994). Sexual violence in the mass media. Violence and
the Law. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press, 1994.
20
Dutton, D.G. (1994). The origin and structure of the abusive personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders 8(3), 181-191.
21
Thomas, Herbert E. (1995). Experiencing a shame response as a precursor to violence.
Bulletin: American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 23(4).
22
Hotaling, G.T., & Sugarman, D.B. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to
wife violence: the current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1, 101-124.
23
Ibid, Campbell, ed., (1995).
24
Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S.K. (1980). Behind Closed Doors: Violence
in the American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
25
Walker, L.E. (1984). The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer.
26
Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D.A., Telford, A., & Austin, G. (1986). The impact of police charges
on incidents of wife abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 37-49.
27
Kantor, G.K., & Straus, M.A. (1987). The “drunken bum” theory of wife beating.
Social Problems, 34(3), 213-230.
28
Leonard, K.E., & Blane, H.T. (1992). Alcohol and marital aggression in a national
sample of young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 7(1), 19-30.
29
Executive Summary and Recommendations: Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence,
Treatment Improvement Protocol, National Institute of Health, Washington, D.C.,
1999.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
91
30
Blumstein, A. (August, 1995). Why the Deadly Nexus? National Institute of Justice
Journal, No. 229, 2-9.
31
Osofsky, Joy D. Children Who Witness Domestic Violence: The Invisible Victims.
Social Policy Report, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1995, 1-16.
32
Straus, M.A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for
lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and
women. Report of the Twenty-Third Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross
Laboratories.
33
Straus, M.A. & Gelles, R.J. (1990). Physical Violence in American Families. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
34
Oregon Children’s Services Division (1993). Task Force Report on Child Fatalities
and Critical Injuries Due to Abuse and Neglect. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of
Human Resources.
35
Personal Communication, Jeffrey Edelson, San Diego Domestic Violence Conference,
October 1996.
36
Syers-McNairy, M. (1990). Women who Leave Violent Relationships: Getting on with
Life. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
37
Osofsky, Ibid, #2.
38
Campbell, Jacqueline and Lewandowski, Linda A. Mental and Physical Health Effects
of Intimate Partner Violence on Women and Children, “Anger, Depression, and
Violence,” The Psychiatric Clinics of North America, Vol. 20, No. 2, June 1997.
39
Crowell, N.A. & Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding Violence Against
Women: National Research Council, p. 70, National Academy Press.
40
Ibid, p.81.
41
Crowell, N.A. & Burgess, A.W. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding Violence Against
Women: National Research Council, p.65, National Academy Press.
42
Ibid.
45
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. New York:
Bantam Books.
44
Fagan, J. & Browne, A. (1994). “Violence between Spouses and Intimates,” pp. 115292 in Reiss, A.J., Jr., & Roth, J.A. (eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence:
Vol. 3, Social Influences.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
92
45
Farwell, Gardner W., Founder, Christians Against Domestic Abuse, writes: “Neither
the Christian, nor the Jewish, faiths have any verses, concepts, or philosophical values
that condone or justify the abuse of family members.” Written communication,
August 1997.
CCTA| Common Core| Intimate Partner Violence| November 2011
93
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA TRAINING ACADEMY
California Common Core for Child Welfare Workers
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN
CHILD WELFARE PRACTICE
Presented By:
“One
of the
most
precious gifts
a man can
give his
children is to
love their
mother.”
What Do You Think?
 What ways does domestic violence manifest
in the substantiated reports you assess?
 Whose responsibility is it to assure the
children’s safety in a domestic violence
relationship? Why?
 What are the greatest challenges you face in
effectively addressing protection issues for
children when intimate partner violence is the
central underlying factor?
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
1
Where we are aiming?
 Intersections of
Family violence,
AOD and Child
Maltreatment
 Profiles of batterers
and factors that trap
adult victims
 Traumatic Exposure
 Assessment, Safety
and Services
Planning
 Cultural Issues in
Domestic Violence
 Cross-System
Collaboration
Where Do You Stand?
 Assess your beliefs about domestic
violence on survey, page 9
 Take your six “hot dots” and place
yourself on continuums below each
belief statement posted on the walls.
Key Concepts
 Safety is focus of intervention
 Trauma impacts brain development
 Domestic violence is learned behavior
 Family violence is an equal opportunity
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
2
Key Concepts
 It’s about power and control, not anger
 Learn to assess dangerousness and
lethality
 Child maltreatment and substance
abuse intersect with domestic violence
Key Concepts
 Adult victims aren’t weak, they are
trying to survive!
 Pregnancy can be an escalating factor
 Domestic violence is the most common,
but least reported, crime in our society.
What is family violence?
“A recurring and escalating pattern of
behaviors that are focused on
maintaining control of or restricting the
independence of an individual in a
domestic relationship.”
Penal Code 13700
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
3
Domestic Partners








Married, legally married
Living together
Dating
Engaged in sexual relationship
Related by blood or adoption
Related by marriage
Engaged to be married
Have a child in common
It’s the law!
 All domestic violence incidents require a
written report by law enforcement and
if sufficient evidence exists, requires
automatic arrest.
 AB 2647 requires CWS to screen for
family violence as part of the
Emergency Response protocol
Where there is smoke…
 Criminal history checks can be a
valuable collateral indicator of
hidden family violence
 Various statutes will be used
depending on severity and
nature of violence
 See page 17
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
4
Behaviors of Family Violence








Physical -- actual or threatened
Sexual abuse/partner rape
Financial or economic abuse
Isolation
Emotional abuse
Threats and intimidation
Control through children
Oppression and Privilege
Quick Quiz
On a post-it or paper, jot down your answers to
the following questions:
 What percent of cases where a child has died or
been severely injured also included domestic
violence?
 What percent of domestic violence victims are
women?
 What are the top three most dangerous times for
adult victims?
Making the case…
 41 percent of families where a child
died or was severely injured due to
child abuse or neglect also experienced
domestic violence
 85-90 percent of all adult victims are
female
 An adult victim is most at risk when:
she leaves, she is pregnant, she is
young
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
5
Fast facts
 2 million female victims
 1 in 200 households
 A woman battered every 15
seconds
 Most common crime against women
 Women who report have
experienced an average of 6
beatings
 Accounts for 15 percent of total
crime costs
Principles of CWS Intervention
 Safety first for adult victims and
children
 Hold batterer accountable, don’t blame
the adult victim
 Child witness is a traumatic and serious
event
 Acknowledge victims right to choice
 Advocate and don’t remain silent!
The Cycle of Violence
The TensionBuilding
Phase
Violence Episode
Acute Battering or
Explosion
Remorse
Reconciliation or
Honeymoon Period
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
6
Mutual Combat?
Batterers may accuse victim of mutual
combat -- severity of injuries to female
often belie accusations.
Consider:
 Who is afraid of whom?
 Who controls the relationship?
 Who has more material resources?
Violence is learned behavior
 Bruce D. Perry, M.D. has established
that violence behavior is learned, not
innate
 Behavior is witnessed and condoned
within the family system
 Witnessed behavior emerges during
adolescence and adulthood
Intergenerational violence
 Violence is used in
family
 Next generation is
born and witnesses
 Family silence and
inaction
 Child victimized by
violence
 Family silence and
inaction
 Violence becomes a
coping response
 Violence emerges in
dating and adult
relationships
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
7
Dynamics of family violence
 Exploitation of power differential between
batterer and victim
 Escalates in severity and frequency
 Breaking silence of family violence allows for
coordinated response
 Denial, secrecy and minimizing is common
 Batterer is emotionally dependent on victim
Culture, class and race
 Family violence crosses
all demographic
boundaries
 Living in poverty raises
risk of family violence
 Family violence in gay,
lesbian and transgender
relationship underaddressed
 Language barriers
impair education and
services access
 Homicide rates higher in
southern and western
states and urban areas
 Disabled victims at
higher risk
 Some cultural norms
support continuation of
domestic violence
 Immigration status can
be used to keep victim
trapped
Public Health & Work Place Costs
Health Care Costs
Work Place Costs
2 million injuries
annually, 1,300 deaths
$4.1 billion direct
health care costs
37 percent of women
at ER are there for DV
21% of full-time workers
are victims
$727.8 million in lost
time
8 million days of paid
work and 5.6 million days
of household productivity
lost
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
8
Indicators of Family Violence
 Physical
 Emotional and Mental Health
 Social
 Collateral
When are you and victims at
greatest safety threat?
 In your learning teams, identify as
many specific situations during which:
 Adult victims and children are most at risk
of violence
 Helping professionals are most at risk
Victim: Dangerous times
 When victim is leaving, seeking shelter,
starting legal action
 When she is pregnant
 When perpetrator gets out of jail
 When batterer is faced with jail time
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
9
Workers: Dangerous Times
 When victim is
leaving or initiating
legal action
 When the batterer
learns CWS is
investigating or
intervening
 When batterer is
confronted with
allegations of DV or
CA/N
 When children are
being removed
 When CWS is
moving toward TPR
of batterer
 When batterer
actively seeks
information about
victim and child
whereabouts
Try It Out: CWS Decision
Points
 Learning teams assigned one or more
decision points -- appoint
scribe/spokesperson
 Discuss a brief case example illustrating FV at
this decision point
 How does FV affect: information gathering,
safety and risk assessment, contact with
family members and decisions?
CWS Decision Points
 Intake and Screening
 Ask about possible DV in every report
 Consider dangerousness
 Initial Assessment/Investigation
 Batterer views investigation as threat
 Assess dangerousness and lethality
 Substantiate for Emotional Abuse against batterer
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
10
CWS Decision Points
 Initial Assessment/Investigation
 Don’t leave written messages or card
 Make direct contact with victim and
children apart from batterer
 When in presence of batterer, don’t
address FV
 Consult with a trained DV expert
 Safety plan with victim
CWS Decision Points
 Safety Threat and Risk Assessment
 Use consistent protocols
 Consider imminence and specifics of threat
 What factors point toward removal
 What factors point toward safety plan in home
 Case Planning
 Focus on safety of children and victim
 Cross-system intervention
CWS Decision Points
 Case Planning
 Maintain appropriate boundaries between batterer
and victims
 Preserve self-determination
 Caution regarding joint services
 Placement Decisions
 Confidentiality of placement
 Can relatives protect?
 Maintain proximity to victim
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
11
CWS Decision Points
 TDMs
 Focus on safety planning
 Batterers participate only remotely
 Meetings at public location
 Avoid debate or confrontation with batterer
 Visitation
 Safe location
 Keeping details quiet
CWS Decision Points
 Visitation
 Consider if visitation with batterer is
appropriate at all
 Batterer contact must be supervised
 Visitation must consider protective orders
 Watch for being manipulated by batterer
CWS Decision Points
 Reunification







Program participation and completion
Victim and abuser ownership of responsibility
Visitations progressive
Children should express feeling safer
No new allegations
Safety plans are in play
Plan for regular monitoring and services
involvement after reunification
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
12
CWS Decision Points
 Permanency
 Batterer may become more dangerous
 Efforts to protect victim, children, care
givers and workers
 Take measures to keep court hearings safe
 Case Closure
 Use guidelines for reunifying, plus current
risk level is low or moderate, aftercare
What are common ways
that a child becomes
involved with or impacted
by domestic violence in
their home?
Child Impacts
 Child Witnesses
 Being caught in the middle/intervening
 Becoming a perpetrator against batterer
 Child abuse and neglect
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
13
Effects of family violence on
development
 Behavioral, social and emotional
problems
 Cognitive, motor and language
problems
 Long-Term problems
Key developmental tasks
 Adaptive attachment
 Self-regulation of mood, thought and
behavior
 Social and peer competence
Impacts of trauma at home by
milestone
 Infants and Preschoolers
 Latency-Age Children
 Adolescents
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
14
Clinical issues in children
 Effects of emotional flooding
 Identification with aggressor
 Attachment problems -- problems with
empathy
Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder
 Exposure to catastrophic event
involving actual/threatened death or
injury
 Either self or person of significance
 Symptoms
 Hyperarousal
 Re-experiencing of trauma
 Numbing or avoidance
PTSD
 Battered Women’s Syndrome: PTSD plus
Learned Helplessness
 One in four foster kids meet PTSD criteria
 Risks include co-occurring mental health
problems, health problems, relationship
problems and school performance problems
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
15
The importance of trauma
resolution
“The best way to help a child is to
help that child’s mother to obtain
and maintain safety for herself
and her children and to hold the
batterer accountable.”
Fast Facts
 45-50% of families investigated for CA/N
involve a woman victim
 41-43% of cases of child fatality or critical
injury involved family violence
 3.3 million children exposed annually
 One-third of all children witness an event
 Men who batter partners often batter children
 Biggest motivator to leave is children
Hidden Victims of
Domestic Violence
Hector and Stephanie
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
16
Practice guidelines
 Children need safety for themselves and their
parents
 Children need nurturing and safe
relationships
 Children need basic needs met
 Children should have support from family and
community
 Children have right to strengths-based
interventions
Alcohol and Drugs
 It is two problems -- one doesn’t cause
or explain the other
 Disinhibition
 Victim Self-Medication
 Similarities and Differences in
Characteristics
Substance Abuse and Family
Violence
 One-third to one-half of batterers also
have AOD problem
 Women who abuse substance are more
likely to be DV victims
 Overlap of DV and AOD problems is 50
percent
 Incidents more likely to result in death
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
17
Who is the Batterer?
 Environmental/Family
Intergenerational exposure
Any class or ethnicity
Religious or other influences
Male privilege
Media
Who is the batterer?
 Developmental/Clinical
 Personality Disorder/Substance Disorder
 Lacks empathy
 Shame and humiliation
 Emotional dependency on victim
 Highly isolated
 Charming after abuse
David: Hidden Victims of
Domestic Violence
See pages 45-46 --apply to David
How does video illustrate cycle of
violence
What are the impacts on children?
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
18
Dangerousness and Lethality
 Set of factors associated with placing
others in reasonable fear of harm:
 Magnitude -- how severe
 Frequency -- how often
 Imminence -- how soon
Dangerousness risk factors









Violence in family of origin
Specific demographic factors
Alcohol or drug use
Temperament and relationship deficits
Psychopathology
Violence toward children
Anger control
Life Stress
Low Self-Esteem
Lethality Factors
 Access to victim
 Patterns of
extreme abuse
 State of mind
 Special issues
 Suicidality
 Adult victim fights
back
 Children fight
back
 Situational factors
 Past failure of
system
intervention
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
19
“The major risk factor for
battering is being a woman.”
“The problem behavior in this
relationship is not hers, it is her
batterer’s.”
Why She Stays
 Fear
 Prior history as
victim
 Self-blame/hostage
mentality
 Love/Hope
 Thinks jealousy and
violence equals love
 Considering the
children
 Cultural beliefs
 Low Self-Esteem
 Minimization
 Economic or social
dependence
 Isolation
 Prior attempts to
leave
 Fear of deportation
Guiding principles
of assessment
 Preferred intervention strategy is safety
planning with adult victim for self and
children
 Taking steps to hold batterer
accountable
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
20
Things to remember
 Woman may not be  Bring information,
education and hope
ready to leave -- she
with you
has that right!

Assess victim
 Minimization and
functioning after
denial are common
batterer is gone
 Victim may have
 Independent
trouble disclosing
sources of
verification are
 Use an expert
essential
Hidden Victims of Domestic
Violence
Women and Children in Recovery
Domains of DV assessments
 Nature and extent
 Impact on child and adult victim
 Identify imminent safety threat
 Identify risk level and category
 Evaluate help-seeking behaviors
 Evaluate dangerousness
 Evaluate and plan for service & safety
needs
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
21
Safety Threat Assessment
 Know the factors to look for -- page 63
 Know factors that indicate a need for removal
 Learn useful interviewing strategies and
questions for conducting the assessments
 Conducting an evaluation of responses
When NOT to do safety
planning
 Immediate Risk
 SW hears or hears of a direct threat
 SW observes assault
 SW assesses imminent danger
 Take Action
 Law enforcement
 Victim shelter
 Remove children if needed
Safety Planning
 Victim is Choosing to Leave
 Victim is Choosing to Stay
 Victim has left the Batterer
 Victim has forced the batterer to leave
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
22
Case Planning
 Objectives for adult victim
 Objectives for batterer
 Inappropriate recommendations
Ongoing assessment
 Each contact with adult victim
 Education regarding risk and safety issues
 Ongoing use of safety plan
 Each contact with batterer
 Acknowledgement of responsibility
 Services and relapse prevention
Services
 Shelter
 Legal protections
 Victim treatment
 Batterer treatment
 Child treatment
 Treatment for substance abuse
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
23
Skills Application: David
 Conduct a violence risk assessment,
including safety threat
 List essential questions to create a
connection and obtain information
about current level of safety threat and
risk
 Potential elements of safety plan
 Case plan objectives and services
Who relapses?
 Batterers who fail to complete treatment and
many who do
 Recidivism is higher for:






Younger men
Substance abusers
Anti-social and narcissistic personality disorders
Lower income/education
Arrest record
Shows sexual jealousy
Legal Options for Protection
 Criminal versus civil processes
 Law Enforcement
 Civil orders of protection
 Divorce, separation and custody
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
24
What are cultural views and
pressures that keep women in
unsafe relationships?
Cultural Considerations
 Societal Influences -- Male Privilege
 Cultural beliefs and messages
 Acculturation issues
 Undocumented immigrants
Cross-System Collaboration
Most important action of CWS
workers is to build and access
relationships with domestic
violence experts in assessment
and intervention with families
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
25
What links do you currently
have with your local domestic
violence sources?
How well do you work with local
law enforcement on these issues?
Tips for Building Collaboration
 Visit programs and shadow colleagues
 Cross-train and educate
 Build relationships before there is a
need to use them
 Get consents for information sharing
signed
Thanks for joining us!
Please complete evaluations
CCTA | Common Core Training| Intimate Partner Violence | November 2011
26
Touch here to open Evaluation
Touch here to open the Tablet Survey