Understanding the Batterer in Visitation & Custody Disputes
This link has taken me hours to get through. I’ll start to read and something will hit to close, so I’ll end up going back to something else. There are a couple quotes I wanted to specifically share here, but I would like to encourage my readers to please visit the link. (Bolding is editorial – pav)
A significant proportion of batterers required to attend counseling because of a criminal conviction have been violent only one to five times in the history of their relationship, even by the victim’s account. Nonetheless, the victims in these cases report that the violence has had serious effects on them and on their children, and that the accompanying pattern of controlling and disrespectful behaviors are serving to deny the rights of family members and are causing trauma.
Because of the distorted perceptions that the abuser has of rights and responsibilities in relationships, he considers himself to be the victim. Acts of self-defense on the part of the battered woman or the children, or efforts they make to stand up for their rights, he defines as aggression against him.
Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions.
After a break-up, the abuser sometimes becomes quickly involved with a new partner whom he treats relatively well. Abusers are not out of control, and therefore can be on “good” behavior for extended periods of time – even a year or two – if they consider it in their best interest to do so. The new partner may insist, based on her experience with him, that the man is wonderful to her, and that any problems reported from the previous relationship must have been fabricated, or must result from bad relationship dynamics for which the two parents are mutually responsible. The abuser can thus use his new partner to create the impression that he is not a risk.
He will often admit to some milder acts of violence, such as shoving or throwing things, in order to increase his own credibility and create the impression that the victim is exaggerating. He may discuss errors he has made in the past and emphasize the efforts he is making to change, in order to make his partner seem vindictive and unwilling to let go of the past.
He commonly accuses her of having mental health problems, and may state that her family and friends agree with him. (I got this only a few weeks ago, in an email my ex sent to my current boyfriend. Quoted: “Nobody that meets me hates me and my whole family is dying for a shot to testify about Toni. She wants me to take drug tests and stuff? How about she takes some pysch evals? I mean really. She has many people on this side who will testify to behavior that calls into question her stability.” ) The two most common negative characterizations he will use are that she is hysterical and that she is promiscuous. The abuser tends to be comfortable lying, having years of practice, and so can sound believable when making baseless statements.
Mediators and GAL’s tend to have a bias in favor of communication, believing that the more the two parents speak to each other, the better things will go for the children. In domestic violence cases the truth is often the opposite, as the abuser uses communication to intimidate or psychologically abuse, and to keep pressuring the victim for a reunion. Victims who refuse to have any contact with their abusers may be doing the best thing both for themselves and for their children, but the evaluator may then characterize her as being the one who won’t let go of the past or who can’t focus on what is good for the children. This superficial analysis works to the batterers advantage.
Where persuasive evidence of a history of domestic abuse is present, risk to the children from unsupervised visitation can be best assessed by examining:
-
the abuser’s history of directly abusive or irresponsible behavior towards the children
-
his level of psychological cruelty towards the victim
-
his level of willingness to hurt the children as a deliberate or incidental aspect of hurting the mother (such as throwing things at her with the children nearby, being mean or deliberately risk-taking to the children when angry at her, failing to pay child support that he has resources for)
-
his level of manipulativeness towards family members
-
his level of selfishness and self-centeredness towards family members, including expectations that the children should meet his needs
-
whether he has been violent or physically frightening in front of the children
-
whether he has been verbally degrading to his partner in front of the children
-
the severity or frequency of his physical violence and threats, including threats to hurt himself
-
his history of sexual assaults against the mother, which are linked to increased risk of sexual abuse of the children and increased physical danger
-
his history of boundary violations towards the children
-
his substance abuse history
-
the level of coercive control he exercises over his partner and children
-
his level of entitlement (attitude that his violence was justified, expectation that his needs should always be catered to, seeing the children as personal possessions)
-
the extent of his past under-involvement with the children (e.g. failing to know basic information such as the child’s birth date, names of pediatricians or school teachers, or basic routines of the children’s daily care)
-
his level of refusal to accept the end of the relationship
-
his level of refusal to accept mother’s new partner being in the children’s lives
-
his level of refusal to accept responsibility for past abusive actions (including continued insistence that relationship was more or less equally and mutually destructive, continued insistence that his violence was provoked, continued minimization)
-
his level of escalation
-
his level of inability to put the children’s needs ahead of his own and to leave them out of conflicts with his partner
-
the ages and genders of the children (younger children may be more vulnerable to physical or psychological abuse, female children are at somewhat higher risk for sexual abuse)
