. n1.
...,Emflfirfi.
2.54. .

, I
x
m... ..A‘
. . 4 .1 .fidmo I
.t-E. I E ‘3
:4: . . .i i
.. [“131”, . f3. :11.
a t ..
3 .2 . 3 .5"
1‘3 37-JIY , ‘
. v31?!
. :1 L
Rafi-.... n. $4er
In. .ELT. ..
~ 1L1.

I?“
km.
.5.

Zrawky . ..lnwnfs .—
‘7‘l‘

‘ A a
. 1.}... ...: ,

. ..
. . A .
gnu. hai.hfl..frfll u.»

3.1... . 2.
1», u w

t 4.. 3v
h.“ ......fiu...
i. V
. , ....»
, ..én
. ‘ n.
t 1-
wii ....
I‘II In. ‘9
u. G ‘1

.12... a. A. .

m «3.»

a.
. do.
a.

,fim‘.r#fi
... Luau".
. v.10. .. .
51"..- .5.2 A. I;
z. x. 5?:
-5....:..fin..aua.mu
tau .1: ...“. Vii... »
, ...?n u... fishfii‘:
In I 1‘ A...”
f... :1.

 

 

 

 

 

. . .1. 3......
1...:
DI! A.
. s: a... :
$4 91...... 91‘
....‘vzvi 13:.
.1. ...!v
4;. 1..
. n3;-
. .3175
I. .... A...
..1I.§2I.tf.t..
. ... .: 3 3.4:...
it:
p 9

Xinre!‘

 

 

 

, UDHHnl
l-n-«esas Michigan State
2035” Universnty

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Child Welfare and Domestic Abuse: The Intersection of Safety
and Accountability

presented by

Susan Penny Johnson

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

Jam QJ/LVM

Major Professor’s Signature
16/ dizM? 2005»

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

HCIV 0 :5 QUIU

 

115510

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:lClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

CHILD WELFARE AND DOMESTIC ABUSE:
THE INTERSECTION OF SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

By

Susan Penny Johnson

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2006

For
have uninte
based on pa
mdanger Lh.
Can escape
0"61' their ct
Successful ir
53mins are
Should be re:

I0 afi‘CCI [he ]

 

ABSTRACT
CHILD WELFARE AND DOMESTIC ABUSE:
THE INTERSECTION OF SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
By
Susan Penny Johnson

For victims of domestic abuse who are also mothers, social system interaction can
have unintended and counter-productive consequences. Antiquated policies and practices
based on patriarchal norms may hold her hostage within the relationship and further
endanger those involved. According to the literature, society assumes that victims: 1.)
Can escape if they choose, 2.) Are attracted to dangerous men, 3.) Choose their batterer
over their children, 4.) Do not choose to protect or love their children, 5.) Are not
successful in protecting their children, 6.) Are better off if they leave the relationship, 7.)
Systems are resources are readily available to assist victims in leaving, and 8.) Children
should be removed from their mothers in these cases. These assumptions are presumed
to affect the policies and practices of the Child Protection Services as well as other
systems with which survivors of abuse come into contact.

The overall purpose of the study was to explore the meaning domestic abuse
survivors assigned to their interaction with societal and other systems. The study also
examined environments in which those interactions occurred, the consequences of those
interactions; what was helpful and not helpful to survivors, and how those factors shaped

their decisions. The research questions were: 1.) How does the intersection of victim

safety goals
“omen subj
environmen
Limited doc
Ten
ofPhenome
experienced
participants
ignored. or I
the \iolence
rights to abu
Partnting pl;
Man:
lack of 1-630“
relationship.
Wmm?" in th
Offer Wit?
abused W0”
SISIemS that:
i”10de the

 

safety goals and perpetrator accountability expectations influence the consequences for
women subject to domestic violence?, and 2.) How do ecosystem factors in the
environments of women subject to such violence affect the outcomes for those women?
Limited documentation of their lived experience exists within the literature.

Ten black and ten white women were interviewed in-depth, using the fiameworks
of Phenomenology, Neo-feminism and Human Ecology. Women in the study
experienced a wide range of abuse, as did their children. In this study, although some
participants received the help they needed, most did not. Systems as a whole denied,
ignored, or minimized the abuse, failed to protect the victims, held them responsible for
the violence and the exposure of the children to it, and often gave visitation and custody
rights to abusive fathers. Many women in the study were sanctioned with extensive
parenting plans, had charges filed against them, and received little help post-separation.

Many participants, unable to stop the abuse, were held responsible for it. Fear,
lack of resources, family and religious pressures, a ‘Mr. Perfect’ seduction into the
relationship, and isolation were found to be key factors in their inability to leave. Most
women in the study were homeless upon leaving the relationship. Study participants
offer specific suggestions in regard to what workers can do to effectively engage with
abused women who are also mothers. The author proposes changes within and across
systems that may begin to address the complexity and devastation of domestic abuse. It
is hoped the study will inform policy, educate workers, identify alternative practices that

help rather than hurt, and gives voice to the women as to their lived experience.

Copyright by
SUSAN PENNY JOHNSON
2006

DEDICATION

To my parents, Don and Vi Stewart, who formed and modeled
a partnership based on love and respect

To my husband, Phil Johnson,
for always treating me as an equal and valued partner.

To my sons, Jeremy and Jeff,
for being kind, loving and caring,
and of whom I am most proud.

To my good friend, Mary McDonald,
who never gave up on me.

AND

To a certain little black cat,
who sat patiently and silently next to me
throughout the entire creation of this document.

Thi:
beyond my
fortunate to
recognized
unwavering
tough ethic:
passion to s
on Dr. N.
311d affordet‘
and signific;

The
Patiently Cdl
Situations. 1
that Others n

Mi I

Classes and 1

 

believed in Ii

I

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is the product of many investors. I was challenged to think
beyond my self-imposed boarders by a gifted and giving group of professors. I have been
fortunate to work with and under the tutelage of Dr. Cris Sullivan, a nationally
recognized expert on domestic abuse, whose support and encouragement has been
unwavering. Dr. J oAnn Keith, an inspiration and confidant, counseled me when I had
tough ethical choices to make. Dr. Francisco Villarruel reinforced and reinvigorated my
passion to speak for those whom society denies a voice, and spoke for me when I lost my
own. Dr. Marsha Carolan patiently supported the qualitative component of this research,
and afforded me collegial respect in the process. This work represents your collective
and significant investments in me.

The women represented herein are amazing, inspirational and courageous. They
patiently educated me, tolerating my simple attempts to understand their complex
situations. They connected the dots for me, and did so for the sake of others in the hope
that others might be spared those same experiences.

My family accepted my strange hours, my being away from home to attend
classes and facilitate the research, and did my share of the household chores. They just

believed in me, absolutely and unquestioningly. To all of you my heartfelt thanks!

vi

C hapt

Chapter

Chapter I I I

Met}

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I
Introduction ....................................................................... 01
Statement of Problem ................................................. OI
Justification for the Study ............................................. 02
Significance of the Study ............................................. 03
Definitions ............................................................... 04
Theoretical Framework ................................................ 06
Research Questions ..................................................... 08
Chapter 11
Setting of the Problem .......................................................... 09
Literature Review ...................................................... O9
Concurrent Issues of Domestic Abuse and Child Abuse. 10
Effects of Domestic Abuse on Adults ..................... 11
Effects of Domestic Abuse on Children .................... 17
Protective Services Response to Domestic Abuse &
Embedded Patriarchal Ideologies ................... 21
Legal System Response to Domestic Abuse ................ 28
Batterer’s Accountability and Manipulation of Systems... 32
Racial/Cultural Issues in Cases of Domestic Abuse ........ 38
Related Assumptions ........................................... 41
The Current Study .............................................. 43
Chapter III
Methodology ........................................................................ 45
Rationale .................................................................... 45
Method ...................................................................... 50
Sample ............................................................. 50
Recruitment ....................................................... 52
Sample Size ....................................................... 55
Interview Process ................................................. 56
Data Analysis Procedures ....................................... 59
Trustworthiness of the Data .................................... 62
Researcher’s Biography/Epoche ................................ 64
Ethical and Political Considerations ........................... 67
Triangulation of the Data ....................................... 68

vii

Chapter

Chapter ‘

 

Chapter IV

Results of the Study ................................................................ 70
Introduction ....................................................... 70
Results of Recruitment ........................................... 70
The Setting ......................................................... 71
Introduction to the Sample ....................................... 72
Participant Profiles ................................................ 74
The Questions ........................................................................ 87
Introduction to the Interview Questions ........................ 87
Results ............................................................... 88
Chapter V
Summary and Conclusions ......................................................... 177
Fitness of the Theories ............................................. 177
Summary of Themes ............................................... 177
Conclusions ......................................................... 205
Results of the Exploration of Underlying Assumptions ........ 206
Significance for Systems .......................................... 209
Potential Solutions ................................................. 210
Limitations of the Study ........................................... 214
Opportunities for Future Research ............................... 216
Policy Implications ................................................ 219
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Summary and Request ............................. 223
Appendix B: Interview Guide .................................................... 224
Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................. 225
List of References ............................................................................ 227

viii

nan I: I

TABLE 1'.

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: History of Related Abuse .................................................... 89, 90

TABLE 2: Housing Post-Separation .................................................... 148

ix

and he
intendt

uithin
mother.
S'stems
NMMd
procedui
Paniculai
cOTISC‘quei
ml'OlVed.
Th.

isanenda]

 

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Social systems interaction, for victims of domestic violence, can be problematic
and have unintended and counter-productive consequences. Policies and procedures
intended to assist victims into a safer environment instead may be holding them hostage
within the relationship, and placing them in even greater danger. If the victim is also a
mother, both she and her children may be exposed to significant risk from the very
systems expected to protect them. In most cases, this phenomenon stems from a
patriarchal underpinning of assumptions upon which operational philosophy and resulting
procedures of social institutions is based. Systemic response to domestic abuse is
particularly important in the lives of those women and children effected, and the
consequences those responses generate can have lasting and dramatic effects for all
involved.

The issue of holding mothers responsible for the violent behavior of their partners
is a trend apparent throughout the country (Treppicone, 2001). It is a common belief that
by intervening with the mother on behalf of the children, the mother will act in a way that
removes the children fi'om the danger. However, the assumptions upon which this belief
is based have questionable merit. These assumptions include the following: 1) CPS
interaction is protective of children exposed to domestic violence, 2) CPS interaction is
supportive of adult victims of domestic violence, 3) The non-offending adult will be
better off if they leave the violent relationship, 4) If an adult victim of domestic violence

who is also a parent or guardian stays within a violent relationship they are choosing her

bmwn
respom
hnmr
hymn
and pm
will I't‘St
wfigmr
ammmi
10 Which '
and PCICC:

WmCMk

Mi:

Experiences

batterer over their children, 5) Mothers should be assigned almost exclusive
responsibility for the welfare of their children, 6) Adult victims of domestic violence can,
but are not making significant or successful attempts to protect their children, 7)
Institutions are readily available and will support victims in leaving, 8) Current policies
and procedures designed to address the safety of children living with domestic violence
will result in the most positive outcomes, and 9) Systems are working cooperatively to
safeguard both the adult and child victims of domestic abuse. Unfortunately, these
assumptions may lead to a counter-productive set of consequences. To address the extent
to which these assumptions are valid, the current study explored the lived experiences
and perceptions of domestic violence survivors within the context of their interaction

with Children’s Protective Services (CPS) and other related systems.

Justification for the Study

Missing from the literature is documentation of the consequences, the lived
experiences and meanings assigned to those experiences of families affected by the
concurrent phenomenon of domestic abuse and interaction with Child Protective
Services. This study focused on the perspectives of the adult victim. Speaking of adult
female victims of domestic abuse who have had CPS intervention, Porter (2002) asserts
that “We need a clearer understanding of how current policy and practice has affected
their lives, and their relationships with family members. The only way to gain this
information is to ask them about these needs and experiences, in a setting where they are
free to speak their truth. ..and in a manner that allows them to create their own answers,

rather than responding to narrowly defined survey questions. Such client focused research

could ultii
more efi'et
respectful
ACI
face in-der
immediate
can providt
interpretatii
can give ns
and Openne:
dependent 0
thomenoi
reSearcher,
an Unsciemjf
author identi;
info"nation,

 

MCI} assh-
aCliCIn ll] Cit:

could ultimately lead to changes in policy and best practice standards that will result in
more effective, efficient provision of services, in a manner that is both empowering and
respectful of their reality” (p. 55-56).

According to Marshall and Rossman (1999) and McCracken (1988), the face-to-
face in-depth interview is useful for uncovering participants’ perspectives, facilitates
immediate follow-up for clarification, is effective in describing complex interactions, and
canprovide contextualdata. Theweaknessesofthestrategyarethat: dataareopento
interpretations on cultural grounds, it is dependent upon a small sample of individuals, it
can give rise to ethical dilemmas, it is difficult to replicate, it is dependent on the honesty
and openness of participants, it depends on solid research questions, and it is further
dependent on the skills of the researcher. True to the foundation and tradition of
phenomenology, it is the essence of the lived experience that is of foremost interest to the
researcher. When interviews are considered social opportunities to construct and
produce reportable knowledge, it reduces the tendency to consider this type of research as
an unscientific, neutral conduit or source of distortion (Holstein & Gubrium, 1997). The
authoridentified interviewingasthemostappropriate meansofamassingthedesired
information, and believed that accurate information would best be gathered through
askingthosewholivedtheexpericncetodescribe itintheirownwords.

Si ° cance of the Stud

The significance of this study is to give voice to domestic abuse survivors, inform
policy, assist practicing human service workers in determining an appropriate course of
action in cases of domestic violence, and to identify alternative means of addressing

domestic violence cases that may be more helpful to all involved. It is intended to foster

grails! under.

protective set

In ord

common vn'tl

C_hil;l: Perso
Michigan ).

M:
Mimi. or z

0' tWhat's a

abuse: sexual

 

 

 

greater understanding between domestic violence victim service providers, child
protective service workers, and related interacting systems.
Definitions
In order to frame the issue in uniform language, the author uses certain terms

common within the field. These terms are described below.

Child: Person under the age of eighteen (Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, State of
Michigan).

Child Abuse: Harm or threatened harm to a child’s health or welfare by a parent, a legal
guardian, or any other person responsible for the child’s health or welfare, or by a teacher
or teacher’s aide, that occurs through non-accidental physical or mental injury; sexual
abuse; sexual exploitation; or maltreatment (Child Protection Law Act 238 of 1975, State
of Michigan).

Child Protective Services (CPS ): The Child Protection Division of the Department of
Human Services (formerly known as the Family Independence Agency at the time of the
research); the agency mandated by law in the State of Michigan to investigate reports of
suspected child abuse and neglect, and is authorized to pursue custodial and legal action
to provide for the protection of children found to be victims of substantiated abuse and or
neglect (Author).

Circuit Court: The branch of Michigan’s court system that deals with criminal law
(Author).

Dom_e_s_tic Abuse: A pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors, often including

physical, sexual and psychological attacks, as well as economic coercion, that adults and

aiolesccnls U
Conn Judges
Exnosurc to ‘

_.______
(intervening <
blood vandal
1999).

Mr:
oithoul (akin
from recurrin
of the mm
W

W Bush adm

 

 

 

 

adolescents use against their intimate partners (National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges Family Violence Department, 1998).

Exmsure to Violence: Watching or hearing the violent event, direct involvement
(intervening or calling the police), or experiencing the aftermath (such as seeing bruises,
blood, vandalism to the home), or observing maternal depression (Fantuzzo & Mohr,
1999).

failure to Protect: Knowingly allowing another person to mistreat or abuse the child
without taking appropriate measures to stop such mistreatment or abuse and prevent it
fiom recurring when the person is able to do so and Ins, or should have had, knowledge
of the mistreatment (Michigan’s Children’s Protective Service Manual, 2002).
F_aith-b§s_red Initiative Policies: The encouragement and financial support of the George
W. Bush administration to churches and other faith-based organizations to conduct social
services within their religious framework (Author).

Family Court: The branch of Michigan’s District Court that deals with family law
matters including custody, parental rights and guardianship. For the purposes of this
work, the term ‘court’ includes all sworn officers of the com (Author).

Family IMence Agency: Formerly known as Michigan’s Department of Social
Services,andnowknownastheDepartmentofHumanServices;thebranchofstate
government that includes and oversees Child Protective Services (Author).

Ma_rn_ag' e Promotion Initiative Policies: Initiatives encouraging the process of, and
financially rewarding non-same sex couples, who enter into a formal, State recognized
marfiageagreementandmdiscomagethesevemnceofthemardageconuactbythe

couple as well as the courts (Author).

\on'm

perpetra
abuse (A
risk safe
Service A
m
their pare:
and child (
for SOCial v

SIlPt‘ods (A

A] 1h
domestic ab:
fC'mloism am
properties
”locked f0
efieclivcly g
and class In:

exllffrieuce .

mm: The adult in a violent relationship that is not the
perpetrator of the abuse (Author).
Offending Adult (0A): The adult in a violent relationship that is the perpetrator of the
abuse (Author).
Med Decision Mug: The Family Independence Agency’s system for assessing
risk, safety, needs and strengths in child welfare cases (Michigan’s Children’s Protective
Service Manual, 2002).
Termination of Parental Right_s: Permanent and legally-binding removal of children from
their parent(s), extinguishing all legal and physical relationships between the parent(s)
and child (Standards for Termination of Parental Rights, State of Michigan).
Welfare to Work Policies: Those welfare reform policies that require work as a condition
for social welfare entitlement programs including Medicaid, Food Stamps, and childcare
stipends (Author).
Theoreticgl Framework

Although no one theory has been effective in explaining the complex issue of
domestic abuse (National Center on Domestic Violence, 2002), the theories of neo-
feminism and human ecology were selected for their respective assumptions and
properties. Neo-feminism was selected over traditional feminist theory, which has been
criticized for ignoring the unique experiences within the context of class and race,
efl‘ectively grouping all women into a homogenous unit. Ignoring the variables of race
and class may result in limited understanding of complex issues involving women, who

experience and frame them differently (Armour, 1999; Cheung, 1991; Roberts et al,

2000; W
race.
C
Ls limitcc
recognitil
Anzaldua
communi
foci of hu
influence.
theorizing
result fron
race and SC
the fact tha
Ash

“Willi” the C

2000; Worden, 2002). Neo-feminism requires researchers to consider gender, class and
race.

Given that the literature on domestic abuse and the intersection of class and race
is limited, evolving values within the social sciences requires cultural sensitivity and the
recognition of oppressive forces be considered in current research (Bograd, 1999).
Anzaldua (1990) maintained that what is considered sound theory in the academic
community may not be what is most appropriate for women of color. The principles and
foci of human ecological models also require the consideration of environments that
influence, and are influenced by demographic variables. According to Anmldua (1990),
theorizing for communities of color is created through narrative forms, in the stories that
result from real lived experiences. Taking gender as a factor without the co-variables of
race and socio—economic settings does a disservice to the concept of personal identity and
the fact that a woman’s identity is constituted by position (Cacoullos, 2001).

Ashcraft (2000) and Cacoullos (2001) maintain the silencing of women’s voices
withinthecontextofgender,classandraceisperpetuatedbyhierarchalpattemsofwhite
male privilege. The resulting adaptation to the oppression, by women of differing races
and resources, has therefore been unique within those categories (Armour, 1999; Bell et
al, 2000; Bograd, 2000; Cacoullos, 2001; Knight, 2000). The analysis of varied
experiences within the context of race, gender and class is critical to balance against
society’s devaluing of marginalized individuals.

Human Ecology Theory allows researchers to investigate intersections and
relatiomhips with and interdependence upon their environments. The concept of humans

and families existing as sub-systems within their larger ecosystems encourages the

inx‘estig
The the
ex'aluati!

the theor

as male.
pepsin-n
rcscarchc
domestic
recognitic
references
Th
l-l How d.
expl?CIatim

WTOlenCe at

 

 

 

investigation of interplay and consequences of the dynamics within these relationships.
The theory is particularly useful in investigating public policy, family intervention
evaluation, and review of family structure, roles, and norms. These characteristics made
the theory germane to this study.

It should be noted that this work references the victim as female and the assailant
as male. This characterization is consistent with the research on the gender of
perpetrators (Blum et al, 1993). All interviews were with adult female victims. The
researcher acknowledges that this gender-based characterization does not hold true for all
domestic abuse cases, but uses these terms for the sake of clarity, continuity, and in
recognition that in the overwhelming majority of cases of domestic abuse, these gender
references are representative and therefore appropriate.

Research Questions

The two research questions fit well within the framework of the selected theories:
1.) How does the intersection of victim safety goals and perpetrator accountability
expectations influence the consequences for women subject to domestic violence? And
2.) How do the ecosystemic factors in the environment of women subject to such

violence affect the outcomes for those women?

Th.
violence is
made to do
1982). Ch.
until the 1‘}
tiolence so
200k Iohn
policy fOun
‘failuro‘ im;
0PWWnity

0f la

dom‘t‘Stic ahi

CHAPTER II
SETTING OF THE PROBLEM

Literature Review

The literature specifically addressing CPS intervention into cases of domestic
violence is limited (Kaufmann-Kantor & Little, 2003). In fact, no reference was even
made to domestic abuse in the Journal of Marriage and Family until 1969 (Schechter,
1982). Children witnessing domestic violence were not addressed in research literature
until the 1980’s. Children, as a whole, were until recently overlooked by domestic
violence service providers focused on the mother’s crisis (F antuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Kent,
2001; Lehman & Carlson, 1988). The earliest reference to a Failure to Protect CPS
policy found was in the case In re Dalton (1981). In that case and since, the term
‘failure’ implies circumstances that are within one’s control, and the existence of an
Opportunity not to fail (Magen, 1999).

Of [ate there is a growing bank of literature on the correlation of child abuse and
domestic abuse, and an upsurge of interest in the effects of domestic abuse on children
(American Bar Association, 1994; Aron & Olson, 1997; Ayoub et al, 1999; Bancroft &
Silverrnan, 2000; Carlson, 1996; Davidson, 1995; Dohrn, 1995; Edelson, 1999; Fantuzzo
& Mohr, 1999; Holden & Richie, 1991; Jaffe et al, 1990; Mabanglo, 2002; Meuer &
Webster, 1997; Wolf, 2002).

However, very little research exists on the experiences of domestic abuse victims
with Child Protective Services, nor on policies such as Failure to Protect (Magen 1999;

Porter, 2002). This is despite the fact that all but a dozen states have laws criminalizing

omission (
available I
research q'

Th
abuse victi
issue that i
this study i
and socictz
CXPCCtatior
hating infl
how these 1
"mon the
and child a'
Childrom 4 J
r‘eSponse [0

Ritalethu

(”new

 

omission of care in their state child protection code (Matthews, 1999). It is fi'om the
available literature, and through the filtering lens of theoretical foundation, that the
research questions and this study evolved.

This study focused on the lived experiences and perceptions of adult domestic
abuse victims who had recent interactions with CPS. However, domestic violence is an
issue that is multi-systemic. Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect the reader to place
this study in context without an understanding of the inter-related patriarchal, institutional
and societal philosophies, the barriers victims face in complying with institutional
expectations, and how their actions are perceived within different but relevant systems
having influence over the families involved. In addition, the reader must also understand
how these systemic issues aide and perpeume the practice of domestic abuse. For that
reason, the review of literature is divided into: 1) The prevalence of concurrent domestic
and child abuse, 2) Effects of domestic abuse on adults, 3) Effects of domestic abuse on
children, 4) Child Protective Services response to domestic abuse, 5) Legal system
response to domestic abuse, 6) Batterers’ accountability and manipulation of systems, 7)
Racial/ethnic issues in cases of domestic abuse, and 8) Related assumptions.

Concurrent Domesm: Abuse and Child Abuse

The Bureau ofJustice estimates that more than four millignwomen are victims of

 

 

domesticabuseeaciryearinAmerica(Bachman&Salzman, 1995). Betweenthreeand

 

 

eighteen million children are exposed to domestic abuse each year (Holden, 1998). Felix
and McCarthy (1994) and Wright and colleagues (1997) found significant concurrent
incidence ofdomestic and child abuse. It is estimated that in thirty to sixty percent of

\n‘.’

homes where there is a battered adult, the children are also abused (omce of Juvenile

 

 

10

Justice

hem-oer
Cohn. 1
estimate
of one o
and seve

(Blum. e

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000). Other estimates place the incidence rate
between eleven and forty-seven percent (American Humane Association, 1994; Daro &
Cohn, 1988; Jones, et al; Magen et al, 1995; McKibben et al, 1987). It is further
estimated that between three and ten million children each year risk witnessing the abuse
of one of the adults in their home by another (Stone & Fialk, 1997). Between forty-five
andseventypercentofhomesinwhichmenabuse womemthechildrenarealsotargets
(Blum, et aL 1993; O’Keefe, 1995).

Stark and Flitcraft (1988) found that in more cases than not, children abused by
thefatherinthehomealsohadmothersabusedbythesameperpetrator. Theyalso
discovered that the children in these homes were far more likely to be removed from the
home thanchildren suffering abusewhenthemotherwasnot herselfavictim. Beeman
and colleagues (1999) found in their study of a Wisconsin county caseload of Failure to
Protect files tlurt three-quarters of the cases involved domestic abuse. Regardless of
variations in statistics on the exact number, the commence of these issues is significant
(Schechter & Edelson, 1999).

Effects of Domestic Abuse on Adults

“It is extremely difficult for people who have no personal experience with
domestic violence to appreciate the economic, social and psychological factors that
influence the decisions of battered women” (Phillips, 1992, p. 15%).W
W set of norm_s, on standards of perceived reasonableness. As individuals,
weuseourownexpefiencesaspointsofreferencetofi'ameandtmderstandtheacfions
and attitudes of others. For someone who has not experienced the horror of abuse, the

behavior and decisions of battered women may, at times, appear irrational.

ll

T
of pathol
we
1903). B
more than
(3000) as
attributed
cam
the contex
Snugglest
10016 for v

“Si
if she Choo
abusive or .
She roan). h
‘luEStionS a]
“0885ng .
for 513mg

Ora

 

 

 

There have been numerous attempts to frame battered women’s behavior in terms
of pathology (Levandosky et al, 2000). Vrctrms may display hypg—vrgrlanee,

exaggerated wstartle response‘sgrritabili and seeming] ted anger _(Walker,
1993). Bowker (1999) and Fugate (2001) framed the issue in terms ofvariables that are

 

 

 

more than just psychological, but also social, economic and physical in nature. Sullivan
(2000) agreed, stating, “intimate male violence against women is far too widespread to be

attributed to W’ (p. 126). W exists in the com
asymmetry of powerf in relationships_ (Mills, 1988). Without serious consideration of
the context in which victims experiences their lives and the assailants’ violence, society
struggles to understand victims’ assertions, attitudes, behaviors and decisions, and instead
looks for ways to conceptualize the issue in terms of psychological dysfunction.

“Since a common myth of domestic abuse is that the victim can stop the violence
ifshe choosesawomanwhoisabusedby herspouseisalsoatriskofbeing labeledan
abusive or neglectful parent” (Field & Cook, 1994, p. 922). This leads to the question ‘If
she really loves her children, why doesn’t she just leave?’ Perhaps the more appropriate
questionsare ‘Whydoesheabuseher’,and ‘Whatarethebarrierspreventingherfrom
accessing safety?’ Both questions are key as women often have very compelling reasons
for staying in the relationship.

Of all the factors that effectivel bind women to violentAmen, fear is perhaps: the

most influential (Phillips, 1992). According to Edelson (1985), “It is living with a
W

 

 

constant sense ofdanger and expectation ofviolence ...thatbringsaboutterrorthat is
slowly constructed and eventually fills the women’s environment” (p. 231-32). Adult

victims of domestic abuse live in fear for themselves and their children (Myers, 2002;

12

Walker.
escalate:

adult vie

-_~

behavior

v“

Walker, 1984) and are more likely to suffer increasingly severe injuries as the abuse

escalates (Sutherland et aL 2000). Batterers frequently use the threat of death against the
\x ‘ _/
adult victim, their children, and their families as a means of controlling the victim’s
M ' ‘_.
behavior and preventing them fi'om—leaving the relationship (Davison, 1995). PM

K

WNW) reveal that victims have good reason to fear, as thousands of women die

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

atthehandsoftheirpartnerseachyear.
Leaving does not always solve the problem, and in fact may be less safe than

staying (F leury et al, 2000; Mills, 2000; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, 1998). According to Meuer and Webster (1997), the rate of attack against
womenwhoaredivorced fi'omtheassailantistwentytimeshigherthanthosewho remain
married to their attacker. Further, Meuer and Webster (1997) reported “it is estimated

that seventy-three percent of all emergency room visits, and up to seventy-five mrcent of
calls to the police for domestic violence incidents occur after separatrfl’ (p. 219).
Similar findings were reported in earlier studies (American Psychological Association,
1996; Harlow, 1991). When investigated, the factors found to influence the continuation
of abuse, not surprisingly, were related to the decisions and behaviors of the abuser, not
the victim (Fleru'y et al, 2000). When expecting the woman to ‘just leave’, it “implies
thatawomanshouldacteventhoughheractionexposesher [andherchildren] toriskof
fatal retaliation by the abuser... battered women should take seriously the threats of
abusive men who have demonstrated their violent potential” (Enos 1996, p. 255).
Adiligentabuser is ofienabletoforceabatteredwomanbackintothehome by
threateningandharassinganyonewhoattemptstoassistherCDth&Dobash, 1979;
Goodkindetal,2004). Adultvictimsfacesuongandsustainedpressurefi'omthe

13

assailant's
Outsiders
parents. ar
and discot
husband a
2006; Fort
2003 did U
However, I
sanctioned
pan in vict

Soc
abuse. Send
Communist
‘0 ilk? Victir
2000i Nei‘,
300a. 199
fr'ttttily 3130
[um Violent
thcmsdves
cometlUEm!

assailant’s family, and sometimes their own, to remain in a violent relationship.
Outsiders may perceive that the children, in spite of the violence, are better off with both
parents, and may suffer from a divorce or separation. Religious ideology may prevent
and discourage divorce; urging the victim to stay, become more submissive to her
husband, and ‘work it out’ (Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence,
2006; Fortune, 2006). For instance, Catholicism considers divorce a sin, and only in
2003 did the church agree that in some cases of violence, separation might be warranted.
However, even if granted, this activity would preclude the victim from a church
sanctioned marriage in the future. Conversely, some data indicate spirituality may play a
part in victim recovery and healing processes post-separation (Gillum et al, 2006).
Society as a whole ignores, and in some ewes denies, the existence of domestic
abuse,sendingamessagetothevictimthattheviolenceisanacceptedpartofour
communities, and thereby excusing social systems from carrying out their responsibilities
to the victim (Andrews and Brewin, 1990; Enos, 1996; Ewing & Aubrey, 1987; Sullivan,
2000). Neighbors and fiiends are reluctant to get involved (Dobash and Dobash, 1975;
Zorza, 1998) for fear of violating the family sanctity within the home. Neighbors and
familyalsoexpress fearofthebatterer,statingreluctancetoincitesomeonewhomay
turn violent against them. Friends may be rmsure of how to help, and effectively cut
themselves ofl'from the victim. Batterers are often pathologicallyjealous, and will
consequently isolate their partner from fiiends, neighbors and family (Ver Steegh, 2000).
Financial issues are also powerful factors for non-offending adults (Davis &
Srinivasan, 1995). For those with limited resources, welfare assistance is meager and

gettinghardertoobtain. Manywomenfacetherealityofhavingtochoosebetweenrent,

l4

heat fc
health i
Sriniva
away at
on their
noted tl
sanctior
l
\ictim a'
from the
usuallyp
listtation
knows th;
fr0m an a
Pets are m
behavior 0
or kill pets
1994)., in 0
Ma
Enforcemc
I991; Dob.
me“ alon

Wt;

heat, food, and medical care for their children. Although most are working, few have
health insurance, and often work at jobs that do not provide adequate wages (Davis and
Srinivasan, 1995; Rainford, 2004; Zorza, 1991). Transportation and childcare costs eat
awayatabudgetthatisalreadytoo smallto sustainafamily, ifvictims attemptto embark
on their own. These issues have dire consequences for the family unit. It should be
noted that domestic abuse is the primary reason for homelessness and punitive welfare
sanctions among women and children (Rainford, 2004; Zorza, 1991).

Many assailants threaten kidnap, kill or seek custody of the children should the
victim attempt to report the abuse (Jones, 1994). Although persoml protection orders
fiomthecomtforbidcontactbetweentheassaflmtandthevicfim,thechfldmnare not
usually part ofthe order, forcing the victim to relinquish the children for the purposes of
visitation and exposing them to the assailant without her protective influences. A victim
knows that the order is simply a piece of paper, incapable of stopping a knife or a bullet
fromanassailantdeterminedto gettoherandharmherorherchildrenUones, 1994).
Pets are not immune to the violence either, often being used as a tool to control the
behaviorofthe victimand herchildren. Itisacommonbatterertactictothreaten, harm
or kill pets in front ofthe adult victim and her children (American Humane Association,
1994), in order to ensure the assailant’s control over the family continues.

Many victims have had past experiences with the legal, social service and law
enforcement systems that have put the onus back on the victim to fix his problem (Davis,
1991; Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Victims may have been disbelieved, sufl‘ered a dual
arrest along with the perpetrator, or solely blamed for the assault. If the assailant is

arrested,inMichigantheycanbeoutofjailandfieetoretmntothevictimwithin

15

twenty-
once th
aggrega
and leg:

their be]

twenty-four hours. There are often severe repercussions for the victim and the children
once the assailant is released and back in the family home. These experiences, in
aggregate, lessen the chances that victims will seek future help, create mistrust of social
and legal systems, increase the danger for the victims and their children, and decrease
their belief that there is help and hope.

Some victims may continue to proclaim loyalty and love for the perpetrator. This
is not uncommon when individuals are forced to live in terror and survival mode for
prolonged periods of time. Domestic abuse victims, both adult and child, are often held
hostage within the relationship. Hostages in a variety of settings have experienced this
phenomenon (Graham et al, 1994). In order to rmderstand this phenomenon, one must
consider the context of lived reality. The non-offending adult entered into the
relationship with a desire for a long-term committed relationship. Many victims continue
to believe in the power of love to ‘fix’ the behavior of the assailant (Mahoney, 1991).
Some believe that they are at fault for the abuse. Assailants are quick to place the blame
on the victim, using statements such as ‘If only you wouldn’t do that, this (the abuse)
wouldn’t have to happen.’ This allows victims to believe they has the opportunity to fix
the problem, andovertimetheymayaccepttheabusers’ argumentsthatthey areto blame
for the abuse, since they have ‘failed’ to fix the problem.

Some, although not all, victims experience the violence as a cycle with a distinct
pattern. The cycle begins with a period of tension building, followed by the assault, and
afterward the batterer expresses remorse, asks forgiveness, promises change, and
institutes a period of tranquility, often characterized by victims as a honeymoon-type

atmosphere. Tension then begins to build again, and the cycle repeats. The victim is left

16

believing
future, th
tranquilit
S.

Many wo
patriarch;
subordina
taught to l
CXPCCI a n
Society in
10~ and in 1
Unable to 1
many victi
Thr

the factors
limlcs. v
ahUSlW tel:

Malianm

 

mm} a

meow

believing that they almost had ‘fixed’ the problem, and that if they try harder in the
future, they may be able to make the violence stop and get to a period of sustained
tranquility (Porter, 2002).

Societal norms play a significant role in helping to keep women with violent men.
Many women continue to struggle with self-esteem and self-determination in a
patriarchal society. Many victims become conditioned to believe that their place in life is
subordinate to males (Kasl, 1990; Unterberger, 1989). Victims of domestic abuse are
taught to receive and believe messages that they deserve lesser treatment and cannot
expect a male-dominated society to assist them, or even care about their conditions.
Society in turn, behaves that inherent maternal instinct provides mothers with the ability
to, and in turn expects that they can and will, protect their children even though they are
unable to restrain the abuser or alter the situation (Enos, 1996). All these factors leave
many victims feeling helpless, at fault and isolated (Hart, 1988; Mills, 2000; Stark, 1992).

The abused mother often makes her choices based on a cost-benefit analysis of
the factors that are present in her unique situation (Pfouts, 1978). The sum of the
variables, when the cost is perceived too high, results in holding women hostage to an
abusive relationship. Bowker (1999) further asserts that when the variables of fear,
retaliation, familialpressure, lackofresources, shame, identity loss, victim blaming and
poverty are changed, women will be able to successfully escape and thrive.
Effects of Domestic Abyss on Children

Walker (1979) notes that like their battered mothers, childrenare often victimized
insimilarways bothwithinthecontextofthe abuse,andalsoby systemsdesignedto

protectthem. Davidson(1995)assertstlmttheexposuretoabrutalenvironmentis,in

l7

and of it
nimessi
W'-

numbers
5....”

some Silt
\———-—’—
Edelson.
simessir
S
witnessin
2001 ; Ma
2000; W)
phobias, l
V“
dffiClchll
motor and

En

‘lgllance .
" 1

identified a

 

F

———i

and of itself, an act of child abuse. However, Edelson (1999) asserts that “Defining
av
witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake [in that] doing so ignores the fact that large

I
'—

 

J—

numbers of children in some studies showed no negative development problems and

 

f

 

 

some showed evidence of strong coping abilities” (p. 869). Mills (1988) agreed with

Edelson, finding there is conflicting information on the consequences of children of
witnessing domestic abuse.

Study results have shown both internal and external behavioral effects of
witnessing domestic abuse (Carlson, 1996; Echlin & Marshall, 1995; Groves, 2001; Kent,
2001; Mabanglo, 2002; Malmquist, 1986; McCloskey & Walker, 1993; Ver Steegh,
2000; Wyndham, 1998; Walker, 1984), including depression, suicide, anxiety, fears,

v:

phobias, poor self-image, aggression, acting out, and anti-social behaviors. Cognitive

 

 

deficiencies cited include poor concentration, and testing low on measures of verbal,
motor and cognitive skills expected for corresponding age and developmental stages.
Emotional effects include fear and confusion, conflicted loyalties, hyper-
vigilance, guilt, exterml locus of control, hopelessness and anger. Somatic effects
identified are fi'equent illnesses, insomnia, bed-wetting, elevated blood pressure and
increased heart rate (Pagelow, 1990). Children from violent homes are also more likely

to be injured directly as a victim or indirectly, by either accidentally or purposefully

getting in the line of fire (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).

Socially, children from violent homes have been found, on average, to have lower

levels of social competencies, ‘connectedness’, and interpersonal skills. However,

research that considers socio-economic variables (Kent, 2001; Treppicone, 2001)

disputes some of these findings. Adolescents who have grown up in violent homes are at

18

greater ri.
apt to run
2001). Fi
regarding
depressior

C (
demonstrr
Further, it
unsure t
dft'elOp or
extreme e)
DOmestic ‘
the father‘s
This dint 1
key Vafiahl

flawed a l (

Confljmng

Chamefis

 

 

greater risk of continuing the tradition of violence within their own homes and are more
apt to run away (National Resources Center on Domestic Violence, 2002; Zorza et al,
2001). Finally, effects may include a lifetime of issues, including conspiracy of silence
regarding the violence, substance abuse, poor self-image, anger, criminal behavior and
depression (Zorza, et a1, 2001).

Conversely, as Edelson (1999) and Mills (1988) indicate, studies have
demonstrated that not all children appear to be adversely affected by domestic violence.
Further, intervention, counseling, support and safety can reveme the negative influence of
exposure to interpersonal violence. There is also evidence that resiliency in children to
develop coping mechanisms allows them to survive and recover from even long term and
extreme exposure to domestic abuse (Jaffe et al, 1990; National Resource Center on
Domestic Violence, 2002; Wolf, 2002). As Sullivan and colleagues (2000) found, data on
the father’s level and quality of interaction with the children is absent in prior studies.
This data, when factored in, presents significant findings relative to resiliency. With this
key variable missing, some research on the influence of domestic abuse on children is
flawed, allowing continued focus on the mother as primarily responsible. Adding to
conflicting results, many studies have failed to examine victims’ individual
characteristics, parenting skills of the non-ofi‘ending parent, variables of ethnicity, age,
gender and available support system (Kent, 2001; Trepiccione, 2001).

Garbarino (1995) points out that children exposed to street and school violence

V/
arealsoatriskformanyofthesameefi‘ectslistedabove. Yetthereisnoattemptbyany

f

agencies to hold parents accountable for the exposure to these other types of violence.

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

No failure to protect, neglect or child abuse charges are levied against parents in this

19

situmior
‘uhy do
entrapm:
children
factors 11
h
(Edelson.
1994; Tu
ignoring r
Additions
battered u
(Porter. 2(
tiolenco &

the lllfiratu

sporim

 

situation, as the danger level is seen as something beyond their control. No one asks
‘why don’t you just leave’, as it is accepted that they are unable to escape the economic
entrapment of their situation. Focusing only on the violence and vulnerabilities of
children in violent homes underestimates the coping strategies and other environmental
factors that may increase or mitigate the effects of the violence (Magen, 1999).

Much of the previous research has been questioned on methodological grounds
(Edelson, 1999; Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1988; Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Spaccerelli et al,
1994; Trepiccione, 2001; Wolf, 2002). Identified flaws include varying definitions,
ignoring contributing or mitigating variables, and lack of comparison or control groups.
Additionally, more researchers are encouraging future studies that include the input of
battered women as to the effects of the policies and services they have experienced
(Porter, 2002). She states “The voices of women who have experiences with domestic
violence and child protective services have not been heard. In my numerous reviews of
the literature, I have not been able to find a single study regarding mothers who have
experienced domestic violence and involvement with the child welfare system. This
represents acrucial gap in the literature” (p. 55). On a procedural note, many ofthe
studies cited above are cross-sectional, and their results should not be misconstrued as
causal in nature. Although more research is needed to clearly understand the effects and
predictthosechildrenwhoareatgreatestrisk, thestate’sdesiretosafeguardchildren
living in violent homes has resulted in policies created by legal and social service systems

to address the issue.

20

mm

Ma

9mm
clearly idcr
In Michiga

responsibh

 

(CFP 711-:
Walter v
record that
marker h
abmive 0r
3 the non-
\‘iolence st.
him aCCOUI
\
W
abuse‘ are
“Mario
Roam 1
Sm'ice Ca
regirdlex
to identif;

mother or

Protective Services Response to Domestic Abuse and Embedded Patriarchal Ideologies

Many common child protection strategies may actually increase the danger to

A

AV
(1 the children (Spears, 1996). In most states, the child protection law

clearly identifies one form of neglect as an omission to provide for the safety of children.

 

 

 

A
v
v

 

In Michigan, the CPS manual states that “a non-ofi‘ending caretaker will not be held

 

flv—‘f

responsible for Neglect, thus/e193 Failure to Protect if the child is not at imminent risk”
a w

(CFP 711-5), however in the next paragraph the manual instructs the following: “A

 

caretaker who would otherwise be considered a non-offender but who. . .has a historical
record that shows a documented pattern of domestic violence where the non-ofl‘ending
caretaker has been unable to protect the children must be held responsible for their
abusive or neglectful behavior. In the above situation, the person previously referred to
as the non-offending caretaker is also a perpetrator.” Because of her inability to make the
violence stop, she is categorized as a co-assailant. No clear language W

¥

him accountable for choosing to be violent

 

Women, who constitute an overwhelming majority of the victims of domestic
abuse, are also expected by society to be the primary caregivers for children. Within that
expectation has been assigned the role of primary protector (Aron & Olson, 1997;
Roberts, 1993). It is of interest that as recently as the 1990’s, Michigan child protective
service case files were openedand maintained underthenameofthe child’smother,
regardless ofwhether or not there was a father in the home. Forms used in 2004 continue
to identify a ‘primary caregiver,’ and inall but a few cases, that ‘primary caregiver’ is the

mother or the grandmother. The ‘secondary caregiver’ is, in general, the category

21

assigned to the father. If the adult male in the home is not the biological father, he may
or may not be listed on the form as a caregiver of any sort. Most often, he is not.
It is interesting that other females, such as grandmothers, aunts, and babysitters
m
are expected to have an inherent instinct to protect all children, including those that are

A l w
I not biologically theirs. Court cases described in this document attest to that fact. Yet

 

 

 

 

 

there is no similar expectation of men, even though they are capable of fathering children.
Indeed, even those males who have biological ties to children are rarely held to a standard
of expectations as to their parenting skills.

Founded on the assumption by society that battered women will be best served by
leaving the violent relationship, the legal and social service systems have viewed a victim
staying within a violent relationship as proof that they are unwilling to protect their
children (Jacobs, 1998; Magen, 1999). This may result in their removal from the home,
including from the non-offending parent. Under these terms, a mother may lose her

parental rights under a Failure to Protect charge. According to Lyon (1999), social

 

 

 

service agencies routinely add allegations of domestic abuse to depindency petitions in

\-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Erder to strengthen the case for removal, and as proof that mothers, unable or unwilling to

 

protect themselves, are also unable or unwilling to protect their children, thus making
them parentally unfit.

When removed from a non-offending adult, children are often placed with the
batterer or parent ofthe perpetrator (Aron et al, 1997; Waller, 2001). This is cause for
significant concern, given that most batterers were themselves abused in their childhood

\f— ‘ ”
home (Bacchi, 1999; Osofsky & Fenichel, 1996; Ver Steegh, 2000), and are abusing the
M

 

 

children as well as the mother in over fifty percent of the time (Jones et al, 2000). The
\‘ f. "

 

22

1

practice of pll
though likcl)
well as the li
use the obvi

n'ctim. rcsuf

children (82

 

practice of placing removed children with the perpetrator or his family is obviously risky,
though likely unintentionally so, as “perpetrators are ofien invisible in CPS records as
well as the literature on child protection and domestic violence” (Stark, 1995). Batterers
use the obvious limitations of this practice to maintain and increase their control over the
victim, resulting in victims being hesitant to access social services for fear of losing their
children (Bancroft, 2001; Carter, 1995; Waller, 2001).

When removed and placed with foster or adoptive parents, there is no clear

 

 

 

 

- W
evidence that children of abused mothers will find greater permnence or become safer as
M /

 

 

aresultoftheremovalandplacement. Infact, ifthemother’srightsareterminated
A?

before the mother has the time to establish herself as a competent caretaker independent
of the batterer, the child is in jeopardy of not establishing a positive parent/child
relationship (Lyon, 1999). In Michigan, parents who have had their children removed are

N

given onlyiwelve to eighteen months to stabilize, rehabilitate, reunite and establish a safe

 

 

 

 

 

household before their children are eligible for adoption. The assumptions regarding
4...,”

 

 

removal of children under the Failure to Protect policy are contrary to the policies of fast
track permanency placement through adoption, in that the time limits prevent most
mothers fi'om establishing the autonomy and resources necessary to prove fitness
(Guggenheim, 1995).

The assumptions of permanency placements are to provide, in as short a time as
possible, a stable and permanent caregiver relationship for children. Yet, children
enteringthefostercaresystemareplacedinahomcwherefosterparentsarediscouraged
from establishing strong attachments to their foster children. Children who are not

adoptable may find themselves in a veritable rotating door system of multiple foster care

23

homes, and no hope for a positive parent/child relationship. Guggenheim’s study (1995)
reveals that although there has been a sharp increase in parental rights termination, there
has been no corresponding increase in adoptions. If not adopted, it must be assumed that
the children are lost somewhere in an already overwhelmed foster care setting with foster
parents who must be somewhat guarded in their attachment to the children in their care.

Huxtable (1994) and Porter (2002) found that practitioners received little training
and relied heavily on their own beliefs and past personal history as assessment and case
management tools when dealing with families experiencing violence. This reference base
is often rooted in society’s many myths on domestic abuse, including who is responsible
for the abuse, and who is responsible for the safety within the family (Gordon, 1988).
Gordon found that these workers blame the mothers for being battered and hold them
responsible for exposing the children to violence. Gordon also found that workers
demanded women leave the relationship in order to safeguard their children with little
knowledge regarding the reasons why they may not be able to leave. Aron and Olson
(1997) found that few caseworkers have the tools they need to address the complex issues
facing them in cases of domestic abuse. They urged workers to consider that instead of
seeing the mother as ‘failing to protect,’ they should consider that the same danger that
Wthechfldrendmthreflmsflwmothermndthmmmgiesthancebothflre
mother and child’s best interests be developed.

Most states have assessment protocols designed to assist workers in evaluating
cases based upon categorical criteria. In Michigan for example, workers use a flowchart
of possible responses and a system called Structured Decision Making (CPS Manual,

2003). This method assigns numerical scores in a variety of sub-categories, and the sum

24

of the scores
the higher thl
8-12 high: ar
and l0-l6 in
Ther
Decision M;
caretaker] r
holding the
Within this
could scumi
ChikL a 1 it
\iolence,
i“ the mod
If It
for [he 00n
PWnce 0
moderate t

 

 

of the scores of all categories determines the perceived level of risk: the higher the score,
the higher the perceived risk. The risk scale for neglect scores is: 0-4 low; 5—7 moderate;
8-12 high; and 13-20 intensive. The scale for abuse is: 0-2 low; 3-5 moderate; 6-9 high;
and 10-16 intensive.

TherearetwotypesofcaretakersthatareconsideredwithintheStrucuued
Decision Making process, a ‘primary caretaker’ (usually the mother), and a ‘secondary
caretaker,’ most often the biological father. This in and of itself begins the process of
holding the mother primarily responsible for the welfare of the children in the home.
Within this system, a non-ofl'ending adult who is being investigated for child neglect
could scorea l forthe call beingacomplaintofneglect, a 1 ifshehasmorethanone
child, a 1 if she is less than twenty-nine years old, a 2 for the presence of domestic
violence, and a l ifshe is poor. This totals a neglect score of6 points, and she is already
in the moderate score range.

If the complaint is for suspected abuse, the non-offending adult could score a 1
for the complaint being for abuse, a 1 if she has more than one child, and a l for the
presence of domestic violence. This total of three points again places the mother in the
moderate score range. Moderate scores will not result in the opening of a CPS file.
However, there are other categories that ofien apply to domestic abuse victims that could
further raise her score.

If the mother is perceived as taking the clmrges less seriously than the CPS
worker, they will receive an additional point. If they are perceived to be poorly-
motivated to improve parenting skills; if there is a prior CPS service history; if they are

judged to lack self esteem; appear apathetic or hopeless; were abused themselves as a

25

child; I
they w:

of dom

central

caregi v.
have a c
interven
welfare

holds [h
Victim u
2001, p.1
fimdame
Care and

abUSe. B
intereSt ir

adUllasa

child; have a secondary caretaker tlmt uses excessive discipline or appears domineering,
they would receive additional points, placing them in the high range. Given the context
ofdomesficabusc,theiroddsofscofingpointsinanyofthaecategoriesisfairly
substantial. Whenaparcntscoresinthehighrange,acaseisopenedandisplacedonthe
centralregistry. Withtheonusonthemothersforthebehaviorsofthe ‘secondary
camgiver’mthehome,amitheflkcfihoodthmmcymaybepoor,appeuexhwste¢md
haveadomincedngpmmamhmshdiscipfimymcfiegtheymndmhavesigruficant
interventionbyCPS. 'I'hissystemappearstobeyetfirrtherevidencetlntthechild
welfamsystandoesmtmkemmwnsiderafionflncomplexiswesofdomesdcahnc,
holds the mother unreasonably accountable for her assailant’s behaviors, and punishes the
victimunjustly.

“Failure to Protect policies foster a web of conflicting interest” (T repiccione,
2001, p.1498). The state has an interest in the welfare ofthe child. Mothers have a
firndamentalrighttohavecustodyandcareoftheirchildren. Fathersalsohavearightto
careandcustodyoftheirchildren. Thesethreeinterestsofienclashincasesofdomestic
abuse. Both child protection workers and domestic violence victim advocates share an
interestinendingfamilyviolence. However,thereisapcrceptionthattosupportthe
adultasavictimistosomehowignorethcneedsofthechildren,andthatthemother,
through pereeivedinacticn, mustbecomplicitintheirabuse(Aron&Olson, 1997;
Kaufmann-Kantor & Little, 2002). This clearly is out of synch with research showing
thatthemajorityofabusedwomencaredeeplyabomtheirchildrenandwanttoprotect

them from further violence, poverty, and isolation (Davies et al, 1988; Schecter &

26

Edeh

for n

initiat
David
effect;
Cook 4

choice

inaSoI

Edelson, 1999). In fact, abused mothers oflen cite their children as the primary motivator
for their attempts to leave (Roberts & Burman, 1988).

There is a lack of constructive coordination and general mistrust between the
initiatives of child welfare and domestic violence victim services (Carter, 1995;
Davidson, 1999; Edelson, 1995; Schechter and Edelson, 1994) that can prevent an
effective response designed to safeguard both adult and child victims. As Field and
Cook (1994) discovered, the common myth that a victim can stop the violence simply by
choice is at the heart of a mother’s risk‘to be labeled an abusive or neglectful parent.

McCroskey and Meezan (1997) found that not only were one-third of the mothers
in a Southern California family preservation program victims of abuse, but a majority of
the workers in the program felt that family violence was an issue unlikely to be addressed
by services. Workers also revealed their own fear of the abuser in the home (McCroskey
& Meezan, 1997; Porter, 2002). This is consistent with research characterizing abusive
men involved with CPS as being more dangerous, more pathological, and lower in
cognitive functioning (Aron & Olson, 1997). When faced with dangerous abusers, many
CPS workers quickly shifi focus to the mother, who is perceived to be more manageable
(Farmer, 1997). This may be due to the fact that male batterers, compared to non-
batterers, exert greater negative influence on their children than do even aggressive
mothers; are less involved in child-rearing; less physically affectionate to children; less
likely to use reasoning in response to children’s behavior; and more likely to use physical
punishment and authoritative responses (Anderson & Cramer-Benjamin, 1999; Holden &
Richie, 1991). In cases where mental health workers are involved, workers are more

likely to classify the violence as mutual conflict rather than abuse (Dalton, 1999). This

27

clearly
it is etc

of it.

trained
one of t
women
she are
and wort
\iolence

for help,

abtse. A

 

clearly defies the accepted definition of domestic violence. Given these misconceptions,
it is easy to see how victims are more likely to be blamed for the abuse than assisted out
of it.

Porter (2002) calls the abused mother “who is trying to convince an inadequately
trained agent of the social service system that she is worthy of parenting her children is
one of the most voiceless and disempowered members of our society” (p. 9). Ironically,
women who kill their abusers are treated better by service systems than battered women
who are charged with Failure to Protect (Lyon, 1999). Victims facing punitive policies,
and workers who blame the victim for the situation and hold her accountable for the
violence of her partner, ensure that they are less likely to call on social service systems
for help, report the abuse of their children, or cooperate with workers investigating the
abuse. Although adult and child victimizations are seen as separate issues by social
systems, victims are nevertheless lumped together with the violent partner as a ‘parental
unit’ of one by both CPS and the courts (Dohrn, 1995).

Legal System Rgsmnse to Domestic Abuse and Reliance on CPS standards

The legal response to both mothers and children who are victims of domestic
abuse is experienced as punitive by both sets of victims (Kopels and Sheridan, 2002;
Lyon, 1999; Trepiccione, 2001). Lyon notes that the court often relies on battered
women’s syndrome, traumatic bonding and learned helplessness theories in justifying the
removal of children. These theories are based on pathological models that characterize
the battered woman as delusional or irrational, fail to recognize the woman’s legitimate
recognition of imminent danger should they attempt to sever the relationship with their

assailant, and lack empirical support (Browne 1993; Dalton, 1999; Dutton, 1993).

28

violent
Dalton
\ictim:
probler
detiniti
guilt}: c
herself

A
stereos-
NUffllrir
[0 OVerc

Knottin‘i

children

 

Interestingly enough, the traumatic bonding theory is not used to pathologize or
stigrnatize hostages we consider ‘heroes’ . . .such as prisoners of war.

Patriarchal ideologies are particularly evident in the legal response to domestic
violence (Czapanskiy, 1993; Delgato, 1999; Freeman, 1982; Jacobs, 1998; Myers, 2002).
Dalton (1999) categorizes the obstacles in terms of naming the problem, identifying
victims of abuse, and prioritizing victim safety. Stone (1988) also frames social
problems in the context of larger issues, stating that the struggle over such things as
definitions are more struggles over the structure of social organization. Courts may be
guilty of demonizing a mother charged with failure to protect even though the mother
herself is a victim of violence (Epstein, 1999; F ordham, 2000).

According to Epstein (1999), women are valued and judged against three maternal
stereotypes: l) The All-Sacrificing Mother, 2) The All-Knowing Mother, and 3) The
Nurturing Mother/Breadwinning Father. In this structure, the All-Sacrificing Mother is
to overcome any obstacle, no matter how impossible, to protect her young. In the All-
Knowing Mother, society expects the mother will intuitively know everything about her
children and therefore be held to a higher standard of blame in contrast to their male
partners, whom society accepts as ignorant in the ways of children. The Nurturing
Mother/Breadwinning Father is expected, as her sole activity, to raise children while the
father is expected to provide the resources needed to sustain the family. These
stereotypes hold women to a higher standard of care-giving responsibility than their male
partners, who are viewed as having a supporting, but secondary role, and ignore the
changed reality of today’s multi-role mother. Further, it implies women should not aspire

to and cannot succeed in financial independence.

29

Dz
research
judges tc
disregan
in ensuri
operate t
tictims (
prevent i
should be
(Enos, 1‘;

l n
the abuse
“10 are n
19%; Mit-
SW? 01’“
someOne v
the abuse.

andteam

 

"mm the
mCapt: of I
d“ to bci
Children

this infer

 

Dalton (1999) declared a lack of integration of theory and practice, the conflicting
research, and superficial training has had a negative effect in the court system, allowing
judges to continue operating within a faulty paradigm. According to Dalton, courts often
disregard legislative intent, either intentionally or through ignorance, and cited problems
in ensuring an assailant’s violent history does not go undetected or unnoticed. Courts
operate under other assumptions our society holds as it pertains to mothers who are also
victims of abuse: 1) Mothers should have inherent knowledge of abuse and the ability to
prevent it; 2) Battered women’s fears are exaggerated and unbelievable; and 3) Parents
should be treated as a single unit, but with child welfare responsibility as a maternal role
(Enos, 1996).

In CPS investigations and court rulings, the responsibility to predict and prevent
the abuse is placed on the adult victim, requiring mothers to protect children fi'om fathers
who are responsible for the injury to children as a result of their choice to batter (Enos,
1996; Miccio, 1995). In State of North Carolina v. Aleen E. Walden (1982), and again in
State of Wisconsin v. T any Williquette (1986), the courts found that leaving a child with
someone who is known to abuse the child demonstrates intent by the mother to perpetuate
the abuse. However, if a woman leaves and takes her children without the knowledge
and permission of the father, the mother can be charged with kidnapping and ordered to
return the children to the father, regardless of the reasons for fleeing. The attempted
escape of the mother when financially unstable may cause a woman to lose her children
due to being unable to provide for them (Dutton, 1993). If women leave without the
children, CPS can charge them with abandonment. Many perpetrators take advantage of

this information and ensure that the victims are never alone with all of their children at

30

one tir

situmi.

proof (
failed I
relatior
either p
mother
(In the 1
make he
0356. an
“known
Son's fat]
Terms (:0
Should 5C
In
appeal of ;
“Chum

One year.

 

p31“ L’Htin g i
may ente

httbaud

one time (Sisco, 1993). The adult victims and their children are in a legal no-win
situation.

Courts often misconstrue the victim’s inability or reticence to leave her abuser as
proof of an unwillingness to protect her children. However, the court has historically
failed to understand the reasons why it may be unwise for a victim to leave the abusive
relationship (Enos, 1996; In the Interest of CDC, 1990; Lyon, 1999). Victims are seen as
either pathological or complicit. In one case, the court ruled to terminate rights of the
mother because it was perceived by a psychologist that she had a “passive personality”
(In the Interest of A. V., 1987, p. 781). The ‘passive personality,’ it was argued, would
make her less likely to protect her children and more likely to accept abuse. In another
case, an Indiana court convicted Bonnie Shelton of accessory to a crime because she
“knowingly and intentionally allowed her son to die because she failed to prevent her
son’s father fiom killing the chil ” (Grossier, 1991). In the Interest of S. D.S. (1983), a
Texas court held that it was not only the efforts of the mother to protect her children that
should be considered, but also the relative success of those efforts.

In the Matter of Farley (1991), a Michigan court of Appeals refused to hear the
appeal of a mother, Sharon Benn, whose rights had been terminated, even though she
successfully left the relationship, had lived apart from the assailant for a period of over
one year, had visited the children on a regularly scheduled basis, and had completed the
parenting classes ordered by the Family Independence Agency. Testing showed her to be
motivated to protect her children, but the concerns of two mental health workers that she
may enter another abusive relationship or at some time might return to the abusive

husband gave the court the justification needed to terminate her parental rights. Her

31

assaila
abuse '

her chi

enforce
“11h ad
experic
police.

love for
mmhh
batterer.
Categon}
1991), 5
their 0“]

3 “Oman

heldtw

 

assailant, Robert Benn, was not charged with child abuse and additional charges of sexual
abuse were dropped by the prosecutor’s office. He received no punishment, yet she lost
her children. His parental rights were not terminated.

F leury and colleagues (1998) found that victims also face barriers within the law
enforcement communities. Perpetrators may rip phones from walls and threaten victims
with additional violence if they attempt to involve the police. For some victims, past
experiences with police that were unfavorable prevented them fi-om re-contacting the
police. A small number of participants within the sample cited embarrassment, shame, or
love for the perpetrator prevented them from calling. However, victims often do not fare
much better when the police are called. Law enforcement officers may side with the
batterer, underreport episodes of domestic abuse, and like the mental health system,
categorize them as ‘fights, arguments, or miscellaneous non-criminal incidents’ (Caputo,
1991). Saunders and Size (1986) found oflicers to be apt to blame the victim based on
their own traditional perspectives of women’s roles. This could be a significant factor in
a woman’s decision to call or not call the police.

Batterer’s Accountabilig and Manipulation of Svstems
According to Sosnick (1994), the most effective means of addressing domestic

 

abuse the court can provide is to hold the offender, not the victim, accountable for the
violence. This accountability should be equally assessed against both genders. Yet,
“Ironically, no man has ever been prosecuted for his failure to protect his children from
an abusive mother” (Davidson, 1995, p. 357). Perpetrators of domestic abuse are not
held to the same level of accmmtability for children as the victim of the abuse (Appel,

1997; Dohrn, 1995; Enos, 1996; Frieze et al, 1984; National Council of Juvenile and

32

Family 1
are calli
protect t
Violette
them at
treatmen
abuser is
severely
mother.
A
mother u
killing or.
I110ther. a
1013mm
men thou
blfllogical
SWpathg
no Itsldc
Children ,
lllcrefoh.
for the cl
Wm;

fEither “1'

Family Court Judges, 1994; Scott, 1996; Whatley and Riggio, 1993), and recent studies
are calling for research on the parenting skills and strengths of victims as they strive to
protect their children from interpersonal violence (National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence, 2002). Society’s desire for women to be good mothers and a need to punish
them when they are perceived as not being good mothers is at the heart of the disparate
treatment (McDonald, 1998). The reality, according to Lyon (1999), is that although the A
abuser is to blame and should be held accountable, more often than not, if a child is
severely endangered, it is the child that is forced out of their home and away from their
mother. This, then, punishes both the adult and child victims for the abuser’s behavior.

A case in point is In the interest of Brown (1980). In Brown, the rights of a
mother were terminated when her abuser, the children’s stepfather, was convicted of
killing one daughter and sexually molesting another. The court concluded that the
mother, although she herself had been severely abused, had “as any parent, the obligation
to protect a child against harm.” The court was unable to excuse her failure to protect
even though she had no control over her circumstances. However, the children’s
biological, non-custodial father was held to a different standard. The court
sympathetically noted that he was unemployed, in significant arrears in child support, had
no residence and therefore refused to hold him accountable of failing to protect his
children from their stepfather. His parental rights were not terminated. The court,
therefore, accepted his failure to protect his children by reason of his failure to provide
for the children. Amazingly, in their decision, the court excused the father’s lack of
protection by stating that the stepfather was “a violent man and that any approach by the

father would have been met with reprisals of demoniac variety” and that the father’s

33

fitness should not be judged by his success at carrying out those responsibilities, or his
lack of efforts to do so. This is clearly at odds with the standards expected of the mother,
and is common practice in criminal and family courts across this nation (Miller, 1988).

More recently, in Campbell v. State (2000), a Wyoming court found Casey
Campbell guilty of the felony of child endangerment. Campbell had returned fi'om work
to find her daughter had been badly burned. Her live-in boyfriend explained that he had
hipped and spilled coffee on her. Because the boyfriend had been abusive in the past, she
feared his response to her seeking immediate help for the girl. Instead, she waited until
she could get away, and took her child to the hospital, where a doctor called police.
Campbell was convicted in March, 2000 of a felony. The abuser received a conviction
and very light sentence for a misdemeanor.

In a Massachusetts case, Commonwealth v. Lazarovich (1991), Janice Lazarovich
was found guilty of committing mayhem and assault and battery on her 2-year-old child.
The defendant related an extensive history of abuse including being hit repeatedly with a
tire iron while pregnant with her daughter. After repeated requests for help from police
that afforded her no help, her husband held the baby up with one hand and held a hunting
knife in the other. He told Janice that the next time she tried to get help, he would cut
offthe baby’shead. HethrewJaniceagainstthewalLdroppedthebaby, andbeatan
older child while Janice lay unconscious and the baby lay crying on the floor. Janice,
afraid to leave the older children with her husband while she sought medical care for the
baby, was unable to get away with the children and take the baby to a hospital until the

next day. Still, the court ignored experts who testified in her defense, and she was

34

$601ch

receive

for the l
affects t
that is d
not the r
exist (E1
“father \
respormi
agencies
between

B
adt'amag.
Palmar, ;
for their a
DUIIOrL 1
chlldren l

Palmer.

 

l
hinds of

ifl’OSsil

sentenced to eleven to sixteen years in prison, roughly the same sentence her husband
received.

According to Kent (2001), batterers need to not only be held solely responsible
for the battering as criminal conduct, they must also be educated on how their behavior
affects their children. Domestic abuse is justified in the mind of the abuser, and is a habit
that is diflicult to break (Goolkasian, 1986; Kent, 2001). It is clear that the problem is
not the mother’s failure but the father’s abuse. If he were not abusive, no problem would
exist (Enos, 1996; Stark, 1995). Czapanskiy (1993) describes the disparate situation as a
“father who torments, threatens, and abuses his partner is the source of, and is thus
responsible for, the harm to his children. Nevertheless courts, police, social service
agencies, and healthcare providers routinely ignore the substantial interrelationship
between women abuse and child abuse.”

Batterers have used the systems of CPS, the courts, and law enforcement to their
advantage (Zorza, 1998). Many batterers are master manipulators (Hart 1988; Pence &
Paymar, 1983; Ver Steegh, 2000; Zorza, 1998), and are successful at putting the blame
for their actions on others (Adams, 1989; American Psychological Association, 1996;
Dutton, 1992; Goldolf, 1998; Pence & Paymar, 1993). They will often use their own
children in order to continue to hurt their partners (Dutton, 1992; Liss, 1993; Pence &
Paymar, 1983) through custody litigation, even when the assailant has no history of the
slightest interest in parenting (Zorza, 1998).

Dalton, (1999) found that the courts’ favoring of joint custody plays right into the
hands of batterers. Courts are placed in the position of determining the better parent, and

if possible, maintaining the parental rights of both individuals involved. They often turn

35

to expert witnesses for guidance. According to Zorza (1996), “Further complicating
courts’ understanding of the credibility and culpability of the parties is the fact that few
therapists and custody evaluators have any (or sufficient) training in or understanding of
domestic violence” (p.78). The problem goes beyond therapists. The American
Psychological Association (1996) also cites that guardians ad litem and court-appointed
special advocates are seldom knowledgeable about domestic abuse. The court is
operating under misinformation from the very individuals accepted as experts.
Interestingly, research shows that joint custody is no more or less beneficial than sole
custody, and in fact is contraindicated in cases of domestic abuse (Dalton, 1999).

A majority of highly disputed custody cases involve a history of partner abuse
(Ayoub et al, 1999). Research shows that batterers will use custody as a means of staying
connectedtotheirvictim, andmayusethethreatofcontinuedharmtothem during
visitations in order to continue to control the victim (Bancroft & Silverman, 2000).
Custody battles are particularly perilous for victims. In this setting, they are judged based
on a perspective that the domestic violence is mutual conflict, rather than criminal
conduct by one person directed at another. Under this assumption, the mother is
perceived as the problem (Dalton, 1999). With the court’s goal of establishing joint
custody and identification of a friendly, cooperative parent, the batterer comes out ahead.
The batterer asks for sole or joint custody, presenting himselfas the victim of a
hysterical, diminished, conflict inciting, impulsive or over-protective, alarmist mother
(Hart, 1988; Ver Steegh, 2000). He appears calm, endearing, logical, caring, concerned,
willing to share custody fairly, and the more cooperative, attractive parent for joint, if not

primary custody (Adams, 1998; Bograd, 1999; Gefi‘ner et al, 1999).

36

handifl
idea of
uncoop
chfldret
rehnhrn
court u

3N CONS

1988; Z
concemr
accept or
the 001m:
Edining j.
““386 Stu

(GODdQIL

Studl 0ft

 

In contrast, a battered woman ofien enters into court exhausted fi'orn the ordeal,
fearful for her children, hyper-vigilant, inarticulate, hopeless, angry, disagreeable to the
idea of having the batterer have access to her and her children, and therefore
uncooperative (Dalton, 1999; Ver Steegh, 2000). Ironically, the mother’s fight to protect
children fi'om the batterer is expected by the courts and CPS while the victim is in the
relationship in order to avoid failure to protect charges, but is inappropriate behavior in
court; where she is considered uncooperative, unfriendly, and her protective behaviors
are considered grounds for decisions against her (Smith & Coukos, 1997; Zorza, 1992).

Batterers are also adept at manipulating mental health professionals (Gondolf,
1988; Zorza, 1998). The batterer once again may appear rational, cooperative and
concerned about his children. He may admit to the abuse, seem contrite, and readily
accept counseling or intervention for his problem. Studies show that assailants will use
the counseling sessions to achieve their goals of having charges against them dropped,
gaining joint custody of their children, and/or getting their paMer to return to them.
These studies also show they are likely to drop out once their goals are achieved
(Gondolf, 1988).

The United States Department of Justice (2000) sponsored two studies to
determine the effectiveness of batterer’s intervention services. The first was a yearlong
study of over four hundred batterers who were assigned to either an intervention group
for six months of intervention and counseling sessions, or a control group. Disturbingly,
there were no significant differences post-study between the individuals assin to the
intervention and the control group in attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. The recidivism rates

were nearly identical. The second study involved a similar sample split into three groups:

37

one ass
inlCh’Cl
shovt ed
for all t
hold litt
ensure I
for their
a financ
fitaliato
effect of
agencies
aclually t
noted the
abuse (A
m

T.
relic“s tl
hey are ‘

diSTEgaI 4'

one assigned to a twenty-six week intervention program, one to an eight week
intervention program, and one to community service alone. The results, once again,
showed that the batterers stayed violence-free while in treatment, but the recidivism rates
for all three groups showed no significant difference. This suggests that these programs
hold little promise as a solution to the issue, and that batterers instead will use them to
ensure that they are seen as reasonable and logical individuals, and to avoid consequences
for their abuse.

Assailants also use cross or counterclaims and contempt charges in order to exact
a financial and emotional cost to their victims (Edelson, 1992). Abusers frequently file
retaliatory litigation around the issues of child support and custody, sometimes having the
effect of driving the victims into financial instability, and then report them to CPS
agencies as financially unfit (Pence & Paymar, 1993 ). Some women and their children
actually end up penniless and homeless as a result of these tactics. Again, it should be
noted that half of America’s homeless women and children are homeless due to domestic
abuse (Zorza, 1998).
Racial lEthnic Issues in Cases of Dow AM

The invisibility of minority and marginalized individuals in the research literature
reflects their status in a majority and male-dominated society, and the perspective that
they are somehow less a victim. Women of color, poor women, and women society
disregard due to their sexual orientation have significant levels of domestic abuse, yet are
virtually silent in the context of research (Bograd, 2000). Almeida and colleagues
(1998) reportthat victims’ barriers to seeking help are often rooted in issues ofrace and

class. Asbury, (1999); Coley and Beckett, (1988); and West, (1998) cite methodological

38

hdsr
in the c
class. c

1998; l

incidem
mmsh
Reed
pawn
Baht
and Pam
“MEMa
comm,1
mey
COunci] l

p00r fam

{ml for
efiecllt’el

Childrm

 

undCIEm‘

 

faults with most studies on cases of domestic violence because researchers failed to factor
in the co-variables of class and race. Without understanding the influence of race and
class, culturally competent services and research are virtually impossible (Hampton et al,
1998; Hampton and Yung, 1996; Nefi’ et al, (1995).

Tj aden and Thoennes (2000) found that differences between races in the
incidence of domestic violence virtually disappear when the variable of socio-economic
status is controlled. Bograd (2000) found that domestic abuse is inversely related to
socio—economic status. However, other studies have found no correlation between
poverty or minority status and the occurrence of child abuse or neglect (Appel, 1997;
Becker, 1995). This is significant for this study, in tlmt the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges (1998) reported that battered women who are also poor are
particularly vulnerable to CPS interaction, including the loss of their children, when the
community does not recognize and provide support services designed to address their
poverty. With new lifetime limits and sanctions on welfare benefits, the National
Council goes on to warn of increased vulnerability and involvement with the courts for
poor families.

Bent-Goodley (2001) revealed that income has consistently been a significant
factor for African Americans experiencing domestic abuse. Lacking sufficient resources
effectively traps many women in the situation, unable to sustain themselves or their
children without the resources of the batterer. In addition, unemployment or
underemployment issues and having to ‘double up’ in housing situations may make
leaving impossible (Sampson, 1997; Stets, 1991). Higher rates of unemployment and
underemployment rates are evident within marginalized populations, and systems that

39

require

1994).

has root
issue as
sexual c
stabilize
and CPS
color (A
housing.
cultural];
5110063st
8: Rump.

S.
SOClal ins

3001). Ir.

mlSlnBt ‘
mil? dt

 

 

 

require a fee for service make getting help difficult (Marsh, 1993; Sullivan & Rumptz,
1994)

Disparate treatment by social institutions against those who are poor or of color
has roots in the fabric of society (Rainford, 2004). Stark and Flitcrafi (1995) flame the
issue as “The very problems caused by social inadequacies based on sex, class, race,
sexual orientation or age propel women to seek help from a system that reproduces and
stabilizes those inequalities” (p. 58). Social science research has shown that the courts
and CPS target hundreds of thousands of women who are disproportionately poor and of
color (Appel, 1997; Dennis et al, 1995). Issues such as being unable to secure adequate
housing, not having access to quality educational opportunities, not being able to accesss
culturally competent services, and stereotypical labeling prevent women from
successfully escaping their violent partner (Bent-Goodley, 2001; Bograd, 2000; Sullivan
& Rumptz, 1994).

Sexism, racism and classism are all part of the social norms that permeate the
social institutions charged with assisting women, children and families (Bent-Goodley,
2001). In cases of race, women of color may not report their abuse, are more likely to
mistrust the social institutions, and may obstruct efforts to isolate the perpetrator from the
family due to racial loyalty and out of anger for the discrimination their partners face in
the courts of this country (Bachman & Coker, 1995; Franklin, 2000; Sarmders & Size,
1986; Schechter & Edelson, 1999; Sullivan & Rumptz, 1994; West, 1999).

Intersections of race, socio-economic status, and gender color the meaning and
nature of violence differently in people along the margins. Numerous researchers have

found that women of color are more likely to sustain severe and life threatening injuries

40

from d
and co
(1997)
Yet the
& Rum
lflllUCllt

domesti.
area. the
is more I
Sullivan
exPose/d

Protect tl.

paleflllng

fimeSS- ll

 

from domestic abuse more often than their white counterparts (F agan, 1996; Hampton
and colleagues, 1998; Hampton and Yung, 1996; Sullivan & Rumptz, 1994). Joseph
(1997) identified domestic abuse as the number one health issue for African Americans.
Yet there are significant barriers to women of color getting quality health care (Sullivan
& Rumptz, 1994). These inequities in services compound the already significant
influence of domestic abuse on the poor and/or people of color.
Related Assumptions

Society assumes several things about parenting and child welfare as it pertains to
domestic abuse. While the parenting skills of victims are the focus of research in this
area, the research on the parental skills of perpetrators is virtually non—existent. This fact
is more the product of societal norms than a lack of a researchable project. According to
Sullivan and colleagues (2000), adult survivors are perceived to ‘allow’ children to be
exposed to domestic violence, being unable or, even more judgrnentally, ‘unwilling’ to
protect their children. This places advocates in the role of defending their client’s
parenting strategies and resorting to safety planning as proof of parental stability and
fitness. Ironically, the traits and skills victims develop to cope with daily life-threatening
circumstances, including safety planning strategies, are not necessarily those that the
court or social service workers may find valuable (Phillips, 1992). A case in point is the
mother who must balance ajealous partner who will not tolerate her taking attention
awayfromhimandtowardtheirchildren. lfsheattendstothechild, she andthechildare
atriskofhiswrath,andifshedoesnot, sheisseenasaneglectful parent.

The fact that the perpetrator’s parenting skills are virtually ignored is the product

of society’s assumptions that the safety of children is a burden that is exclusive to women

41

(Kaufm:
tictims'
her. but
lnteresti.
can be a
gmndmc
from the
professei
Stereotnr

C
issues of
PTOtectmi
\ictim 8a

their [not]

mumplic

thatthe

 

(Kaufinann—Kantor & Little, 2002). Yet research shows that when attention is focused on
victims’ protective skills as a test of fitness for parenting, danger increases not just for
her, but for her children as well (National Resource on Domestic Violence, 2002).
Interestingly, gender bias in this context does not apply only to mothers. The accused
can be any female with a relationship of care to the child. In Phillips v. Diehm (1995), a
grandmother was successfully prosecuted on the basis of failure to protect her grandson
fiorn the sexual abuse by the child’s step-grandfather, even though the grandmother
professed no knowledge of the abuse. The grandmother was held to the same maternal
stereotype of being all-knowing and all-sacrificing.

CPS and advocates for women have different perspectives on how to deal with the
issues of domestic and child abuse. CPS works to preserve the family unit while
protecting the children. Domestic abuse survivor advocates believe that by facilitating
victim safety through services, advocacy and social reform, children become safer as
their mother is protected from the assailant (Schechter & Edelson, 1999). The CPS
assumption underlying this difference in perspectives is that to support children requires
that the mother be held accountable for protecting her children from the abuser.

Society also assumes that battered women are somehow attracted to the abuse.
Thisassumptionmaybebasedonthestatisticsofwomenwhoremrntotheirabuser. It
has been estimated (Strube, 1988) that as many as halfof the women experiencing abuse
returntotheirabuser. Inferencesmadeaboutthe meaningofthis statistic couldbe
considered poor science without first factoring in why they are unable to leave. In regard
to a ‘death-wish attraction,’ Hofl’ (1990) and Walker (1993) found that battered women

were not likely to enter into another violent relationship when able to safely leave.

42

Addition
hand:
when fir;
A
available
with the
Button ( T
inform]
escalates
sources, :

serve wh

 

Additionally, Rounsaville (1978) found that most abused women had not been previously
in a violent relationship. Sullivan (2000) found most women reported being surprised
when first confionted with his violence.

Another assumption is that battered women do not help themselves by seeking
available help or attempting to leave, which researchers have found to be inconsistent
with the way that women deal with abusive relationships (Skinazi, 1997; Sullivan, 2000).
Dutton (1993) presented several studies that show abused women seek both formal and
informal somees of assistance, and use more creative and intense efforts as the abuse
escalates. It is also assumed that for those women seeking assistance from outside
sources, services are relevant, non-judgmental, easily accessed, and have the capacity to
serve when requested.

[hegCurrent Study

The purpose of this study was to explore: l) The meaning domestic abuse
survivors assigned to CPS and other systemic interaction, 2) The situations in which
interventions occurred, and 3) The intended and unintended consequences of the
interventions. It was hoped the study would lend information as to how the interaction
was experienced by the adult victim. It was intended to answer how the intervention
helped or did not help the situation within the family unit and how and why the
interaction shaped or did not shape the victim’s decision making. The study was
intended to discover the consequences of participants’ interaction with related systems,
both intended and unintended. The information on settings in which the intervention

occurred allowed for cross comparison between cases, and along demographic variables.

43

ofxir
The s
thezfl
respo
shoul
or5}s
lherl
chfldn
power

Concer

 

 

Through the application of qualitative methodology, it was intended that the voice
of victims, as to their real lived experiences, would be heard, understood, and valued.
The study explored the interface of CPS, other related systems, and policies that affect
the ability of women to live safely with their children. Finally, the project sought to find
responsible options for dealing with situations of concurrent child and partner abuse. It
should be noted that the intentions of the researcher is not to be critical of any individual
or systems, but rather to begin a dialogue around the situations in which the women lived.
The desire is that this discussion will lead to policies and practices that both protect
children and build capacity within the family unit, to promote an even distribution of
power and resources within the family unit that supports the development of all

concerned.

44

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the rationale for a qualitative research paradigm, the
selection of sites and population, the data collection and analysis procedures, the
trustworthiness of the design, the biography and epoche of the researcher, and finally, the
ethical and political considerations of the study.

Rationale

According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), “one cannot understand human
actions without understanding the meaning that participants attribute to those actions—
their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, values and assumptive worlds” (p. 57). Women who
have had their parental rights threatened because of domestic abuse are virtually absent in
the literature. Their experience is minimized; relegated to documented court records,
CPS statistics on complaints and removals, and as footnotes in law journals. Women
who have significant interaction with CPS within the context of domestic abuse have not
had an opportunity to describe to a listening community how they have experienced the
interaction.

To understand an issue of such complexity, to understand the personal and
societal cost and benefit of any policy, it is not enough to count the numbers and
investigate the variations in those numbers between groups. This should not be
considered a condemnation of quantitative methods of scientific research. In cases where
the parameters of the issue are known, quantitative methods provide the most effective

means to ensure validity and reliability. In the case of this study, the parameters for

45

poss
the r.

$0111

Acco
resear
know
know]
have 3
very a
assum;
rescarc
lived e)
Phenom
aPPfOpr.
l
documer
allows f
hcongjs
implem -
plohlern

1999).

 

possible responses were unknown. Without understanding which questions to ask, what
the range of responses might be, and what categories would be necessary to group and
sort the data, the use of an inflexible, preconceived structure was indefensible.

Certain properties of qualitative methodology made it well suited to this study.
According to Marshall and Rossman (1999), qualitative methods effectively facilitate
research that: 1) delves in-depth into complexities and processes; 2) focuses on little-
known phenomenon; 3) seeks to explore where and why policy, scientific and local
knowledge and practice are at odds; and 4) studies an issue for which relevant variables
have yet to be identified. The concurrent experiences of abuse and CPS interventions are
very complex issues when considered separately, but even more so when combined. The
assumptions of qualitative design also made the process a good match for this study. The
researcher’s interest in exploring the process and outcomes; the emphasis placed on the
lived experience and the participant’s own voice, and the desire to accurately describe the
phenomenon through participants’ lived experiences, made it inductive by nature and
appropriate for qualitative methodology (Creswell, 1994).

The power of qualitative methods as a good fit for investigating policy is well
documented (Marshall, 1987; Marshall and Rossman, 1999). Qualitative methodology
allows for the identification of unanticipated outcomes of policies. It can identify
inconsistencies and conflict built into policies, and how policies may change as they are
implemented at various levels. Qualitative methods also help find natural solutions to
problems that may be outside of the boundaries of the policy (Marshall & Rossman,

1999).

46

clarifi.
fimhei
assign:
partici]
to the r
allower
way thz

DIOCCSS

selected
philosOI
reSearch
(Creme
aboUt wl
‘ePOChe’
ldentify a

Clear the

 

 

The study methodology required that probing questions for the purpose of
clarification be included in the design. Without the flexibility of qualitative methods to
further probe the issue, the researcher was at risk of asking the wrong questions and
assigning the wrong meaning to the responses. Additionally, the probes allowed for
participants to expand on their answers. In completing the literature review, it was clear
to the author that the voices of the victims were missing. The selected qualitative method
allowed for the victims’ own voices to be heard, and the responses to be probed in such a
way that “thick description” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5) would yield valuable explanations of
processes, accurate meanings, and detailed analysis.

Within the qualitative method, several strategies were considered. The strategy
selected for this investigation was phenomenology. Phenomenology has roots in
philosophy, through the work of Edmund Husserl (1 859-193 8), and has been used in
research within the fields of sociology, psychology, health sciences and education
(Creswell, 1998). Pure phenomenology requires that researchers suspend their judgments
about what is real until they are founded on some more certain basis, a process called
‘epoche’. Also termed ‘bracketing,’ phenomenological researchers are required to
identify and set aside all pre-judgments they may have about the phenomenon in order to
clear the stage for the participant voices and meanings.

Pure phenomenological researchers have nothing more than general guidelines for
a design, but are instead required to “develop plans of study especially suited to
understanding the experiential phenomenon that is the object of their study”
(Polkinghome 1989, p. 44). The requirement that researchers enter their work with no

preconceived notions or hypotheses was problematic early on for the author. My

47

extensi
left me
target ;
enterin

tether

toexph
that ma
based it
1973) V
tools th
fDundee
Ofphen

‘0 emer

experie

 

and Pt“:
”56 of

(.1

their.

 

baa, ,

extensive experiences garnered while working with abused women and their children has
left me with many impressions of system function, system policies, and an affinity for the
target population. This knowledge and awareness of the issues precluded me fiom
entering this study with a ‘blank slate’ of preconceptions. To address this issue, I turned
to the work of Campbell (2002) and Lester (2006).

Pure phenomelological research is designed to be descriptive in nature, rather than
to explain the phenomena (Tester, 2006). However, the model has several other qualities
that made it the strategy of choice for the study. The ability to identify the phenomenon
based in the perceptions of those experiencing it, through a thick description (Geertz,
1973) was the key purpose of the study. Also, phenomenology encourages the use of
tools that are inductive in nature: interviews and deep discussion. The strategy is
founded on the philosophy that personal, and therefore inherently subjective knowledge
of phenomena allows those on the outside to assess and describe the experience as lived,
not perceived.

The feminist perspective on this approach is to disclaim the ability of researchers
to enter into any study believing that there is or can be no inherent bias. Our own lived
experiences provide a framework for who we are, what we believe, and how we reference
and perceive the experiences not just of ourselves, but of others as well. Indeed, even the
use of some quantitative methods result in inherent bias. In the case of surveys using a
Likert scale to evaluate satisfaction, for example, is subject to the rater’s belief of what
are reasonable expectations. In this case, a very large sample is required to get closest to
the truth. When researchers use personal observation beyond counting of a studied

behavior, they must interpret what they see accurately in order for the observation to have

48

an ho:

accep

desigr
know
referer
the C131
pan of
Camph
RSpOng
data I

degree 1

ExPerier

 

an honest reflection of the phenomenon. In these examples, there is methodologically
accepted subjectivity.

According to Lester (2006), the researcher engaged in phenomenologically
designed research should not be required to only study those things about which they
know little, but rather recognize the limitations placed on them by their personal
references and make clear to the reader how the interpretation and meanings assigned to
the data came to be. In this way, the researcher is able to present within the research, be
part ofthe research, and act as an interested, subjected, and embedded part ofthe study.
Campbell (2002) agrees with this perspective, and further behaves that the empathetic
responses and subsequent emotions of the researcher should be part of the analysis of the
data. The lessons learned fiorn such an activity can be most helpful in empathizing to the
degree that the meaning is enriched, and therefore more likely to be closer to the actual
experiences of those who are studied.

The power of phenomenology to challenge structural or normative assumptions
and inform, support or challenge policy (Lester, 2006) was ideal for the study. Despite
the ability to enter into the research without some preconceived notions, the author relied
on the process of epoche; that is, to understand the potential and actual influence of the
researcher as embedded within the study and empathetic to participants. The researcher’s
epoche is included later in this chapter.

Additionally, writing questions that explore experiences and ask for descriptions
from participants as to the lived meaning of the phenomenon, collecting data from those
who lived the experience, coding and clustering the data into themes, and reporting the

data out in terms of an underlying structure is supported within the phenomenological

49

a good
on an i
lends i‘.
probes
Let'end
reCOmn
researcl
hierarck
Offlexil
inlm'ier

the Stud;

 

structure (Creswell, 1998). Within this framework, the researcher arranged her work and
remained true to the processes of phenomenology, although accepts that the pure
phenomenological researcher may take umbrage with her experience as a bias.

Within the phenomenological approach, the sub-strategy of in-depth interviews is
a good fit for this study. “A study focusing on individual lived experience typically relies
on an in-depth interview strategy” (Marshall & Rossman 1999, p. 61). This technique
lends itself to a set of preliminary questions that may be supplemented with additional
probes and clarification requests in a semi—standard interview strategy (Berg, 2001;
Levendosky et al, 2000). In studying issues of domestic abuse, Schwartz (2000)
recommends the use of open-ended questions “as they increase the opportunity to build
researcher-respondent rapport, allow respondents to qualify responses and reduce the
hierarchical nature of traditional survey researc ” (p. 821). This strategy fits the criterion
of flexibility within the data collection phase, and allowed the researcher to probe later
interviewees on new and unexpected clustered data gathered fiom earlier interviews. As
the study evolved, and themes emerged, more data on related systems outside of CPS

became increasingly important, as did the suggestions offered by participants.

hie—“10d
m
The study involved a purposeful sample of self-selected women who shared a
history of domestic abuse, were mothers, and who had experienced recent interaction
with CPS due to domestic violence. The sample consisted only of Afiican American

(50%) and White women (50%). The criteria for eligibility were those women who 1)

50

were nr
well as
past tw
themsei
abuse 0
both mt
several

l
involve:
Suffer h;
10 his ab
threat to

perpetra,

““8 and

 

were no longer living with their assailants, 2) were recent domestic abuse survivors as
well as mothers of minor children, 3) had experienced interaction with CPS within the
past twelve months due to their being domestic violence survivors, 4) were not
themselves accused of child abuse, and S) were without a history of either substance
abuse or mental illness. Beyond the obvious connection of desiring women who were
both mothers and survivors of domestic abuse, the sample was limited in other areas for
several reasons.

It was important fiom a safety standpoint that the participants were no longer
involved with their assailants, as it was feared a good possibility that the survivor may
suffer harm should the assailant become aware of her interaction with others as it pertains
to his abusive behavior. Interactions of this type would most certainly be considered as a
threat to his ability to maintain control over her. The result of this discovery by the
perpetrator could be incidences of further and more intensified abuse.

Only those women experiencing interaction with CPS in the past twelve months
were assured to have been evaluated using Michigan’s revised Structured Decision
Making tool. This instrument was revised as of March of 2003. By limiting eligibility in
this manner, one would expect the sample to have been evaluated by CPS with a uniform,
consistent tool.

Women who themselves experienced the potentially confounding variables of
child abuse charges, substance abuse issues and mental illness were excluded from the
sample. It should be noted, however, that women who were charged with child
endangerment or neglect solely on the basis of children witnessing domestic violence

were allowed to participate. The study centered on the actions by CPS and related

51

syster
abuse
substz
factor
make

t'ariab

Prox'idh
“Omen

and hat-

meme),
them no
Withers.
beenmo
Stomp 0 I
Sully.

that...

K105, 0t

systems as they pertained to safeguarding children from domestic abuse. When child
abuse charges have been leveled against the mother as a perpetrator of the abuse,
substance abuse is suspected or proven, or mental health issues are present, they may
factor into CPS decisions of parental fimess. These factors may require a CPS worker to
make decisions they otherwise would not in cases of domestic abuse where these other
variables are not present.
Particimnt Recruitment

Participants were solicited through Michigan’s network of domestic violence
service providers and Legal Aid attorneys using advocates as intermediary contacts.
Michigan has domestic violence service providers in all eighty-three Michigan counties.
These sites employ counselors, legal advocates and case managers who are specialists in
providing services to abused women and their children. They are trained to support
women experiencing the trauma of abuse, as well as supporting them in the aftermath,
and have expertise in safe interactions with their clients.

The researcher requested the assistance of service providers and legal aid
attorneys to identify potential participants meeting sample criteria. The researcher asked
them not to self-select those cases that were extreme, in order to avoid having a sample of
outliers. However, it should be noted that those cases referred by the attorneys may have
been more extreme cases, as the most severe cases may be those seeking help from this
group of workers. This potentially less random group represents seven women in the
study. Conversely, the group of service providers asked the women meeting the criteria
that were in their shelters or receiving non-residential counseling services at that time.

Most of them were also involved in legal services with an attorney, but were referred by

52

the ser
ETOUP ‘

happer

their se
present
OPPOm
and attc
The we
agreed 1
Contacte
eligibilit
18 f0ll0\
YOU ha“
beCome
either su

iflt'cstig

 

rim ,0

the service providers. This group of women was more randomly selected, in that the
group was available to all women meeting study criteria based on the fact that they just
happened to be involved in services at that time.

The service providers and attorneys contacted eligible women identified from
their service registries who met the criterion for eligibility, usually when they next
presented themselves for service purposes. Those meeting the criteria were offered the
opportunity to participate. A summary of the study was given to the service providers
and attorneys, who were asked to read it to and discuss it with the clients they contacted.
The summary is included (See Appendix A) at the end of this document. Ifthe client
agreed to participate, the recruiter notified the researcher, and the researcher then
contacted the candidates according to the candidate’s instructions, re-screening them for
eligibility based on the above criteria. The seven screening questions asked of them are
as follows: 1) Were you a victim of domestic abuse in the past twelve months? 2) Did
you have children at the time of the abuse? 3) In the past twelve months, did CPS
become involved because of the abuse? 4) Were you suffering from or charged with
either substance abuse or mental illness at the time? 5) Were you yourself being
investigated by CPS for personally abusing your children? 6) Are you currently living
with your assailant? and 7) Are you interested in volunteering for this study? The use of
an expert intermediary in the form of the recruiter was essential to ensure victim safety,
as well as to build fi'om an established relationship of trust. All participants signed an
informed consent agreement and granted permission for the interview to be audio taped.

Service providers involved in the recruitment of participants were contacted using

the state provider’s computer network list-serve. Providers were asked to consider

53

coma:
the re.
intere:
Unite
regard
perspe
infonr

Conset

Willing
Panici;
COnsen
Particip
form an
her the 5
the Chen

COmam i|

Schedui

 

 

contacting past and present clients meeting the criteria. The group of providers knows
the researcher, and the network of providers was informed that the researcher was
interested in interviewing eligible participants for her dissertation to Michigan State
University. They were told that the objective of the study was to gather information
regarding the concurrent issues of domestic abuse and CPS interaction from the
perspective of those who have actually experienced the phenomenon. Recruiters were
informed of the confidentiality rights and considerations as outlined in the Informed
Consent Form (see Appendix C).

Recruiters from both the service provider and legal aid industries who indicated a
willingness to contact former cheats were trained to present the project to the potential
participants in a cover letter (see Appendix A), attached to which was the Informed
Consent Form (see Appendix C). Recruiters who were interested in continued
participation were asked to call the researcher to schedule a time to go over the consent
form and their role as recruiters. Recruiters were then asked to contact the client, read
her the summary of the project from the cover letter, review the consent form, and ask if
the client was willing to participate. If she was, the recruiter forwarded the participant’s
contact information to the researcher, and the researcher then contacted the participant to
schedule the interview, as noted earlier. Prior to the start of the interview, the researcher
again reviewed the Informed Consent form with the participant, gained the appropriate
signature and demographic data, and provided the participant with a copy of the Informed
Consent Form.

The strategy to interview participants in the offices of their local domestic

violence service provider was selected to be the most suitable for two reasons. First, it

54

allows:
that of
offer h
trauma
psycho
to the [
connec

particip

the Sldlt
Sen'ices
reWired
Well-traj

Niall;

 

allowed the participant to access the interview in a setting that she was familiar with and
that offered her a measure of safety. Second, having the participant in a setting that could
offer her counseling after the interview was important. By the participant reliving the
traumatic events and recounting very personal feelings, the researcher risked additional
psychological trauma to participants. This researcher is acutely cognizant and empathetic
to the participant vulnerability in this area, and desired to ensure the participant was
connected with post-interview counseling services sensitive to the issues, if the
participant desired.

Michigan’s network of domestic abuse victim service providers are required by
the state Department of Human Services, as a provision of funding, to provide counseling
services specialized to assist victims and survivors of domestic abuse. They are also
required to meet quality assurance standards that include the employment of competent,
well-trained staff to assist victim and survivors with fiee counseling services. These
specialized workers were de-briefed on the study and topics covered based on the
interview guide (see Appendix B) in order to ensure that participants had available to
them, at no cost, highly trained, caring and supportive counselors.

Sample Size

The sample size (n = 20) included ten white and ten black women. The
justification for having an equal number of interviewees from each ethnic group was to
investigate experiences and perceptions along ethnic lines, and explore differences
betweenthetwo groups. Datasaturationbeganto beapparentatthetime ofthe sixteenth
interview, and subsequent interviews yielded little real new data. From the eighteenth

interview on, no new data was collected, and new no themes emerged. The first ten

55

nhite v
follom'
the hop
mpacit
wmem

lnterrie

and a he
particip;
110185E \\
mile. b)
"militia
rE’Corded
Participa
Outline 0
infOrrin:

ask“ of

 

white women and the first ten Afiican American women agreeing to participate and
following through with the interview constituted the sample. This was important, given
the hope of achieving a balance between the two ethnic groups. The groups filled to
capacity at about the same time. The segment on recruitment in Chapter Four discusses
some unexpected challenges in recruiting.
Interview Procegs

Participants were scheduled for an in-depth interview that was approximately one
and a half hours long, and the sessions were audio taped. The researcher asked the
participant’s permission to write field notes, for the sake of clarity and memory. These
notes, when combined with the transcripts of the interviews were helpful in the analysis
stage, by serving to document non-verbal observations of the participant and recorded
reminders of probes asked of the participant at the appropriate time. The researcher
recorded her field notes in a way that was unobtrusive to the participant, so that the
participant was not left to assign meaning to them. The interview generally followed the
outline of the interview guide (see Appendix B). However, participants linked their
information in ways that were meaningful to them, in content and format. The questions
asked of participants focused on these topics: 1) History of violence, 2) Their perception
of the exposure to violence by their children, 3) Their attempts to protect their children,
4) Their interaction with CPS and other related systems, 5) The interaction of CPS and
other related systems with their assailant, 6) The consequences of these interactive
experiences, and 7) What actions by CPS and other systems were helpful to them, and

what could have been more helpful.

56

were 9
terms.

panicit
clarifyi
researc
fact ent
answer:

questior

mention
dft'elors
of dome
method
Mel of
Child we
into the 1

1
Critical 1

weft]! l

 

 

As mentioned earlier, the interviews, although guided by the interview guide,
were somewhat unstructured to allow participants to frame the interview on their own
terms. This strategy was critical in staying true to feminist theory by empowering
participants to tell their story in their own words as they experienced it. Probing and
clarifying questions further explored and helped to determine the accuracy of the
researcher’s understanding of the participant’s recount. Participants were allowed, and in
fact encouraged, to talk at length about their lived experience. If the participants’
answers wandered away from a topic or probe, they were not diverted back to the
question at hand, but rather were asked a similar question later in the interview.

The interview guide was created using research questions divided into afore-
mentioned topics as a framework. The interview questions and sub-topics were
developed fiom the experiences of the researcher and her peers working within the areas
of domestic abuse service provision, legal aid attorneys, and CPS, using the formulation
method suggested by Gilgun (1992). The researcher submitted her interview guide to a
panel of PhD.’s who were familiar with doctoral-level research, qualitative methods,
child welfare and domestic abuse, for review and critique. Their input was incorporated
into the finished product.

Trust and a positive relationship between the participant and the researcher were
critical to the success of gathering the data. In order to build that trust, the researcher was
careful throughout the process to avoid language that would be perceived as judgmental
or threatening. The initial introduction to the researcher involved explaining the purpose
of the study, and placing the participant in the role of the expert, thereby downplaying the

role of the researcher. This same tactic was used in the formation and delivery of

57

question
research
“Mat v
years of
judgmer

l
could de
do so vn'
Choose t.
The rese
adlocate
Skills, an

the EXpe

 

 

questions. When a topic probe was offered, it was phrased in the same manner, with the
researcher asking such questions as “Tell me about. . .” “Help me understand. . .” or
“What was your experience with. . .?” Within this context, the researcher relied on her
years of experience working with domestic abuse victims to present an empathetic, non-
judgmental persona of both verbal and non-verbal cues.

Participants were reminded at the beginning and throughout the process that they
could decide not to answer any questions that were too difficult or painful for them, and
do so without penalty or judgment. With open-ended questions, participants were able to
choose to spend more or less time discussing those issues that they found most difficult.
The researcher attempted to be supportive of the stated efforts of participants to self-
advocate regarding their interactions with related social systems, developing coping
skills, and engaging in efforts aimed at protecting and advocating for their children within
the experience.

Post-interview, the researcher provided all participants with the names of
qualified counseling stafl‘ at the interview site that expressed a willingness and a desire to
do follow-up counseling with participants should they desire. Participants were reminded
that they could decline to continue the interview and not have her data used within the
study. Additionally, they were reminded that they should contact the researcher, the
Michigan State University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
and/or the researcher’s doctoral committee chairperson if they had concerns or questions
regarding the collection or use of their information. This information was also provided

in writing on the Informed Consent Form (see Appendix C) that was signed by the

58

partici

inten'i

opport
gas sta
all but
food in
ttith th
such as

were 10

lllll’t sit

a“Other

 

participants, and all participants were given a copy of the form at the time of the
interview.

In recognition and appreciation of their time, all participants were given the
opportunity to select a gift certificate valued at $25.00. These certificates were to local
gas stations, department stores, bus passes, or grocery stores. I found it interesting that
all but two of the mothers selected a necessity card (such as a bus pass, gasoline card, or
food item). Without being asked, seventeen participants verbalized what they would do
with the certificate. In those cases, all indicated that they would use it for a necessity
such as school clothes, diapers, formula, food or transportation. Two indicated that they
were looking forward to purclmsing a birthday gifi for one of their children.

The interviews were transcribed by a neutral, third party, confidential recorder
with significant experience working with the target population, and used in the past by
another local university for transcription work. The transcriptions were reviewed for
accuracy by the researcher, reading the transcript along while simultaneously reviewing
the audiotape and related notes. The audiotapes contain no personal demographic
identifying information on it. However, the real names of the participants and their
children are present on the tapes. When transcribed, those names were replaced by the
pseudonym assigned by the researcher.

Data Analysis Procedur_e§

The goal of data analysis is “to integrate the themes and concepts into a theory
that offers an accurate, detailed, yet subtle interpretation of your research arena” (Rubin
& Rubin, 1995, p. 226). It is the final stage of intensive listening and searching for

meaning within the data. Data analysis is not a separate function final, but rather an

59

01'

ex

ml
sul

axi.

ider

Cori

adjer
mear
llros
Categ
Stud}-
line-b
Consu

lDlOrr

 

ESCa'

50m

Aft-e.

ongoing process within the interview phase, allowing for redesign of questions to further
explore central themes. “Phenomenological reduction is the process of identifying the
essence of the phenomenon” (Patton, 1990, p. 408). The organization of identified topics
within the data generated fi'om this study was deconstructed into smaller categories and
sub-categories and reconstructed into themes and concepts through the use of open and
axial coding.

Open coding is described as “the analytic process through which concepts are
identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in data” (Strauss and
Corbin, 1998, p. 101). In this first of the coding phases, data is broken down into smaller
parts, and explored for commonalities and differences. The author looked for nouns,
adjectives and phrases that were repeated across the interview that seemed to hold special
meaning or expressed an important idea for the interviewee (Rubin & Rubin, 1995).
Those data that were similar in nature or meanings were then combined into categories.
Categories that shared similar or related properties were later coded into concepts. In this
study, the data from interview transcripts and the relating field notes were examined on a
line-by-line analysis strategy. According to Strauss and Corbin (1998), it is the most time
consuming method of coding, but also the method likely to generate the most
information.

Once the data were deconstructed in this manner fiom the first five interviews, the
researcher proceeded to refine the process by adding new codes as they became apparent
from subsequent interviews, using the list to compare across newly coded transcripts and
returning to the earlier transcripts to recode based on the new information gathered.

After deconstructing the data within each category, the author used axial coding to begin

6O

the pr

the ca

categt
linkin;
123‘).

along ;
catego
frequet
(hoes 1
Wing.
eXll'at‘lo
Core to:
the pmI
lOOking

anOther

c0"Hort
an." C0.
Gliding
coding

mean.

the process of connecting the coded categories into themes that were identifiable across
the categories.

Axial coding is described as “the process of relating categories to their sub-
categories, termed ‘axial’ because coding occurs around the existence of a category,
linking categories at the level of properties and dimensions” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.
123). Unlike open coding, it examines the characteristics discovered within open coding
along a continuum of that theme or concept. An example within this study is the
category named physical abuse. Within physical abuse, there are levels of intensity and
frequency (types of dimensions) as well as types of physical abuse and resulting injuries
(types of pr0perties). These sub-categories were defined within the process of axial
coding. Once the categories were established by open coding, axial coding further
extrapolated the sub-categories for purposes of cross-case comparison, and resulted in
core concepts. The steps involved in axial coding allowed the researcher to identify
the properties of the categories, and characterize the categories to the subcategories by
looking for cues in the data that denote how major categories might be related to one
another (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The researcher sought advice on coding the interviews from a dissertation
committee member known for her expertise in qualitative methods prior to undertaking
any coding. Additionally, she shared with her committee chair the preliminary results of
codingoncethefirstfive interviewshadbeencoded. Theauthorcontimwdto share the
coding process as it developed with a group of colleagues familiar with qualitative

methods and domestic abuse as a means to check the work. When the coding process was

61

complr
questir

THEN

rigor o
reliabll
studies
researc
Ofreco

arrahtir

Scientif
transfer
which E
and ties
Setting

901311131

rllalin
made 7
relc’ilit
“thh
rigs.

 

complete, the researcher used the coded information to compare with the research
questions.
Trustworthiness of the Data

Trustworthiness of data, gathered through qualitative methods does not escape the
rigor of quantitative research in terms of reliability, validity and objectivity. Although
reliability and validity take differing forms in qualitative research than in quantitative
studies, there are clear requirements that qualitative research must meet. In qualitative
research, “enhancing objectivity involves efforts to assure the accuracy and inclusiveness
ofrecordings that the research is based on as well as efforts to test the truthfulness ofthe
analytic claims that are being made about those recordings” (Perakylfi, 1997, p. 201).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose four alternate but similar constructs to the
scientific requirements for validity, reliability and objectivity. They are credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility is measured by the extent to
which the inquiry was conducted in such a manner that the subject is accurately identified
and described. This requires that the parameters of the study in terms of population,
setting and phenomenon under study be clearly identified. The current study named the
population, criterion for eligibility, setting for the interviews, and the stated problem.

The second construct, transferability, requires that the study have merit as to
relativity. The specific methods and strategies used, along with the tools, have been
made available within the document. It will be up to future researchers to determine its
relative worth in similar, related studies, if desired. The theoretical framework upon
which this study is based guided the research questions, data collection and analysis.

Those who study theory will be able to track the specific assumptions as they relate to

62

[his WI

makes

conditj
unders
of the :
proces:
Change
Change
Sludy's

additior

EXperie

 

 

this work. The significance of the study for purposes of informing policy and procedures
makes it transferable to other settings.

The third construct, dependability, requires researchers to account for changing
conditions in the phenomenon and changes in the design created by an increased
understanding while immersed in the data collection phase. These changes are reflective
of the social reality of a changing world. They require researchers to adapt during the
process of research in order to continue the learning as the realities of the phenomenon
change. The flexibility required in a qualitative design addresses this need to respond to
change as it becomes apparent so that the research remains timely and relevant. This
study’s design allowed for flexibility in interviewing to ask clarifying questions, seek
additional information beyond the interview guide, and took into account that the
experiences of the participants amounted to individualized, socially constructed meaning.

The final construct is confirmability. The data themselves are judged for their
value. The questions that are asked of the qualitative researcher center on the degree to
which the data confirm the stated findings, and if they indeed lead to the conclusions
offered. Within this context, the researcher used a confirming group of five women who
were survivors of domestic abuse and in stable situations to review general themes
emerging from the data. They were asked to review the list of core concepts and
compare them to their own experiences. This triangulation ofthe data increased the
confirmability of the data gathered. Finally, the researcher will keep the data collected,
inanorganized form, foraperiodofsevenyearsinalockedsafeincasethereisaneed

for external review of the data.

63

empa:
anun
empat
asrep

were i

phenor

experir

 

The qualitative researcher should develop an in-depth understanding and
empathetic respect for the participant. The author, having worked with the population for
a number of years, and having conducted a thorough literature review, developed both the
empathy skills needed and a solid understanding of the foundation of the social problem
as represented in the literature. However, identification of the issues of bias and epoche
were important to include and are addressed in the following section.

Researcher’s Biomhy/Emghe

According to Creswell (1998) and Marshall and Rossman (1999), the
phenomenological researcher has a duty to engage in writing a description of their own
experiences regarding the phenomenon under study, and to disclose biases or
perspectives that may be present as a result of those experiences. Although I have never
experienced domestic abuse myself, I am the director of an agency that provides services
to abused women and their children. As Glesne and Peshkin (1992) warned, I have an
inherent bias and affection toward the target population. In my work with women and
children in this context, I have found them overall to be courageous, ingenious,
intelligent, caring and very likeable. I have also experienced negative interaction with
systems that have, at times, resented insurmountable barriers to victims attempting to be
safe, and have witnessed victim blaming on all levels. This issue posed challenges for
me as I sought to select a strategy for collecting data, as I described earlier in this chapter.

Campbell (2002) challenges the idea that researchers cannot or should not be
emotionally involved in research. She argues that the pursuit of knowledge is always, to
some degree, a personal experience and that our hope for our research is that it will be

relevant to the lived experience. Emotions are, obviously, part of the lived experience.

She r
thin]:

learn

remo
data.

and u
exper.
she su
comer
trauma

thfll Wt

trim 11
Study a
Ell‘erir
Percepr
POSilio

it lS do

new

[0me

 

She describes our tendency to believe that we must suspend feeling in preference to
thinking. Campbell challenges researchers to consider the role of feeling within our
learning, and to consider the feelings as part of our understanding.

Campbell asserts that by distancing ourselves from the research in an attempt to
remove biases, we may, in fact, be blinding ourselves to what is there deep within the
data. She challenges researchers not to avoid emotions, but rather to be aware of them,
and use them to better empathize and therefore become closer to the true'meaning of the
experiences of the subjects involved. Although her book deals with the research of rape,
she supports the premise that her ideas are relevant in other studies of trauma. Within the
context of rape, she believes that the academic world has under-conceptualized the
trauma of rape in the attempt to distance fi'om the emotion of the trauma. I would suggest
that we have done so in the case of domestic abuse, as well.

The sterilization of traumatic subjects may prove to limit the communication of
what the trauma actually means to those involved. The voices of participants in this
study are no more important than the emotions of the individuals within the lived
experience, for it is within the emotional responses to the trauma that the women’s
perceptions, attitudes and behaviors may be best understood. Without the empathetic
positioning of the researcher within the commrmication between her and the participants,
it is doubtful that I could express the meaning in the way that participants would value.
Campbell (2002) calls this emotionally engaged research. . .a condition of empathetic
neutrality. I consider this work the product of empathetic neutrality; that is, empathy

toward those in the study, and neutrality toward the results that it fostered.

65

I recognize that my experiences have significant repercussions in terms of
researcher bias. My perspectives, however biased, have resulted in the research questions
at hand. They developed over a period of many years, and continue to frame my
perceptions of the experience of domestic abuse. From working with victims I have
developed empathy for their situation, respect for them as people, and admiration for
them as survivors and fighters. Although this process results in a participant-favored
bias, it also is helpful in the implementation of the interview stage, as I am inherently
respectful and supportive. It hampered my ability to phrase interview questions that have
a non-directional, neutral tone. This was my biggest challenge. These questions were
submitted to a panel of Ph.D.’s outside of the domestic violence arena, with specific
instructions to review for bias. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final outline.

I kept a journal that not only outlined process issues, but also personal challenges
regarding my bias as I proceeded with data collection and analysis. This is consistent
with Campbell’s (2002) suggestions. The data are the most important pieces of evidence
to either support or refute my claim to credibility in terms of the design and analysis, as I
believe that the portrayal of the participants, their stories and my interpretations of their
meanings is supported within the data. In this way, and true to phenomenological and
feminist principles, I facilitated a process that enabled participants to speak their own
truth, as they themselves experienced it. My many years of personal experiences, such as
they are, indicate that that their stories are common, and deserve the weight and

considerations that any common phenomena have earned.

66

Ethical and Political Considerations

Researcher bias as is only one of several ethical and methodological issues that
were considered in the design and implementation of this study. “Considering the
potential harm that can come in the study of violence against women, it is surprising how
few researchers have taken this factor into account” (Schwartz, 2000, p. 822). Victims of
violence require special care and considerations in research settings. There is a
significant risk for future injury at the hands of the assailant for those women still
somehow connected to the assailant, and the forced recall of past trauma can cause
psychological harm. Schwartz further notes that the number of studies of violence
against women that are actually reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Boards
(IRB) is a very small percentage. Miller (1991) cautions “it is critically important for the
researcher to do all that is possible to minimize harm and its threat” (p. 15).

To address this issue, one criterion for eligibility included only those women who
were fiee of their abuser. In addition, this study was subject to a rigorous review and
subsequent approval by the Michigan State University’s IRB (U CRIHS). Residual
trauma as a result of recounting the history of the abuse, as well as reliving the events
leading up to and including the loss of their children was addressed within this study’s
design by providing immediate and ongoing free counseling services to participants
desiring such services through their local domestic violence service providers.

Creswell (1994) advocates that in order for a study to be ethical “first and
foremost, the researcher has an obligation to respect the rights, needs, values, and desires
of the informant(s)” (p. 165). There was an inherent intrusion in the lives of participants

in this study. Participants were requested to meet face-to-face with the interviewer, and

67

to de
articr
[RB r
of the
gener
exper
ahilltj

triangl
One )6
tIansir
live “

ml’olt

gIOUp

 

 

 

 

to describe very painful experiences Creswell also advocates that safeguards include
articulated research objectives, written and informed permission for the data to be used,
IRB approval, and respondent confidentiality. In this study, participants were informed
of the nature of the study, an informed consent process approved by the [RB was used,
general themes were reviewed by experts from my committee as well as others that have
expertise in qualitative research and domestic abuse, participation was voluntary, the
ability to decline participation up to the time of publication was allowed, and all
participants were given pseudonyms for their names. In addition, the records containing
identifying information are secured in a locked safe, and will be destroyed seven years
post-study.
Triangulation of the Dita

The researcher used a confirmatory group in a focus group setting as a means of
triangulating the data. The confirmatory group included five women who were at least
one year removed from their abusive relationship, and who were participants in
transitional housing programs run by domestic violence victim service providers. All
five were stable, in that they were safely housed, employed, independent, not currently
involved with CPS, and had no fiirther legal action pending. None of the confirmatory
group had been charged with child abuse, and none had a history of mental illness or
substance abuse. All five had experienced prior interaction with CPS. This group of
women spent two and one half hours with the researcher.

The confirmatory group was presented with core concepts that emerged out of the
data collected from the interviews of the twenty women in the study. The core concepts

were derived fi'om themes emerging through the coding process. The group was asked

68

 

by the
the M
experi
proces

includ

 

 

by the researcher to comment on any concept that they had experienced. At least one of
the women commented on every concept presented as having had some similar
experience. It should be noted that the five women went through the informed consent
process required of the twenty study participants, and many of their comments are

included in this document.

69

m

pla
ex;
glVr

CFEE

COllr

insc
bent

able

 

31>va

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

It is imperative that readers recognize the intent of the study. The intent is not to
place harsh criticism or blame onto any individual or system. Rather, it was designed to
explore the ways in which human and civil servants organize their work, utilize the tools
given to them, act on assumptions which may or may not serve intended purposes, and
create dialogue between systems that facilitate the common goal we are all interested in:
that of safe, supportive environments for families that foster their individual and
collective opportunities for positive development.

Issues raised by this study are the result of a complex variety of factors resulting
in 'some counter-productive consequences as they relate to this collective goal. It should
be noted that participants had both extremely positive and some very negative
experiences with all systems described. My hope is that all systems will collectively
learn fiom the situations in which the women and children represented in the study were
able to seek and obtain safety, self-sufficiency, and experience productivity in order to
apply them to our work, and therefore help others like them. The desire to help others
was overwhelmingly given as the reason participants chose to engage in this study.
Results of Recruitment

Of the one hundred thirty-seven recruitment contacts, thirteen did not meet the

criteria for the study. Four originally agreed to participate and met the criteria, but

70

C01

Tu

an:

fror

cea

hun

105i;

 

 

 

contacted the researcher either personally or through an advocate to cancel the interview.
Twenty-eight agreed to participate. Twenty of them made their scheduled appointment
and completed the interview. Two individuals had a personal crisis that prevented them
from being interviewed. Two others were no shows without explanation. Recruitment
ceased when the twentieth interview was completed, as data saturation was evident. One
hundred and fifteen contacts stated they were too frightened of CPS and/or the Courts and
losing their children should they speak up about their experiences.

“I just can ’1 risk it. They are already looking for ways to blame nre for what

happened. If they were toflnd out, I’d lose my kids for sure. Please

understand...l know I said I would talk to you, but I just don ’t dare. ” ---From

a woman who cancelled her appointment with the researcher

“I know you will protect her. But she down ’t. She’s scared. Every system has

failed her so far. You are just an unknown she can ’1 risk or rely on at this
point. ” --DV Service Provider, upon cancelling an appointment for her client.

The Setting

Nineteen participants were interviewed in the offices of their service provider, at
the shelter in which they were residing, or in the offices of their legal advocate/attomey.
In one case, the participant specifically requested that I interview her at her home. I did
so, but left her a card with the name of a counselor nearby that she could contact for
aftercare, should she desire. The interviews took place between January 3, 2005 to
August 1, 2005. Participants received support services in eighteen different counties.

F ifieen participants received services in more than one county. Seven of the participants
were referred to the study by their legal counsel; and thirteen were referred through their
domestic violence victim service providers. Attorneys who referred to the study were

domestic violence specialists, having completed advance training on the issue.

71

lntroc

with 2
one h;
int'olr

N0 lT

includ
and in
domes
their c

the pe;

56pm

320,

 

 

Introduction to the Sample

The women in the study ranged in age from twenty-one to fifty-two years of age
with a mean age of 33.1 years. Fifteen of the women had been married to their assailants,
one had been dating the assailant and four had been in an intimate relationship that
involved cohabitation. The length of their relationship with their assailant ranged from
two months to twenty-four years, with a mean of 9.8 years.

Half of the sample (10) self-reported being victims of childhood abuse that
included verbal/emotional abuse (9), physical abuse (8), non-incestuous sexual abuse (2),
and incest (3). Three of the women reported coming from homes where they witnessed
domestic violence. Nine of the women were either runaways or had been evicted from
their childhood homes as adolescents. Two of the women reported having knowledge of
the perpetrator’s own history of childhood abuse.

The socio-economic status of the women varied substantially from pre to post
separation from their assailant. The pre-separation income range was fi'om under
$20,000 to over $60,000, with a mean income of $36,500. The post-separation range was
from under $20,000 to $50,000, with a mean income of $24,000. The educational level
of the participants ranged from incompletion of high school through a Master’s degree.
Four women with bachelor or advanced degrees accounted for 30% of the income
reported by the group pre-separation, and 32% of the income post-separation. When
these four individuals are removed firm the sample, the mean income for the remaining
women is $31,875 pre-separation, and $14,625 post-separation. The consequences of this
phenomenon are discussed further within the results section under Theme Number

Eleven.

72

 

the r
P0Pl
to el
and 1
the p
and c
Ierrni
additi
in ins
and th
CUSloc
Foun
10 and

01 Wet

Willa

 

cfllOlL

 

The sixty-five children, adolescents and young adults represented within the
sample ranged in age fi'om the unborn to nineteen, with a mean age of 8.25 years. One of
the mothers had no children under sixteen, which skewed the data toward an older
population of children. The number of children represented per mother ranged from one
to eight, with a mean of 3.25. Ten of the mothers reported having their children removed
and placed in foster care homes, another two reported having their children placed with
the perpetrator’s family, two reported their children had been placed with the perpetrator,
and one reported that her children were cared for by a family fi'iend. One mother had her
termination of rights process completed during the writing of this document. An
additional four were late in the process of termination proceedings, and five had children
in foster care at risk of termination of rights. These five were attempting to satisfy CPS
and the court requirements in order to regain custody. Additionally, four mothers had full
custody and the remaining six had some custodial rights at the time of the interview.
Fourteen of the perpetrators represented in the study had at least some custodial rights, up
to and including sole custody, with the other six either having had their rights terminated
or were at the time of the interviews, at risk of termination.

Five women in the study arrived for their interview armed with makeshift
portfolios in which they stored official paperwork hour the courts, CPS and law
enforcement. Some were stored in a jumble of disorganization. Others were filed by
type of document or issuing institution, with some stored neatly in their original jackets
and envelopes. Included were items such as PPO’s, court hearing notices, orders of
custody, orders of divorce, parenting agreements, case plans, police reports, and other

related documents. Women who brought their paperwork stated they did so because they

73

 

do

hush;
mam
diagn

aSSaU

were unsure if the researcher would believe their stories if they did not have supportive
documentation. In addition, one other participant called the researcher after her interview
and asked if it would be helpful to review her documents. In the case of the five who
brought their paperwork, I did review and was able to confirm the documentation as it
related to the stories they shared. In addition to adding confirmation weight to their
shared experiences, this process seemed personally important to them.
Particimnt Profiles

Participants in this study were given aliases to protect their privacy, limit danger
from the assailant and/or family, and to prevent them from experiencing any systemic
retribution while their cases continue. Children’s names were not used in this document.
Data is reported by the pseudonyms given to the participants. A brief profile on
participants follows using their pseudonym as the identifier.
A: Amy

Amy is a 40-year-old white female with 4 children. She is legally blind, and her
husband was both physically and emotionally abusive to her during their decade-long
marriage. She attributes his escalating violence to mental illness, however there is no
diagnostic evidence that the assailant was or is mentally ill. Her husband sexually
assaulted her daughter from a previous marriage, resulting in a pregnancy. Amy has
cooperated with all investigations, divorced her husband, and is assisting in raising the
child resulting fi'om the incestuous attacks on her daughter. Her husband is serving a
twenty-year sentence for raping her daughter. Despite having police intervention several

times during their marriage for domestic abuse, no charges were ever filed against him as

74

arr

C01

exr
war
sen

She

chil
3533
care

that

ten-y
man

abus

lheh

 

 

a result of the domestic abuse. Amy’s life in a rural setting combined with her blindness
contributed significantly to her isolation.

B: Barbara

Barbara is a white female in her early thirties, who has three children. She
experienced significant physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her husband. Barbara
was involved in two counties with CPS, law enforcement and domestic abuse survivor
service providers. Her experiences relative to those counties were dramatically different.
She had her children removed temporarily, but they have since been returned to her. She
credits CPS in her current county of residence with saving her life and the lives of her
children. Her husband is awaiting trial on multiple counts of child abuse and felony
assault. Barbara sufi‘ered injuries so severe in the final assault that she remains under the
care of her physician, and her prognosis includes life-long and serious health-related
challenges.

C: Catherine

Catherine is a white female in her late twenties with two children. She related a
ten-year history of abuse that began when she was dating, and escalated after her
marriage to the assailant. Catherine experienced severe physical, emotional and sexual
abuse. Her children have experienced marked developmental regression after visits with
their father. Despite the use of weapons against her and a history of child abuse, no
charges were filed against him. Her assailant remains free, and has unsupervised
visitation on a scheduled basis. Catherine is successfully pursuing a law degree, and
desires a career that is focused on helping children who experience violence in their

home.

75

 

ye
do
the

int

malt

Chit
fan

Won:

 

D: Donna

Donna is a black female in her early twenties. She has two children from a three-
year marriage. Donna related experiencing escalating physical and emotional abuse
during and after her first pregnancy. Her children were removed fi'om her as a result of
the hospitalization of her oldest child. The child required hospitalization due to an
intentional injury inflicted by her assailant who was caring for him while Donna pursued
an employment opportunity. Donna is part of Michigan’s welfare-to-work program
through DHS. Donna’s children were placed in the custody of her mother and remain
there as of this writing. Her assailant was arrested and released within twenty-four hours.
Charges against him were subsequently dropped. Donna is completing a parenting plan
that she hopes will allow her to regain physical custody of her children. Her assailant has
unsupervised visitations with the children, but sees them infrequently. Donna’s visits
with her children remain supervised.

E: Evelyn

Evelyn is a white woman in her early thirties. She has three children. Evelyn was
married to her assailant for almost ten years. Her assailant attempted several times to kill
her, choking her to unconsciousness on more than one occasion. Evelyn had her three
children placed in foster care and faces charges that she failed to protect them from their
father. Like Donna, her children suffered physical abuse by their father while she was
working in a welfare-to—work program. Evelyn is currently completing her parenting
agreement plan. She sees her children on a supervised visitation status, and her assailant

is serving four years for felony assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

76

rel.

Sh:

but

hisr
pan

her

COLL]
ahug

finer

i138a
relar
then
t0 h

Part

 

F: Faith

Faith is a black woman in her mid twenties with three children from a previous
relationship. She experienced a year-long marriage in which she suffered verbal,
physical and sexual abuse, and her son experienced significant verbal and physical abuse.
She attempted to get help from a variety of sources to no avail. She left the perpetrator,
but was accused of not providing adequate medical care for her son post-separation.
Although no longer involved in a violent relationship, the worker indicated that her past
history of domestic violence placed her at risk of poor parenting. She is completing a
parenting plan. Her children remain in her custody. No charges were ever filed against
her or her assailant.
G: Geena

Geena is a thirty-year old black female with two children. After a three year
courtship described as perfect, she married her assailant. Geena blames his substance
abuse for his assaultive behavior. Although he never abused the children, Geena’s
attempts to get help for him and help for herself went unheeded over a period of ten
years. Geena shot him as he attempted to break into her house to steal fi'om her. Her
assailant survived the shooting. He faces charges for breaking and entering. No charges
related to the violence are pending. Geena’s children were first placed in foster care, and
then with her mother, while she completed a parenting plan. Her children were returned
to her during the writing ofthis document. Geena has set a goal ofbecoming a foster

parent someday.

77

 

infor
as ar
emor
bort
“ho
leave
Stab 1
child
Child

ml)

 

 

mist

fill}
hair

Wet;

 

 

H: Helen

Helen is a black woman in her mid-thirties. She has four children. She related
information about four different abusive relationships. Helen escaped an abusive home
as an adolescent, moving in with a boyfriend when she was eighteen. When he was
emotionally cruel to her, she left. Helen witnessed her own mother’s murder by a
boyfriend. Helen never knew her father, and she was without family. She married a man
who was emotionally and physically abusive to her, and stalked her after she attempted to
leave. She moved in with a family friend who fathered a child with her, and attempted to
stab her while she was pregnant with her son. She left that relationship, fearing for her
children, and moved in with another boyfriend. He was extremely abusive to her and the
children. Her children were taken away fi'om her, and placed in foster care. No charges
are pending against her boyfriend, despite his known abuse of the children. She is
completing a parenting agreement plan, but has little hope of having her children returned
to her. Despite her work toward completing her plan, the children have been placed in
permanency placement status.

I: Iris

Iris is a black woman in her mid-thirties with five children. Iris left a thirteen-
year marriage that included verbal, physical and sexual abuse. She experienced a near-
miscarriage from the sexual abuse that she endured while pregnant. Her child was born
early, with complications. Culturally, Iris verbalized her struggle to balance her anger at
having her perpetrator avoid any sanctions, and her loyalty to her race. Iris’s children

were never removed from her, although she was assigned a parenting plan, and has

78

 

ab
prr
air
her
injt
mo

Chil

fetur
EOin

the

“'35 .

 

completed that plan. She divorced her husband. No charges or sanctions were filed
against him. He enjoys unsupervised joint custody of the children.
J: Jackie

Jackie is a black woman in her mid-thirties. She has three children. She was in a
two-year marriage with the father of one of her children. She suffered occasional verbal
abuse. She minimizes this abuse as not important. She was charged with failure to
protect using domestic violence as a factor in her charges after she refused to cooperate
with police in an investigation into a shooting that potentially involved her brother and
her boyfriend. Jackie’s child was accidentally shot in the process. The child had minor
injuries, and she has recovered completely. Jackie was required by CPS and the police to
move her children into a shelter in order to keep them in her custody. One of Jackie’s
children, who had been conceived while in a previous relationship was subsequently
abducted by the biological father, and even though Jackie has sole legal custody, neither
the police nor protective service staff were willing to assist her in getting the child
returned to her. Jackie was monitored by the shelter staff in terms of where she was
going, who was attempting to contact her, and who she contacted. Jackie feels that CPS,
the shelter and law enforcement were acting together to force her to reveal information
about the shooting. CPS investigators and police told her young children that their uncle
wastryingtokillthem. Atthetimeofthe shooting, shewasatworkandclaimsno
knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
K: Kate

Kate is a white woman in her late forties. She has six children. She first related a

seven-year history of verbal, physical and sexual abuse that escalated over time. Her

79

phi:
WOT]
abut

horn

in w

 

Doll

CPf

second marriage lasted only a few months, when she was again the victim of severe
physical abuse. The second husband was later arrested for domestic abuse on other
women, and to Kate’s knowledge, was jailed on at least four occasions for domestic
abuse. When she attempted to leave the relationship, she was denied shelter at a safe
house because they had no room. Her children have extensive developmental and anti-
social iswes. Kate experienced very different responses from CPS in the three counties
in which she received services. Her children were removed from her and placed in foster
care, butwerereturnedtoheraftertime. Herexperienceswiththepoliceinallthree
counties were characterized as extremely helpful. Her oldest daughter and son both have
nmaway. Heroldestdaughterlcftbehindaninfant, whomKate isnowraising.
L: Linda

Linda is a black woman in her mid-twenties with three children, one of whom she
voluntarily placed as an infant for adoption to spare the child a life of poverty and abuse
in the home. Linda has a twenty-year history ofabuse, including incestuous abuse at the
hands of her mother’s best friend, her brothers, and a cousin. Her mother was aware of
the attacks, and explained to Linda that incest was common in many families. Linda’s
mother was extremely abusive to all her children. Linda was beaten, locked in the
basement, starved, and eventually ran away. As a runaway, Linda found a place to live
with a man she eventually married. Linda was suspicious that he may have molested her
daughter and took her on three difl'erent occasions for a forensic exam. The results of the
first two were negative but the third exam was positive. Linda contacted CPS and the
police, filed for divorce, and waited almost six months for an omcial investigation by

CPS. This fact is verified by the paperwork Linda brought with her to the interview.

80

 

\ll

COL

dau
bee
hat
bonr

M:

an e:
also

relati
Mich
Mich
Sel‘en

inte

the

 

When the investigation was initiated, Linda cooperated with CPS. Linda was ordered to
court on what she thought was a hearing on her husband’s abuse of her daughter. At that
time she was served papers indicating she was being charged with failure to protect her
daughter. The children were placed in the care of Linda’s abusive mother. Linda has not
been given a parenting agreement or quarterly review. She remains in limbo, but does
have limited supervised visitation. The assailant awaits trial, and is currently free on
bond.
M: Michelle

Michelle is a white woman in her mid twenties with two children. She suffered
an extensive array of abusive tactics at the hand of her then-boyfriend. Michelle was
also abused as a child, and ran fi'om the abusive home into the abusive intimate
relationship. The abuse went on for two years before she was able to escape. Although
Michelle had significant visible injuries on three occasions, which were documented by
Michelle’s brother (a police officer in another county), her assailant spent a total of only
seven nights in jail. Michelle believes that her assailant only went to jail after
intervention by her brother the police officer. CPS intervened when Michelle reported
the abduction of her children by her assailant. Her assailant had earlier beaten her and
threatened to drop her baby off a two-story landing. Michelle successfully left that
relationship, but the assailant has used death threats, suicide threats, and the courts in an
attempt to continue to control her. CPS dropped all charges against him, and the court
allowed his early release, refusing to hold him to the jail time and diversion programs
required of him. Michelle has a new boyfriend, whom the assailant dislikes, and she has

been reported to CPS for failure to protect by the assailant and his family numerous

81

 

times. as ha
claiming he
claim. Dur
into a shelti
moving out
N: Nar
Nar
lllltt‘eated [1
their home
“”13 in he
[Damage to
miller Stat
minor inf}a
SeXual Prec
Nancy suit
that Preclud
Child;ell A
hang“
daughter We
physical eXa
through C P.
three years

times, as has her new boyfriend. The assailant is seeking custody of the children,
claiming her new boyfriend is a sexual predator. No evidence exists that supports that
claim. During the investigation process, Michelle had been forced out of her home and
into a shelter for her own safety. Her experiences of late have been more positive after
moving out of one county and into another.
N: Nancy

Nancy has a history of extreme child abuse fiom a mother who had significant,
untreated mental health issues. She recalls being beaten and locked up in the basement of
their home a great deal of time during her childhood. Her plight went unnoticed by
adults in her life at that time, and as an adolescent she ran from that situation into a
marriage to a man who had just been released from prison. Although incarcerated in
another state for child molestation, he indicated to her that he had been incarcerated for
minor infractions of the law. He was not then, nor at the time of this writing, listed on the
Sexual Predator registry. They had two children together in their seven-year history.
Nancy suffers from multiple health issues, including diabetes and physical disabilities
that preclude her from working. She is dependent upon welfare to feed herself and her
children. Although she attempted to live independently, her income was insuflicient to
be able to provide, and she went back to the relationship numerous times. When her
daughter was four, she began to suspect molestation, and called CPS for assistance. The
physical exam was negative for findings, and this process of suspicion, requests for help
through CPS, and negative exams continued on for three years. At no time during the
three years did Michelle or CPS become aware of his felony conviction for molestation.

She eventually discovered that not only had he been molesting her daughter, but so had

82

 

 

his older sr
sought bot]
discovery.
terminatior
0: 0p
0p:
Years of err
final, very ;
relationsth
daughter SL‘
Children‘s t
blaming of
“313, Where
pm’fnted t
molester '

proseCtltio

his older son. Although she cooperated with prosecution, is living independently, and
sought both CPS and medical assistance for her daughter for the three years prior to the
discovery, her children were placed in foster care. She currently is fighting to avoid
termination of parental rights.
0: Opal

Opal is a thirty-year old white female with two children. She endured thirteen
years of emotional abuse within a cohabitating relationship that culminated with one
final, very severe assault. Her two children are the result of that thirteen-year
relationship, which ended in separation. She entered another relationship, in which her
daughter suffered sexual abuse by her new boyfiiend. The physical attack by the
children’s father was a result of his anger over the molestation of his daughter and his
blaming of the mother for not protecting the daughter. This attack took place in another
state, where the father had taken her children in spite of a custodial agreement that
prevented the children flom leaving the state. The mother ended the relationship with the
molester immediately upon knowledge of the assault, and is cooperating in his
prosecution. The biological father, who had no legal custodial rights, abducted them. He
took them out of state, and when the mother attempted to regain custody, he and several
of his fliends beat her. Her sister and the children were also hurt. The police in the state
where this attack occurred promised her that they would take the father and his fliends
into custody and pursue legal action against them. Instead, they allowed the assailant to
go flee, and turned her into CPS for failing to protect her daughter. She believes that
they allowed the assailants to go flee due to their military status. She and her children

remain in fear of this soldier-assailant, who has threatened to kill her. After vowing to

83

 

stay in he
leave her
P: Pt
Pe
she wm n
lost her fr:
son was t2
He hAd no
bon‘riend,
determini r
Children {(3
abUSlVe to
concern th;
justified as
think they

fighting f0

 

stay in her own home, continuing death threats against her by her assailant forced her to
leave her home with her children. She remains in hiding at the time of this writing.
P: Penny

Penny is in her mid-twenties and has survived two violent relationships in which
she was nearly beaten to death in the first, and emotionally abused in the second. She
lost her first child as a result of a beating when she was six months pregnant. Later, her
son was taken flom her when CPS informed her that her boyfliend was a child molester.
He had not molested Penny’s son. Although she terminated the relationship with her
boyfriend, her past history of being a domestic violence victim resulted in CPS
determining that they needed to remove the children. Amazingly, the court gave the
children to her abusive ex-husband, even though the court was aware that he had been
abusive to not only Penny, but to one of the children as well. The court cited their
concern that Penny’s ‘repeated history’ of ‘attracting herself to violent relationships’ was
justified as a reason to place the child with the known abuser. Penny laments that they
think they took her son flom a monster, but instead handed him over to one. She is
fighting for unsupervised visitation as this is written.
Q: Qui’Ana

Qui’Ana is a white female in her early forties with three adolescent children. She
experienced twenty-four years of abusive experiences at the hands of her husband. She
has had almost every bone in her body broken, was locked in her house except for going
to work, and learned that the systems in place would not protect her. When her daughter
told a school counselor what was going on, CPS became involved and the police were

forced to arrest her husband. Prior to that time, police would simply give him a night or

84

two in jail, force him to walk home to cool off, or ignore the complaint altogether. Her
ex-husband, soon to be released from prison after serving sixteen months of a 36 month
sentence, once served ten days, got out, and the police were called five times in the
immediate ten days following by family members and neighbors because he was beating
Qui’Ana. He has a history of being arrested no less than twice a year for domestic
violence. Qui’Ana’s children were placed in foster care. She is scheduled to get her
children back any day as this is being written. She is flightened that her ex-husband will
find her and hurt her for testifying against him. She would like to move, but does not
have the resources to do so.
R: Rita

Rita is a black woman in her late thirties, has seven children, and was married to
her childhood sweetheart for nineteen years. Her husband was a substance abuser, and
eventually became so ill flom using that he was hospitalized in a long-term hospice
facility. During the time they were together, he beat her, threatened her with death and
suicide, and refused to work. Rita maintained the home, fed the children, and tried to get
him into substance abuse treatment services. She requested help flom a variety of social
service organizations to no avail. When he finally beat her in broad daylight in her own
flont yard, the neighbors called the police. The police called CPS, and they threatened
her with removal of her children for failing to protect them, based on the perpetrator’s
charges against Rita of child abuse and mental illness. Rita has never been charged with
abuse, her children deny that they were abused, and she has tested flee of mental illness.

She continues working steadily in a highly-responsible position.

85

 

a fourte
deviant
loaded g
his sexu
problem:
maam
a frequer.
might be
Stalked b]
matched 0
PlObation
Partial ms

to Protect.

S: Stephanie

Stephanie is a black woman in her late forties. She has four children, the result of
a fourteen-year marriage. Her husband inflicted numerous beatings on her, and his
deviant sexual behavior resulted in significant injuries to her. Several times he held a
loaded gun to her head, he smashed four of her toes with a hammer when she objected to
his sexual demands, and he forced her to drink his urine. She has significant health
problems, and suffers flom a long-term lung disease caused by the collapse of her lungs
after a broken rib perforated the lung. Stephanie came flom a home where violence was
a frequent part of their lives, and she had no references of what a healthy relationship
might be like. She lived the last five years in fear each and every day. She was being
stalked by him, and received very little support when she asked for help. When she
reached out for help, her husband would move the family. Her assailant received
probation for the assault, and was never charged with anything by CPS. He is seeking
partial custody of the kids. She is currently without her children and charged with failure
to protect.
T: - Terri

Terri is a black female in her late thirties. She has a history of a sixteen-year
marriage to an abusive husband. The violence escalated from verbal abuse to the last
assault, when he kidnapped her and the children, drove them to another state, and locked
them in a warehouse. He also took his rage out on the kids. Terri stepped in between
them many times, taking the beatings for the children. She was isolated flom her family
and her assailant would sabotage her ability to work if he thought she might be revealing

what was going on at home. Terri has a Master’s degree in Engineering, and works with

86

 

 

a predomir
of her husl
getting too
Syndrome.
documents
eridence tl
were termi
Currently i;

the baby f;

 

 

 

a predominantly male cohort of workers. This resulted in significant jealousy on the part
of her husband, and he would force her to quit her job and move if he thought she was
getting too close to her coworkers. Her husband, a veteran with self-diagnosed Gulf War
Syndrome, has been able to avoid prosecution of any type. Police reports and court
documents clearly reveal their willingness to make exceptions for him, and there is no
evidence that anyone has questioned his self-diagnosis. However, her rights as a parent
were terminated because she was charged with exposing the kids to his violence. She is
currently in hiding with her infant son in another state in order to avoid having CPS take

the baby from her.

The Interview Questions

Introduction to the Interview Questiog

The study’s two research questions were 1.) How does the intersection of victim
safety goals and perpetrator accountability expectations influence the consequences for
women subject to domestic violence? And 2.) How do the ecosystemic factors in the
environment of women subject to such violence affect the outcomes for those women?
To investigate, interviews were semi-structured around twelve interview questions.
Participants were encouraged to tell their stories in the way in which they organized their
experience and were not restricted from discussing other topics they considered to be
relevant to the question at hand. The results of this semi-structured interview were
answers and themes that went beyond and across the specific questions and provided a

more comprehensive picture of participant experiences. Participant responses are

87

includes

listing c

relation:
role thei
Questio:
participz
those int
negative
would of
Panicipai
Panicipai
discusse

felt Was i

dCSired.

 

 

 

included in this document in bold print. Directly after the name of the topic raised is a
listing of those individuals experiencing the factor.

The first question was intended to gather historical information about the violent
relationship. Questions two through five were designed to elicit from participants the
role their children played within their decisions and the context of the violence.
Questions six through nine were designed to document the interaction between the
participant and related systems. Questions ten and eleven were asked to separate out
those interactions with CPS and related systems that found to be either positive or
negative. This question resulted in participants expounding on what they themselves
would offer as advice to service workers. These responses resulted in the suggestions by
participants that are listed in Chapter Five. The final question was an opportunity for
participants to add those statements that they had omitted, further expound on issues
discussed, offer additional advice on systemic issues raised, to offer information that they
felt was important that had not been asked, and finally to question the researcher, if

desired.

RESULTS

The first interview question was “Tell me about the history of the abusive
relationship.” This question was intended to document the abuse participants had
suffered, and dispels the myth that domestic abuse can be correctly characterized as two
individuals that are experiencing mutual conflict within their relationship. Some

participants framed how they thought and what they believed about abuse from their own

88

 

chilt
used

their

Thet

lhel

repor
beyor

I

 

childhood experiences, as well as those of their assailant. In many cases, participants
used this question as a means to explore and describe their own processes, decisions, and
their attempt to make sense of the experience.

With one exception, all the participants reported suffering multiple types of abuse.
The disparity in power within the dyadic relationship within their accounts is apparent.
The following table depicts the type of abuse suffered and number of participants

reported those experiences. Following the table, participants describe their experiences

 

 

 

beyond the statistics.
TABLE 1: HISTORY OF RELATED ABUSE
TYPE RELATED NUMBER EXPERIENCING

Emotional abuse: 18
Threatened with weapon 16

Death threat to her pre-separation 16

Death threat to her post separation 15

Death threat to kids pre-separation 10

Death threat post kids post separation 09

Death threat family/ friends pre-separation 11

Death threat family/friend post separation 09
Abduction/threat to abduct 15
Controlling victim’s movements 15
Isolation 14
Locked up 09
Obsession/jealousy 1 1

Kept from family/fiiends 17

Property destruction 1 1
Animal Abuse 07

Verbal abuse: (name calling) 19
Suicide threat 03
Threatened by in-laws 03

 

 

89

 

 

TABLE 1 (Cont’d)

Increase in abuse post-sep. 13
Forced to eat/drink repulsive items 02
Physical abuse: 18
Hit 18

Kicked l6

Slapped 18

Thrown against wall 13

Slammed head against 11

Objects broken on them 09

Punched in abdomen when pregnant 07

Burned 05

Forced to stand/squat 04

Cut/ Slashed 04

Shot 01

Increase in abuse post-sep. 12

Sexual abuse: 10
Stalking: 10
Increase in abuse post-sep. 12

PPO did not protect 08

PPO was not enforced (l4 incidents) 06

Economic Deprivation: 15
Did not have the financial capacity to leave 19

Did not have the finances to provide if she left 19

Did not have access to/control over resources 19

Employment harassment/failure/poor record 10

Restrained from furthering education 05

 

 

Amy, who is quoted below, reported multiple examples of her husband’s abuse.
He was not only physically abusive to her, but also to her children. He sexually assaulted

her oldest daughter, and the pets in the family paid the price for his abusive behaviors, as

90

 

well. I

ofthep

 

lliis Wt

 

not wl.

represe

related.

 

well. This supports the findings of the American Humane Association (1994). Fifteen
of the participants reported that their children suffered direct abuse by the perpetrator.
This would support the findings of Stark and Flitcrafi (1988), in which in more cases than
not, when the mother was being abused, the children were as well. Amy’s story is

representative of the combination of abusive behaviors that the majority of participants

related.

“My husband.. .I had to have the police out here because he struck my 1 7 year
old. He would blow up and destroy things and drrow stufl' around, you know.
He started smashing things, he put his whole foot through the wall, he smashed
the cupboards, busted up the furniture... he took me down...and hit their sister
and then he tried choking me. What he done to her was incest, as far as I am
concerned. The day he married me she became his daughter. What I have,
over the years, found out about my husband and his family...I know it’s the
way they were all raised. [My daughter] was sitting on the couch rubbing her
guinea pig. . .it was pregnant at the time. He grabbed her and yanked her 0‘0r
the couch, and her guinea pig fell. He stepped on the guinea pig. All she was
worried about was that guinea pig. She didn ’t realize that daddy was angry at
her. He threw her across his lap to beat on her backside. My dog...when we
first got my dog...he was a puppy...when my dog got a hold of [chewed] the
sixth or seventh garden hose in a month he took and showed the hose down my
dog’s throat, [andhe] wouldn’tletme take him to the vet.” —Amy

Barbara experienced threats, as well as emotional, verbal, physical, and sexual

abuse and economic deprivation.

“He threatened to kill me, he broke my nose, cut me with a kitchen knife, broke
In): jaw, broke something in my eye, he done something to my hearing, broke my
ribs, called me filthy rotten names, liked to made me squat for like hours, and
then wantser. He would say, ‘Come on, bitch... ’ or ’I’llget rid ofthe kids
you andlwillgetiton’. Sometimeslwouldsay I’m outofdiapers, [need
moneyfordiapers, andhe wouldsay ‘wellI’mnotgoingto usemoneyfor
diapersifyou don’tdo whatlwantyouto’.” —Barbara

Donna described what the years of abuse did to her self-image, and how her
assailant characterized her to her son. She also provides a window on the anger of

assailants when their victims attempt to get out of the relationship.

91

 

dmai

msof

n;

inIheh

plOICCI l

 

mflh

 

 

“My self esteem went totally down the drain when I was with him because I felt
I was...I’m not good enough. I felt like I was a failure. I was sad and upset all
the time and crying all the time. I was stressed out. I couldn ’t eat. I didn ’t
spend any time on myself. I always [tried] to make him feel good. [When I
cried] he told my son ‘She ’s crying because she ’s a stupid bitch ’. He tore up
the house...broke the table...left yelling ‘this ain ’t over, bitch ’ [when she told
him she was leaving him]. ” —Donna

Many of the participants, like Barbara, above, indicated that sexual activity was
either intertwined with the assaults, or a conclusion of the assaults. Sometimes, as in the
case of Qui’Ana, forced sex involved not just the perpetrator, but others as well.

“It seemed like everything I did made him mad He just took to doing whatever
with me. ..slapping, hitting me with his fist, kicking...[he] knocked me down,
burned my back with cigarettes, he’s cut me, locked me up, just all kinds of
things...just about everything a person can do, he’s done. [Afterward] he
would say, you know, how he was sorry, and that he loved me, and then he’d
want to have set. All I wanted was to lie down, you know? I mean it hurt. I
just wanted to lie down and rest. ” —Iris

“At first, it wasn ’t too bad...it was like slapping me or knocking me down or
throwing something at me. That’s how it started. This has been going on for
twenty-four years. I mean he ’s broke my jaw, broke my nose, broke my
collarbone. He’s put my face so black and blue you couldn ’t recognize my
face...cracked a couple of ribs. I was throwing up blood and gun ...he
punctured my lungs. [He] forced me to have sac with other people. And if I
did, Igotmy butt beat andifldidn’tlgotmy butt beat. You name it, he’s done
it. ” —Qui’Ana

Personal property destruction was a common theme, affecting not just the adults
in the home, but the children as well. As is demonstrated later in this document, personal
Protection orders did not necessarily protect women and their children from further
attacks.

“[He engaged in] hitting, smacking, pushing, shoving...one time he took a
baseball bat and acted like he was going to hit me with it, but he ended up
hitting the wall and breaking the bed up. Breaking things, losing his temper
just like that [snapped fingers]... in a snap, I mean. He stole things and sold
them, broke into my house [afler] I had went down to the courthouse and got a
PPO. ” —Geena

92

Not only were the women and children the victims of attacks, but threats of even
greater harm was a prevalent theme within the stories of participants.

“Me and my kids started getting hit about a year and a half ago [by] my ex-
boyfriend [He’d use] mind games, call me names, hitting me. Threaten and
put his hands around my throat like he was going to kill me...punch me...slap
me. ” —Michelle

Many appeared to have narrowly escaped even more harrowing circumstances
and serious personal harm, including the real possibility of death.

“He took the kids to a friend ’s house and left them and I didn ’t know he had
made it back to our house before I got there. He had parked the car somewhere
else [where I couldn ’t see it], and I went in the door and he was standing
behind [it where] I couldn ’t see him. He slammed the door shut behind me and
locked it and he...shoved me up against the door and started to punch the door
[around her head]. He was scaring me really bad and he just punched and
punched There were fist marks in the door...in that metal door. He did that
all over the house, and when wegot to the back door, he had nailed itshut. I
shoved him and he fell down and I jumped over him and ran out of the house
and I called the cops. He was threatening...they [police] were holding him
back...he even threatened to them that he was gonna beat me with a basede
bat. Ihecopstoldmethatlshouldleaveandnotcomebackthatdayora
couple of days because he had told them he was gonna beat me with a baseball
bat. ” -Nancy Ed Note: No charges were filed against the perpetrator as a
result of this incident, even though the assailant was a convicted felon.

Terri’s abuser used particularly cruel and unusual means of emotional and
physical torture.
“He held a gun to my head He pulled the trigger but it just went ‘click’. Then
he laughed because I cried. He broke seven ribs, both my arms and smashed
four of my toes with a hammer. He smashed my nose flat onto my face, raped
meupmyassandforcedmetodrinkhis urine. —Terri
All but one of the participants (Jackie) expressed the belief that their children
either directly witnessed the abuse, or heard the abuse take place.
“My daughter seen him choking me one night. He had his hand over my

mouth and my throat and he was choking me. She seen him hit me in the back
with a TV tray. ” —Barbara

93

 

they be
They n
Surpris

reporte

“My oldest one, she knows all about it. She’s not stupid, I mean two and a half
years later she still tells you what daddy did It scared her, you know? She
remembers when he drug me by my hair and locked me in a closet, you know?”
—Catherine

“I think the only time they would miss it is if they were like at a babysitter’s
house ...most of the time they were there so they saw a lot of it. And I hate that
they saw it. ” —Donna

“The older ones [witnessed the violence]. The younger ones did not see that
which I am thankful for and I can see the difl'erences between them and my
older children. I can see the difference. ” —Kate

Nine participants recounted their own history of childhood abuse. Many stated
they believed that history made them more vulnerable to the abuse, and less able to leave.
They were clear in indicating that they believed the abuse was normal, and were not as
surprised by the abuse or the fact that they would not be believed or assisted if they
reported it.

“[Myfirst emerience involving] sexual abuse started when I was six. . .my mom
sfill does not believe me. She said that was normal between brothers and
sisters. I knew nobody would believe me [this time]. I was staying at the
woman ’s shelter. I had become really good friends with one of the stafl'
members and we had went out to the bar and she introduced me to her cousin.
We talked and I...was just listening to him and kind of telling him what was
going on and then we went to the beach [for a walk] and he tried doing stuff to
meandItoldhimno. Itriedfrghtingwith himanditdidn’twork andnobody
believes me because [shelter worker’s name] works at the woman ’s shelter” —
Linda

“You know, my family always fought, so I thought that it was just part of the
whole package, sort of just how it is. My mom used to catch hell from my dad,
and he was always yelling at us about something or other, so I was just kind of
usedto it, Iguess. Mydadusedtoyellatrnymom, sayingifshedidn’tbeat us,
he would Sometimes you couldn ’t move for a week after one of his [beatings],
so she would tell us to yell like hell. We ’d go down the basement where the
neighbors couldn ’t hear and she’d whisper, ‘now yell and cry like the Dickens ’
and we would; she ’d pretend to beat us. He was usually too drunk to notice
anyway. ” —Stephanie

“My parents didn ’t give a rat’s ass about any of us, and that’s the honest a'uth.
I grew up on a daily bask listening to my mother tell me that she wished I was

94

dead, because we were nothing but burdens to her. When she decided she’d
had enough of us I got left to take care of all of them [ten siblings]. I don ’t
want that [for my kids]. My mother stabbed my dad in front of us. My dad hit
my mother....beating each other up beating my dad’s girlfriends up when
they would show up at the house....our dad carrying on in the backseat of cars
with his girlfriends. I never wanted my kids to see that kind of stuff ” —Amy
“I know that to me, all this time, it wasn ’t wrong. It wasn ’t. I was still a strong
person...to me it wasn’t...it didn’t bother me, it wasjust like I was in one
abusive relationship [childhood home and two intimate but abusive
relationships], lefl that one and into another one. [But] I didn ’t want to be hit.
I didn ’t want to be with somebody that I felt didn ’t love me. My grandparents
alwaysstuckitin myheadthatIlooklikemymom...thathasgoingto bejust
like her. I never knew her. She was killed by her boyfriend when I was five
years old We were there the day she was killedmwalking into a room full of

blood I remember laying on a couch with the man who killed her for two or
three days because they didn ’t know who did it” —Helen

From these accounts, it is difficult for individuals who do not have personal
references of the dynamics of domestic abuse to understand how anyone would enter into
a relationship with such a monster. Phillips (1992) found that a majority of the general
public could not understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. One of the assumptions
that the general public, and some of the social institutions designed to assist victims
make, is that battered women are somehow attracted to abusers, that they should have
known better, and deserve what they get. The recounts of the women in this study show
a pattern of purposeful seduction into a relationship strategically planned to engage
victims and hold them in their situation. The following introduces this theme of

seduction by an abuser who appears, at first light, perfect.

95

 

  

relation
ltintl, c
indicate
themsell

Sullivarl

womer

Dane, # LBaLttererS seduced women into the relationship with a Mr. Perfect person_a_.
Amy, Barbara, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda, Opal,
Penny, Stephanie, Terri

Fourteen participants described this phenomenon. They felt seduced into the
relationship by someone almost too good to be true. They described a person who was
kind, caring, doting, loving, smothering, thoughtful and gentle. Most participants also
indicated being blindsided by the violence that was to follow, and to a degree blamed
themselves for falling into a deliberate trap. This supports the research findings of
Sullivan and colleagues (2000).

“I should have suspected something... he was so doting...almost smothering at
first” —Amy

“Whatever I needed, he offered it...frnancially, emotionally. Um, he seemed to
smother me a little bit in the beginning. I though you know, hey, he’s really
digging me, so I guess that would have been the first little hint. ” —Geena

“I mean, he was Mr. Perfect...I just never thought he would do it to me...and
then he did ” —Helen

“The perfect guy... he brought a rose and put it on my desk. It was my first
love. Eventually we moved in together. That’s when it really started... ‘you ’re
cheating on me’...the third degree and looking over my shoulder. At the end I
couldn ’t even go to the bathroom without him coming into the room. ” —-Penny

“He was absolutely ped’ect when I met him. Everyone adored him. He sent me
flowers, [he sent] my mom flowers, [he] took me out to eat. He said he’d love
me forever. After we got married, he changed almost immediately. ” —
Stephanie

“Everybody loved [him].. .my parents, my sister...I was so happy. He promised
to take care of me, and I needed that at that time in my life. He seemed like the
answer to my prayers. I would have done anything for him, and he took
advantage of that. ” —-Donna

Perhaps one of the most difficult phenomena for most people to understand is that

women in abusive relationships express concern and, at times, affection for their

96

assailant. Graham (1994) reported that hostages in other situations have also exhibited
this phenomenon. But in addition to being in what society may consider a less traditional
hostage situation, participants were clear in going back to the ‘Mr. Perfect’ theme and the
fact that they believed that the man they adored was still available, somehow hidden or
temporarily removed from them. This supports the work of Mahoney (1991). Although
they recognized that the relationship was fatally flawed, eight participants expressed
extraordinary remorse at, as Stephanie describes ‘what could have been’.

“The man I fell in love with was kind, caring, loving... just everything I ever

wanted I wanted him back. I still want him back. I know he’s never going to

be that man again, but part of me just aches to think what we could have

had. .what could have been. ” —Stephanie

“You don ’t just throw out somebody you had pledged your life to. And he was a

great man. ..kind, loving, gentle; a great man. When he turned on me I

couldn ’t believe what was happening. Things had been so perfect. I knew he

was Mr. Right. I wish [could have that man back again, like he was atfirst.” -

—Confrrming Group Member # 5

“It was like a death in the family for me...my divorce. It was not a person I

knew, you know it was a person I was scared of I still miss the man I married

I know he’s not the same man, but I still think about that. I was so happy.

How did we ever get this way?” —Geena

These women verbally demonstrated a hope that had been alive within them while
involved in the relationship. All eight of the women indicated that at times, perpetrators
played on these emotions to successfully entice them back into the relationship. The
women related that they came to understand that the ‘Mr. Perfect’ persona was a ruse, but

that recognition clearly saddened them.

97

Theme # 2: Batterers took advant_age of m'cipants’ vulnerabilities. Amy, Barbara,
Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy,

Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Nineteen participants spoke of special vulnerabilities that they believed enabled
the batterer to operate from a base of power, effectively holding them in the relationship.
This supports Mill’s (1988) premise that the context of an asymmetry of power is key to
domestic abuse. In Catherine’s case, she experienced a violent teen dating relationship in
which she was ill equipped and inexperienced to handle. She, like eight other women in
the study, either ran away from home, or had been evicted fiorn their childhood home.
Another participant reported being ‘on the rebound’ from a failed relationship. A
confirming group member also experienced the ‘rebound’ effect.

“I was sixteen. It started with him just being really controlling...he threatened
to kill my friends, and that put an end to that right there. It took him like two
weeks before I had no friends at all... he had scared all my friends away. I
couldn ’t go anywhere without him, you know, I had to tell him where I would
be and how long I would be there and you know, if I went to the store, I had to
tell him what I needed and he would give me X amount of money and you
know, I would go to work and I had to call when I got to work and call before I
left work and you know, check in...he was just ‘in charge’. When I was I 7, it
turned physical. He would hit me, he cut my arm, throw things at me, throw me
into things and there was hair pulling and slapping and punching...pretty
much everything physical he could have done, he did It just got progressively
more physical ...where I was cleaning up broken furniture and covering up the
bruises . Twelve days after I turned I 7 my mother threw me out and I had no
where else to go but [to] him and it ended when he pointed an assault rifle at me
infront ofmy kids and... after thatIlefl. ” —Catherine

“My husband had left me for someone else. I was lonely and looking for
someone who would care for me...about me, you know? Here he came... Mr.
Wonded‘ul. He called me every day. He picked me up after work and took us to
dinner so I didn ’t have to rush home after a hard day and cook for the kids. He
bought us presents and took us on a vacation to Cedar Point. I mean, we
thought we were in heaven, ” —Confirming Group Member # 1

98

“You can ’t understand unless you’ve been there. I had nowhere to go. Mom
kicked me out when I was 16, and I had to have somewhere to live. I thought
he was my guardian angel. He gave me a place to sleep, food, clothes, and
whatever I needed He convinced me that even though the rest of my family
hated me, he would always protect and love me. That was something I
needed... something that would save me, or so I thought. ” -—Donna

All but Faith recounted that the abuse began only after a commitment in the
relationship was solidly established. This commitment was also a form of vulnerability.
The women stated that they had so much invested in the relationship by that time that
getting out was far more difficult, in particular when children were involved. Three of
the twenty experienced their first assault while in a serious dating relationship, six while
cohabitating and having a child with the assailant, and another eleven afler they were
married. This ensured that for the participants, the ability to get out of the relationship
would be difficult, at best, and ofl‘ered the perpetrator a solid platform from which he
could control and isolate her. His already established relationships with her family, in
some cases, and the ‘Mr. Perfect’ persona that she and her family believed enabled him to
operate without suspicion, and again, the element of surprise and evidence of her
devotion to him was cited.

“It started just a little while after the wedding. I was really surprised...it

surprisedme. [didn’t think he wouldever hitme. He was aprettygoodman in

my eyes...that really surprised me. ” -—Iri.s

“Looking back, [can see thathis onlygoalwasto makesureIdidn’thave

anybody but him around me... nobody to notice what was going on or help

me... Icouldn’tflgure out why this man Iloved had turned on me.” ——Terri

“Everybody thought he was perfect...hell, I did, too. I thought I had just won

the lottery. I loved the guy...sdll do...it’s just dratl can’t seem to get the guy

back that [fell in love with... the one Imarried” —Evelyn

“Once we moved in together, he started working on me...trying to get me to
turn my back on my family. Once he succeeded in that, there was nobody to

99

help me anymore. He was counting on that. ” —Confrrming Group Member #
3

“I found out [that] one month afler we got married he started molesting my 1 7
year old... I mean I just [recently] found out. But he had been molesting my
daughter for about nine years. ” — Amy

“Afler that [the wedding], it just seemed like the gates of hell were opened, and

anything gm He started pushing me up against the wall, choking me,

slapping me, hitting me with his frst...just anything. ” -—Terri

In some cases, the commitment was fin'ther strengthened by a pregnancy;
however, the abuse participants suffered did not abate with the pregnancy. Eleven of the
women reported sufl‘ering abuse while pregnant. Of the eleven perpetrators represented
within the group who continued to torture their victims while awaiting the birth of their
children, it is of note that seven of them have non-supervised, joint custodial rights
granted by the courts.

“I was pregnant with my son and he held a gun to my head”. --Barbara

“I almost lost my youngest son when I was carrying him. He [perpetrator]
kicked me in the belly. I started bleeding. ” —Iri.s

“He beat the crap out of me every day when I was pregnant...when I wasn ’t
pregnant. ” —Linda

Interestingly, two women reported that other adults in the home viewed the
pregnancy as a means of continuing and strengthening the control the perpetrators
enjoyed over their victim. In both cases, it was the father of the perpetrator.

“Hisdadwas in thesamehouse with usforalongtime. Okay. So hisdadwas
right there. But he was gone a lot but a lot of the time... he was there and he
would just, you know...he would find like...okay he found out I was pregnant, I
don ’t know what kid, but he said it more than once. But he would just say you
know, my err-husband would be out and dad would come and say, ‘Why are you
pregnant again because you know he thinks that he can control you. He thinks
that will keep you with him. ’ His dad is my dad now [post-separation from her
assailantj.” —Rita

100

“In the beginning, he wasn ’t very abusive...he was real kind and loving and
nurturing and it started after I found out I was pregnant with my first child;
then he started acting a whole lot different. Like he would start cussing at me
and starting fights and ...it just escalated from there. He begged me to have a
child, you know, which made it kind of weird for him to be, you know, acting
out about it. I guess he wasn ’t ready for a child He begged me to have kids,
then he didn ’t want any of us. It’s just so nuts... he beged me to have kids, so
I did... thinking that the next one would make him love me again...and even

his dad told me ‘Don ’t you see that by keeping you pregnant he knows you can ’t
escape ’?” —Donna

In seven cases, participants believed that the assailant was jealous of the attention
they paid to their children, or feared the diversion of attention away from the assailants
and toward their unborn children once they were born. In these cases, the abuse appeared
to have escalated once the children became a reality. This lends further credibility to the
understanding that domestic abuse is not about a temporary loss of control, but rather a
long-term, deliberate, strategic effort to control their victims with little regard for anyone
else. In some cases, these assaults resulted in tragic consequences.

“Both my husbands had a problem with the fact that I think more of my
children than I do of them. And I’m willing to put more time into my children
than I am into them. The shit got worse when the kids came. And it wasn ’t just

the kids he was jealous of... it was my entire family...his family. ” —-Amy

“I was pregnant with my oldest son. I had been bleeding some. ..well not really
bleeding, but I had some of the fluid from the sack that was leaking out. Not
bad...but the doctor told me I needed to go home and rest, because he didn ’t
wantmetogointolaboryet. Theyhadmeinthehospitalfora whileandthe
leaking stopped, but I was supposed to be on bed rest. But he perpetrator] said
thatit wouldprobably bea while before we couldhavesexaflerthe baby, and
he was going to get what was his while he could I tried to explain that the
doctorsaid that weshouldn’t, andItriedtopush him away. But heput his arm
across my throat and then he just basically raped me. ” —Terri Ed Note:
Terri’s child was born early and experiences developmental challenges.

“My/irst boyfriend was very abusive to thepoint where Iactually was beat half
to death andmy daughter died I was s'u monthser [with her] at the
time. She was born early with massive injuries. I opted to turn the machines
ojfto let her die. I was sixteen [at the time]. The cops didn’tdo anything. They

101

came to the house three times...the third time is when they found me on the
ground [unconscious], so I was told ” —Penny

Theme # 3: Participants med to make sense of the situation. Amy, Barbara,

Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Iris, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy, Opal,

Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Fifteen participants explained that the abuse began slowly, building to a crescendo

over time. They described this process as facilitating their gradual acceptance of the

situation. This supports the work of Sutherland and colleagues (2000).

“It started out small, you know. I mean it grew into this very slowly. At first it
was small things... like yelling at me, or criticizing me. Then he just kept
adding to it. The names got worse, then he started to push at me with his
finger, then shoving me into things, slapping became punches... it was like
started small then got gradually bigger. ” --Kate

“It’s such strange thing. It was little things at first. The first thing I remember

_ is him breaking a plate in the sink when he threw out the dinner I made. I’m
not a very good cook. He said the dog wouldn ’t even touch crap like that. I
laughed... I thought it was a joke, I mean he knew I couldn ’t cook. But when
he turned around I saw something in his eyes. It scared me. From that day on,
a dayatatime, hejustkeptgettingmoreandmore violent. Ican’taplain it.
You get used to it, I think. It’s like he gets his fingers in there and he grabs on
and you don ’t even sometimes realize what is happening. It’s a slow, gradual
process. You get like in this fog and you don ’t think the same, you don ’t feel
the same,you don’treactthesame. You kindofloseyourself. It blindsyou.
They say love is blind, well abuse is blinder. ” —-Evelyn

“It got prograsively worse. It just seemed to get easier and easier for him. It
was like I was worth less andless to him. Iwas trying harder andharder...I
got my degree, I was earning good money...I had a good job, we have
wonderful kids...but no matter what I tried, he would usually go after me.
When heblewupatus, he wouldusuallyjustgoqfterme. Lateron, he would
hitthekids, too. Meflrst, always... butthen thekids. Butit was always my
fault. I couldn ’t make sense of it...I mean I just couldn ’t think clearly
enough. ” -—Terri

102

Seven participants continued their attempts to rationalize perpetrator behavior.
They expressed their own shortcomings, outside pressures, and lifespan changes that they
had apparently tried to use to make sense of his desire to abuse them.

“I admit...I’m no angel. I mean I can be moody and ornery. I’m not that easy
to live with. I was concerned about him. I thought, ‘well, you know, he had to
go through all this as a child’ [child abuse] and I was concerned about him,
which you know, looking back on it...he was a grown man. He made his
decisions. But at the time, I was brought down to the point where...with his
verbal abuse I was not important. I was nobody. So you know, he made sure
the focus was on him so I was concerned about him. But the last time he...he
um beat me in my neighbor’s yard...then that was it. ” —Kate

“He had so much pressure on him from work. They never gave him a full day
of]: Even weekends they’d call and he’d have to go in. It was hard on him.
The kids and I didn ’t make it any easier, but we tried ” —Conjirming Group
Member # 1

“It was the drugs. I beged and begged him to get help. He wouldn ’t go. I
called his mom and she talked with him, I talked with him... but we could never
get through to him. ” Confirming Group Member # 5

“He didn ’t realize I was going through menopause. He was lonely...that made
me doubt myself: I can ’t tell you the number of times I have gone over every
single conversation I’ve ever had with this man...every single time. And I’d
pick apart everything. I told my children that their daddy’s mind is broken
because he’s got an illness that makes him do things that he shouldn ’t say or

do, thathehasdonethings thatareharngfulandthatheis nevergoingto be
able to come back here because I can never trust him not to hurt anyone

again. ” —Amy

Eleven participants described being told repeatedly by the batterer that the abuse
was their fault, and that over time they came to believe it was true. Six participants
continued to use language that would suggest at some level, they still accepted some
responsibility for the damage that was done, or their inability to escape. This is
consistent with the findings of Hart, (1998); Mills, (2002); Porter (2002), and Stark

(1992).

103

“If you hear that it’s your fault long enough, you believe it. He was really good
at twisting things aroundso that] was always to blame. [didn’t do this orIdid
do that... I made him angry. It was always my fault. So, after awhile, I thought
it really WAS nry fault. ” —-Confrrming Group Member # 3

“Most times I thought it was my fault. That’s what he says... ’you made me do
this ’...so I thought I did deserve it. ” --Iris

“I thought it was something I was doing wrong. I mean, I thought I wasn ’t
trying hard enough. He said it was my fault, and I believed him. He convinced
the kids that it was myfault. Everybody blamedme. [couldn’t understand it,
but I accepted it. ” --Evelyn

“What bothers me is I can ’t give her [molested daughter] back what he took. ”

“I’m not real comfortable with telling myself that I’m a victim or a survivor

because it makes mefeel weak. ButIknowIwas in a situation thatIcouldn’t

control. I just hate myself that it took me so long. ” -Catherine

By convincing victims that the abuse was their fault, perpetrators led participants
to believe that they had the ability and power to change the environment in ways that
could prevent the abuse. Thirteen participants expressed a continuing hope that they
could somehow “fix” the situation. Participants received similar messages through
Societal beliefs and expectations that they could and should protect their children, and
system worker interactions that verbalized expectations that they could stop the abuse
Should they simply choose to do so.

“I kept thinking that I could fix it. .. I just had to figure out how. ” —Stephanie

“You may think this is weird, but I really thought I could fix him. I thought

that if I did something better, or faster, or longer or whatever, I could make him

happy. If he was happy, then he’d treat us better. I held on to hope. There was

hope...for a long a’me, there was hope. ” —Linda

“The kids begged me not to leave. They were afraid So was I. But they kept

bearingme. Itwassohardtohear. SoIstayedandhopedandtriedtomakeit

the best I could It just wasn’t ever going to be like it should be. As hard as I
tried, things just kept getting worse. ” - Terri

104

“You always think, okay this time it will be better. This time I ’ll work a little

harder. You do it for the kids. They deserve a family that loves them. ”

Confirming Group Member # 2

Believing that there was hope to fix the situation, and that they were to blame for
it, fifteen of the participants acted in the role of peacekeepers, attempting to diffuse and
survive the crisis by complying with demands of the perpetrator. This was an
emotionally exhausting and difficult process for both the mothers and the children. The
experiences related below support the findings of Schecter and Edelson (1999).

“Whatever he wanted... that’s what I did I tried to figure out what he wanted
before he did... that way I was ahead of the game. ” —Donna

“I just agreed to everything and anything. It was the only way to survive. It

was about survival... I lived in survival mode. ” -Confrrming Group Member #

“I walked on eggshells. I just tried to avoid him as much as possible. It was

living on pins and needles most of the time. I knew I had to keep a low profile,

andlkeptthe kids as quietasIcould” Confirming Group Member # 3
genre # 4: Traditional and cultural norms were gag odds with participants’ realities.
Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Linda,
Michelle, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Fifteen participants discussed their struggle to integrate the sanctity of the family
unit with the horrific experiences embedded in their daily lives. Participants expressed
their worry that their children needed two parents in order to be happy and healthy, and
some used their own experiences and observations as a reference for this value. In one
case, the children’s shared wishes for that ideal was strong enough for a participant to
specifically identify it as a factor into her decisions. In eleven cases, the perpetrator used

this argument to maintain control over their victims.

105

“You hear all this about how kids need both their parenm. I grew w in a home
without my dad I can ’t tell you the number of times we needed him, and he
wasn’tthere. Ididn’t wantnrykids togo withouta dad, even ifhe wasn’ta
good person. ” —Iris

“I was like trying to make it work because I’m pregnant again ...trying to make
things better so the kids would have a better home and me and him would be
getting along and this next baby would have a father there because, you know I
am having all boys, so they really need a father there. I grew w to believe that
afamilywasanronuadadandthekids. Ididn’twanttobeasinglemom. I’ve
seen too many mothers struggle to get by. I kept thinking, ‘if I can just get this
worked out, we’ll all be okay. I got both of my parenm...I am so blessed...de
see other people at school they only had one parent, you know... and they’re
like ‘IwishI’dhadmydad’. Ifeltlikelwouldbeastatisticiflwasasingle-
parent home...like I would be like everybody else. I wantedto be different. I
wanted to have a family. I wanted to have a mother, father and children [in her

family unit]. ” —Donna

“They need their dad...well, not like this, but I mean kids should have two
parents who love and care for them. I didn ’t want to become a broken home
statistic. I finally wised w, and figured out he would never love and care for

anybody but himself: ” —Confirming Grow Member # I

“[My daughter] tells me when she says her prayers she wants us to be a family.
She includes [the perpetrator] in her prayers. ” —Geena

“You have to understand... myfamily loved him. Myfolks loved him, my sister
loved him, and my brother thought he was absolutely the coola't thing. They all
told me I was exaggerating... that things couldn ’t possibly be that bad Mom
said all cowles have spots. He choked me until I lost consciousness... that’s
NOT a spat!” —Confrrming Grow Member it 2

“His parents and his brother called me everyday. They begged me to take him
back. They beged me not to tellthejudge what he did They saidthey’dlie if
they had to, but that they weren ’t going to allow me to destroy him. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # 4

“My mom always taught me you married a man, you stayed with the man. You
have to have a father for your children. ” —-Qui’Ana

Religion may encourage some women to stay in abusive relationships, accept
their oppression as biblically ordained, and resist seeking legal/support services fiorn

secular social institutions (Jordan, 2006; Williams, 2000). Religion is a founding,

106

guiding principle of the patriarchy. . . suggesting that women submit themselves to their
husbands, that the marriage vow may not be broken, and that women are subservient and
of lesser value than men (Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence,
2006; Fortune, 2006; Jordan, 2006). These norms factored into the decision-making
process of seven of the participants.

“But when you have such strong feelings and you ’re praying every night and
you have God in your life and you have those feelings... you know, for any
sign...you have to go with your gut and your heart and that’s what I did I
talked to my pastor and to my mother about everything and what should I do...I
don ’t accept it, I don ’t agree with it, but God gives everybody a second chance
and he was [swposed to be] rehabilitated, you know. ” —Linda Ed note: Here
Linda was aplaining her reasoning for taking her assailant back into her
home.

“I said for better or worse. That I would stay by him forever, whatever may
come. I stood at the altar and promised God I had to break a promise to God
It wasn ’t something that I am proud of What happens to people that break
their promises to God?” —Confirming Grow Member # 3

“My pastor and my dad sat me down and said that this was something women
had to go through because of what Eve did with Adam. I remember thinking
‘how ’s that my fault?’ But at the same time, I thought they could help me get
him under control... that I had an obligation as a wife and mother to stick it
out. I was taught that you make a vow under God... you know? You have an
obligation to make it work. And when you ’re in it... when you’re stuck there,
you just kind of get lost in the fog. You keep trying, and it’s kind of like you
love him, and he’s the father of your children, and you should be able to make
it work for everybody. So then you think, ‘well, it’s got to be my fault’, so you
work harder. ” —Terri

“I prayed and prayed...I thought ‘how could this be happening to me’?” —
Helen

“I was always taught that when you marry, you marry for life... the ‘til death
do us part thing. I got married in the church, and I meant my vows. That’s one
of the hardest things... I meant them. They weren ’t just words. They were a
promise. I was raised in the church. My parents were missionaries. They’re
still disappointed in me. But I tried prayer. I prayed he would stop.

Eventually, I started praying he would die... that God would just take him. I’m
embarrassed to admit that. I’m still ashamed to think I couldn ’tfrx it. My

107

children have a monster for a father and a single mother. It’s really a mess for
them. ” —Confrrming Grow Member # 3

In what appeared to be a mostly a cultural issue, four participants and one
confirming group member indicated their unwillingness to participate in the incarceration
process of their abuser. In all but one case, women cited the overrepresentation of blacks
in our correctional institutions. This is consistent with findings of Bachman and Coker,
(1995); Franklin, (2000); Jordan (2006); Saunders and Size, (1986); Schecter and
Edelson, 1999; Sullivan and Rumptz, (1994); and T. West, (1999).

“Without my tatifying, they said that he would probably get all So if I tell
them what he did, and he gm to prison, then I’m going to be responsible,
right? How do [explain to the kids that mommy sent daddy tojail?” —
Confirming Grow Member # 3

“The kids, they need their daddy. All kids need a daddy. I have a big heart. I
couldn ’t send their daddy to prison...something inside me said that’s just not
right...there’s too many of us in there already and babies need their
daddy’s...even ifthey ain’t the best. [don ’t want to be the one that sends him
to prison. I know that should probably feel good to me, given what he did to
me, but it down ’t. I guess unless you have really loved someone, even though
they doyou badyou can ’t like see it. But Igot to live in a conununity...my
community... where Black men go to prison every day for lab of

reasons.. .some good, some bad I’m not going to add to [that] problem. It
wouldmakemepartofit.” —Iris

# 5: Perpetrators used isolation as a strategic tool to maintain their control. Amy,

 

Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Jackie, Kate, Michelle, Nancy,
Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Fifteen participants expressed being isolated fi'om family, either through the
family being fearful of the perpetrator, being exhausted from the stress of the victim’s
situation, keeping them geographically separated or because they were unable to believe
that the abuse was real. This theme is in keeping with the work of Dobash & Dobash

(1975), Ver Steegh (2000), and Zorza (1998).

108

“He was the kind of breaking point between my parents and I. [My mother
felt] it was my fault. Actually, when I moved out, they [parenm] ended w
coming to court with me one day and I listened to my mom tell me how it was
my fault, and that if I ’d listened to her none of this would have happened [The
assailant] was very adamant about the fact that I needed to stay away from my
parenm. When I moved out he called and threatened my mom and dad over and
over again that they were gonna die. And the State Police actually called me
andaskedmetocallmyparentsandtellthemIthatIIwasallright. SoIdotalk
to them now, but we don ’t touch on the subject because I can ’t handle her
telling me it’s my fault. ” —Catherine

“I called my mom to see if I could leave and go back there and she hung w on
me [frightened of the perpetrator ’s response to helping]. He never let me speak
to anybody anyway...I was locked in the house if I wasn ’t working. I paid all
the bills. I wasn ’t allowed to go anywhere unless I was at work. Nowhere.
Nowhere. If I went to the store, I had a certain amount of time to get there and
home. And a cowle of friends I did have, he wound w going to bed with them.
I had no friends. I had no family. I wasn ’t allowed to talk to my mom, my
sister, nobody. ” —Qui’Ana

“He hated my family. He made sure we were as far away from them as
possible. I went two years without knowing one single soul well enough to say
more than ‘hi’ to. Where was I swposed to get help? I didn ’t KNOW anybody,
and I wasn ’t allowed a phone and couldn ’t go anywhere unless he was with

me. ” -—-Terri

“I was alone here... three days drive from my friends and family. He knew
that, and took advantage of the fact I needed him. ” -Confrrming Grow
Member # 5

“Whenever I tried to get help from the cops he would just w and move us. We
moved five times in one year. The kids were so angry at me because they had to
move again. Their dad would tell them that it was my fault, that I called people
who wantedto breakourfamilyapart, andthatbecause afme we hadto move.
They hated me for that. I learned not to call. ” —Confu'ming Grow Member #
5

“Once this caseworker lady came out and started an investigation. We were
gone by the next morning. We never had a house... we would always rent
someplace where we didn ’t have no... like lease or anything. That way he
could get us out of there in a hurry. I wonder what that caseworker thought
when she came back and found us gone?” —Stephanie

“He had charges against him for parole violation when they arrested him for
violence against me. They let him out the nut day and he was swposed to
appearin court, but wejustleft. The warrantforhis arrest wasstillon hisfrle

109

when they finally caught w with him, but the statute had run out or something.
Anyway, it had been like ten years or something. Nobody even looked for him, I
don ’t think. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

Six perpetrators also were reported to have sabotaged victims’ efl‘orts to work,
fearing that the workplace may provide an economic resource for her to leave, connect
her to individuals to whom she could disclose, and prevent him from knowing her
whereabouts.

“He didn ’t like that I was doing that [looking for a job]. He figured if I get a
job [I needed to] get a job that would keep me here at home so I could still help
him and do what he wanted to and therefore I wouldn ’t be out in the world
and...he just wanted me here where he knew what I was w to and could do

stuff for him. ” —Amy

“He wouldcallme at work allthe time. My boss wouldtellme thatIneededto
get control over his calling. How could I? He didn ’t want me to work. If he
could make sure I got fired, then I wouldn ’t have my own money. If I didn ’t
have my own money, then I would have to go to him for everything. He counted
on that. ” Confirming Grow Member # 5

“He would sit amide the shop and wait for me to come out. If I didn ’t he’d
blow the horn or come stomping in to the office demanding to see me. He
called me off sick when I was too messed w [physically bruised] to go to work.
He was always asking who I was with at work... who I was screwing. Nobody
will hire me... I mean I’ve lost more jobs than most people ever have in their
lifetime. ” —Qui’ana

Batterers could ill afford to have evidence of their assaults visible. Therefore,
they inflicted wounds where they didn’t show, and inspected the participants’ clothing
and make up to ensure that she would not be questioned about bruising. Four participants
and three confirming group members reported this.

“Oh, he’d never hit me where nobody could tell It was always, you know, my

back or my legs or my shoulders. He couldn ’t take no chance that somebody

might see, I gums. ” -—Michelle

“I had to make sure to let him check what I was wearing before I went to work.

He was always careful to make sure any bruises were all covered w. He never
hit my face, where somebody might notice. ” —Confrrming Grow Member # 2

110

“I was careful to not let any bruises show. I became a wizard at makew. I
mean, I could cover w a black eye so you couldn ’t tell. I also would wear
scarves around my neck, things like that. If I didn ’t, he’d make it worse. ” —-
Catherine

“He never hit me in the face... not after the first time. He would always make
the bruises where I could cover them w. ” -Penny

Theme # 6: Batterers instilled fear and used threats to keep her in his 00ml. Amy,
Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda,
Michelle, Nancy, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Batterers used a variety of tactics designed to keep all twenty participants living
in fear. These threats served to keep the participants ‘in line.’ More ofien than not, these
threats included a fear that the perpetrator would carry through on weapons-related
threats. All twenty participants reported being fearful for themselves, their children and
their loved ones. This supports the work of Davidson (1995), Edelson (1985), Myers,
(2002) and Phillips (1992).

“I can ’t remember for the lastfrve years any day that I wasn ’t scared He

leaves hints for me all over...at home, in my car, everywhere. Last week I

. found a knife in my underwear drawer. It was one of his hunting knives. ” —

Stephanie

“He left a dead rat in my dryer. He admitted it. He said that’s what happens to
people who rat on others to the cops. He said if I went to court against him, I’d
windw like thatrat, only nakedin a dumpster.” —Confirming Grow Member
# 5

“He broke into the house. He stole the food Me and the kids didn ’t stay at the
house that night. So I went back to the house the nerd day..,fixed everything
w, secured the door. He broke in again. So about two or three o’clock in the
morning, sure enough, he knocks at the door and I’m like, just leave. I says
‘I’mftxing to call the police’, and I told him about the PPO. He says ‘call the
police...I still got six minutes to beat your ass [before they could get to her] and
I can do anything in six minutes’. ” —Geena

111

“I’ve had a knife held to my throat. He played Russian Roulette with a gun
pointed between my eyes. He shot my dog. ” Confirming Grow Member # 4

“When he kidnapped me, they said it was contact [in violation of a mutual no-
contact order] and that I didn ’t try to get away hard enough. They said I had
an attraction to him so strong that I could never be trusted to keep the kids
away. They said it was evidence that I would not be able to keep away from
him. It’s pretty hard to resist with a gun pointed at your head. I got away as
quickly as I could... ” —Terri

“Two summers ago in one of his moods, he started firing the gun off right
outside of the living room window and he scared the crw out of us and I went
outside and I told him that’s not funny, you don ’t play with a gun. He picked
the gun w and pointed it right at my stomach. He said he wasn ’t playing with
it. I said ‘Put the gun down. You don ’t ever point a gun at anybody...it’s not
funny’. He says ‘It depends on who’s holding it and who’s being aimed at’. I
took that as a threat. [Once] he came into the kitchen and laid a rifle on the
table. ‘I could take you out in a heartbeat and not even care, ’ that’s what he
said. He meant it. He wouldn ’t hesitate, I’m sure of that. ” —Amy

“He swung a baseball but at me. He [had] nailed the door shut and came at me
with the bat. I thought I was dead. Well, actually, I nearly was. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # 5 Ed note: This women was in intensive care
for several days following his assault with the bat.

“He threatened to kill me on more than one occasion...he had guns, knives,
swords...he’s not swposed to have firearms... he’s been convicted on two
separate felonies. ” —Catherine

“He had a gun...well, more like three of them. He would take one out and
clean it...sit right next to me no matter where I went in the house, he would
wind w sitting right next to me. Then when he was done cleaning it, he would
put it all back together and sight me right down the barrel. He would usually
point it right at my face and then he would make a ‘pow! ’ noise like he was
shootingit. Onetime, heheldaloadedgun tomyheadandpulledthetrigger,
but it just went ‘click’. Then he laughed because I cried. ” —Stephanie

“I called people around here because I’m afraid. He’s in the Army. He’s come
w here with guns and went target practicing. What’s to say he won ’t do it
again? I lived on a dead-end road and I’m scared to do anything. I stay away
from home [and when I am there] I stay awake all night because I’m afraid to
close my eyes, not knowing what I ’ll find when I wake w...know whether he’ll

be there. ” —0pal

“Hetoldmehe’dkillmeandmybabyifltriedtoleave. Itriedtoleave. I
called the police...they wouldn’t help me leave. I wanted to go home [to my

112

parents]. The cop laughed at me and said there was nothing wrong...I could
leave anytime I wanted and that he [the policeman] didn ’t have to be there. He
left. He shut the door and left. I saw the light just flash and the hatred...the
meanness, the monster... whatever you want to call it come out [of her
assailant] and I screamed and he hit me. I tried to fight back but I was six
months pregnant and he just kept hitting my stomach. And then he got the
baseball bat and said he was going to teach me that not the police or God
himself was going to take me from him. I fought back and the more I fought the
more he kept hming me and the cops came again and he shoved me in the
bathroom and I was screaming, screaming [inside my head] but they couldn ’t
hear me. All I heard was [her assailant] saying ‘thank-you, we’ll keep it down ’.
He left me locked in the bathroom for a while. I was bleeding everywhere. My
arm was broke, my ribs were broke, my jaw hurt, my cheekbone was broke, my
eye was cutopen. Ihadagash on myleg. Then hecamein andIbeggedhirn
to leave me alone. I begged him andItold him I wouldn’t leave him and that I
would be good And he laughed And this laugh was the ugliest laugh I had
ever heard And then I saw something in his hand I pushed past him and tried
togetwthestairs andhepulledmebackdown andlfellintotheglasstable
and I lost consciousness and I woke w at the hospital...right after I had her
[her daughter]. They told me the neighbor had heard the glass breaking and
called 911. It’s the only time that woman ever stuck her nose into anybody

else ’s business, and it saved my life. ” --Penny Ed note: Unfortunately
Penny’s daughter died shortly after birth.

Six participants also stated that they were frightened to involve anyone in a
support system for fear they would be harmed by the perpetrator. This supports the
findings of Dobash & Dobash (1979) and Goodkind and colleagues (2004). Several
reported continuing to be afraid, even after successful separation.

“He said that he’d take us all out...the kids, my sister, my brother-in-law—me.

He’s crazy enough to do it. I just can ’t put them in that position. If I testify

against him, he’ll find a way, I know it. ” —Catherine

“Nobody ’s safe from him. He’ll do it. He said he’ll kill my dad first, then my
mom, then the kids, then me. ” —Faith

“He told me if I wanted to see a real shootout to call the cops. ‘They’ll never
takeusoutofherealive. Ifyou wantusalldead, go aheadandcall’.” —
Confirming Grow Member # 5

“My kids have never been to daycare w to now [instead being cared for by
family, but because of the assault] I’m afraid to take them to family members

113

because he knows where they live, so now I have them [kids] in licensed

daycare. ” —0pal

Some batterers made suicide threats to victims when they attempted to leave,
sometimes threatening to do it in front of the kids. This was more troublesome to some
of the six participants than others.

“He has threatened to kill himself on more than one occasion. ” —Amy

“He called me twice and said without me, he had nothing to live for, and he was
going to shoot himselfl Both times I called 9-1-1 because I didn ’t want him to
do it and I sort of believed it. But the last time he said he was going to shoot
himself in front of me and the kids. He said they needed to know that if he died,
it was because of me, because I had broken w our family. ” —Conflrming
Grow Member # 2

“He says if I don ’t come back he’ll kill himself: I don’t care anymore... let him
do it. That may sound hard to hear, but after all the hell he’s put us through,
we’d be better off ” —Michelle

When other tactics did not seem to work, fourteen perpetrators vowed to fight
through CPS and in court to obtain custody of the children. This is in spite of the fact
that many of the abusers were also abusive toward their children, and to their mothers
during the pregnancies. This finding supports the findings of Pence and Paymar (1983),

VerSteegh (2000), and Zorza (1998). Amazingly, four of the fathers involved obtained

primary custody.

“He said he’d beat me in court. He said I couldn ’tflght him. He had money to
hire a lawyer. He said that he would make sure I never saw them again. ” —
Penny

“He called CPS and told them I was abusive. ME! He convinced them enough
that they did an investigation. They didn ’t like charge me with anything, but it
scared the hell out of me. He’s so convincing... he puts on such as great
performance. He can charm a snake. ”—Conftrming Grow Member # 2

“He called CPS and told them I had no food The second time he called and
said I had no heat. The third time he called he accused my brother of molesting

114

my oldest son. ” —Barbara Ed note: Each time CPS investigated and found
no substantiation for these claims.

Fourteen of the perpetrators used abduction or the threat of abduction as a tactic to
instill fear, ensure her continued compliance and prevent her fiom leaving. Sometimes,
the abduction resulted in an expensive and protracted legal battle to have the children
returned to the mother, despite her having court-ordered primary physical custody. This
supports the findings of Hart, (2006); Jones, (1994); and Saunders, (1998).

“He took the kids for his regular visit. When he put them in the car, he looked
right at me and said, ‘Kids, tell your mommy goodbye’. Then he smiled at me
and said, ‘Well, this is what you wanted, isn ’t it?’... He didn ’t bring them back.
It took the police and the courts two months to get them back. I thought I
would never see them again. ” -—-Confirming Grow Member # 3

“Hesaidiflever triedto leave, Icouldnevertake the kids. HesaidI’dnever
see them again. He said there are lots of places to hide if you ’re willing to
travel a ways. ” --Amy

“Hetookmyson when he wasa babyandthelawsaidthere wasn’tadamn
thing I could do about it... he took him out of state...went for a weekend visit
and never brought him back. We had joint custody, and I had to wait six
months to charge him with anything. ” -Penny

“I tried threatening to throw him out...pack his bags and they always threaten
you, ‘well, I ’11 just take my kids...and you ’11 never see them again ’. He swore
he’dtake the kids andmake them hate me. He wouldturn them against
me...that he wouldmake sure myfamily hated me. ” —Qui’Ana

“I got a PPO and he came and physically took me out of the house, with the
kids, and brought me back here. He kept me and the kids in his
warehouse...holding us hostage. I mean we had a gun to our face for three
days, until he finally fell asleep fi'om exhaustion. Then I got out...I hid the kids
with a lady I knew from when we lived here before, went to the cops and they
arrested him. I went to a shelter and they [CPS] came and got the kids that
same day ”or failure to protect against witnessing domestic violence]. So I did
what I thought I should to protect them, but I wind w losing the kids. So now I
wish I hadn ’t done anything. It cost me my kids. It cost them their mother. ”
—Terri

115

Theme # 7: Particimts love their childrep, and attempted to protect them. Amy,

Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda,
Michelle, Nancy, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

All twenty mothers in the study expressed affection and concern for their children
not unlike mothers who have not been victimized by abuse.

“They’re my everything. Without them I don ’t think I could live...they’re
everything I want, everything I need...everything, you know? They’re my all. ”-
—Donna

“I love my kids. You have to understand before I had kids, I was out—in the
streets. . .I was going. ..I mean I was free, so I was just basically doing whatever
I wanted to do. And I was just doing a whole lot of stwid things. So when I
found out I was pregnant with my first son, it was time I couldn ’t smoke any
more...the thought of another being inside of me was just, you know...I
couldn’t do it. They changed my life. Ilove them to death. I wouldn’t trade
them for nothing. ” --Faith

“Ilove my babies. They are my life. Iget w andgo to work...I cook and clean.
Everything I do is just for them. Just because that’s what you do when you love
your kids. You do everything for them. My people have always cared about our
kids. My family has always been good to our kids. ” --Geena

“They are the only thing that’s kept me going. My oldest...he is the best

kid. ..smart, loving. . .just a great kid My second, he’s more quiet. He’s a really
good student. He loves video games. He’s a cuddler. The third child, she has
ADD and school is really hard for her, you know? But she has the best heart.
And my baby. He ’s just one...just a good baby. They are the only reason I’m
alive. I live for them. ” —-Stephanie

“He’s my son. I love him. [Without him] there ’d be nothing for me. I wasn ’t

swposed to have... children, so when I found out! was pregnant with him, it
wasa miracle. Ineverwantedhirntogethurt. AllIever wantedwasa

family. ” -—Penny

Eight participants whose children were removed had understandable difficulty in
discussing their experience regarding the time their children physically were removed
from their care. They cried and most had difliculty in speaking. This question seemed to

illicit the most emotional moments of the interviews. I believe Qui’Ana’s depiction of

116

that moment was representative of most participants who were able to respond to the
question.

“I thought I was gonna die. The hardest thing I’ve ever had to do was pack my
eleven-year old son ’s clothes. Pack him w and hand him over. I’ve made
better choices. I still think it’s my fault that they got taken away...I could have
protected them better and sooner. I felt like I did something wrong by turning
him in because now my kids are gone. Without my kids there... I would have
rather taken the beating than turn him in...at least if he hit me, my kids were
[still] there [had she not turned him in]. ” —Qui ’Ana ‘

Six participants reported taking beatings for their children. It was apparent that
the abuser had little understanding or concern for the well being of their children. This is
consistent with findings of Zorza (1998).

“Sometimes, he’d tell me to shut them w or he’d do it. But kids are kids...
they need to laugh, roughhouse, play, you know? You can ’t just lock them w
somewhere until they are adults. Anyway, when they’d get a little loud or
whatever, he ’d beat the shit out of me. Just because I couldn ’t keep them
quiet. ” —Qui ’Ana

“Once he handed me a belt and said either you shut them w or I’ll use it on
you. I told him that he wasn ’t going to hurt those kids. So instead, he used it
on me. I got used to that. ” Confirming Grow Member # 3

“My oldest one, we kind of had an understanding. I worked third shift and in
the morning when I would come home from work she would get w and he
would still be asleep and she knew not to talk at all, not to make any noise,
because you didn ’t want to wake him w, that was just not a good thing. You
know, I would do my best to defend her...if he was getting mad at her I would
step in and take the fall for her. But you know, it’s hard with someone like
that...he’s hit us both, it didn ’t matter...as long as he hit somebody. My
youngest daughter, he wouldn ’t la her out of her bouncy seat...he couldn ’t
stand to hear her cry so I would get, for the lack of a better word ‘punished ’ for
her crying. My oldat one, she wasn ’t allowed to walk in front of the
television... you know he would sit therefor hours and play Nintendo. She
knew what happened if daddy got mad, and that’s how I think it was strictly out
of fear that she didn ’t make any noise in the morning. She still doesn ’t make a
lot of noise She’s a very quiet child But what do you do? ” —Catherine

“I always stepped in for their sake and they knew that their mother was going to
fight for them always. ” —Faith

117

Eleven participants reported stepping in between the abuser and the children to

prevent their abuse. Some children were reported to also have intervened or threatened to

intervene.

“I can ’t tell you the number of times I had to physically pull him off my son.
That’s no small task for me...he outvveighs me by about 100 pounds. But you
can ’t just stand there. I hit him with a lamp one day to get him to leave [son]
alone. I paid for that one! ” —Stephanie

“I would have to physically get between him and the kids. Sometimes that
meant that I took the punishment. It was worth it. ” Confirming Grow # 2

“I heard like shuffling around like he was messing around with my son [in

son ’s bedroom] and I walked in there and he had shoved on my son and I got in
between them and told him to keep his hands off my son and he went to hit me
and my son hit him back. Hit my husband... and he told CPS that if his dad
ever hit me again he was going to kill his dad ” —Barbara

Twelve participants adapted to the danger by attempting to arrange daily tasks and
children’s schedules in order to prevent the children from being confronted by the abuser.
Mothers reported that they would use safe places, such as the homes of relatives, for the
children in an attempt to safeguard them from the violence.

“I made sure that before he got home, I had the kids fed and bathed, and
working on their homework. That way they were quiet and didn ’t interrwt his
evening. ” —Qui ’Ana

“I would keep the baby w until a certain time so I knew she would sleep when
he was sleeping. Otherwise, if she wake him w there was hell to pay. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # I

“I would try to have them bathed, fed and asleep by the time he came home
from work. And I had them at my Mom ’s house, you know, just away from
everything that was going on at the house. ” —Faith

“I would take my children to difl'erent people’s houses you know, like my family
or friends and try to get them away from home more...instead of having them
be at home all the time because it was like the more I stayed home, the [worse it
got]. I really had no way of getn'ng away from the situation...I would try to
walkawayandgetthekids andtoplay with them andtryto change thesubject

118

like that and you know, change the environment because I didn ’t like arguing
in front of them [the kids]. ” —Donna

“I made sure the kids didn ’t have free time in the mornings on weekends. I

gave them chores to do in the barn. That kept them away from him when he
was most likely to explode. He just wasn ’t a morning person! ” Confirming

Grow Member # 2

“I tried to make them go to bed before he got home, I tried to make sure swper
was on the table so that way he could come in and eat and pass out sometimes.
Or just whatever he said, okay... just agree with him. ” —Barbara

“I used to send them in their room when I knew he was getting... you
know...when his anger was escalating. And I... you can see the signs you
know...there’s always signs. But I would send them to their room or to do
something so that they weren ’t right there seeing that [the attack]. ” —Kate

Nine participants also indicated that they attempted to train their children to avoid

the abuser, be attuned to small cues and respond appropriately in an attempt to keep them

safe.

“I would tell the kids to play quietly downstairs or outside That way they were
less likely to get in his way. They learned in a hurry to follow my cues. If I
suggested they play outside and I gave them the look, they knew enough to get
out. ” —Donna

“My daughter learned quickly that quiet meant safer. If I gave her the look,
she would scoot to her room. I look at her now, and she’s such a little mouse
She never makes any noise... she doesn ’t laugh. She doesn ’t yell and run like
most girls her age. He took that from her... he took our joy. ” —Conf'trming
Member # 3

Fourteen participants described a constant state of hyper-vigilance as a protective

measure. They phrased this in terms of not being able to rest or relax. This is consistent

with literature that explains why victims may sometimes appear hysterical or over-

reactive when interacting with the police, CPS and the courts. It is not unlike the

responses of hostages in other settings.

“I lived on the edge. I was always aware of how he was... always watching for
the telltale signs. I kept an eye on him no matter what. ” —Stephanie

119

“I had to learn to be very careful. I teamed to be sensitive to his moods. Even
got good enough to predict the next beating. Pretty sorry, huh ?” —Confirming
Grow Member # 2

“I just never let my guard down. I didn ’t dare. If I had any hope of survival or
keeping my kids alive, I needed to know exactly where he was and how he was
thinking. ” Confirming Grow Member # 5

“I protected them by getting them out of the situation, maybe having them stay
at my mom ’s or a girifriend’s house. I would walk on egshells just to keep him
toned down so that we would...if they were in the house we wouldn ’t have to get
into that situation ” —Geena

Thirteen participants extended this hyper-vigilance to knowing where their
children were, where the assailant was, and expressed selectivity in their choice of
surrogate caregivers.

“I never let my kids out of my sight. I always knew where they were and who
they were with. I didn ’t trust anyone to watch over them for me except my
mother. I had to keep a close eye on them. ” --Terri

“I was one of those mothers who had to know everything about her kids. I
didn ’t let them alone. Maybe I did that to make w for bringing him into our
lives. ” -Confirming Grow Member # 2

“I was especially careful about knowing where he was in relationship to where
my kids were. He told me he’d take them away from me in a heartbeat I
couldn ’t take any chances. That seems so strange... the judge just handed
them over to him. Now I have that to worry about without being able to control
who they’re with or what they ’re doing. ” -—-Faith

“She didn ’t go anywhere without one of as [designated safe persons] except to

Girl Scouts or for FFA and both places she had to call me when she got there

and she had to call me when she was leaving so I would know exactly where she

was going, how long it was going to take and if the car broke down I’d know

where to find her. ” -—Amy

Six participants used outside activities not just as a means of keeping the kids
away from the violence but also to engage them with positive role models.

“The kids are active in spam, Scouts, after-school club, stufl' like that. I sign
them w for anything I can. For years, I knew they were safe if they were at

120

those kind of things-—plus the fact that they learn good lessons from the

coaches and the grow leaders. They get tutoring from the mentors in the after-

school club. That’s all positives in their lives, and something they sure

wouldn ’t get from their dad ” —Qui ’Ana

“They spent a lot of time with my folks and at my sister’s. My whole family

likes to go camping. They’re good about taking the boys with them, and the

boys love it. It gives them a sense of normal family. ” —Confirming Grow

Member # 4

All the mothers expressed that their children were a constant a source of
concern, and major factors in the decisions that they made. They believed that they were
protecting their children from the perpetrator to the best of their ability, given the
circumstances.

It is clear fi'om the actions taken by participants that they desired that their
children be safeguarded. The above statements and the passion participants emoted when
talking about their children is evidence that these women are little, if any, different from
mothers not exposed to violence in their devotion and extreme connection to their
children. This supports the premise of Field and Cook (1994) and Porter (2002).

Theme # 8: Particimts desir_epl, and were often proagtive in seekgg’ , outside help

despite their fear. Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen,

 

Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie,
Terri

Seventeen participants were proactive in seeking help for themselves and their
children, and went to extended lengths attempting to prove their statements were true.
These strategies were not always rewarded, and participants were not always believed,

consistent with the findings of Dalton (1999) and VerSteegh (2000). Moreover,

121

participants expressed confusion at what more they might have done to protect their
children.

“I’m like what did I not do that needed to be done? When my daughter did tell
me who was responsible for her pregnancy. I came home, I sent them
someplace safe I called the police I called the family doctor. I took her to get
her medical help. I set w the wpointrnent to see you people, and now you ’re
telling me that I’m not capable of doing what needs to be done I’m the one
that called the police and told him [abuser] to get out of here I think I have a
right to be angry. ” —Amy

“I was seeing a counselor at that time [at a domestic violence service provider]
and I told her ‘I’m going to tell him to leave because I can ’t...I’m not going to
take that anymore ’. ‘Well, she said, make sure someone else is there so that he
doesn ’t go off on you’. But I thought, I don ’t want to involve anyone else. So I
didn ’t and I told him to get out and he said okay. I couldn ’t keep w the [house
payment] so I called to get into a safe house... you know, a woman ’s shelter, but
there was no room anywhere. [actually hadto live in my car untilIcame to
this shelter. I had a few restless nighm I used to have a lot of a'ouble with [my
son]. He would run away from school, that kind of thing. At that time, he was
a teenager getting very tall and very aggressive...he would run away from home
for three days at a time. You know, I tried to get help. I called the FIA and told
them I needed a caseworker [and some help]. [CPS worker].. .she said that I
could be charged with neglect if I didn ’t swervise him right. I told her I
needed some help...so what did she do? The woman came with a police oflicer,
got him out of bed, put him in handcuffl' and dragged him of to a foster home.
He was only doing what he saw done to me [In Juvenile Court] the judge says,
‘there is no such thing as a bad kid...only bad parents ’. They were going to try
to put me in jail ” —Kate

“I turned him in to Protective Servica. I got a PPO. I got the parenting plan,
and the kids spilled everything that had been happening to them. I told them
everything too...not realizing it would be used against me [in court]. I was
pregnant at the time I went to counseling. I did everything I could think of
Nobody could make him stop. I finally had to move out of state. If they find
me, so be it. But for now we’re safe ” —Terri

“I did everything I could I got into fine shelter, I filed papers with the court, I
cooperated with the police What more could I have done? How can you say I
didn ’t protect them?” —Confirming Grow Member It I

“I took my baby to the doctor...my youngest to get him checked The doctor
noticed the marks on him, so he had me call protective servica. [Perpetrator]
had hit him with a switch [because] he wouldn ’t sit down in his high chair. I
told [the doctor what had happened]. It was just too much. I wasn ’t thinking

122

that they’d take the kids away from me, you know? I just thought maybe if
somebody else told him he’d stop and think about what he was doing. [CPS]
came over to the house and sat down with me, told me that it was abuse, and
that kids that little couldn ’t know enough about punishment and why they
couldn ’t act w, and that we was wrong to do that. I though ‘we’? I didn ’t do
nothing. I mean like why would I call them if I was guilty of hurting my kids?
That just doesn ’t make sense, does it? I tried to keep him from doing it, you
know...I told them that I was at work and that I didn’t do it, but they saidI was
still responsible. They knew he [perpetrator] wasn ’t doing right by me I mean
they knew the cops had been out when he would get to yelling and throwing
things...busting w the place So they said that by me staying there I was
hurting the kids. So they said I didn ’t do what I should to protect them. ” --Iris

“1 even requested a drug tether so I could prove to them I wasn ’t using drugs.
[Perpetrator] had told them I was a drug addict. They believed him and he got
the kids. The only way to prove my innocence was to do it through testing and
the tether. It was embarrassing to have to wear it, but at least that waspr
enough for them. He still has joint custody, but they live with me most of the
time ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“He accused me of doing drugs and they [CPS] wrote down that I was doing
drugs and I told [CPS] ‘well, why don ’t you give me a tat then...if you think
I’m doing drugs why don ’t you test me?’ [CPS] accused me of lying and I said
‘well, why don ’t you give me a polygraph test? Anything she come w with I
wouldcome w with an answerto try andraolve andshe didn’t wantto resolve
no issues. ” —Barbara

“Everything I’ve done is for my kids. I moved out, took all the money I had and
Igot aplace to live...andItried as quickly aspossible to normalize life and]
got pushed from every direction. [CPS said] I needed to go to a shelter [because
he continued to stalk her]...and if I didn ’t they were going to come and get my
kids. ” —Catherine

Nine participants sought safe shelter through service providers or use of

family/friends. Shelter providers and family members willing to take the mothers and

their children in were clearly valued as a safety valve by the women in this study.

Seeking assistance and a safe place to be was a safety strategy also recognized by Dutton

(1993), Skinazi (1997) and Sullivan (2000).

“I went to the shelter twice I stayed with my mother and my aunt I don ’t know
how many times. You know...anywhere I thought we were safe. ” --Evelyn

123

“I got help from the shelter to go into hiding. I needed out of the county, and
they got me out fast CPS says I have to go back there so he can see the kids.
I’m going to fight that for all I’m worth. I have a good friend that lives outside
of town. [Assailant] doesn ’t know her. She’s my safety valve I can stay with
her whenever I need to. We’ve been with her for three months now. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # 5

“If I had to work [second shift], I couldn ’t leave them [the children] with him
when I wasn ’t there It was too risky. So I had a secretary at the office that
would babysit for me I would tell her that he was working or out of town, or
whatever, and she would take them. ” —Terri

Shelters may have been seen as a haven by some, but nine seeking their services
didn’t want the stigma attached to shelter residency, and some believed that their children
would be exposed to poor conditions, restrictive environments, stereotypical
marginalizing, and be forced to leave during the day. Some faith-based shelters serving
the homeless in Michigan do require their residents to be out of the shelter during the day
(presumably to seek employment), and] that may have factored into misconceptions about
shelters for victims of domestic violence. Assailants also fed these misconceptions in
some cases, preventing the woman from seeking services earlier. In one case, fear of the
shelter environment seemed warranted.

“I pictured this real run down place, your poor kids had nothing to eat and had
to be on the streets all day, you know. People look at them funny because
they’re in a home like that. I heard that shelters have mice and lice, and bad
food That’s the word on the street. I know difl'erent now, but back then I
believed it. [The assailant] told me that’s how it was. I’d see people hanging
around the doors of the Salvation Army, and thought ‘I can ’t do that’ [to her
children]. ” Qui ‘Ana

“My sister said the shelter wasqu of bugs and rats and stuff: No...I’m
serious. .. and you know, now that I think back how would she know? But you
just can ’t think clearly about those things when you ’re under attack all the
time ” —Confirming Grow Member # 3

“When he got w to go to work, Ipackedme andthe kids w. Icalledmy

stepfather and he came and got us and I stayed with them for a while Then we
started looking for shelter, someone to go to. I didn ’t want to stay at my

124

modrer’s house because he knows where they live, but I didn ’t want to stay at a
shelter, either. I had my mom and step dad, but didn ’t want them hurt. ” —
Faith
“I had no where else to go, and I didn ’t want to go back to the shelter in [city].
They testified against me to the judge, and [from that testimony it was apparent
that] they had been opening my mail and monitoring my phone calls and
sharing that information with CPS. ” -— Terri
“I thought long and hard about where we would go. I had no money. I had no
job. I was a thousand miles from my family. I had to choose to enter a shelter,
which I heard was infested with lice and rats, or stay and do the best I could I
decided I would take a chance on the lice and rats (there weren ’t any, thank
God), but who asks to be put in that situation?” — Nancy
Other system personnel also sought help for participants’ children. Of the
participants who knew who had reported them, CPS had been contacted by: a teacher in
three cases, the police in twelve cases, a neighbor in four cases, a relative of hers in one
case, and by the victim herselfin six cases. In cases where she herself reported the
violence, some participants reported being stunned at the responses that they received by
the investigating CPS worker. All but four expressed amazement that they were blamed
immediately for the perpetrator’s violence. This is consistent with the Enos, (1996);
Miccio, (1995); and Trepiccione, (2001).
“Tell me what I did wrong!” --Catherine
“I’m not the enemy!” --Terri

“I tried to get someone there to help me../explaining that she had been seeking
assistance from DHS prior to the report]. ” --Linda

“Why wouldIcallthem ifIwasguilty ofhurtingmy kids? Thatjustdoesn’t
make sense, does it?” —Iris

“They treated me like I was a monster mother who hated her kids. Hell, why
would I ask for their help if I was the one hurting them?” --Evelyn

“I told them [CPS] ‘I didn ’t have to call you. I could have ignored it like some
people would But I didn ’t, because that is my daughter’... My kids have

125

always been more important to me than anything or anybody. [Yet] they told
me if they thought I was blaming my daughter for anything that they would also
then be under the consideration of taking my children. ” --Amy

In an additional and related area, six women indicated that they had hoped for
help fiom the medical professionals they had encountered. Insurance requirements also
presented problems for participants seeking help for themselves and their children. Some
medical personnel also inadvertently assisted the abuser in harassing their adult victim.
This finding is supported by the literature (Gondolf, 1988; Zorza, 1998).

“Last year I got cut while docking the boat. It was pretty bad, and I needed
stitches. He [perp.] took me to the hospital I went to the ER with bruises all
over me He stayed with me the whole time I had a handprint that ran all the
way around my wper arm. The nurse who gave me the tetanus shot put the
needle in right over the handprint. I am just thinking, please, please help me.
But she didn ’t . ” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

“[CPS] said you have to check with your insurance company. They couldn ’t
give me [a referral]...all they can do is tell you to call your insurance company
[to get service authorization]. If I didn ’t know every one of my insurance
agents by name, [phone] number and family associations, I guess [probably
wouldn ’tfeel so bad about it. But by having to speak to an insurance company
that means that many more people know about the details [of the incest]. And
some details I would have preferred [to not] be out there because that is that
much more ammunition that people can use against my little ones...I don ’t
want my kids hurt. ” -—-Amy

“We were flying kites and the string of the kite slashed across [my son ’s] neck
and left a welt He went back to playing right away. I didn ’t think nothing of
it.. .it was nothing. [During the son ’s visit with his father that weekend] I got
home and I had this police card on my door. I had no idea what was going on,
so I called him [police officer]. He came out the next day with two CPS
workers. The accusation was that I cut my son with a knife. At that point, I
was just hysterical I was crying. He [perp] had taken him to the Emergency
Room. He stated to the policeman and the on-call physician that I had cut him
with a knife. [Later my son] talked to the lady [CPS worker and] he said two
different storia. ” -—Helen [Helen ’s children were removed from her and
placed with the perpetrator ’s sister. They were returned some days later afler
her son recounted to police that he had been told by his father to tell the doctor
that his mother had cut him with a knife. No charges were filed against the
father for this false report].

126

Theme # 9: Most participants seeking help were disbelievedxdevalpued and subject to
victim blam_1ng° . Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris,
Jackie, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri
Fourteen participants reported that when they called 9-1-1 for help, police did not
believe them, but were more often fooled by the explanations of the perpetrator. In eight
of these cases, police ignored PPO’s and parole violations in their investigation of the
call. Caputo (1991) and Saunders and Size (1986) found similar issues in their studies.

“When the police got there, he told them I was bi-polar and had been off my
medication. I have never had any mental illness. He said that’s why I was
‘confused and hysterical ’ From that day on he’d say ‘go ahead and call the
cops.. . you know what will hwpen. ’ Then he’d laugh. Sure enough, when I
called them again, he told them the same thing. They believed him. I heard an
oflicer tell another that ‘It ’s that nutcase again. ’ I am not mentally ill I have
never been bi—polar or anything else But he convinced them I was. ” —
Stephanie

“The police automatically believed him when he said I was the problem. I had
a PPO. He was at my house Four people saw him. But they said they couldn ’t
arrest him because it was my word against his. Even though others had seen
him and told the cops. What good is the PPO?” —Confirming Grow Member
# 2

“They [police] didn ’t do nothing to help. My sister called them because she
thought that he was going to kill me. She called them once and the neighbor
called them twice My sister just lives two houses down from our apartment.
The guy downstairs is the one I think called them the other two times. T hey just
said we needed to quiet down. My husband said it was nothing...just a little
argument. They didn ’t do nothing. ” —Iris

“I didn ’t have a separation order and divorce pwers in the process and without
a PP order they [sheriff’s deputies] said they would not do anything to remove
him from his home and there was no way that I could keep him from his home
[was toldin turn thathouldbe better ofl'... thathouldbe betteriijusttried
to work itout with him.” —Amy

“They pulled him over and let him go...they said I was crazy. When he would
come to my house they said there was nothing they could do unlas he hits
me..] have a PPO but drere is nothing they can do unless he his me.” —
Barbara

127

“He didn ’t want my daughter to leave Basically, I tried to put my daughter in
the truck and he came around, grabbed her [and] grabbed me [He] threw me
to the ground, and threw my sister to the ground when she was trying to assist.
Three other people [his friends] jumped in and it was just an all-out brawl
betrveenfive adults and two children watching everything. I was put in
chokeholds twice and my sister was put in a chokehold twice We had bruising,
cuts, scrapes...bleeding from head to toe...I had trouble breathing. My kids
had bumps on their heads, and bruises on their arms. And in the police report,
[none of this] ever happened There is nothing in the report. He didn ’t put in
there [the police report] that there were any injuries at all...not even a scrape
We have pictures to prove it. ” —Opal

Eleven participants believed that CPS workers thought that they had mental health
issues. This is consistent with themes that somehow women experiencing domestic
abuse are, as Amy related below, defective. This is also consistent with the idea that it is
easier to blame the victim than accept that some men are violent and that society bears
some responsibility for the plight of victim and to correct the behavior of the assailant.
Levandosky and colleagues (2000), and Sullivan (2000) found that societal perceptions
and policies regarding adult victims of domestic abuse are often based, incorrectly, on a
model of pathology.

“They treated me like I was abnormal... the caseworker said he thought I
needed help because I was too weak to leave, to protect the kids. ” -Stephanie

“They called me dysfunctional. I had to have two psychiatric evaluations. I
passed both. When they couldn ’t get around the fact that I was sane, they
started testing me for drugs. When I passed those, they didn ’t have much. So
they said I was probably ‘one of those women who are just naarrally attracted to
abusive men ’. Yeah... like anyone signs w voluntarily for that!” —-Terri

“[CPS] said that people that have been abused tend to be abusers or choose
more people who are like the people who abused them as kids. I think it makes
me look weaker or more ‘defective’ as one lady [at CPS] put it. They try to
point out that in your lifetime now where this may have made it where you
missed this [signs of incest] because of this reason or with you having been
abused, you wouldn ’t notice an abuser as quickly because you are
automatically drawn to [an abuser]. No, you’re NOT automatically drawn to
those people! They said for me to get into counseling... that I would not be

128

able to help my children. They told me if I didn ’t get into counseling I would
not be able to do what my children needed done I am just scared for my
daughter.. .stressed out...I am NOT crazy”. —Amy

“It [loss of children] drove a knife through my heart. I mean, my people have
always cared about our kids. I was scared I panicked I was embarrassed and
disbeliefed I hollered out and begged, and the judge had to tell me to sit down
or he’d have the police take me out. I just wanted to know when my kids would
come home Besides, what mistake did I make? I go to swport grow, and I
know this was not ‘my problem’. I am not broken. I don ’t need to be fixed I
am just fine ” —Iris

Seventeen participants described being questioned about why they reported the
abuse to CPS, what role they played in the abuse, and many times, despite evidence to the
contrary, were not believed. All expressed being surprised at the fact that they were
being blamed for something over which they had no control. Field and Cook (1994) had
similar findings.

“The CPS worker told me that I was under suspicion because I should have
known that he [perp.] was molesting my daughter. I never suspected anything.
It hwpened when I was at work. But she said that if he was violent to me, I
should have known he would do something to the kids. But I didn ’t know... if
only I had! But nobody would believe me. I was judged guilty right then and
there. ” —Linda

“I called them to report his treatment of the kids. Nobody would help me, but I
thought maybe they would at least help the kids. So I called... I made the
decision to call and followed through on it. Then when they show w, they
accusemeofbeingpartofit. Iwindw havingmy kids taken away. IamNOT
the enemy! If I was, why would I have called them in the first place? I’m NOT
the enemy! The court papers say that ‘I failed to protect, that I probably would
return to him (yeah, right), and that in spite of the fact I’m an educated woman
Icouldnotbea'ustedtoactin thebestinterestofmy children. ” —Terri

“There is never going to be a time where I doubt my children or where I am
‘going to pick’ somebody else over them. They have to know that! Protective
services has done nothing but question where my motives are: Am I going to
side with him eventually? Am I going to pick him later over my kids? When he
is let out of prison, will I talk to him again? Even after everything they have
been told [and everything I did to make sure he went to prison], they are still
threatening me. ” —Amy

129

“I had my children at my friend ’s house, where [they could] catch the school
bus in the morning [participant had moved out of county]. I couldn ’t make the
house payment. I got another house [through the domestic violence service
agency]. But I didn ’t want to take my son out of school so I had him go over to
[friend’s] house in the morning to catch the school bus. The case worker got
really mad saying that [my friend] wasn ’t a daycare provider and [I] shouldn ’t
have my kids there overnight to catch the school bus. The judge goes, ‘well if
that’s the case, then that means that grandparents can ’t have their
grandchildren, that means that aunts and uncles can ’t have their nieces and
nephews, [and] I’m not going to use that, and that [complaint against the
participant] is going to be stricken from the record’. So the judge actually did—
sided with me about [it] because it didn ’t make sense. ” —Barbara

“[CPS] and the police officer automatically made me feel like I did this even
though I kept stating to them [I hadn ’t]...and even though I kept stating this is
what happened...this is what hwpened...I have witnesses. That same day they
went out to see [the witnesses] and they came back and said, ‘well, are you
relatedto any ofthe witnesses or...?’. [mean they, this man triedto make me
feel like ‘you ’re lying I don ’t care what you say. I believe that you did this” [cut
son with a knife]. —Helen

“When I was doing my drops [drug screens], she [CPS worker] would say
there’s no way I could drop clean all this time [a year and a half] and [accused
me and the workers at the clinic] of covering w my screens. She switched my
days for drops ..she wouldn ’t let me drop at night [she worked during the day],
so I almost ended w losing my job, I almost lost my apartment because I had to
cut my [work] hours and so I said I can ’t do this no more, so I called her back
to court. I called her into court and said obviously you don ’t believe [the results
of] these drops...we need a new system. So I asked the judge for a tether. So I
wore that for three months. ” —Qui ’Ana
Seventeen participants voiced their frustration and confusion when faced with
expectations that they should have been able to make the violence stop, and that their
efforts to protect their children were ignored. Many verbalized that they had done
everything they could, and expressed that if they could have made it stop, they would
have. This finding is consistent with the patriarchal underpinning of role expectations
and subsequent victim blaming delineated by Czapinski (1993), Delgato (1999), Epstein

(1999), Freeman (1982), Jacobs (1998), and Myers (2002).

130

“They (CPS) said I failed to protect them. Well, they weren ’t there when I
arranged for them to stay at mom ’s because I knew it (the beating) was coming.
They weren ’t there when I hid them out at a friend ’s to prevent him from killing
us all They have no clue what I did... where were they when I needed their
help? ” —Catherine

“Nobody understands that feeling when your kids are taken from underneath
you for something you know in your heart and you know in your mind you did

not do but you are still accused and people look at you. I mean the whole world
was against me. ” —Helen

“What was I swposed to do? I couldn ’t make him stop...no matter what I
tried, it didn ’t work. He did what he wanted, and nobody could help me. I got
the PPO. I called PS and the cops. I took the beatings to spare my kids. I tried
to keep peace in the house I tried to protect them, and now they blame me?
The caseworker (CPS) said it was my job to control him and my kids. How
could I do that? Sure my kids have problems. But so do tom of other kids. I
resent somebody judging me when they don ’t know.. . when they aren ’t offering
any help. T hey just come in and say I have a problem. Well, I’m here to say it
wasn ’t my problem. They could have helped, but instead they just blamed me
andtookmykids. Thejudgesaidhe expectedmeto do whateverittookto
protect my children. I’m telling you I did just that. Whatever it took... ”—Terri
F our participants who had their children removed reported being threatened by
workers if they called CPS too often or objected to their treatment, and eleven indicated
they had critical information withheld. Six others were refused information on their
rights, and were asked if they were considering taking back the perpetrator. This is
despite the fact that the victims in those cases had filed for divorce, were cooperating
with police and prosecutors, and had no intention of allowing the perpetrator back into
their lives. CPS suspicion of victims is expected, given Trepiccione’s findings (2001).
In Jackie’s case, CPS, the police and the prosecutor’s office were forcing her to live in a
shelter, refusing to enforce her order of custody, and scaring her children in order to get
her to give them information about a shooting involving her boyfriend. Jackie was at

work at the time, and claims no knowledge of the particulars surrounding the shooting.

131

 

This is consistent with the reports of Aron and Olson, 1997 and Kauffman-Kantor and
Little (2002).

“They saidifIdidn’t quitcalling them allthe time it wouldbe worseforme and
the kids. They said that if I knew what was best for me, I would just let them do
their job and show w for court and the judge would take it from there ” —-
Jackie

“I tried several times to get them to tell me what rights I had or what options I
had... you know, what could I do to fight the removal of the kids. The guy
[CPS caseworker] said ‘the best thing you can do is wait for us to contact you.
You no longer have any rights. To make a big fuss will only make things worse
We’ll be in touch ’. Then he hung w on me ” —Evelyn

“They told me that if for any reason that they think I’m in the process of
forgiving him or trying to take his side they are going to consider me as
culpable as he is and that they can remove my children. I didn ’t do anything
wrong. Why am I being threatened now? I’ve done everything that I know to
do. I’ve done everything that you ’ve [CPS] told me to do. I didn ’t doubt my
daughter...[ never questioned what she said If they [CPS] open their eyes,
they’d see that I’ve already followed their line. ” —Amy

“They [CPS, police] said that they had allegations that my brother was looking
to kill my children and me [He was being pursued for allegedly shooting the
participant ’s fiancé and her daughter was hurt in the incident]. They said that
since I had domestic violence with my boyfriend, they wanted me someplace
here [shelter] until my brother turns himself in. The thing is, they think I know
something about this, but I don ’t. I think they want me to stay here because it
makes me uncomfortable. Because my family...we don ’t do guns, we don ’t do
knives, we don ’t do that...so this is a really big shock. Oh my God! Where did
this come from? What has happened to my family? My daughter... her dad
took her from me and I went to the child swport building and I got copies of
my custodial papers showing that I have full custody of her. I called the police
andwentoverto his house, asking ifthey wouldmeetmetheresothatIcould
get her back. He had called CPS. And CPS told him he could keep her. They
are not letting me have any contact with her. [CPS] said ‘we can ’t keep you
from going over there and get your daughter because legally, you still havequ
custody of her ’. [But] if I go over to his house to pick w my daughter they will
call the police and I will go to jail Meanwhile, CPS told my daughter their
uncle wastryingto killthern.” —Jackie

“(Male CPS worker] said ‘we have allegations you cut your son with a knife I
want to see every knife in your house’. [I said] ‘that ’s fine Everything is right
here ’...I never once stopped to say you can ’t do this, you can ’t do that. I mean
it was really hard because they tried to take [daughter’s] clothes off to see if she

132

had bruises or whatever. She just automatically started crying...she didn ’t
want nobody touching her or anything and it was just really hard At that
point...it wasn ’t the lady [Female CPS worker] that was doing this to her...it
was the man and I was like, ‘I don ’t think you have a right to touch her...I
think that if somebody is going to it should be the CPS lady’. And he was like
‘well, if you ’re not going to let me touch her, open w her shirt’...I said ffine,
do whatyou have to do’. LikeIsaid, it was very hardfor me and her.” -—
Helen

Ten participants had been implicated in his violence. Most of the white women,
but few of the black women voiced anger or Stu-prise over that implication. All ten
women expressed being confused over what more they could have done to protect the
children. This finding was consistent with those of Epstein (1999) and Fordham (2000).

“[When he was finally charged] they charged me with failure to protect. We

were charged at the same time Every court date we had to go together you

know because the court they ran concurrently so when he showed w, I had to
show up. [Sarcastically] It was fabulous. ” —Catherine

“Failed to protect... That’s what they say I did I weigh 13 7 pounds and he

weighs 260. I stepped in between him and my kids. I took the whipping for

them. How is that not protecting them? How can they say I don ’t love my kids?

They are the only reason I stayed and took it. ” —Stephanie

“I don ’t understand how I could have done anything differently at that time.

The cops wouldn ’t arrest him. PS wouldn ’t talk with him. T hey just said I

needed parenting classes. I said, ‘trust me, I’m not the one who needs

parenting classes ’. They told him I said that. I paid for that comment for a

long time They were the ones who failed They failed to protect any of us! ” —

-Terri

Five of the women in the study were charged with child endangerment or neglect,
specifically on the presumption that they made a conscious decision to expose their
children to someone they should have known was violent. This was a finding of the court
in the case of Campbell v. State (2000). Participants expressed not understanding how
their assailant’s actions were their fault. Participants’ attempts to get help from the very

systems that accused them of endangering their children were ignored. This left the

133

women confused, hurt, angry and frightened for their children. Many women expressed
being devastated by charges that they were an unfit, abusive or neglectfiil parent.

“Child endangerment, that’s like saying I was the one busting w the furniture,
shooting of a gun in the house I called the police I tried to get him out of our
lives. What more was I swposed to do?” -—Barbara

“Being accused of; you know, hurting my own child That hurted me because I
would never hurt my own, you know... I would spank them, if they did
something that they wasn ’t swposed to, a simple spanking I will do. But as far
ashurtingmyown childlikethat, Iwouldneverdothat. Ilovemybabiestoo
much. ” —Faith

“They said I was a bad mother. They might as well have taken a gun and shot
me dead A badmother! [love my kids. They’re everything to me. They saidI
was responsible ‘cause my son got into fights at school Well, that’s what he
saw his daddo to me. Yet I’m the bad one [didn’t teach him that. [taught
him better. But when that’s what he sees... ” —Confirming Grow Member # 3

“It’s like they’re saying all these things and I just want somebody...somebody
just explain to me that if I was doing everything to protect my children... I
mean it got to the point where I wouldn ’t leave my children home with him
[perpetrator]... I felt I was protecting them. I felt it when I went down there
and got that PPO...that I was protecting them. You think of neglect [she was
later charged with endangerment].. .I think of barefoot, dirty kids unattended
to...don ’t nobody care about Mama doing of in the streets, nobody looking
after them...that’s neglect. But they are telling me I neglected my children
because I didn ’t leave a domestic situation. ..I was trying!” -—Geena

“[After having her daughter checked for sexual abuse three previous times with
negative findings]...[ took my eight-year-old daughter into the hospital because
I was concerned [returning redness,swelling in genitalia] . ..the CPS worker
told me I was under suspicion because I should have known that he
[perpetrator] was molesting my daughter. It hwpened while I was at work! I
tried to get someone to help me figure it out [the three prior negative
aaminations]. I should have known he would do something to the kids? I
didn ’t know...if only I had! But nobody would believe me. I was judged guilty
right then and there. That hwpened in May...she [CPS worker] didn ’t even
come out until this last October to do a report. [The children were removed
three months later, in January] I had the kids with me the whole time w until
January. She told me they will be wards of the state because of what he did to
them, and because of [the fact that] my decisions flipped-flopped a lot” [in
regards to staying with him in the absence of any evidence of molestation or
charges being filed against him]. -—Linda

134

Despite having no history of substance abuse, five participants were required to
successfully complete drug testing regimens that sometimes went on for years, despite a
history of negative tests. Sometimes, perpetrators were successful in creating this
situation, by filing false substance abuse claims against her. In some cases, his substance
abuse was reason enough to have her tested, and tested repeatedly. This finding that she
is somehow defective in her assigned role as primary protector is supported by the studies
of Field and Cook (1994) and Levandosky and colleagues (2000).

“I had to go to testing once a week. My ex told them I had a drug problem.
They gave the kids to him based on his assertion that I used drugs. I don ’t use
drugs and never have. I have never flanked a drug test. I went once a week for
eight months. They took his word for it. He beats me w, accusa me of being
an addict, and gem the kids. How is that right? It took me a year of parenting
classes, drug testing, counseling and work-first requirements to get my kids
back. Meanwhile, he’s living with his mom and my kids. ” —Confirming
Grow Member # I

“Ihavetodoarandom drugtest...every weekIhavetocallandtellthemmy
name and tell them I ’m [calling about] the drug screen and if I get picked that
day I have to go down and take a drug test. I’ve taken four and they have all
come back negative, you know. ” —Geena

“I hadto gofour times a weekfor ayear...never hada dirty test. Idon’t do
drugs. I don ’t do that. ” —Qui’Ana

“I had to go to drug and alcohol screening, I had to go to [get] a psychological
evaluation. Child and Family Services. . .came and watched me parent. I didn ’t
mind any of it...that wasn ’t the point. The point was that there should have
been some sort of punishment involved [for the perpetrator] and there wasn ’t.
That was like a joke to him and he knew it. You know, every court date when it
was swposed to be, you know, things were swposed to be completed, they
weren ’t, he’d give some excuse and they’d give him some more time
Meanwhile, I got more time [under swervision], for that extended time even
though I had done what I was swposed to do. [The reason for the drug testing
was] the CPS worker said that he couldn ’t do anything to my husband
[sanctions] he didn ’t do to me. ” —Catherine

Some plans included requirements that appeared to have little or no connection to

her fitness as a parent. Consider Qui’Ana’s report, below.

135

“I used to have bad teeth. But I knew that Medicaid didn ’t pay for dentures. So
I couldn ’t get my dentures, so she court-ordered me to have my teeth pulled I
had thirty days to get them pulled I was told that I had to have my teeth pulled
because they were unhealthy, and if I was unhealthy, I couldn ’t care for my
kids right. I was doing drops [drug screening] so I couldn ’t take medication for
the pain. I didn ’t dare take the chance of dropping dirty. I was in drug testing
at the time, even though I have never used drugs. I got tested twice a week for a
yearandahaifl With havingtogettestedIhadtohavemyteeth allde
without any pain killers after. So anyway, I had to go to work and tough it
out...you know the holes where the teeth were, I had gauze wads in my
mouth...couldn’t talk...the smell offoodmade me sick. [hadto go to work
after because I needed to prove I could work and provide for them. I had the
surgery, got an abscess...I mean my face was out to here and I had to go
through that surgery. It was very painful The poor people at the dentist’s
thought the guy was killing me That was two rough weeks... but [did it. I’d
do anything togetmy kids back.” —Qui’Ana

One participant (Catherine) and one confirming group member reported that she
was arrested along with the perpetrator because the police believed that the crisis was a
matter of two people fighting. Police were oblivious to her defensive wounds. In
addition, reports filed by police defined the incident as something other than what it was.

“You know in the [news] pwer when they list all the arresm and burglar-id and
stufl? There we are... cops responded to a ‘domestic dispute’ at [addras]. I
couldn’t believe it. What the hell is a domestic dispute? Is it a man swinging a
baseball but at his wife...the mother of his children? Because that’s what
hwpened When the cops got there, I had a fencepost in my hand I had to
keep it in front of me to keep from getting hit. I was using it to fen[d] off the
blows. Thank God he was drunk or he’d have killed me His aim was a little
0172 But because I had the fencepost, they arrested as both. What was I
swposed to do? Let him beat my brains in? He goes to the hospitaltoget a
detoxandis releasedwith a warning. Iwenttojail” —Confirming Grow
Member # 1

Although she was expected to care for and about her children as a mother, when
the children were removed fiom her care, little concern was given to the emotional
trauma she experienced as a result of losing her children. Five participants expressed
their panic and grief over not knowing how their children were, whom they were with,

where they were, or if they had what they needed to comfort them.

136

“I was beside myself My kids were God knows where God knows who they’re
with, if they ’re alright...my son didn ’t have his medicine... the baby didn ’t have
my breast milk. She’d never had formula. Did they know that? I called and
called No one would tell me anything. Sometimes they would thank me for my
concern, like I was reporting a missing stop sign or something. Most of the
time they never even called me back. I begged them to tell me if they were all
right. . .to come pick w the breast milk I’d saved I begged them to come and
get his medicine He has seizures without it. No one would listen. It was like I
was talking to a brick wall ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“F or the first like month and a half I had no clue who she [CPS worker]
was...the first time I went to court...I didn ’t know who she was...never met her.
She was swposed to do a home study [but didn ’t]. ” —Qui’Ana

“I did everything possible to get myseif where I needed to be [I] was calling
three and four times a day and leaving messages. I wanted to know what [was]
going on with my kids. ” —Helen

Eleven participants believed that they were deliberately kept in the dark about
their cases, and were given conflicting information from their workers. This resulted in
many surprises in court for the families involved. Porter (2002) found similar issues in

her work.

“She [the CPS worker] told me drat she thought I was doing a great job with my
parenting plan. Everything she told me to do I did So I went into court feeling
really positive When she got w on the stand she said I would probably seek
out another batterer and so my ability to parent my kids was unlikely. I said to
my lawyer, ‘that ’s not what she said! ’, but I never got a chance to question it. ”
—Confirming grow member # 2

“The first time I knew I was being charged with neglect was when I got to
court. They handed me the pwers right there just before the hearing. My
adorney acted like he knew, but no one ever said anything to me I thought I
was going to testify about the assaults. I knew nothing about losing my kids
until right then and there The second time I went to court I’m showing my
attorney the pwerwork for the PPO, I showed her I was in domestic violence
counseling, I got the kids enrolled [in counseling] and she ’s like ‘good. ..that
will look good for the judge, maybe they will do a planned parenting agreement
and this will be all over with ’...and I’m thinking planned parenting...it must be
that they’re going to send the kids home and let me start this thing. It didn ’t
work out that way. ” -Geena

137

“I found out he had been molesting my daughter in the courtroom. The CPS
worker testified that she had taken my daughter to the doctor, and real-matte -
of-fact-like she said there was no question that penetration had taken place and
that [my daughter] said it was her daddy. They gave the judge a report from
the doctor while I was sitting there, destroyed, [in] disbelief, stunned My
attorney just sat there I said ‘did you know about this? ’ but he didn ’t answer
me No mother should ever have to go through that. I will never forget that
moment...never. ” —Evelyn

“They won ’t tell me anything but ‘that will have to do for now. ’ I have no
rights in her (daughter, incest victim] medical care, his punishment, anything.

I do however, have to continue to clothe her, feed her, take care of her child
and make sure that she has insurance and everything else to pay for her bills.
But I have to help them put my husband behind bars for the rest of his life but I
have no rights to know what has gone on. ”—Amy

Sixteen participants described the failure of their attorneys to adequately represent
them in court, and being told by both attorneys and judges that they may not speak on
their own behalf. The examples they gave regarding the behavior of the attorneys was
nothing short of appalling. This devaluing of women as property of the patriarchy is well
established in the literature (Bent-Goodley, 2001; Stark & F literaft, 1995). Their voices
and presence were suppressed in the court.

“He was MY attorney. He was swposed to represent me He played solitaire
on his laptop in court. He told me not to say anything. He said all this was
preliminary. He told me I’d be a fool to testify. I’d write things down for him
that I thought would be helpful He put them in his briefcase None of that was
ever presented in court. I actually pushed them into investigating [a charge of
molestation by her ex-husband]. And now, they’re trying to put me on the
registry as a physical sexual abuser [despite the fact she has never been charged
with anything]. Hell, why would I ask for help if I was the one abusing them?
They treat me as if] was a monster mother who hated her kids. [love them
more than anything. I couldn ’t believe it. My [new] lawyer am like I’m
bothering her every time I call her. One time after court, me, my parents, my
lawyer, and what was supposed to be my kid’s lawyer...we were on the elevator.
She [guardian ad litem] says ‘well, I think I know what comes next and it stam
with a t and ends with an n [termination of parental rights]. And my lawyer
turned to her and said, ‘well, I could have told you that three months ago ’. I
snwped I said ‘I’m doing everything I’m swposed to do. My goal is to get my
kids back...don ’t you tell me you’re going to terminate my rights’. And my
lawyer didn ’t say anything more She should have defended me...she should

138

have said ‘that’s inappropriate’... I mean it was totally unethical I couldn ’t
believe it. ” --Evelyn

“My attorney told me the best thing Icoulddo was to sit quietly. [asked him if
I should ask others to testify on my behalf He told me it wasn ’t necessary. I
asked him if I could write a letter to the judge He said that was the worst thing
I could do. I had to just sit there He never did anything to help me T he judge
was making decisions that afl'ected my kids... me... and he knew nothing about
us. I felt so helplas. ” —Donna

“Got to the last hearing and my attorney...she didn ’t want me to speak... the
judge asked me if there was anything I wanted to say and I told him no because
I was listening to my attorney. ” -—Geena

“I fell out in the courtroom. The judge told me to sit down and be quiet. When
we went back they gave me a lawyer...but he didn ’t do nothing for me. He just
told me to sit there and be quiet. But he never, like said anything to defend me
Nobody defended me He was just there to collect his money. ” —Iris

“When we first started going to court [perpetrator] was there They ’d bring him
in and I’d be there sitting close to him. At that time, I would be afraid to speak
to anybody...how I felt, because I was never allowed to. I would just shut w...I
could have told them that this man was very abusive...but I couldn ’t say that
with him sitting in front of me at first. And when I finally got the guts to say
something. ..I kept telling my attorney ‘say something! ’. My attorney said ‘shut
w...don’t talk in this courtroom’. My attorney told me that. He would tell me
to be prepared when I come to court, and I would get there and he wouldn ’t
want to hear anything I had to say. [I thought] okay.... ” —Qui ’Ana

Other issues with attorneys were described. Eleven participants reported that

attorneys did and said little to represent them, ignored information that could have helped

them, and seemed to lack education about domestic abuse. Often, perpetrators were able

to hire lawyers that were quite competent. Participants reported that the public defenders

they were assigned were less prepared, did less to represent their clients, seemed

distracted and were interested only in getting paid for their work.

“Imetmyattorneyforthefirsttirnetheday we wenttocourt. Hetoldmetosit
quiet and let him do the talking. So I did He just sat there, playing solitaire
He never made any objections, never called any witnessa [even thought I had
given him all kinds of information and contacts]. My husband hired his own

139

attorney. How could I fight that? He has all the resources. I had nothing. I
guess you get what you pay for. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

“I tried to contain...keep my composure and all that stuff and not, you know,
lose it in court And the attorney...he was swposed to be MY attorney. He was
swposed to represent ME. He played solitaire on his laptop in court He told
me not to say anything. He said it was all preliminary. He told me I’d be a fool
to testify. I’d write down things for him that I thought would be helpful He
put them in his briefcase None of that was ever presented in court —Geena

“My attorney fell asleep in court I mean sound asleep. He wologized, and
said he had been on duty to the court all night. Well, that’s not my problem.
Meanwhile, I’m being made out to be this maniac that can ’t be trusted to raise
her own children. I might as well have gone in without an attorney, for all the
good he did me” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“I got a court-appointed attorney. I honestly didn ’t think she believed me I
don’t think she gave it her all Iknow [made a mistake [got into abusive
relationships [2]... but [it was with] the [very same] people [to whom] they gave
custody of my kids!” —Helen '

Seven participants had similar complaints about the court-appointed attorneys
hired to represent their children. The most common complaint was that the attorneys
spent no time with the children, and made assumptions without speaking to the children
in any meaningful or developmentally appropriate way. This is consistent with the
findings that most court workers are operating in a faulty paradigm or do not have
enough training to represent victims appropriately (Aron & Olson, 1997; Dalton, 1999;
and Gordon, 1988).

“The kid’s attorney never even talked to them until I 5 minutes before court. He
didn ’t know them. He fell asleep in court and had to be woke w. Were we
boring him? This was important stufll The kids said he asked them their
names and age, if they loved me, loved their Dadmdid they get along with me,
with him...if they loved their grandpa & grandma. That was it. What kind of
representation did they get? They didn ’t know him. He didn ’t know them.

How could he speak for them?” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

“The kids attorney spent less than twenty minutes with them. My daughter

asked me who that guy was. He never had even met them until the day we went
to court How can they say they know what’s best? I found out near the end of

140

our protective services case that he was swposed to see the kids once a month,
well he never, he never did that; he was swposed to come out to our house, he
never did that; he was swposed to have an interview with them before our final
court date, he called me the morning of the interview and said, “Lets just do a
phone interview. ” At the time, my oldest one is six, my youngest one is two, do
you get a lot out of a child on the phone? You know what I mean, thanks, it did
a lot of good (laughs). I don ’t mean to laugh, you know what I mean, the, it’s,
the whole thing has been such a joke It’s no wonder women go back. ” —
Catherine

“The attorney assigned to my children was answering his e-mails in court.
Right there, in the courtroom. My sister was sitting behind him and watched
him do it He wasn ’t paying attention. He never talked to me, never talked to
the kids about what they wanted That’s not right He just took his check, and
went to the bank. I wonder how he can sleep at night ” —Confirming Grow
Member # I

“They [guardians ad litem] come over and see my son two days before court
We go to court every three months and they don ’t see him at all during that
three months. Two days before court they go over there and then when they go
into court they act like they know him and they don ’t They’re ‘acting in the
best interest’ of a child they’ve never even really met. My son calls her the
chocolate lady... he doesn ’t even know her name. ” —Penny

Theme # 10: For most participants, gm ,3 got worse wh_en th_ey lefi the relationship.
Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda,
Michelle, Opal, Penny, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

It is assumed by the general public that women will be safer if they leave the
situation. Research (Enos, 1996; Fleury et al, 2000, Meuer & Webster, 1997; Mills,
2000; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998) does not support that
assumption, and seventeen participants in this study and three confirming group members
indicated that they were not safer just because they left the relationship.

“Oh, yeah... it got worse I didn ’t think that was possible This last time, when

he almost killed me, I had been gone for almost six months. He broke in to the

house and was waiting for me [fit hadn ’t been for the neighbor, I’d be dead

It wasn ’t the first time since I left he got me He knows where I am and has

saidhe canfrndme anytime he wants. Well, lethirntry itfromprison.” —
Confirming Grow Member # I

141

“He came over to my sister’s house He knew that’s where I would go. I
thought he might not dare to come there, but that didn ’t stop him. ” —
Confirming Grow Member ii 4

“You know, I never thought he was capable of killing me until I left Now I
know he’s capable of anything. What used to be a beating became attempted
murder. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

Batterers continued to threaten, stalk and harass thirteen participants and three
confirming group members after they managed to escape the relationship. This is
consistent with the findings of Meuer and Webster, (1997).

“He ’d sit in his car across the street One day I came home to find the cat
dead...he’d hang it in the tree in the backyard He hung it on the same rope
the kid’s swing is on. I got it down before the kids got home, but you know, it
just broke my heart I knew what the message was...we were next. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # 2

“He’s made like nine phone calls here Urom prison] and I’ve talked to him
twice and both times he’s been told not to call here again. The police told me
there is nothing they can do to prevent him from calling his home I went and
got a personal protection order. I went to the detective and I told them this is
going on...I cannot have this because this is not going to be helpful to my
children. Obviously, calling the police does me no good I’m getting letters
from him that he is sending through other people, wanting me to forgive him of
stuff and I’m turning them over to the police. ” --Amy

“He followed me to work, the grocery store, whatever. As soon as he heard on
the police scanner that I had called in for help, he’d leave They never could
catch him. ” Confirming Grow Member # 4

“Hestillfollowsme Ihavetoridethe busto work, andhefollows the bus. I
have complained, the bus driver has complained, but his attorney says he has a
right to use public streets. T he judge is swposed to hand down his decision
next week. I hope he makes him stop. I know one of these days, he’s gonna
finda way togetme. I’dmove, butthejudgesayslam not allowedto, untilthe
custody stuff is all figured out ” —-Catherine

“He slashed my tires again just last month. My Mom saw his car around the

corner. When we went back to check it out, my car had two flats, and his car
was gone ” -Confirming Grow Member ti 2

142

In ten cases, the perpetrator filed false reports in order to retaliate for her leaving,
or to try to threaten her with the loss of her children if she did not return to him. In three
additional cases, the perpetrator enlisted the assistance of his family in this effort. These
reports sometimes led to charges against the mother for kidnapping. This is consistent
with the findings of Edelson (1992) and Pence and Paymar (1993).

“HehadhismothercallCPSandtelldremeasabusivetomykids. Me! I
don ’t even believe in spanking. I have never hurt my kids. But he knew this
was a way to get to me They came out and investigated, and said everything
was fine But then when I filed charges against him, she called them again.
They didn ’t take my kids, but she let me know it was one of her options. His
mom and dad kidnwped me, took me in their van to their house, and kept me
locked w for six days. They called CPS and said I had abandoned the kids.
They said I never came to pick them w after the visit with their dad. The
worker never even bothered to check to find out where I was. They just gave
temporary custody to my a-husband That took about six months to straighten
out, and they never got into any kind of trouble because they said it was my
word against dreirs. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“When my son ’s father was mad at me and trying to get custody, they were
doing whatever it took to get me in trouble They would call CPS and make a
report...I would get wind of it and call them and tell them, ‘come on out’ my
door is open ’...you know?” —Linda

“His Mom called them [CPS] on me because of where I was staying at
[boyfriend ’s home]. Because she don ’t like hirn...so she called ” —Michelle

“When I left him, he claimed I had kidnwped the kids. He called the police
and they [CPS] found me at the shelter. They twk the kids from me and gave
them to him. I tried to explain that I was leaving him because of the abuse, but
the officer just said that a judge would sort that all out Another time, my
husband’s dad physically put me in the van and took me w to my mom’s house
and said [told CPS that] I abandoned my children. So they ended w getting
guardianship over them. Last year my husband was choking me, my daughter
seen it and it scared her so I left and I went to the shelter and my mother-in-law
pressed kidnapping charges on me so I had felony kidnwping charges on me. ”-
- Barbara

Two moms and two confirmation members were charged with kidnapping when

they left the relationship with their children. Participants saw this as a “Catch 22,” where

143

whatever they did was judged to be wrong. If they stayed in the relationship, they were
failing to protect their children. If they left, they could be charged with kidnapping, and
in some cases, they lost the custody of their children to the perpetrator. This issue has
been identified in the studies of Dalton (1993) and Sisco (1993).

“He had filed for kidnapping charges against me for taking the kids out of state
without his permission. He called the police [where he thought I might try and
hide] and CPS to report me as an abusive mother who had kidnwped her
children, and they gave him my address. He showed w and took us from the
house at gunpoint. He came to the house, showed me the gun, said ‘get packed
whatyou havetoforafewdays.’ Iaskedhim toleave, thatwedidn’t wantto
go, buthesaidifIwantedtolive,andeantedthekidstolive,IwoulddoasI
was told [believed him, and heforced us into the van. He helda gun to the
head of my three—year old in the front seat, and he had me sit in the farthest
seat in the back. He toldme to keep quiet and nobody wouldget hurt ” —Terri

“I left in the middle of the night while he was asleep. I had everything I dared
packed and hidden in my sister’s garage My older son was at a sleepover at my
sister’s. I quietly took the baby out of the crib and slipped out of the back door,
down the alley and into her car. She drove us to a shelter in [an adjacent
county]. He had four counts of domestic violence, and two of assault and
battery. Iwastoldby CPSthatifIdidn’tleave, they wouldtakemykids. [did
leave Within two days, he had filed some papers with the court, and I was
charged with kidnwping. Can you imagine? Kidnwping. So I was damned if
Ididanddamnedifldidn’tfleavel.” —Confirming Grow Member # 2
Joint custody orders were commonplace, and were characterized as another
‘Catch 22’ situation for the women in the study. They indicated that they were being
held responsible for protecting their children when in the relationship, but the judge was
giving the batterer access to the children without having her there to protect them. For
ten of the women, this fact created incredible guilt and anxiety. Some related they
wished they had not left the relationship, in that no one was present to defend or protect
the kids. Five reported significant health and emotional issues with their children when
they returned from visitations with their father. Joint custody provided the abuser full

and unsupervised access to the children in more cases than not. Dalton (1999) found this

144

to be the case, as well. In the case of Kate, her abuser was willing to have his son

arrested to gain his testimony in court.

“The only way I could protect them is if I am there When the judge granted
him joint custody, my heart just sank. I was their only protection against him.
I thought if I left, if I got rid of him, I was doing what was best for all of us. As
it turns out, I handed the kids over to him on a silver platter. I let those kids
down. I should have stayed with him. ” —Stephanie

“How can I conifort them? They come home from visits with him all messed
w. My son has stopped being potty trained My oldest cries for three days
before visits. They beg me to go with them. They beg me to let them stay home
It rips my heart out But the court says he deserves to see them. What about
their right to a safe place to be?” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“My ex-h usband and my five-year-old ’s dad.. .they worked together. They were
trying to get the boys away from me and used the domestic violence cycle that I
had been through with each one of them against me [in court, seeking custody].
Why can you just walk into someone ’s life and take their kids away when...I
thought I was doing everything right to protect my kids. You ’re going to sit
there and let this man hit me but yet when I get w and feel like I am doing the
right thing...I am moving out of this home away from these abusive men and
taking my children to a safer place...they gave him [my son] to the very man
who was hitting me. I know they heard all the testimony in court. I know the
judge did and I know that everything on paper was the truth...[it] is what
happened in my life I didn ’t lie about anything on that paper. I didn ’t lie
about being abused by these men. I didn ’t lie about moving to three different
places within my kid’s life and no...I wasn ’t stable But how are you going to
be stable and be with someone that is abusing you? You can ’t. So I felt like I
was doing the right thing by getting w and moving...but yet all this was being
used against me in court My parental rights were taken away and then they
gave custody to his father [the abuser]. ” —Helen [This perpetrator currently
has a warrant out for his amt for beating his new girlfriend and burning
down her house]

Theme 11: Available resources limited m'cimpts’ options and mtrators often

ensured that resources Emained unavailable. Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna,
Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy, Opal, Penny,

Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

145

Resources, whether to be able to leave, provide for the kids, protect them fi'om the
abuser through legal options, or get them the help they needed were slim to non-existent,
according to the participants. Nineteen women (all but Jackie) and all confirming group
members stated a lack of resources limited their ability to leave safely, sustain
independence, access services or get quality representation in court. This finding is
supported by the work of Davis & Srinivasan (1995) and Zorza (1991).

“It’s so hard to think your kids may not have enough to eat I imagined myseif
at sow kitchens. What Mom wants that for their kids? I didn ’t So without
the money I needed to provide for them, I was stuck, and he knew it. ” —
Confirming Grow Member # 3

“It took me six months to save w pennies to be able to leave...to get my driver’s
license without him knowing....get my money put away where he couldn ’t find
it. if I just could have left a week sooner, my daughter would still be alive.

How can I fight him in court?... He has all that money and I can ’t aflord a
lawyer, and the one assigned to me just collecm his money and never does a
thing to help us. ” —Penny

“He [perpetrator] is in contempt of court because I have swervised visits but he
[perpetrator] is not letting me see him [son]. I don ’t have the money...that’s the
whole thing. If I had $150 every time I [have to] walk into court I would do
that...but that’s the only thing holding me back [from seeking legal action to
see her son]. I try to turn to the resources that I know could help me but there
is not a lot out there They [CPS] says ‘do you want to take a budgeting
class?’...A budgeh'ng class ain ’t going to help me I mean Legal Aid... ’oh, you
make too much money!’...[make $17,000 ayear. Ipay $128 every two weeks
in child swport. I pay 3 75 every two weeks for medical for all my children.
(They don ’t qualify for Medicaid). So I’m working. I have barely enough to pay
the rent and [electric] bill and the phone I don ’t have cable...[ don ’t have
luxuries I can ’t afford If I go out and get another job, they will probably take
my daughter because I’m not spending any time with her. I work 8 to 5...!

don ’t know what else the system wants. ” —Helen

“When it came to [daughter] getting heio [special education services] for her
problems, [he refused]. In our school system, you have to have both parents’
signatures to get help. When we found out that both of our girls were legally
blind [like I am], he said that he was ashamed that he ever brought them into
this world There is so much out therefor them now. I never knew [prior to
escaping the relationship] about half of the stuff that I am finding out about It
was his intention that I not get the help. ” —Amy

146

“You come to a point where you just say you [have to] try [to make the
relationship work] but you can ’t do anymore but you stick because you got
nothing else It doesn ’t seem like you got a whole lot else to do, you know? By
that time, Ihadgotten to thepoint thatIknew the marriage was over, buthas
stuck in South Dakota with no family, no nothing...alone [But] it was normal
for me ” —Nancy

“He had a lawyer, he had a car, a place to stay, and his parents paid his bills.
Anything he needed they gave him. I had to beg him for money to buy school
clothes. ” —-Confirming Grow Member it 2

“I had no home, no car, no job, no money, no anything. I couldn ’t just w and
leave How would I take care of the kids?” -—Donna

“I didn ’t have any place to go...no money, no house, no anything. I was
trapped ” --Faith

The women in the study feared not being able to provide for their children if they
attempted to leave. Housing was the most frequently mentioned resource that
participants listed as most important to them. They feared that without being able to
provide shelter for their children, they could lose their children under charges of neglect.
For domestic abuse victims, their ability to escape is influenced significantly by available
resources. The lack of safe, affordable and decent housing was the reason cited most by
women (nineteen of them) both as a reason to keep them living in the relationship, as
well as a barrier to them after they left the relationship. When participants were
successful in escaping, they often lost their home, their apartments, and entered shelter.
One woman returned after having spent a night with her children in a car. These facts are
depicted in the following chart on the housing issues encountered and the number of

participants experiencing the situation when they separated from their abuser:

147

TABLE 2: HOUSING POST-SEPARATION

SITUATION NUMBER EXPERIENCIN G

 

Lost house couldn’t pay mortgage
Lost apartment (couldn’t afford)
Entered shelter

Entered TSH through provider
Moved in with relative/fiiend
Kept house

Moved to cheaper apartment
Lived in car

~NNMO\\O\IO\

 

These data underscore the critical influence on housing that results from
separation from the batterer. Neglect charges against the mother may result fiom her
inability to provide adequate shelter post-separation.

“I had nowhere to go. I was isolated from anyone who used to care about me.
He made sure of that I had three small kids. Was I swposed to live on the
strees? When you live in farm country, there are no shelters just around the
corner. ” —Barbara

“They basically said I was a bad mother for not leaving him [perpetrator]. They
said that if I cared about the kids that I would have left I told them I did
leave...lots oftimes...but thatIdidn’t have no where else to go. I told them I
couldn ’t pay my bills if I left They said there was ways to help people like me,
andthat ifIhadtriedIcouldhavegotten out They didn’t understandthatit
just isn ’t that easy. ” --Iris

“I left with literally the clothes on our backs and that was it. He desaoyed
everything of mine, busted w the furniture, trashed the house. He has a job
andgetspaideverytwo weeks. Ihadaparttimejob thatpays $5.75an hour. I
had no car, no place to live, no way to buy food, and if it hadn’t been for the
shelter, I would have been living on the streets. What mom wants her kids to
haveto livein ashelter? Who wanfltoraisetheirkids on thestreets oratthe
Rescue Mission?” -Confirrning Grow Member ti 5

“We spent one night in the car. I went back the next morning [to perpetrator].

I couldn ’t put the kids through that I didn ’t know we had a shelter here in
town. I wish I had” -Confirming Grow Member # I

148

“Where was I swposed to go? I had no place The kids shouldn ’t have to live

in a shelter. I wasn ’t going to put them on the streets. We had a home It

wasn ’t great, but it was home. They deserved to live in their own place ” -

Nancy
Theme # 12: Batterers were @le tofisuccesspfullv mflpplpatgsypm Barbara,
Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Helen, Iris, Kate, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie,
Terri

Six participants originally believed that the batterer’s felony history and/or the
PPO they had obtained would be enforced and would provide them with some measure of
security. In more cases than not, participants reported that police did not protect her in
spite of having a readily available history upon which to rely. Nineteen of the batterers
had firearms in their home, six of them illegally, due to a criminal history. Fifteen of
them used a weapon to injure/threaten the survivor. This is consistent with the findings
of the FBI (2002), Phillips (1992) and Myers (2002).

Police were sometimes oblivious of the danger she was in, and her attempts to
escape. In the cases of six of the women, parole status and PPO’s were ignored. In the
case of Catherine, police provided information to the abuser that allowed him to find her
when she tried to leave with her children.

“ When the police came out, I told them he was on parole, that he had wewons

in the house when he wasn ’t swposed to, and that he had threatened me with

them. [I said] ‘you need to help me He is calling my work, he is threatening
the people I work with, he is a felon and has a house full of guns, you need to

help me’. The oflicer’s response was that he has a right to bear arms. I

basically was in hiding. ..under an assumed name...I called the State Police,

and they took a report They [State Police] put in the report where I was right

down to the room number and gave a copy of the report to him [perpetrator]. ” -
- Catherine

“He just keeps violating his parole Like he won ’t show w and they will send
him back...off and on for twenty years this has been. He was going to trial and

149

he wanted me and the kids there to testify for him. We were all subpoenaed
She [CPS worker] snagged my oldest son right out of school and put him in
handcuffs and [brought] him to court because she thought he broke his
subpoena, but we didn ’t know we were subpoenaed I don ’t know...maybe
because I had such a hard time [with CPS] but I’ve always told people at work
if it was to ever happen again, if I had the choice to get hit or turn him in, I
would get hit Because it hurts [a lot more] getting your kids taken away than it
does a cowle of bruises on my body. ” -—Qui’Ana

“I felt like there were two sets of rules... one for me and one for him. He was
freakin ’ on parole But they did nothing. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 3

“He come over a lot He wasn ’t swposed to...I got a PPO. He threatened me,
my sister, everybody...acting like a fool Tell as he’s not letting me go, and that
I won ’t ever leave him. I called the police at first but they always say he’s got a
right to be in the neighborhood Far as I know they never even talked to him.
He got to keep the apartment He makes more money than I do. He can aflord
it. I was the one had to move [in with her sister]. ” —Iris

“The neighbor called the cops, he’d [perp.] say I was hysterical, that I was
crazy, and they [police] would tell him to get me some help. Of course I was
crazy! Who wouldn ’t be after nineteen years of that kind of treatment? But I
NEVER gave w trying to protect the kids. I did everything I could Who was
swposed to protect US against him?” —Rita

Four of the twenty perpetrators had formal military or police training. It appeared
that this was a factor in determining whether or not he would be subject to sanctions. It
also provided the perpetrator with techniques he used to abuse his victim.

“When the police found out he was a Marine and had served in Kuwait, it was
like, ‘hey, he did his time... he served his country... he’s a hero’. He had all
this training about how to handle prisoners. He knew how long to make me
squat against the wall until my legs would just burn and I would scream from
the pain. He knew I couldn ’t get away... I couldn ’t even stand or walk for
hours after. The one time he caught me packing w the kids he left me there so
long [passed out Then he threw water on me andI’d come to. He’dput me
back in the squat undleassed out again. This hwpenedfour orfive times in
a row. ” —Catherine

“He was a policeman. Who was going to arrest him? His buddies? I don ’t
think so. He’d get a quiet warning to hold it down...that neighbors could hear
us ‘argue ’ That’s a pretty one-sided argument. The most help I got from the
police was an officer [who] slipped me a card to [a domestic violence shelter]
while they were talking to [her husband]. He whispered ‘memorize this number

150

and call these people ’ I did I guess looking back, he may have saved my life
Nothing hwpened to him, no charges were ever filed but at least I got out. ” -—
Confirming Grow Member # 4

“They [police] heated me like I was the one that beat him w. He’s in the

Army. Obviously, I’m not as good as him or something. That’s the way they

made me feel They didn ’t arrest him. He’s Army. He’s too important. They

took his word over mine because he’s Army...he’s been through all this

training and of course, you know, he can ’t lie ” —Opal

The courts, in their effort to encourage relationships between children and their
fathers, are sometimes unwitting accomplices to the batterer in his desire to control and
stalk the victim and the children. In the case of both Barbara and Penny, court-ordered
visitation was ended when the abuser became aggressive with visitation center staff. Yet
the court forced the women to accommodate the abuser to allow visitation, and in the
case of Catherine, awarded his parents the role of supervisors during visitation. Seven
others indicated that the abuser had shown no prior interest in establishing a relationship
with his children until it became apparent to him that seeing the children was the only
way left for him to continue a relationship with the mother. Sometimes, the abuser used
the visitation as a means of threatening her with harm to her children, or an attempt to
convince her to return to him. This is consistent with findings of Dalton (1999), Paymar
& Pence (1983), and Zorza (1998).

“When we were kicked out of the visitation center [due to his violence], I was
told I had two choices: drive [80 miles one way to another center], split the cost
[in order for him] to see his kids, or agree on a neutral third party. The CPS
worker called me w and says [my ex-mother in law] is going to swervise [his
visitation]. That’s a neutral third party? He fought me for parenting time
[again] this summer [and won]. [But] he hasn ’t seen my kids in three months. ”
—Catherine

“He sits there and says his kids are everything to him. Since when? He hadn ’t
paid any attention to them since the day they were born. He tried

to get me to have an abortion when I was carrying them. He told them they
were stupid... that he wished they ’s never been born. He told my daughter that

151

he did everything he could to make sure she didn ’t live to take her first breath.
Now that we have escwed from him, he says he needs them, and that they need
him. Yeah, right. ” —Stephanie

“He went seventeen months without seeing them. When they were little, he
would scream at me to keep the {fucking little bastards’ quiet They cry when
they have to visit with him. They don ’t want to go. They beged their attorney
to get them out of having to go, but he told them it wasn ’t w to him. In court,
he stated that all kids deserve a father. But that’s what they didn ’t hear. He
isn ’t a father. He’s a monster. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

Batterers used the court system to continue to threaten and control participants.
Nine women in the study reported being forced to go to court numerous times to answer

motions filed by the abuser. Some reported having what few financial resources
available to them depleted by the court and attorney fees associated with having to
answer the motions. Others expressed the belief that he enjoyed having her forced to
respond, and four believed it was his way to continue to see her. These issues have also
been found in the work of Ayoub and colleagues (1999), Bancroft and Silverman (2000)
and Paymar and Pence (1983).

“He’s had me in court seventeen times in the last six months. He challenges
everything, film all these motions. He’s an attorney, so he knows exactly how
to do that Anyway, I have to pay my lawyer (which I can ’t aflord) and show
w. He knows myfunds are aboutgone It’sjust another way or a new way to
make me miserable ” —Penny

“He’s always calling me back into court for one thing or another. It’s always
something. He tries everything he can to keep controlling me ” — Confirming
Grow Member # 1

“He was swposed to be wanted by the court...he had an arrest warrant out for
him, and he and his attorney are right there on the phone [a conference call] in
the courtroom. The judge never said anything, except that he was mrcising
his right to be present without turning himseif in. Is that right? Is that legal?
Anyway, the judge lets him make a statement that he agrees with the court that
our rights should be terminated because of our ‘w and down ’ relationship. He
made itsoundlikelhada choice, andlikedbeing beaten up. Heplayedthe
mentallyillcardagain. Myattorneyaskedifhe was undermedication or

152

treatment for it again, and he just said he wasn ’t at that time He’s NEVER
been under any treatment There’s nothing wrong with him except he’s evil ”
—Terri

Fifteen of the participants reported legal sanctions against their abusers that
seemed to be insignificant in relationship to the seriousness of the abuse. They certainly
were less than what one would expect for non-domestic assaults. Sanctions such as anger
management classes, batterer’s intervention services, and probation had no lasting effects
toward changing their behavior. Further, the sanctions imposed on her give strength to
the premise that she is being held more or less solely responsible for not only her
children’s well being, but his violence, as well. This is supported by findings of Dalton
(1999). Dalton attributed this issue to the court not understanding the dynamics of
domestic abuse, and the court not taking the crime as serious. In Donna’s case the
perpetrator received sanctions; not for his beating of her, but for preventing her from
making an emergency 9-1-1 call. In Barbara’s case, her abuser attacked her in the
courthouse, with bailiffs having to restrain him. No charges for that attack ever occurred.

“He got probaa'on. Six months. SIX MONTHS! He had three counts of
domestic violence [and a wewons charge]. Me and the kids went through eight
years of hell, I got minimum of a year of [proof of positive parenting] services I
gotta do, [CPS] handed my kids over to foster care, and he gets probation...
Last week he asked the judge if he could go hunting w north this Fall ‘Sure’,
the judge says... but I can ’t go to my aunt ’s funeral three counties away.
Where’s the justice in that?” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“(After being in jail for a few days on a second ofl'ense for domestic violence]
He changed his waysfor aperiod oftime and then he went back to the way he
was before [On his second domestic violence conviction where he broke
several of her bones] he got sentenced to 90 some days in jail and he was
released early. My husband attacked me in the courthouse It took six guards
to get him off me Nothing hwpened to him. My kids were to be at a
swervised visit at the [Social Services] building. My husband had come w
there drunk and all coked w and was arrested there at the [Social Services]
building. Right then, she [CPS worker] should have [stopped the visitations],
but she just kept letting them go on like nothing ever hwpened And then, she

153

comes to the house and she was screaming at me...she was really wset that he
was drinking... and I’m like, ‘it’s not myfault that he was drinking’... —
Barbara

“After he [perpetrator] beat me so badly on the front lawn and I had a bruise
from here to here (demonstrated a ten to twelve inch area from her jaw to just
below her breast)... it was purple fi'om him kicking me I had a lump on my
face from where he had hit me. I went to the police and filed a complaint and
after a while [when] I didn ’t hear anything so I went to the prosecutor’s office
and I said is anything being done about this and they said no charges are being
pressed I [asked] why and they said they didn ’t think there was enough
evidence [But the other district attorney] he saw...I showed him [the bruises
on] my arm and he got [me] a personal protection order and this is a lifetime
one. He got it for life, so he can ’t come near me...isn ’t that awesome? [When
asked if she was sure there were no charges filed, she repeated that there were
none]. Although, I found out before me, he was with a women...I mean he just
did this over and over and over again...before me he was with a woman and he
did the same thing to her and he wasput injailfour timesfor this same
thing...but not, it never hwpened because of what he did to me ” —Kate

“He had to go to this program for batterers. It was once a week for six weeks.
He wasgoodduringthattirne, butbeatthe helloutofmetwodays afterhis last
class. Think it did him any good?” —Confirming Grow Member # I

“They called it [assault with intent to do great bodily harm]...it’s one step below
attempted murder. It was his second offense He choked me to
unconsciousness, cracked my ribs. ..he got three and one haif years. ” —Evelyn

“The prosecutor charged him with assault with intent to do bodily harm this
time That’s why he got prison. The times that he was arrested before that it
was for domestic violence He never got nothing for those charges except he
got ordered to a class for people who do that It didn ’t help. He still just kept
on doing what he always did ” —Confirming Grow Member # 5

“Well, atfirsttheywantedtogivehimninetydaysandltoldthemno. Itoldthe
prosecutor thisman hastodoatleastayear. He brokemynose, myribs, my

cheekbone, my collarbone...so they sentenced him to one to three years. ” —
Qui’Ana

“He went to jail last summer for pushing me and throwing the phone down as I
was trying to call fire police...that’s like a felony. They sent him to jail for one
night [for throwing the phone] and he got out and then served nine months
probation. ..not for hurting me, but for throwing the phone He had to go to
anger management classes. They didn ’t help. ” —Donna

154

“When they first charged my ex-h usband he got charged with felonious assault,
domestic violence,[being a] felon in possession of a firearm, and habitual
[offender] second [offense]. That was the original four charges. For some
unknown reason the day before we were swposed to go to trial (keep in mind I
went and testified like I was swposed to [at the original hearing] and made
myseif available to them), the day before trial I called the prosecuting attorney
andIsaiddoyou want me to come in early so we can review the case or
whatever and he said ‘oh, no... you don ’t even have to be here, I offered a plea
and they accepted’. Fabulous. The only charge that he got stuck with [was a]
felon in possession of a firearm. They didn ’t even keep the habitual second
[offense] and he served eleven months on a tether. ” —Catherine

Ten abusers were granted at least partial custody, even when the court was aware
of his violent tendencies. Women in the study were confused over why the court would
allow custody to someone who had not only beat them, but also abused their children.
The court cases listed in the literature would support that this practice is not uncommon.

“So get this... he beats me, beats the kids, and the judge says he has a right to
be in their [the kids] lives. Well, he was in their lives. He yelled at them, beat
them with a belt, and locked them in the basement Yet he has righb'? What
about their rights? What about my right as a mom to know that this monster
will never be alone with those kids? Who will protect them? This whole system
stinks. It’s bad for the kids, it’s bad for me, and it’s good for him. T he judge
wants to make sure his rights are protected Well what about ours? Who
protects us?” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“He beat my daughter pretty severely. It took her probably a month after I
moved out to grow the clumps of hair back that he had ripped out of her head
I fought visitation the whole time The [swervised] visitation center threw us
out, he violated his PPO, the police came and refused to take him to jail and the
visitation center [director] told the CPS worker that he was going to snw and
when he did it wouldn ’t mader who was there, so we were dismissed from the
visitation center. ” —Catherine

“He ’s educated and just puts on the charm and everybody just looks into his
eyes and its almost as if they’re under his spell You know he’s w to
something, and you know you have to get ahead of him but nobody will let you.
He has all this power and he loves it...telling me when I can talk to my son,
when Ican’t...when [can hug him...when [can see him. He has me on a
chain that nobody else can see but it’s there ” —Penny

155

Fifteen participants were involved with CPS in more than one county. This is
possibly due to socio-economic issues or perpetrators moving their victims and the
children to avoid being investigated or charged. This was a theme presented by eight of
the participants. It was another example of how perpetrators manipulated systems, and
isolated their families from getting assistance.

“Whenever the law or FIA or somebody would start ‘snooping around’ as he

called it, we would move He’d quit his job, spout off with some crazy plan and

of we ’d go. One year the kids were in three different schools. I went two years
without knowing one single soul good enough to say more than ‘hi’ to. Where

was I swposed to find help? I didn ’t even KNOW anybody, and I wasn ’t

allowed aphone andcouldn’tgo anywhere unless he was with me” --Terri

“We moved around a lot. As soon as he thought somebody was suspicious, he

wouldpack us wandwewouldbeoutofthere Itdidn’ttakehimlongto

realize where he wasn ’t going to get into any trouble if the cops showed w. ” —

-Stephanie
Theme # 13: Drwe treatment by system; between the mothers and their abusers was
evident. Amy, Barbara, Catherine, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Iris, Kate, Linda,
Michelle, Opal, Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Seventeen of the women in the study stated being perplexed by the extensive
requirements systems placed on them, while their perpetrator escaped responsibility.
They saw this as evidence that there were two sets of rules, and they were on the short
end of the deal. All but three of the women in this study were required to complete
substantial corrective plans designed by CPS, resulting in the loss of their children should
they not comply. These were legal agreements made between CPS and the participants,
and were used to evaluate their fitness to continue parenting their children. No such
plans were required of the abusers, despite in most cases, the perpetrator enjoying joint

custody. This finding is supported by Kaufmann-Kantor and Little (2002). Women were

156

placed in a situation where they had no choice but to sign the agreement or lose their
children. They expressed feeling being punished for something the batterer did, and
angry at his lack of any meaningful sanctions to change his behavior.

“I had all these things [had to do. I was accused ofbeing a badmother. [had
to ‘earn ’ my kids back. Nobody from CPS even talked to him about what he
did If I failed to protect my kids, then he is responsible for putting us all in
that situation. Wouldn ’t you think somebody should tell him it’s his fault?
They ordered me into counseling. I don ’t mind that, because I’m teaming a lot
But they acted like there was something wrong with me What the counseling
class is teaching me is that there isn ’t anything wrong with me There’s
something wrong with him...but to be told that I was not in my right nu'nd
wasn ’t fair to me Where ’s his counseling? He’s the one with the problem.
Where was he when I was ordered into a parenting class? He has the kids
every otherweekendandtwonightsa week. IhavetoproveIamagoodparent,
buthedoesn’t. [took classes,Ididmyhomework, Ireportedintomy
caseworker like I was swposed to. I have my records laid out in court for
everyone to see, and he just sits there I’m obviously a more knowledgeable
parent now than what] was. But] have always loved my kids. I protected them
whenfurniture wasflying all over the house. I was the one who made sure I
was getting punched around and not them. Who watches him when he ’s with
the kids to make sure he’s caring for them like he should? The only thing I

don ’t understand is if we both have equal rights as parents, which is what the
courtsaid, andhe beat them andIdidn’t, why amIorderedinto aparenting
plan in order to have them in my home He has to do nothing, and gets them
without quation. ” —Stephanie

“I feel like I ’m being punished for something somebody else did It was like

[systems] turned around on me instead of nry husband Nobody looked at my
husband The whole court thing... nobody ever questioned my husband ”
—Donna

“I have this parenting plan, see? I have to go to counseling, I have to have my
house visits by the caseworker. I have a wrap-around program. I have all these
things thatIhavepromisedto do in writing orIlosemykids. WhatdidIdo?
You know what he got? An anger management class. He went three Saturday
mornings and then he was done He’s the reason we’re all in this mess. I’m
jumpingaroundallovertowntoproveI’magoodmom, andhegoestoa
Saturday class. Unbelievable I had all these things I had to do. I was accused
of being a bad mother. I had to ‘earn’ my kids back. Nobody fiom CPS even
talked to him about what he did When they [kids] would see him for a
weekend, they were not the same little girls I dropped of [for the visit]. At
daycare, ...my daughter had a nervous breakdown. Prior to the [last visit], she
[daughter] talked to her therapist and things were fine After the visit, my

157

daughter wouldn ’t say a word Wouldn ’t look at her, wouldn ’t get ofl' my lap.
Neither one of my kids will sleep in their room with the door closed I had to go
get brighter night lights because they didn ’t want to be in the dark. I was in the
process of getting my oldest to stop wetting the bed at night...not anymore You
know, and I can ’t get anyone to understand that this is all related [After the
visit] my oldest daughter, she was potty trained...she went back to wetfl'ng the
bed at night I had to put her back in pull-ws. I had to re-train my four-year—
old And people [CPS] are just ‘oh, you know it’s just a stage ’ No, it’s not a
stage It’s been a stage that she stares off into space and locks w her legs...like
the lights are on but nobody ’s home? It’s not normal ” —Catherine

“He held the baby over the stairs like he was going to drop her...he ripped her
out of my arms and took him from me and when I called the cops, he brought
them back. Andayear anda halfago hehitmeandwenttojailforitandhe
was swposed to go back to jail and he never did They just slapped him on the
wrist and sent him to his mom ’s. Nothing....he went to a weekend class. You
know it was like one weekend that he had to go to a domestic violence
class...[he was] supposed to go to therapy...never went to therapy. He was
ordered into an anger management class...[according to the facilitator] the
reason they let him pass the class was that he had quit complaining about his
ex-wife He went through less than what my daughter and I did They [CPS]
said I failed to protect them. They [CPS] weren ’t there I arranged for them to
stay at mom ’s because I knew it [a beating] was coming. They weren ’t there
when I hid them out at a friend’s to prevent him from killing us all They have
no clue what I did...where were they when I needed help?” —Michelle

“WhatIdon’tgetis thefactthatnobodyeven talkedto him. [mean nobody
ever said, ‘heyyou shouldn’tdo that’. Why is that? Why am [the badguy
here? If he is wrong, why doan ’t somebody tell him that? The caseworker
never even talked to him once ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

“She [daughter, a victim of incest] started showing like and I came home from
the hospital and she was throwing w and so I asked her ‘is she pregnant’? I
thought it was a boy from school or something, but she don ’t date She told me
it was my husband...then I called our family physician and I told him she was
rwed and needed to be seen. They told me that as far as protective services, the
Child Abuse Council and the police...they all told me that as far as they were
concerned all the proof they has was his words against hers. ” —Amy Ed note:
Amy facilitated a paternity test that proved her daughter was a victim of incest
At the time of that test, no charges were pending against the perpetrator, and no
investigation was ongoing. Because of the results of the tat, the perpetrator
was tried and convicted

“The CPS worker, she bounces back and forth. She tells my husband [the
perpeaator] she wanted to take the kids from me because I ‘can ’t seem to stay

158

away from abusive men ’ and she tells me it’s because of my ex-husband’s past
and she tells everybody else something different. ” —Linda

To make matters worse, thirteen of the workers never even confronted the

perpetrator regarding his violence and effect of that violence on the children or adult
victims in the home.

This failure to confront the abuser further condoned the abusive behavior and
supported the victims’ belief that they were alone and without support.
Theme # 14: WM exhibited vgflp' g levels of understanding of domestic violence.
Barbara, Catherine, Evelyn, Faith, Helen, Iris, Kate, Linda, Qui’Ana, Rita,
Stephanie, Terri

Twelve women recounted statements and actions of some CPS workers that
clearly indicated a lack of understanding of the dynamics of domestic abuse of some of
the workers. Aron and Olson (1997) came to the same conclusion. However, some
workers performed admirably.

“My caseworker asked me why I thought ..., husband beats me w. When I told
him that he didn ’t need a reason, he said that I must be missing something. ” —
Stephanie _

“They took my kids from my house after he left me for dead and gave them to
his parents. Where do you think he learned that stufl'? My parents begged to
have the kids while I was in the hospital All the time the police are waiting to
interview me until I got out of intensive care His dad showed w at the hospital
and said #1 gave them any evidence against their son they wouldn ’t let me see
my kids. ” —Confirming Grow Member ii 2

“You know, I don ’t think they really understand or maybe they just don ’t care
Don’ttheygetthat ifI’m in danger, andI’m the mom, the kids aren’tsafe
either? How about if we punish the guy that’s responsible?” Confirming
Grow Member # 1

Eight participants experienced different, often opposite responses to their situation

depending on which worker was providing the services. This was particularly true when

159

it came to accessing resources required to live. This finding was also supported by the
work of Davis and Srinivasan (1995) and Zorza (1991).

“The two workers I worked with were just the opposite of each other. The first
one did absolutely nothing but harass and threaten me She never oflered me
anything but more grief The second one... the man I have now, he saved me
I’m serious... he literally saved my life He ofl'ered me all kinds ofhelp and
swport. Without him, I’d probably be dead He had come to my home and he
had told me there was abuse going on and he recognized it...hecause I’m the
type of person he studied in school...I’m a classic case or whatever. And so
him andtwo officers hadescortedmeoutofthehouseandthey wentandtold
my mother-in law that if she was to frle any police reports against me or get me
for kidnwping [again] that they would get her for child endangerment, failure
to protect, neglect and some other charges, and she would get it for filing a false
police report...and she is not to bother me or my children. ” —Barbara

“In [county name] I had a worker who wouldn ’t return my calls, wouldn ’t
answer any questions...just no help at all When I got here, the case was
transferred to this county. My new caseworker is really fabulous. She ’s fair,
she listens, she offers encouragement, and whatever help she can get for us, she
does. ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

[In the first county] “the CPS woman came to the hotel where I was staying
under a ditferent name [for safety purposes] and she said ‘I’m going to take
your kids. ’ I mean that was the first thing out of her mouth. By the end of it,
though, she had completely changed her attitude With [second county] that’s a
whole ‘nother story. He was a lunatic. He constantly compared myseif and my
ex-husband to himseif and his ex-wife. I don ’t think he beats his wife so I don ’t
see the similarity but he did They gave him [perpetrator] an enormous amount
of time to complete sonre very simple things. He used to get a once a week
phone call with my oldest daughter and [he] told my daughter that I was going
to put him in jail, that I was bad, and how did she feel about that and putflng
her in a terrible spot I took the tape of that conversation to the CPS worker
and it was like...nothing...it didn ’t matter. He [CPS worker] wants me to help
him with his master’s thesis [about how no harm is done] when in my situation.
Oh Lord, he has no business being a PS worker!” —Catherine

“They ’s much better here [than in another county]. All the trouble I had was in
[the first county]. I got an wartrnent, I got my kids back, the judge says I’m
doing good and I’m getting my parenting program finished The caseworker
here is pretty nice, too. She encourages me She treats me like a person. She
doesn ’t like blame me or anything. They ’s much better [here]. ” —Iris

160

“[In this county] they gave me referrals to diflerent agencies to help me...so it
wouldn ’t be such a financial burden. Because, I’m a single parent, and they’ve
just been very helpful...it’s been very positive ” —Kate

“[ This new CPS worker, she understands]. She told me about other cases. Not
names, or anything, just familiar cases that. ..and I could. ..why do people I
guess don ’t believe me and I guess, you know, I’ve been watching a lot of
diiferent...I’ve talked to people and they say most moms don ’t do what I done in
this short amount of time [completing her parenting plan]. I was in classes
seven days a week...did whatIhadto do.” —Qui’Ana

“The problem is that I’m swposed to leave him, but without the money to pay
the rent, pay the bills, feed the kids and all...I couldn ’t leave But he [CPS
worker] just doesn ’t seem to understand We have nothing. All I am asking
for is that if you require me to leave, how about getting me what we need to
survive?” —Evelyn

“My worker is fabulous. [f I need something, he is right there He helped me
get into transitional housing, he hooked me w with employment counseling, he
made sure we knew where to getfood if'we needed it. He’sjust swer!” —
Barbara

“[CPS worker}. ..promised me, you know. . .we ’ll help you financially, we’ll help
you with anything you need but she never did it. ..never once bothered to help
me after she made commitments to me that she would help...with my rent, food
stanrps and Medicaid and stuff... you know, I had eviction notices and all that
plus court. I’ve had all those decisions by myseif and nobody was there to help
me like they said drey would ” —Linda

Five participants had dissimilar responses from caseworkers, the courts and police
within the same county. Some of the women indicated that when their worker changed,
they received almost opposite levels of support and understanding.

“I used to have a really great caseworker. She took the time to help me think
through things widr my kids. She would encourage me when things were
tough... just really great But she moved The one I have now is so cold and
crabby. She keeps telling me she can ’t wait to retire I wish she ’d hurry w,
because I can ’t wait, either. ” —Confirrning Grow Member # I

“I have had a total of four caseworkers in three counties. I can tell you that
they are all different. Some are just about blaming.. . they never seem to get
anything [understand].. .some just want to get the cases closed Then there are
some really caring ones who get what’s going on, and want to do whatever they
can. ” —Confrrming Grow Member # 5

161

“He [assailant] broke into my home on Mother’s Day.. .I was working two jobs
and I come home and my kitchen table was in the trees, my clothes were all over
the yard...I had clothes in the trees. My brother was at the house and my
husband had threatened to kill him and take my children, so my brother went
out through the back yard and went to the neighbors and called the police [He
told them my husband was] breaking into my house and [that] I had a
restraining order and the cop told my brother there is nothing they can do
unless he hi3 me [In this county] they arrested him out of the house He was
arrested for second ofl'ense domestic violence and third degree child abuse and
felonious assault ” —Barbara

“When she [CPS worker finally did] come to the house, and she looks down and
says ‘don ’t get too comfortable here, you ’re not staying. ’ I said, ‘okay, why? ’
and she said it wasn ’t big enough. It was a two bedroom apartment [But] each
kid had their own bedroom. I [slept] on the couch. She said it wasn ’t
acceptable The judge threw that right out. He said as long as the kids have
beds and dressers and lights and gas, leave her alone But she brought it w
every time that she wanted me out of there ” —Qui’Ana

Theme # 14: Participants eventually lost faith in systems to assist them. Amy, Barbara,

 

Catherine, Evelyn, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris, Jackie, Kate, Linda, Michelle, Nancy
Penny, Qui’Ana, Rita, Stephanie, Terri

Eighteen participants indicated they had no faith in systems to assist them. Six of
the ten participants of color were included in this group. Three African American
participants made their decision to cooperate with prosecution based on racial loyalty.
According to Jordan (2006), “A key contributor to the high intra-family homicide rates in
the Afi'ican American community is the negative relationship between them and the
criminal justice system” (p. 15). Jordan goes on to explain that racism is a higher priority
issue than domestic abuse for many within the community, and women may choose racial
loyalty over assailant accountability for that reason. This is in line with the findings of
Fagan (1996), Franklin (2000), Hampton and colleagues (1998), Hampton and Yung

(1996) and Sullivan & Rurnptz (1994).

162

“I couldn ’t send their daddy to prison...that’s just not right...there ’s too many
of us in there already and babies need their Daddy ’s...even if they ain ’t the best
How would that look.. . how would I explain that? They [CPS] don ’t know me
They don ’t know nry family. We’re good people They treated me like I was the
reason the kids got hurt. They should have taken it out on him, not me. ” —
Iris

Others attributed their lack of faith in systems to their prior, poor experiences with
those systems. This lack of faith was due to their seeking and being denied assistance in
the past. This issue resulted in many of the participants believing that it was best to avoid
asking for help. They not only viewed it as a waste of time, but also believed that the
‘assistance’ they received, at their own request, ended in more pain and suffering than
what they experienced in the relationship. This is consistent with the findings of
Bancroft (2001), Carter (1995) and Waller (2001).

“I knew nobody would help me. I had called the police, asked for help in
removing him. They would always say that he had righm to the property. They
neverbelievedme when [triedto aplain the dangerhe wasto allofus.” —
Confirming Grow Member # 2

“Just don ’t trust anybody. If you find yourself in a position where you need
help, don ’t call CPS...don ’t call the police I would have to be three-quarters
dead before I would call anybody for help. ..the police, a judge, CPS, anybody.
Idon’ttrustany ofthem. Look what they didto us. Iwouldn’tcallthem ifnry
life depended on it. I should have gotten a gun and shot him. We would have
all been better of if I had made that choice instead The Congress or somebody
has got to stop these people from making innocent people out to be the bad
guys. The judges need to send [perpetrators] away so they won ’t hurt anyone
anymore Instead of him getting sent to prison, my kids got sent to a foster
home From there, they go to a home where they have a new set of parents. I
lose my kids andhaveto hide outin anotherstatesoIcan keep the one last
child I have We got punished...the kids ad I. He didn ’t get anything.
Where’s the jusa'ce in that?” -—Terri

“I had a PPO, and he was in nry face the whole time. The police said there
wasn ’t anything they could do about it because they never saw him. It took
themtwoandahalfhourstosendoutacarthelasttirnelcalled Why
bother?” Confirming Grow Member # I

163

Women in the study were fairly consistent (thirteen of twenty) in stating that their
experiences with systems would lead them to encourage other women to avoid contacting
these systems for help. They attributed their mistrust to workers expecting them to fix his
behavior. Terri advocated for women to arm themselves and kill their abusers. She
indicated to the researcher that since her children were removed from her and being
raised by a stranger anyway, she wished she had killed her husband. Had she killed him
at least she could feel that she really did everything she could to protect the children. The
findings of Lyon (1999) indicate that women who kill their abusers are more likely to be
believed, treated with empathy by police and courts and more likely to be viewed
sympathetically by jurors than those who are perceived to have stayed in the relationship
out of choice.

“I learned not to ask for help. I learned that fltmugh asking and not geta'ng.
When I asked the judge for help, I got a PPO that no one would honor. When I
asked CPS to help me deal with him, I got a parenting plan laid out for me as if
I were the problem...he got nothing. I asked the police for protection. They
blamed me or said they couldn ’t do anything. I asked the Friend of the Court
for relief from making my kids go to see him. They said he had rights. I’m
scared and leery of protective services. [But] this worker I have now. ..he ’s
really helpful...and I’m not as frightened as I was. But would I refer anybody
to them? Not a chance. ” —Catherine

“They came in and told me I should try to keep him calm...that I needed to keep
my kids from him when he was having one of his ‘spells’. They said I should
get him mental health services and keep peace in the house I would tell women
in my situation not to ask for help except for the Center [domestic violence
service provider]. I would tell them if you can ’t or won ’t kill him, get up and
disappear with your kids. Go to anotherstate. Find somebody that will take
you in someplace where he can ’t find you. Change your name...do whatever,
but don ’t trust nobody. ” -Terri

“I was very fearful because I didn’t know what they could do to me and they
[during an earlier investigation] threatened me with jail [on why she didn ’t call
CPS for help]. I needed help. I needed some kind of support...some kind of
help to protect those kids. They were horribleanightmara. If someone was the

least bit intrepid about going to get some help...if they were fearful at all, they

164

would just compound that. I just gave up on them...they were no help
whatsoever...none. They were useless. I’d hate to see somebody go through
the things that I had to go through. When they say they are there to help, that’s
what they ’re supposed to be doing. ” —Kate

“When the police got there, he [perpetrator] told them I was bi-polar and had
been off my medication. I have never had any mental illness. He said that’s
why I was ‘confused and hysterical’. From that day on, he’d say ‘go ahead and
call the cops...you know what will happen ’. The he’d laugh. Sure enough,
when I called them again he told them the same thing. They believed him. I
heard an officer tell another ‘it’s that nutcase again ’. I am not mentally ill. I
have never been bi-polar or anything else. But he convinced them that I was.
He [also] claimed he had Gulf War Syndrome...post-traumatic stress disorder
from the war, and that he had flashbacks. Believe it or not, that worked He
claimed I agitated him and he had trouble knowing where he was. The police
were all sympathetic, and instead of arresting him for beating me up, they told
me I needed to be more understanding andtry to keep things calmfor him.
Yeah...unbelievable, huh?” —Stephanie

“My daughter called the police on him. He was released on jail from a
domestic violence [charge]. He wasn ’t there [in jail] for ten days and we called
the police [after he attacked her upon his release] and told them he was on
probation for domestic [violence].. ’he’s done it again ’ and they wouldn ’t arrest
him. Or [at other times when she called for help] they’d take him down the
road and say ‘okay, just walk home and cool of}! ’ But he should have been
arrested. Five times out often times we would call on the police and that’s
when protective services finally jumped in and my daughter had the courage to
tell them first. I was afraid again...I said ‘no, he didn ’t hit me, but then I
though ‘unh-unh ’, and [finally told them that yes, what he ’s been doing. Then
[CSPItookmetocourtthenert weekandsaidlfailedtoprotectmychildren
andthey tookmy kids away.” —Qui’Ana

Theme # 15: When pargciants were W. 11 m they were able to leave
Amy, Barbara, Donna, Evelyn, Geena, Helen, Iris, Kate, Michelle, Nancy,

 

Qui’Ana, Rita
Participants listed validation of workers from all systems as critical to their ability
to escape the situation. The five women who indicated that their workers believed and

supported them indicated that support was a critical factor for them.

165

“The most helpful thing was this last worker, he believed me. Just to hear him
say he believed me... that was the most help ever, because then I knew there
was hope that someone would be able to help us. He was the first person... of
all those people I told... he was the first to believe me. I can trust him. He
trusted me. That was the beginning of our healing process. ” — Rita

“They were really good I couldn ’t have asked for anything better from the
police deparnnent. ” ’—Geena

“The detective that arrested my husband...now he was wonderful. He was
really good with us. He worked with as fair and I have a lot of respect for
him. ” —Qui ’Ana

“My caseworker placed the kids with my mom. I was worried that she would let
him see the kids because she never did believe that [perpetrator] would ever do
that to me. But the caseworker, he explained to her that lots of times the family
doesn ’t really know the person. They may think they do, but they don ’t. It’s all
part of the lie Afler that, mom’s attitude changed That was really helpful,
because I needed her, and she finally was able to see it. ” Confirming Group
Member # 4

Participants were grateful to workers from all systems that confronted the
abuser with his responsibility for the situation. Three women and one confirming group
member indicated that workers who confronted the abuser bolstered their belief that there
was hope for them.
“Just to hear someone stand up to him... tell him he had no right to treat us
like he did That was so healing. Nobody ever challenged him before My
worker actually said ‘Mr. [husband], your behavior toward your wife and these
children will not be tolerated You can and should go to prison, and if I have
anything to say about it, you will. ’ Wow, that felt so good... it made me think
that maybe there was hope. She gave me hope. ” Confirming Group Member I!
4
Participants were successful in safely escaping the situation when workers and
judges acted on a clear understanding of her entrapment within that relationship. Four of
the women indicated that when a police omcer, caseworker, judge or attorney recognized

the dynamics of her situation, they felt supported and able to act.

166

“The caseworker, she knew I was trapped She sat down with me, said she
knew I was scared, but that she could help. She didn ’t wait for me to tell her
that I didn ’t have any place to go. She just said ‘let ’s talk about some options
you have that will break down all the reasons that you can ’t be safe ’ We went
through all the fear stuff... where I could go for shelter, what kind of help they
couldget us, what kind ofprotection Icould apeet... all thatstufll Ifelt like
she would stick with me through it all. She did ” —Confirming Group Member
# 4

Ten participants expressed appreciation for being offered information on services

available in the community, and two participants felt very supported by two particular

services provided by DHS: wrap-around and family reunification. Wrap around is a

coordinated, community-based case management program that engages services in a

systemic manner that are specific to the issues that clients present, and ensure all service

workers are on the same page with expectations. Family reunification programming is a

systematic, graduated process of re-integrating the mother and her children into a family

unit.

“I have wrap around services. They come right to the house and everything.
They make sure I know about things in the community that can help me get
back on myfeet. I’m learning a lotandgetting beuer every day. Theyputme
in two classes... the support group and the parenting class. The support group
ismoreliketalkingtoacounselorbecausethey haveallbeen through thesame
things I have so it helps a lot. ” —Donna

“What was most helpful to me is that he made sure I knew about the shelter and
the woman ’s center. Without them, I wouldn ’t have made it. ” ——Confirming
Group Member #3

“Thebestthingismywraparoundprogram. Itmakesiteasy. Ihaveallthese
servicesandonlyhaveoneperxonlhavetodealwith. Hearnangafor
everything. Hewantsustosueceedasafamily. IknowthatIhavelearneda
lot, andIthinkincasee ofwraparound, theprogram worksreallygood.” —
Rita

“I went through the family re-unification program. That was the best thing

that anybody could ever go through. They help you with anything you need ” -
-Helen

167

“They steered us in the right area for counseling...but what was not helpful was
they took andshoved it down my throat.” --Amy

Four participants and all five confirming group members identified human service
workers who assisted in securing housing resources and credited them as essential to their
ability to escape the relationship.

“I needed a place to stay, and they got me into the shelter. They worked with
me to get an apartment I could afford They saw that I got childcare money so
that I could work without leaving the kids alone. ” --Barbara

“I needed everything... a house, a car, food, everything. They made sure I got

whatIhadto have. I’mstill working on the car, but untilthen, theygive me

bus passes when I’m short. ” —Confirming Group Member it 4

Three participants appreciated transportation assistance, both to a safe place in an
emergency, and also those that led to their independence.

“He picked me up, drove me to die school where we got the kids, and took us to
the shelter. He didn’thave to do that. Butby doing that, he savedmy life.” —
Barbara

“I needed a way to get to work. My caseworker found a donated car that I am
driving now. She helped me get the insurance. It isn ’t a Cadillac, but it gets me
where I’m supposed to be! ” —Confirrning Group Member # 2

Three participants were grateful to those workers who advocated on her behalf
with law enforcement, and believed that the intervention was key to having the
perpetrator held responsible for his violence, and safeguarding the woman and her
children.

“He [CPS caseworker] talked to the police. He explained that I was in danger

and needed to have police protection. He asked them to do whatever with patrol
cars to keep a watch on the house He told them I got a PPO and that he hoped
that they would make sure that if he [perp.] came to the house, or tried to
contact me in the shelter, that they [police] would arra't him. ” -—Barbara

Two participants also described caseworkers that assisted them in seeking legal

remedies leading to their safety.

168

“My FIA worker...she took me over to the courthouse and helped me get the
PPO. When we went in to talk to the judge, she came with. He listened to her
talk about how I am in danger, and the kids are in danger, and he believed her.
When I had asked him by myself the year before, he said no. With her there, I
got my protection order. I was scared to go to the court. I felt like it would just
makehim moreangryandthathe’dgetto usandmaybe even killus. My
caseworker drove me to the court and she told the judge that she needed him to
grantmetemporarysolecustodyandtodo whateverhecouldtohavethepolice
keepan eyeon myhouse, in casehetriedtogetbackin. Shewasterrific.” —
Confirming Grow Member # 2

Two participants appreciated those workers who advocated with in-laws to ensure
her protection from harassment and threats as a result of her cooperation with CPS and
law enforcement.

“My caseworker actually went with the police to them and said that if they
continued to call and harass me, keep threatening me, he would see that they
were prosecuted The calls immediately stopped No more calls in the middle of
the night... no more calls at work... they just stopped That was the extra mile.
He’ll never know how much thatmeant to me ” —Barbara
Three participants who received information on wlmt they could expect and the

steps in the processes of CPS were far more likely to cooperate with services and
experienced significantly less anxiety and mistrust.

“The hardest thing is that things happen that you might not know about. Like
they have thae steps that they have to go through, and I have these things that I
need to do. If he didn ’t explain the steps to me, you know, the things drat we
would be doing, I’d be lost. ” —Rita
Six participants expressed being unsure of themselves and their ability to provide

with limited resources, and stated they were often exhausted from the processes. Those
workers offering encouragement and support were seen as partners in safeguarding the
children and a source of strength and hope.

“She said that I wasn ’t a bad mom. She said she knew I loved my kids. In

grow, I hear other women talk about how they were told how bad they
were...what a failure they were as moms. I was just so lucky that she got my

169

case. She’s never accused me or said I was bad ” —Confirming Grow
Member # 4

Two participants whose children were removed expressed being relieved when
their children were placed with those individuals they themselves had used to safeguard
the children from the abuse. Additionally, these women indicated that made them more
likely to work cooperatively with systems as a result of the consideration.

“The best thing they [CPS] did was to let my mom and dad take the kids. You

know, at least it was with people they knew and a place they were familiar with.

I understand that they needed to like figure out what happened, make sure I

wasn ’t hurting the kids and stufi‘l I was just so thankful that I knew they were

with people who cared about them. ” —Confirming Grow Member ll 5

Two participants who had regular contact with workers regarding the placement
of their children, and their related well being were significantly less anxious, and were
able to cope with the situation far better than those who were kept in the dark.

“She was really good about taking my calls. She also called me to let me know
the kids were going to school, that she had talked with the teachers, and that
they knew not to let him [perp] take the kids without their permission. She

brought me out some pictures they drew, and took some presents to them from
me. Thatmeantalotto us.” -—Confirming GrowMember#4

“He let me know aboutall the hearings andstufll He was pretty good about
that. Ifeltlikehewantedtomakesurethekidsandlstayedelose.” —Rita

When workers supported women in court, women reported better outcomes for
themselves and their children. Barbara had such help, and believes that made a
significant difference in her experiences.

“My caseworker is going to testify for me in court. He says that he will do

whatever he has to in orderto makesure thatmy husbandneversees thosekids

or me again. He’s been on my side every step of the way. I couldn ’t ask for
anything more than what he’s done. I guess I’m really lucky. ” --Barbara
When law enforcement ofiicers recognized the danger participants were in when

they attempted to get help, women felt supported, safer and better able to escape.

170

Barbara and four others expressed that police officers who protected them and held the
batterer accountable allowed them to relax from their hyper-vigilant state.

“They just said, ‘Buddy, you’re going to jail That was it. I showed them my
PPOandthatwasit. Thepoliceman askedmeifIwasallright, lookedatthe
bruises on my arnu, checked on the kids and took him of): No question... no
hassle. Just took him oflfl After his release, they made sure drey kept an eye on
the house That made it easier to sleep at night. ” —Barbara

Particimt advice for work_§_r_s_

Participants offered advice to workers who will face women like them in the
future. They firmly believe that these suggestions will assist workers who will interact
with women in their situation in the future.

1. Don’t assume I’m the enemn Amy, Faith, Iris, Terri

Participants were unanimous in stating that they felt at times, as if CPS workers
believed that they condoned, and in some cases, contributed to the violence of the
perpetrator. They indicated nothing could be further from the truth. They asked that they
be considered partners in the effort to safeguard their children. They expressed the fact
that they wanted the same thing: what was best for their children.

“Please don ’t treat me like I’m the enemy. I’m not. I want everything good for
my kids. If you do, too, then we should be able to work together. That’s what’s
helpful. I’ll do what ever you say I need to...just don ’t think I’m against you,
I’m not. ” —Faith
“If they really want to help people, they really do need to work in a partnership.
They need to say ‘Okay, we’re here to help you find the right pathways, not to
introduceyou to anotherstumblingbloc ’.” —Amy

2. Don’t issue threats up front. Amy, Barbara, Faith, Geena, Helen, Iris
Threats issued up fi'ont made participants believe that they needed to defend
themselves, and some expressed that feeling led them to keep from cooperating with

CPS. They expressed the concern that decisions were being made without workers

171

having critical information that may trigger a different result. Five participants expressed
this was critical to gaining the trust and cooperation of adult victims.

“Right of)" the bat, it was ‘we ’re going to have to take the kids. They didn ’t
know anything about what was going on. I just panicked... I mean, it was like
‘wait a minute... do you even want to know what’s going on here for real’?
They need to step back and get some truth first. ” -—Confirming Grow
Member it 2

“I would have done a little more investigating...talking to family members,
really to get a gist ofhow thefamily is or how they operate To be charged with
neglect...that’s worse than having robbery or murder on your record That
means you can ’t provide for something you gave birth to. ” --Geena

“I wouldn ’t have started ofl' with the threats. I would get my information first. ”
“I would quesa'on. I would question a lot of things. You can ’t go in there with
oneframe ofmindandsay, ‘okay, ladyyoudidthis.’ You haveto betwo-sided
You should go in there with two frames of mind and say ‘okay, this is what we

have...this is what you’re telling me. You can ’t automatically accuse someone
and say you ’re guilty. ” --Helen

3. Gather information before am your decisions. Amy, Barbara, Catherine,
Faith, Geena, Iris, Michelle, Nancy
Eight participants encouraged workers to investigate more fully before acting.
They believed that workers automatically assumed that they were complicit, if not
responsible directly for the abuse.
“Don ’t just automatically think, ‘well, if she ’s in the same house with him, she
mustbein on it.’ We needhelp. We needswport. We don’tneedto bea'eated
like a criminal. ” —Catherine
“The threats, intimidation, not offering any services...[she] already had her
mind made w before she even...it’s like she already made her judgment, so
whatever... ” —Barbara

4. Show gome empathy. Faith, Iris, Michelle, Nancy, Qui’Ana

172

Five participants expressed the importance of CSP workers recognizing that she
was also a victim, and that she needed help. An empathetic response was
important for women to be able to experience hope that she could escape safely
with her children, and receive support along the way.

“They [CPS] need to realize the woman is in this... the children aren ’t just the
only victims and if the woman is having it hard, that’s gonna make it hard on
the kids. The last thing you need is somebody to blame you... to act maybe like
you ’re just dirt. I did protect my kids. They have a good Mom. I just need
somebody to understand that I had no choices. I was stuck. I needed help and
swport to get out, not a lecture ” —Nancy

5. Do no more than is absolutelv necessagy. Amy, Faith, Geena, Iris, Michelle,
Nancy
Six participants stated that workers not do anything more than what is absolutely
necessary to provide immediate safety for the children.

“Maybe if they just took enough time to find out what’s really true Maybe if
they have to take the kids away until they figure it all out, okay, but then put
them with somebody that they know. Maybe if they only do what they have to
until they figure it out. It’s so wsetting to everybody when they have to go to...
with strangers. ” --Geena

“I believe what I would have done, because I’m going to school right now for
social work...and I believe what I would have done was went in and spoke with
the parent [and find out] what hwpened Make sure you have something to
back that [accusation] w, you know? I wouldn ’t have went right [and] accused
the parent of doing anything wrong to the child I believe I would have let the
parent stay with her child because that’s what the kids want...they want to be
with their mother or whoever. They want to be with their parent when they are
hurt. They don ’t want to be with nobody else, especially someone who is not
familiar to them. So that’s what I think I would have done... ask questions
before I went in and accused ” --Faith

6. Don’t label me or my children. Michelle, Nancy, Qui’Ana

 

Participants were further victimized when described as defective or dysfunctional.

At times, these labels were used in front of their children. This was cited by three

173

participants, all of whom were offended by the adjectives used to describe them and their
children.

“In court and in the reports there were all kinds of names for us. We were
‘confrontational, dysfunctional... ineffective’. We were labeled like meat. I
mean, that’s so hurtful to hear your kids and yourself... your family life
described in labels. We’re people. We’re not problems. ” --Confirming Grow
Member # 2

7. Please respect my cultur_e, Amy, Geena, Iris, Linda, Rita
Four of the ten minority participants and one white participant requested that
cultural considerations be made when placing their children, and indicated that services
need to be individualized according to each family’s situation, and not using a cookie-
cutter approach.

“Being black, there are some things that are what we do. It’s not that I think I
know better than anybody else, but I teach my kids to be proud of who they are.
When they went to another family, they was white. I’m not saying that they was
bad, but they didn ’t for foods my kids was used to. They missed our Christmas
family dinners and church. They missed Kwanza. Those are important things.
They mean something to us as afamily... a blackfamily. [don’t think that a
white family could give diem what they was used to. ” —Confirming Grow
Member # I

“They are judging everybody by one standard Not everybody is the same.
They ’re just putting me into [a] classification, [yet] they have never been
through it and [say] this is how we ’re going to proceed They can ’t understand
every single thing according to this one little guideline. ” —-Amy
8. Explain CPS m. Michelle, Opal, Qui’Ana
Participants believe an understanding of the processes involved with CPS allows
women to cooperate, make decisions that are best for themselves and their children, and
limit mistrust and misunderstandings. This was an issue cited by three participants, one

of whom was illiterate in written language, and one was blind.

“Here you are... you think you might lose your kids. You don ’t understand
what the meetings [CPS hearings] are about. You don ’t know why you’re going

174

to court or what will hwpen. Somebody says ‘sign this or you lose your kids. ’
You sign it, but you don ’t know what it means. If they can just take a few
minutes and say ‘0kay, this is what will hwpen... or this is what might
hwpen ’... at least then you can be prepared ” --Confirming Grow # I

9. EggpLain legal processes. Amy, Evelyn, Michelle, Opal
Legal processes are difficult for lay people to understand. Participants were

unanimous in expressing confusion about what was happening within the legal setting,
what the consequences of the processes may be, and what rights they had or didn’t have.
The issues for those that offered this advice were literacy and blindness. Evelyn,
however, voiced concern that she was unprepared for court, and believed that proper
preparation may have resulted in a different and better outcome than what she
experienced.

“Okay, so you get this pwer that says you have to go to court. You don ’t know
what will happen. Will you get to see the kids? Will they decide where the kids
will live? Do they decide who can see them? It was a guessing game...a
horribleguessinggame. Ineverknewfi'om onetimetothenextwhatwas
going to hwpen. ” --Evelyn

“There are parents out there that don ’t know where to get the help or they are
apected to just do everything right. If you don’t know where to go...how are
you going to get that hehr? As far as the legal stuff; they [need to tell you] this
is what’s going to happen. This is what’s going to happen during that hearing.
They don ’t explain to you what’s going to be the long-term thing if it’s done this
way [or that]. I showed w at this hearing and the judge looks at me [and asks]
‘do you understand what a respondent is and that you are not a respondent’? I
havenevereven heardtheword [say ‘no, nobodyexplainedthattome’.” --

Amy
10. Wave to remove my kids, place them with my fa_milv or those Iknow I ca_n
Q'Lst to care for them. Donna, Evelyn, Michelle
Three participants described a strategy of seeking out safe individuals with whom
they could leave their children at times when the perpetrator was most likely to assault

the women and her children. The women in the study indicated that if children needed to

175

be removed, that workers consider placing the children with those individuals who had
provided a safety net prior to CPS intervention.

“Sometimes they don ’t think they have a choice They think it’s best to take the
kids until it all gets worked out. I understand that’s their job. But when there’s
family that are willing to take the kids, do that. If they go into foster care then
they lose all their security..,family’s a security for them. I had a worker rip my
baby from my arms. No bottle, no blanket, none of her toys. She went
someplace with people who didn ’t know what she liked, what her routines were,
how she did things. She wasn ’t even a year old She must have been terrified.
I cried and cried for her. I knew she had to be scared to death. She didn ’t trust
people she didn ’t know... you know, she was at that age where they don ’t want
nobody but their mama. Now why would they do something like that? Who
does that help?” --Confirming Grow Member # I

11. fl you need to remove my kids keen me informed of how they are. Donna,

 

Evelyn, Michelle
Three participants requested that workers who do remove children stay connected
to the mothers, giving them periodic information on how the children are, and the status
of their cases. Mothers who had that type of relationship with their workers reported less
anxiety and more incentive to cooperate with services.
“Just don ’t leave me in the dark. That’s the worst thing...not knowing. I got to
know that my kids are okay... that they are eating, sleeping, going to school,
getting congfort and love They are with people they don ’t know. What is being
done to comfort them? How are they? Are they okay... are they sick... do they
know what’s happening? Are they crying? Are they together? It was the worst

kind of nightmare...the wondering. If they can keep somebody from going
through that... that would be good ” —Confirming Grow Member # 2

176

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

_Fi_tn_ess of the Theories:

This study was inductive in nature in relation to the assumptions within the
theoretical framework of the two foundation theories: Neo-feminism and Human
Ecology. Neo-feminist theory assumptions include

Oppression: Women in the study described being oppressed by their assailant and
ecosystems designed to protect them and their children.

Gender as a basic organizing concept: Women in the study were held to different
standards and received disparate treatment as related to their expected roles and
behaviors.

Class and race as organizing conc_epts: Women in the study responded to their

situations in ways that were framed by racial experiences and access to resources.

Centrality, normalcy and value of female experiences: Participants reported

 

having their experiences ignored, denied, devalued and were silenced across systems.
Gender relations as a commnent of analysis: The women in the study had little
support from workers not educated on the dynamics of abuse within the family.
Women and family are MM le: Women in the study were held almost solely
responsible for the welfare of their children, to the exclusion of the male in the family

unit. They were expected to act in all-knowing and all powerful in their parenting.

177

Womenfi are glued only for their contribution to the family: When women in the
study behaved in ways that defied the norm that they always can and are expected to
protect their children, they were viewed as defective.

Human Ecological assumptions include

Systems are interdgpppdent: Women and their children represented in this study
were reliant on systemic support. They fared poorly when those systems experienced
disconnect in philosophy, perspectives, and awareness as they related to the reality of
domestic abuse.

Systems are interrelated: The interaction with one system often resulted in the
intervention services of other systems. In the case of the women in the study, related
systems sometimes joined forces against her, using similar faulty paradigms.

Families are systems: As the families represented in the study responded to the
violence by their assailant, they acted as systems would be expected. They processed
feedback, adapted, and acted based on cost-benefit analyses.

Environments change: The nature of the relationships recounted by participants
changed over time, as did their belief that systems would support them, and their ability
to access such services.

Systems pmsely wt: As the environment changed for families represented in
the study, they adapted using cost-benefit analysis, purposeful decision-making, and
adjusting their behaviors, perceived realities and expectations accordingly.

System interaction occurs at a variety of levels: Micro. me_s_o, exo. arm mpcro:
As individuals each player within the family assessed and adapted to the violence, using

coping mechanisms that either were based on surviving the violence, or in the case of the

178

abuser, perpetuating it. At the meso level, the family members interested in living fiee of
the violence attempted to interact with the abuser in ways that would limit or avert the
negative consequences of the violence. At the exo level community systems became
involved for the sake of eliminating the issue, as they perceived it to be. At the macro
level, women were faced with societal norms that did not fit with their lived reality. That
clash of norms and perceptions had extensive consequences for them and their families.

Ecosystems with more resnryrces are better able to We; Women in
the study expressed that the lack of resources and support determined the quality of their
outcomes. Their decision-making processes were so adversely effected by limited, non-
existing, or non-functioning resources that their decisions, to an outsider without personal
references, appeared illogical. However, when given access to adequate resources, the
women in the study were able to fimction in a more ‘logical’ manner.

Summary of Themes:

It is clear that the women in the study were unable to stop the violence, and at the
mercy of systems that often failed them. They were placed in a ‘Catch 22’ situation,
faced with societal norms that did not fit their realities, and left to fend for themselves.

“I’m damned ifIdo anddamned ifIdon’t... eitherIam abusing my kids by
staying with him, or I am abusing [my kids] when I can ’t feed them. ” -—

Stephanie

“I think that’s a social issue, because so many women are basically told to run

a household That’s what I did That’s what I wanted to do, you know? And I

think that when I, when I left—what people don ’t realize is that women like me

have been beaten down for so long, we have no self-respect...no self-
worth...more self-loathing than anything and if you ’ve spent all these years
fighting all of this, you haven ’t been out getting a career, you haven ’t been
studying or whatever and you walk our the doors of home and all of a sudden
you are a mother of three with no place, no car, no this, no that...trying to

make it in a world where there ’s no jobs, and housing is apensive There
needs to be more like...ntore things to help. That’s all ” --Nancy

179

“I don ’t trust the system You know, I’ve raised the question more than
once...if I send my kids for visitation and he beats the crap out of them, are
they going to charge me with failure to protect again? I guess my biggest peeve
is that they threatened to take my children away from me for failing to protect
them and then they turn around and give my ex the same rights as any divorced

father. How is that fair? How is the system working for the kids? I just don ’t
see it. ” —Catherine

Women in the study were exposed to intense, multi-faceted and ongoing abuse.
Their stories may seem extreme to lay persons, but statistics provide evidence that their
experiences are all too common (Bachman & Salzrnan, 1995; Browne, 1993; Fantuzzo &
Mohr, 1999; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2002). Their experiences have been
ignored or denied within the patriarchal systems and resulting values (Andrews &
Brewin, 1990; Enos, 1996; Ewing & Aubrey, 1987; Sullivan, 2000). The experiences of
the researcher over the course of the past twenty years of service also underscores the
prevalence and severity of abuse expressed by the participants. The resulting effect of
this concept in practice is that women are often the victims of severe, prolonged, and
deliberate abuse perpetrated against them by men and condoned by a patriarchal system
of oppression.

Women in the study described being courted by a perfect person who was kind,
caring and invested in the relationship, and were surprised by a changing environment
when he turned violent. Perpetrators exploited the vulnerabilities of women who were
often alone and lonely, without resources, often subjected to prior abuse, sometimes with
special conditions that limited their ability to access and receive support, and only after a
committed relationship had been established. This is consistent with earlier findings

(Sullivan, 2000) and disputes the assumption that she is somehow attracted to abusive

men and knows exactly what she is getting into. Participants had also developed within

180

that relationship an intense love for the assailant. This is not an uncommon adaptation in
other hostage situations (Graham et al, 1994). In most cases, the abuse began slowly
and escalated over time.

Women in the study attempted to make sense of his behavior, and internalized this
confusion in the form of self-blame. This self-blame was found to be present in earlier
work (Mills, 2000; Porter, 2002). Participants attempted to adapt to the situation, and
integrate the reality into established norms. They expressed difficulty in establishing
congruency between society’s beliefs and their own reality. Family and religious values
added to this confusion. This confusion has been documented in prior works (Dobash &
Dobash, 1979; Ver Steegh 2000). Society ignored their plight, and denied the existence
of the violent situation (Zorza, 1998). This left participants little references applicable to
their situation. In addition, perpetrators were deliberate in using isolation and hiding the
evidence of their battering to prevent her from receiving assistance from those who
would be willing to intervene.

Fear was a major reason that women could not leave their situation. Perpetrators
used a variety of oppressive techniques to keep the women living in fear. Threats of
death and injury to her, him, her children, her family and her friends were primary.
Participants expressed the belief that the safety of those they loved was solely in their
hands. This supports the findings of Davidson (1995), Dobash and Dobash (1979),
Edelson (1985), Goodkind and colleagues (2004), Myers (2002), Phillips (1992), and
Walker (1984).

Second to the fear of death or injury, women feared that the assailant would

abduct the children, and perpetrators were quick to use this threat as a solid strategy to

181

prevent the women from challenging them or attempting to leave. This also is supported
by the literature (Jones, 1994). Women also feared for their pets, with good reason
(American Humane Association, 1994). They were clearly cognizant that they faced
increasing danger when they tried to leave, as Sullivan (2000) found, as well.

The assumptions that women can and should just leave or that they could stop the
violence if they chose ignores the reality of their situation, and assumes they can secure
their safety simply by leaving. This clearly is not the case (Enos, 1996; Sullivan, 2000).
The fact that perpetrators used abduction would seem to discount the assumption that
mothers who are also victims do not love or care about their children, else they would not
find that particular threat as powerful as it was. Women were unanimous in expressing
their devotion to and love for their children. This is consistent with the findings of
Davies, et al (1988) and Schechter and Edelson (1994).

There is an assumption among workers and court personnel that mothers
minimize their children’s exposure to the violence, or deny that the children knew of the
violence. This is seen by systems as proof that women in abusive settings are defective.
In this study, all the women interviewed knew that their children had witnessed the
violence in some way, and expressed the concerns they had regarding the consequences
of the exposure. They readily described feeling somewhat at fault for the exposure, and
included in their concerns post-separation exposure to the perpetrator as being of greater
concern than that which occurred before they left the relationship. This was expressed as
fear for the children, who up until their leaving the relationship had the protection of the
mother. Their fears generally centered on whom would protect them fi'om the abuser

when they enjoyed joint custody rights.

182

Many of the women described feeling that they had somehow failed the children
not just druing the violence, but even more so after the relationship ended. They
described being overcome with grief when their children were removed, and also when
they were exposed to the perpetrator legally by the courts. Ironically, they believed that
by forcing their children to be further exposed to his violence under court order, their
children were being punished for something out of their ability to control. This fear of
post-separation abuse is consistent with earlier studies (Lyons, 1999). It would seem to
dispel assumptions that mothers were oblivious and/or ambivalent to their children’s
exposure to the violence.

Women also verbalized that their children were paramount in their considerations
and decisions. This is consistent with the findings of Roberts and Burmans (1988). They
made considerable efforts to make peace in their home, and used a variety of strategies to
adapt their environment toward that end. Most of the women described using compliance
as a means to assuage the perpetrator. They related that they did what their assailant said
to do, walked away to avoid confiontations, and remained agreeable. They scheduled
their daily routines to fit the moods and schedules of the assailant, and accordingly
arranged their children’s schedules in an attempt to keep the children fi'om contact with
the abuser and out of harm’s way. They also attempted to train the children to stay out of
the assailant’s way and limited contact between the children and the abuser.

The women described being hypervigilant, watching for signs that the assailant
might become violent, and paid intense attention to where the children were relative to
the abuser’s whereabouts. This is consistent with the findings of Walker (1993). Several

of the women used outside activities as a secure place for their children. These included

183

after-school curricular activities such as Scouts, clubs and sports. Some of the women
described their belief that these activities not only protected their children during their
involvement, but also provided a learning setting with mentors that would introduce their
children to a non-violent lifestyle.

The participants used other outside resources to secure safe care for their children,
including family and fiiends, and some described knowing the signs of his escalating
violence to the degree that they could remove the children to one of these safe houses
prior to the violent episode. These strategies clearly show significant attempts to
safeguard the children involved. It should be noted that the perpetrators did not take into
consideration the children in their behavior. This supports the findings of Anderson &
Cramer-Benjamin (1999) that abusive men are less likely to exhibit positive parenting
behaviors than non-violent men.

Contrary to the assumptions that women in violent relationships either do not
attempt to access services, the women in this study repeatedly sought assistance, even
though they were fully aware that to ask for help and not get it placed them at increasing
and significant danger. They were often the reporting individuals to CPS. They called
police numerous times. They sought provider services and acquired PPO’s. However,
when these services were unable to decrease the danger, and when they were blamed for
the abuse, participants reported being reticent to seek further assistance. Participants, in
fact, adapted to services that placed them and their children in greater danger by not
calling on them again. This would appear to be protective of the children, and a logical

response.

184

The assumption that services are readily available was challenged by a number of
participants’ statements. Some were denied safe shelter due to capacity. Some
participants lived in remote areas where services were either unavailable or difficult to
access. Others were so isolated by their abuser that they were unable to access services.
Many were stalked and monitored to the degree that they were unable to get all the
children out of the house at one time, or were placed under such surveillance that they
didn’t dare seek outside help. Some women were fed misinformation about services that
fiightened them away, often told to them by perpetrators as well as those they trusted.
These women, trapped by their situations, still attempted to get help in other ways. . .
through physicians, family members, friends, teachers, and religious institutions. These
efforts to get help are consistent with the findings of Dutton (1993), Skinazi (1997), and
Sullivan (2000). Interestingly, these attempts at non-traditional means of safeguarding
children were not only devalued, but sometimes were viewed as dysfunctional behavior
by the courts. A discussion of that phenomenon follows later.

It should also be noted that women stepped between their assailant and the
children, causing injury to the mother, as they advocated for the child and often took the
beatings intended for the children. Participants also revealed that these efforts to protect
their children resulted in escalating the violent behavior of the perpetrator. The strategies
the women in the study reported using seem clear and convincing evidence that they
attempted to safeguard their children albeit in what may be considered non-traditional
means, but were successful to some degree in protecting their children. This supports the

findings of Sullivan (2000). In addition, participants suffered personal injury and

185

suffering to prevent their children fiom being hurt. These actions do not seem to be those
of women who aren’t dedicated to protecting their children.

As Phillips (1992) explains, people who have not experienced domestic abuse
often find it confusing and diflicult to understand the economic, social and psychological
factors that limit her options and influence her decisions. Pfouts (1978) describes victims
of domestic abuse as having to process their options and base their decisions on a cost-
benefit analysis. This was clearly the case with the participants in this study. They
discussed having brainstormed options, weighing the potential consequences of their
options, considering the historical context of those Options, and foremost in their minds
was the well being of their children first, their family and fiiends next, and finally,
themselves.

Access to adequate financial and sustaining resources was key to the experiences
of the women in the study. Only one woman in the study was able to escape without
incurring financial obligations she could not handle. Poverty was the result of leaving for
all but this one participant. Most lost their homes, many were forced into shelters, and
some were unable to provide adequate food for their children. All but three of the
participants who retained some custody of their children spent considerable time on
welfare to provide for the basic needs of their children. This supports the research of
Bent-Goodley (2001), Davis & Srinivasin (1995), Sampson (1997), and Zorza (1991).
Transportation issues were present in the lives of all but three of the women in the study
post-separation. Participants anguished over these issues prior to successfully leaving the
situation, and after, as well. They voiced the fear that their children could be

permanently removed from their care if they were unable to provide for them. Some

186

were unable to get custody of their children back, or experienced significant delays in
getting them back, even though they had successfully completed their parenting
agreements, because of their inability to provide adequate shelter, food, heat, and
clothing. Their fears in this area were well founded therefore, and support the research
of Dutton (1993).

Family and religious values placed in the context of the patriarchy also were
profound factors in the women’s decision-making. Some participants expressed that
family members (both their own and the assailant’ 3) put pressure on them to keep the
family intact. Additionally, the assailant’s family often did what they could to prevent
participants from seeking legal recourse, including threatening the participants. In the
cases of some of the women, religious tenets that positioned ‘good’ females as
subordinate to males were used to convince participants to stay and try to work it out. In
these same cases, divorce was seen as an act against the family and God. These factors
are consistent with the research of Kasl (1990) and Unterberger (1989).

Several of the participants were influenced by the stigma attached to single parent
families. Seven of them voiced the belief that children needed two parents to be
successful. In a few of the cases, participants expressed sympathy for childhood fiiends
that had grown up without the benefit of both parents. Some believed that children
without two parents were looked down on. From a cultural aspect, one black woman
expressed that the number of black children growing up without a father in the home
placed them at a disadvantage, and she didn’t want that for her children. Another
believed that because she had two boys, she could not teach them what they would need

to know to become men.

187

Another issue that was particular within racial considerations was the statements
of some black women, who believed that to seek legal recourse against their black
assailant would be evidence of racial disloyalty. Social structures, in particular law
enforcement and the legal systems have been shown to be much more punitive toward
men of color (Franklin, 2000; Schechter & Edelson, 1999; Stark & Flitcraft, 1995; West,
1999). Sullivan and Rumptz (1994) had documented this phenomenon within their
earlier studies of women of color. Hill (2002), in his meta-analysis of overrepresentation
of minorities within the child welfare setting, formd that children of African Americans,
as well as those of Native and Hispanic Americans, were more apt to be removed than
their white counterparts. Another observation made by the researcher was that black
women in the study were far less apt than their white counterparts to be surprised or
angered by their treatment, victim blaming, oppression or lack of systemic support.

Participants, despite their dire situation, were women of hope. They sometimes
made decisions based upon the desire to make their relationships work and to save their
families. They believed the assailant’s claim that the violence was caused by the
victims’ behaviors. Participants expressed that they thought if they just did something a
little more or a little less, a little better, a little differently, the violence would stop. This
is the same message that they received fi'om society, the courts and CPS: that they had
the ability to fix the situation, that it was there obligation to do so for their children’s
sake, and there were opportunities to prevent failing. This supports Mahoney’s research
(1 991 ).

Participants also were concerned about the threat of abduction. Their assailants

assured the victims that they would take their children fi'om them if they attempted to

188

escape, and that they would do so either legally through a custody fight or illegally by
filing false reports with CPS or taking the children and disappearing. Some participants
had this happen to them, so their fears appear to be well founded and supports the
research of Jones (1993). The threat also resulted in some mothers being reticent to seek
social services. This supports the research of Bancroft (2001), Carter (1995), and Waller
(2001). It is also another example of how perpetrators were able to manipulate systems
into unwittingly supporting their abusive behavior, ensure isolation of the women, and
kept both the mothers and the children in danger.

These factors effectively entrapped women into staying in the relationship, and
surviving with their children in the context of their reality. When taken into
consideration within this context, the decisions of participants not only seem less
confusing, but in fact, appear rational and appropriate. This makes training an issue of
critical importance for all individuals who have power over these families, in order to
give them the tools they need to make decisions that result in the women and children
being safer, not more imperiled.

Women expressed the variance in understanding and subsequent services between
workers. This is a key concept, in that it underscores the randomness of decisions
regarding participants depending on the personal references and beliefs of the worker to
which they were assigned. Earlier research by Huxtable (1994) and Porter (2002) would
support this finding. Workers are enabled to operate under faulty paradigms by the
societal view of who is responsible for the abuse, the safety of the family, and the quality

of the dyadic relationship (Gordon, 1988).

189

The conflicting responses by workers to the same case is cause for concem that
indeed, as Gordon (1988) found, workers are arbitrary in their approach to cases, and are
in need of education on the dynamics of domestic abuse. For women lucky enough to
have been served by a worker who had a solid understanding of their realities, the results
were positive for them, and in particular for their children. For some that were not so
lucky, the results had catastrophic consequences for all involved. It should be noted that
the gender of the worker made little or no difference in how they responded. It would
seem that it is a matter of education, not gender.

Nearly half of the women in the study sought assistance from CPS to safeguard
their children. Other women reported being referred by police, physicians and teachers
concerned over their welfare, and that of the children. Regardless of how they became
connected with CPS, all of the participants reported being blamed by the helping system
for the abusive behavior of the assailant. They were met with threats of removal of their
children from their custody, intimidation, charged with Failure to Protect and in two
cases, child endangerment. This was highly unexpected by most of the white
participants, who believed in the system to support them until after the first encounter.
Given those experiences, participants overwhelmingly stated that they would not advise a
woman in their situation to contact CPS or to trust them if connected through another
source.

Participants reported that the actions of workers, who seemed unaware of the
reality of their situation and acting on their own misperceptions, further endangered their
children, and themselves. Some perpetrators moved their families very quickly to avoid

further contact. None of the workers save one confi'onted the perpetrator with the

190

responsibility for the violence. All of the women received some sort of sanctions for
their efforts to get help, and all but one indicated that they and their children were in
greater distress and danger due to the interaction with CPS. This is consistent with the
findings of Spear (1996).

Many participants indicated that their worker was less than supportive in
scheduling services required in the parenting plan. Four of the women indicated that they
themselves researched and sought out the services that would meet the requirements of
their plan. The reason for this is unknown, but could be related to beliefs that the women
were lost causes for whom services would not make any differences. This would be
consistent with research of McCroskey and Meezan (1997), and would be further
indication of personal references and beliefs of workers being the basis for decisions. It
could also be evidence of believing that the worheh were somehow defective.

Many women reported being called dysfunctional, defective, and abnormal. They
were told that they were ‘the type’ drawn to abusive men, disbelieved, required to take
psychological exams, ordered into counseling and screened for substance abuse. One
participant reported her worker indicated that her assailant must have had a reason to beat
her. It was clearly easier for workers to address her using a fiamework of pathology
rather than accept the fact that the assailant’s abuse was deliberate, calculated, and cruel.
Bowker (1999), F ugate (2001). Levandosky and colleagues (2000), and Sullivan and
colleagues (2000) all question a pathology-based fiamework for assessment of victims of

domestic abuse as scientifically sound. Yet clearly, most women in the study were

assessed based on the belief that they were somehow defective and illogical.

191

Some participants reported that their motives and intents were questioned. Some
workers indicated that they behaved that they would ‘choose’ their batterer over their
children, and that they had not and would not be able to protect them. Participants
reported that they were accused of being complicit in the abuse of their children. In some
cases, women were expected to have known and condoned things that happened to their
children when they weren’t even home at the time. This happened to women who
themselves called CPS to request their assistance.

These findings are supported by the research of Field and Cook (1994), who
found that victims are often accused of being able to stop the violence if they wanted, and
of choosing their batterer over their children. Aron and Olson (1997) and Kaufmann-
Kantor and Little (2002) found that victims are sometimes seen as complicit conspirators
in the abuse of their children. Sullivan and colleagues (2000) also reported that victims
were perceived to have ‘allowed’ their children to be hurt. This complicity conspiracy is
the result, according to Dohm (1995), of society and helping systems viewing the victim
solely as being part of a parental unit, rather than another victim of the assailant.

Most CPS workers held participants responsible for the abuse of their children.
This assumption of guilt was based on the fact that workers apparently believed that they
should be able to control the assailant and if they didn’t it was because they chose not to.
If they ‘chose’ not to, then they were further perceived as sacrificing their children’s
welfare, and deserved punishment. Within this fiamework, then, CPS workers threatened
and intimidated the participants, and treated them as co-assailants. The experiences of
the women and the CPS fiamework for assessing victims has been documented by Davis

(1991), Dobash & Dobash (1979), Enos (1996), Gordon (1988), and Miccio (1995).

192

Several participants were charged with Failure to Protect. As Magen (1999)
described this phenomenon, the underlying assumption of the word failure is that
circumstances are within one’s control and there is an opportunity to succeed. The
results of this study would indicate that the circumstances of the women were not within
their control, and there was no discemable way in which they could succeed. Although
one may argue that the word ‘failure’ is just a semantic, it would appear rooted in the
greater societal misconceptions about the dynamics of domestic abuse and the
expectation that victims will always be able and should protect their children (Enos,
1996).

Participants expressed being devastated at the charge that they were unfit parents,
unwilling to protect their children, and willing to sacrifice them to their assailant. This
was clearly a personal blow to the women who had, by their accounts, spent most of their
waking moments in fear and struggling to find a magical combination of strategies that
would ‘fix’ the issue, and safeguard their children, as society would expect of them.

Two of the participants were charged with child endangerment. This was the
result of what was perceived as the participants knowingly placing their children in
danger fipm the abuser. This also goes to the misconception that women will choose a
violent partner over her children (Jacobs, 1998 and Magen, 1999). Interestingly, CPS,
and law enforcement have been shown to treat women who killed their assailants with
greater kindness and empathy than those who remained in the relationship (Lyon, 1999).
In fact, two of the women in the study lamented that they had not resorted to homicide.

Participants were required to complete parenting agreement plans that included

counseling (further evidence that she is defective), parenting classes (proof that she was

193

seen as unfit as a mother), extensive drug screening (an indication that she is in an altered
state) and psychological testing (indicating that she is mentally deficient). At the core of
the plans were the assumptions that they were abnormal and needed fixing.

The plans were required only of the women in the study, even though in most
cases, the father was the assailant and still involved with the children. Assailant motives
and fitness, however, were not perceived as requiring a parenting plan. This could be due
to the fact that CPS workers see the victim as more manageable and less of a threat to
their own safety than the assailant (Farmer, 1997). However, McDonald (1988) may
argue that it fulfills society’s need to punish the women for not living up to roles
expectations set in patriarchal norms. The fact that fathers were not confronted or
sanctioned, by CPS requiring them to complete similar plans, supports earlier research by
Appel (1997), Dohm (1995), Enos (1996) and Scott (1996).

Some of the plans seemed extreme, with components that did not necessarily
correlate with parenting skills. Qui’Ana was forced to have her teeth pulled before
having her children aned to her. The worker indicated that her teeth were unhealthy,
and therefore a health risk to her children. Qui’Ana had no money for the procedure, and
endured excruciating post-operative pain without the benefit of analgesics. Her dentures
do not fit her, and she has had no money to return to the dentist to have them fitted.

Many of the women were forced into drug screening regiments even though they
had no history of substance abuse. For some, it meant passing a drug test every week for
over a year, despite the fact that their tests in that time were never positive. One CPS
worker told a participant that the reason she was required to be tested was that her

assailant was being tested (due to documented substance abuse). Participants reported

194

that sometimes their plans were extended when perpetrators and/or their families filed
false claims against her with CPS. Participants experienced delays and additional
requirementsasareeultofthefalseclaims. Accordingtothewomenandthepaperwork
theyshmedwithflreresearcher,noneoftheseclaimswereeversubsmnfiated Penceand
Paymar(l993)reportedthatflrisisaconnnontacficofbattererswhouseitasatoolto
confinrretostalhharassandconnoldreirvicfims.

Womeninthesmdywhohadflreirchildrenremovedreportedconsistenflythat
they were extremely worried about their children, frightened over what may happen to
them, who was caring for them and how they were doing. Some participants went over
three weeks without knowing where their children were, if they were all right, and what
theycouldexpectintermsofalegal rulingontheirrights. This isanexampleofanother
‘Catch 22’ women expressed. They felt blamed by CPS for not caring about their
children while in the abusive relationship, yet were punished and ignored when they
attempted to gain information from CPS regarding their welfare. Two women met their
worker for the first time in court.

Some women reported that fliey were told by CPS workers not to call, to wait for
infonnafiomandto ‘stopbotheringthe stafl‘.’ Oneworkertoldaparticipanttbat ifshe
continued to call, ‘it would go very badly for her.’ Sometimes, the first time that the
womenknewthatthey werebeingchargedwithanything, oreventhatchargeewere
possible, was when they got to court on what they believed was the assailant’s hearing.
By withholding information, CPS again displayed the belief that the women could not be

trusted, and punished her for behaving as one would exnect a concerned parent to
respond

I95

Bograd (2000) and Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) found that women of color were
more likely to have children removed than their white counterparts. In addition, black
women are known to be more likely to have their children placed in homes with white
foster parents. However, in this small study, there was no difference found in that regard.
Thismaybebecauseofthesmallsamplesizeorbecauseboththeblackwomenandthe
white women in the study were, for the most part, poor. The work by Bograd and Tjaden
andThoennesregardingpoorwomenbeingmorelikelyto sustainsanctionsbyCPStban
those of middle to upper class means may have more to do with the women in the study
than race. However, the sample did not allow for any considerations in this regard, the
to small sample size and no comparative group. The findings of Bent-Goodley (2001),
Bograd (1994) and Sullivan and Rumptz (1994) as to being labeled as poor parents and
defective in some way applied equally in both racial groups.

Some participants indicated that when they contacted police for assistance, law
enforcement officers behaved the perpetrator’s excuses for the crisis. In eleven cases,
participants reported that they were believed and felt supported by law enforcement. In
four of the cases in which participants were not believed, the perpetrator was able to
convince the officers that the victim was to either to blame or was somehow defective.
Some assailants were successful in claiming that the participant was mentally ill, on some
kind of medication, or that they had started an altercation. Additionally, three
participants were arrested, either with the assailant (a dual arrest) or alone as a result of a
false claim against them. This is consistent with the findings ofCaputo (1991) and

Saunders and Size (1986).

196

In many cases, probation and/or PPO’s were ignored or discounted. Many of the
perpetrators had weapons in the home, and some participants recounted that in spite of
the fact that assailants possessed firearms illegally, the police ignored that violation. In
addition, PPO’s were not honored in more than half of the cases. Participants in four
cases believed that in their case, the fact that the assailant had a military record, or had
police training allowed them to manipulate law enforcement officers or escape sanctions.

In several cases however, participants reported that the police were helpful,
understanding and were instrumental in their being able to successfully escape. In two
cases, the women reporting this indicated that they credited the police officer with saving
their lives. Of note is that these officers are fi'om jurisdictions in which there has been a
concerted effort to educate officers, leadership from the chiefs of police, and a
cooperative relationship between service providers and law enforcement.

In three cases omcers and CPS workers blamed her for his violence to the degree
that charges were filed against her for child endangerment or neglect. In all three cases,
the charges stemmed from the perpetrator’s violence, and her ‘involvement’ through not
being able to stop the violence or protect her children fi'om him. Again, this victim
blaming is centered in the definition assigned to the circumstances based on a belief that
they could and should have stopped the abuser from being violent (Dalton, 1999). It is
centered in failing to identify them as victims, as well as the children. This
mischaracterization of victims and the process of lumping them into a parental unit with
their assailants results in injustices.

Participants overwhelmingly reported being silenced and sanctioned by the court

and their own attorneys. They reported their court experience as one of terror, confusion,

197

powerlessness, and oppression. Their attorneys told them to sit quietly and to show no
emotion. The attorneys were reported consistently as having said or done little to assist
their clients. Three attorneys played solitaire or answered e-mails on their laptop
computers during hearings. Prosecutors dropped charges and accepted pleas without
informing the victims. In two cases, judges threatened mothers when they displayed
emotion. The fact that the mothers were in jeopardy of losing their children at this time
was apparently discounted. This is another “Catch 22’ that women identified, and is
supported by Smith and Coukos (1997). They were expected to be all-concerned and all-
powerful in order to protect their children from the assailant, yet those same instinctive
emotions and activities expected outside the court were sources of discipline in the
courtroom.

In court, attorneys, judges and the assailant indicated that they believed she was
over-reactive, hyperemotional, vindictive, unfit, unreasonable and illogical. Some were
accused of having mental health issues, abusing illegal substances, and neglecting their
children. Meanwhile, the perpetrator appeared calm, described by the women as smooth,
charming, and ready to do what ever it takes to be a good father to the children. This is
also a documented phenomenon in the work of Smith and Coukos (1997). Court-
appointed attorneys rarely represented the women in the study with any vigor, and in
some cases, the attorneys were involved in behaviors that would be considered highly
unethical. In two cases, attorneys fell asleep. In one case, the woman’s own attorney
engaged with opposing counsel in making fun of the victim while riding down with the

victim in an elevator after a hearing.

198

Guardians ad litem were similarly mefiecfive in supporting the children. Most
women reported that the guardian only met their children right before the hearing, asked
themnothingofany significance, andinflneecaseeflnguardianseitberdidn’tspeakto
the children prior to custody determinations, or interacted with them in developmentally
inappropriatelyways. Inonecase,flreguardiandeterminedthattheywouldinterviewa
three year old over the phone. Interviewing three year olds face to face is diflicult
enough. They typically divulge information in experiential means, given their lack of
language skills. Obviously, this guardian did not have the education needed to
effectively speak for the child in court.

Women who had the advantage ofan attorney who specializes in domestic abuse
cases, and who exhibited a clear understanding of domestic violence fared much better in
court. None of the seven women who had services from these specialists had complaints
about their representation. This concept is supported by the work ofEnos (1999), who
described the issue as one of patriarchal ideologies, and the belief that mothers could stop
theabuseifthey chose,andflratparentsareperceivednotasindividuals,butasasingle
parental unit (Delgato, 1999, and Myers, 2002).

Whentheyweresanctionedatall indrecmntmostperpeumorswereorderedinto
batterer’s intervention and anger management programs. These programs were often
shortwhhauendanceandcomphancemtheclassmomallthatwasneededmwmplae
the program successfully. This is problematic, given the United States Department of
Justieereportthatthesetypesofprogramshave littletonoefi‘ectonflrefirtmebehavior
ofbatterers (2000). This is most likely due to the fact that batterers are master

manipulatoraandtheyfinditeasytoappearlogicalandcompliant(Pence&Paymar,

199

1993). In all but four of the cases, the mothers received significantly more severe
sanctions than the perpetrators, and given less time to comply.

Assailants often used fatha’s rights arguments to further their manipulation of the
courts and continue to control their victims. As Pence and Paymar (1993) found,
assailants were masterful in using, and usually convincing with this tactic. Participants
ovemhelminglymponedbeinghauledbackmcomtrepeawdlymmswerpefifions,
complaints and custody challenges. This is consistent with the findings of Bancroft &
Silverman (2000) and Zorza (1998). These challenges were in spite of the fact that a
majofityofflreperpeaatorslmdshownhflleormintemainpmenfingprimtothe
separation, asfound byZorza(l998). Thewomenintbe surdy,alreadyunderfinancial
duresehadfihleornomoneytopayaflomeysandcomtfeeeandofienendmed
ineffective representation in court. This was the finding of Edelson (1992), as well.

Thecomtsboughtintothefather’srights arguments forthesemen, inspiteofthe
fact that abusive fathers are less involved in their children’s lives, less affectionate and
more punitive than non-abusive fathers (Anderson & Owner-Benjamin 1999; Holden &
Richie, 1991). Itiswell documentcdthatbattererswillusetheirownchildreninorderto
hurt and control the mother (Dutton, 1992; Pence & Paymar, 1993), and will blame the
victim in court for keeping them fi'om their children (Adams, 1989; Gondolf, 1998).
Theseweredreexperiencesofmostwomeninthis study. Womenvoicedtheirlackof
faithinajustice systemthatfailedher,herchildren,andsupportedthebatterersintheir
abilitytocontinuetheircontrol overthem,continuetoexposethechildrentoviolence,
andallowbattererstoescapesanctions. Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththoseof

Appel (1997), Caputo (1991) and Dennis and colleagues, (1995).

200

Women in the study indicated that workers who blamed them for the abuse,
accused them of not caring about their children, and system failure to recognize the
assailant’s behavior for what it was and hold accountable were the issues that often kept
themandtheir childreninperil. Theybelieved they wereina‘Catch 22’ which many
describedasa“damnedifldoanddamnedifldon’t”situation. Theywereconfusedas
towhytheywereseenaspartandparceloftheviolence,andfmstmtedatnotgettingthe
helptheyneededtoprotectflleirchildrm. Theirfi'usu'ationiswellfomded,accordingto
Aron, et al (1997), Dalton (1999), Porter (2002), Stark (1995) and Waller (2001).

Thewomeninthestudyadaptedoverfimetosystemfailmebygivinguphope
thatanyonewouldorcouldhelpthemandflieirchildren. Theyexpressedfeeling
powerless and isolated. Over time, they believed that the only power with influence over
theirsimationwasthcperpetrator. 'l'hisisconsistentwiththereportsofBancrofl(2002),
Carter (1995), Porter (2002) and Waller (2001).

Womenweresupponeddifl‘erenflyaccordingtothedifl‘eremerersmwhich
they were assigned. Thisisconsistent withthefindingsofHuxtable (1993)um
(2002),andthequalityofassistanceseemcdtobedirectlyrelatedtothetrainingworkers
hadreceivedinthedynamicsofdomesficabuse. Oneparticipantindicatedthatthe
workerwhomshemeditcdfmsavinghafifehadcxptessedwhnflmhemcogmndher
situationasadirectresultofaclassflrathehadtakenincollegeondomsticabuse. This
wasatoolthathehadfoundoutsidetherealmoforientationtrainingforhisposition
ThisismnsisMwithflnflndingsofAmnandOlwnflmmwhichtheyfoundmost
workers have few tools and references tlnt enabled them to be effective in helping
women and children safely escape the abuse.

201

The women in the study indicated that helping workers did the following things:
Believed them, confronted the perpetrators, recognized their entrapment, offered services
and referrals, provided resources they needed to escape and provide for their children,
engaged with and advocated for them with other systems, protected them from
harassment from the assailant’s family, helped them get a PPO, provided information on
processes and expectations, offered encouragement to them, placed the children with
thosemeynustediftheyhadmberanoMmainmimdwnmctwithflwmafiammoval,
tesfifiedasmthedynamicsofabusemmmmstedmepapenator,homredPPO’sand
enforced parole and weapons violations.

Womenwhowerefornmatetohavethesupportofeducated systemworkers
indicawdthatthesupponofthoseworkemwasthepfimaryreasondreywemablem
successfully leave the relationship, and some credited these same workers with saving
theirlivesandthelivesoftheirchildren. Itisfiomthebackgrormdandactionsofthese
workers that this research may benefit thow in the helping fields.

Participants in the study gave the following advice to workers that may intaact
with women in their situations:

0 Don’tassume I’mtheenemy. Chancesareexcellentthatlwantandneed
your help. Treat me as apartnm’ that wants what you do...what’s best for
my kids.

0 Don’tissuethreatsupfmnt. Findoutwhat’sreally goingoninthehome.
Bewaryoftheassailant. He’scharming,convincing,andprobably

alreadyswcessfulatmaniptdafingothersmoreexpenencedthanyouare.

202

Show some empathy for us. . .we’ve been through a lot. I may seem
hysterical and maybe illogical to you. That’s because I’ve been terrorized
for so long, I’ve had no one to rely on but myself, and I’m trying to protect
my children in the middle of an all-out assault.

Please don’t do any more than what you know is necessary. If there’s a
way to limit the stress on Mom and the kids, try to pursue that path.

Please don’t label my children and me as dysfunctional, defective,
abnormal or problematic. We’re people, not pathological problems.
Respect my culture. I have a unique blend of experiences, beliefs and
realities. I may not do things exactly as you would, but that shouldn’t
mean that it’s wrong. There are things about us that you don’t know. Ask
me, and I will tell you my reasons for why I do things they way I do.
When you require things of me, please require them of my assailant, as
well. I’m not the only caregiver in this process. If there is fault with my
parenting skills, certainly there must be fault with his, as well.

Make my parenting agreement reasonable and related to the issues at hand.
Please explain your processes and expectations to me. I do not understand
them, I do not work in your system, and sometimes I am unable to read the
materials you give me. I know it takes time, but the future of my family
depends on my understanding of these things.

I believe that I have been a good and protective parent within the context
of my situation. Please note those things that I have done that are

evidence that I have tried my very best to care for my children.

203

If you have to remove my kids, please place them with someone I trust. I
knowwheretheywillbethesafestbecauselhavehadtofindthem safe
places inordertoprotecttheminthepast. Recognizemyexperiencesin
this area can be ofhelp to you, and limit the trauma to the kids.

Keep me informed as we go through the process. You may have to
explainthingsto memorethanonce,aslamfrightenedthatyouwill take
my children, and I may not ever have them again.

Make resources that help my children and me leave safely available to me
ifyoucammgivemesuggesfionswherelmightfindthem. Ineednotto
just survive this ordeal, I need to provide for my kids.
Recognizethatwhatmayappearashysteriaonmypartisacmallyasign
that I love my children and am beside myself over the prospect of losing
them. I may seem illogical and over-reactive. I may call you a thousand
times. Itisfintherevidencethatllovemykidaandamscaredtodeath
that I will lose them.
Don’ttakeitasasignthatlcannotbetmstedorbelievedifIamwary of
you. Systems have failed us in the past, workers have disbelieved us, and
Iknowthatwhenyouleavelmayverywellbe alonewithhim. Ihaveto
think aheadandplan forthebestwaytoavoiduspaying dearly foryour
intervention.

When you give him custody rights, you remove my ability to safeguard
them. Please ensure that someone is checking on how he is interacting

with the kids. Listen to my children and my concerns about their well

204

being while with him. Remember, this is a person who has done some
really terrible things to us.

0 Above all, his violent behavior is a choice on his part to hurt us. I didn’t
make that choice. . .he did. I cannot control him, just as I cannot control
you. Idonotwishtobehmt,andlcertainlydon’twantmykidshurt
either. Don’t lump me into a group with him. I am a different person, and
I deserve to be considered as an individual, not another passive assailant.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no argument that some adult victims of domestic violence also abuse
theirchildren(Magen, 1999). Itisalsoacceptedthatsomewomenchoosetoreturntoa
violent relationship although they have the means to leave and financially sustain their
family withoutfearoftheirassailant. Intheseextremecases, ifthechildisendangered,
removal forthesakeofthechildreniswarranted. Someoftheparticipantsinthestudy
wemthemsclvesvictmuzedbyanabusivepmentmdonewishedthatshehadbeen
removed from her childhood home. However, a mother’s ability to care for her children
hasbemshownmdrmaficaflychmgewhardreabuserisremovedfiomthehomeand
sheispmtectedfiomhimmdmppofledmherefl‘oflmbecomeself-mfliciemmnos,
1996; Humphreys, 2000).

Additionally, as Enos and Humphreys (2000) found, the availability and
wmpmhensimofsuvicesthflmbasedonbanaamcmmbifitymdasdstwomen
to supporttheirchildrenpost-separationwerekeytotheirabilityto safely leave. Women
inthestudyalsorelatedthatasasignificantisme. CPS mustdeveloplanguagethat

accmfielyexphhsandfiamesflreisswofdomesficahmewimindrecomplexmnmmOf

205

the issue, to ensure workers make informed choices and decisions (McGill et al, 1999)
that hold the perpetrator responsible for the violence, and engage the resources and
support victims need to change their situations. In addition, other systems that have
dramatic influence on the welfare of these families must also review those policies and
pmceduresthatholdwomenhostagetotheirassailanhthatarebom ofapatriarchal and
oppressive perspective of women and their roles in society.

______p___Results of the Ex loration of WW
“When the variables of fear, retaliation, familial pressure, lack of resources,

 

shame, identity loss, victim blaming and poverty are changed, women will be able to
successfully survive and thrive” (Bowker, 1999). Women in this study, as evidenced by
their answers, certainly agree with Bowker.

The purpose ofthis study was to explore the meaning ofdomestic abuse survivors
assigned to CPS and other systemic interaction, the situations in which intervention
occurs, and the intended and unintended consequences of the intervention. The
significance of the study was to give voice to domestic abuse srn'vivors, inform policy,
assist practicing human service workers from a variety of systems, and identify
alternative methods that may be more helpful to all involved. Within the meaning
assignedmflwirexperimaflnwomen’sstoflesmflresmdyfotmdthefoflowing
assumptions to be faulty.

To assmne that the interaction of systems is protective of children is clearly
challenged by the experiences of the women in this study. Systems repeatedly failed the
womenwhorequestedassistancenumeroustimes inthehistoryoftheirabuse. Most of

the children in the study are currently having unsupervised custodial relationships with

206

someone that society expected the victims to protect them from during the relationship.

It is ironic that mothers were expected and required to protect their children fi'om their
perpetrator, yet the assailant was given access to them without anyone present to protect
the children during their visits with him. It begs the question, if he was considered a
threat then, why isn’t he now? If he wasn’t really ever a threat, why was she and in some
cases is still being punished?

The assumption that systems are protective of adults experiencing domestic abuse
is also suspect given the stories of the participants in the study. Interventions sometimes
were not only unhelpful, but in most cases exacerbated the danger the women and their
children were experiencing. Many were disbelieved, blamed, threatened, ridiculed,
silenced, and discounted. They were left to endure additional beatings that resulted in
near death because police officers did not recognize the danger. The women were left
sitting next to their assailant in court, with attorneys that did little to protect them or the
interests of their children. They were, in effect, alone and endangered.

Society also assumes that women subjected to abuse are better off if they leave
the relationship, and assumes that they can, if they choose. Women in this study revealed
their multiple attempts to leave, and the systemic barriers that made a successful escape
impossible. The women discussed the extraordinary fear that lived with, and the
knowledge that without the resources of affordable housing, gainful employment,
transportation, childcare and quality legal assistance they were unable to feed and house
their children, and risked losing them to a perpetrator who had the resources to provide.
Many reported extreme pressure from the batterer, his family, their religion, and at times

even their own family to stay in the relationship. The cards were stacked against them.

207

The women in the study related their all-consuming efforts to protect their
children. Yet they are assumed to be choosing their batterer over their children if they
are unable to leave. The women reported a purposeful seduction by the assailant, which
effectively entrapped them in a relationship only after there was a significant
commitment that was not easy to undo. Once successfully committed to the relationship,
women struggled to make sense of the science fiction novel that became their day-to-day
life. Their resources were limited as they were isolated progressively each day, and
sealed off fiorn those who may otherwise have offered them hope.

The mothers in this study were held almost exclusively responsible for the welfare
of their children. Women in the study were expected to protect children from another
caretaker in the home. It was a source of confusion for the participants: the lack of
understanding for the fact that if they aren’t safe, the children cannot be, either.
Participants wondered out loud in their interviews what they should or could have done,
and why social services, law enforcement and the courts could not or would not
recognize that they were also victims.

Society assumes that if victims want to leave, there are supports that allow them
to do so just through their choosing to access them. Clearly, this was not the experience
of the women in the study. Shelters were full, personal protection orders were ignored,
assailants escaped sanctions, attorneys failed to adequately represent the women or the
children, and resources that would allow them to feed and shelter their children were
scarce, at best. To add insult to injury, the very systems that were expected to be
available and support them blamed the victim for the abuse, and levied sanctions

including legal charges against them when they did request assistance. There were two

208

consistent exceptions to this finding: domestic service providers and specially trained
attorneys.

All but three women expressed gratitude to their domestic violence service
providers, and credited them with their ability to leave and garner the resources that they
needed to survive. They described support and services that were relevant, non-
judgmental and safe. Likewise, those women who had attorneys with specialized training
on the dynamics of domestic violence fared better in court, and regardless of the outcome
of court hearings, felt supported and well represented. It would seem that the quality of
support is dependent upon the degree to which workers understand the reality of domestic
abuse and the victim’s ability to access affordable, but high quality legal representation.

Women in the study also challenged the assumption that mothers in abusive
relationships do not make significant or successful attempts to protect their children.
Participants described making decisions based on the welfare of their children. They
stepped in between the batterers and the children to protect them. They took beatings for
their kids. They used what control they could exert over daily schedules, routines, and
outside activities to keep the children from contact with the assailant. Participants trained
their children in safety strategies. They chose surrogate caregivers with the kids’ safety
inmind. Theyusedcoachesandteachersasmentorsfortheirchildren. Theyattempted
to leave. . .repeatedly.

Sigm'frcance fogystems

Beyond giving voice to survivors, this study attempted to identify issues that may

assist workers from a variety of systems to support survivors and their children in ways

that lead to their safety, self-sufficiency, productivity, and ability to create and thrive in a

209

healthy environment. The women from the study clearly identified suggestions that they
felt would assist women and children needing and seeking safety.

They asked to be treated as a partner in securing a safe environment for their
families. They asked not to be threatened, and that systems understand that batterers can
and do manipulate workers and systems. They identified the need for empathy for
themselves and for understanding of their situations. They requested restraint and that
they not be labeled. Participants asked for understanding of their cultural realities. They
asked that they not be subjected to sanctions that their assailants were not, and that
parenting plans be reasonable and relevant. They also requested explanations of
processes and expectations. They asked that they be credited for those things they did to
protect their children, and placement for their children with individuals that they knew
could be trusted. Participants requested that they be kept informed, and have access or
referrals to resources that would allow them to escape. Additionally participants asked
for understanding of their hysteria, and their lack of faith in systems to help them. They
also asked that courts review the policy of giving custody rights to assailants. Above all,
they requested individuals in systems understand that the person who should be held
responsible for abusive behavior is the individual that chooses to abuse.
Poterg’alfsolutiogs

0 Education: It is clear that those workers, police officers, attorneys and
judges that had extensive training in the dynamics of domestic abuse
responded in more helpful and just ways to both the victimized mother
and their children. Domestic abuse is a complex and difficult issue to

understand. The training of these groups must be comprehensive and

210

 

ongoing, and allow for opportunities to practice integration into mock
cases, with feedback and support of specialists in the field of domestic
abuse.

Legislative Action: The Violence Against Women Act at the federal
level, and child abuse laws both on a federal and state level need to be
expanded to require minimum mandatory sentencing guidelines for
perpetrators, requirements to safeguard children and their mother post-
separation from the abusive father, and reasonable time for women who
are attempting escape to stabilize before their children are removed. In
addition, guardians ad litem must be required to become licensed and pass
training on domestic violence prior to being assigned to children’s cases.
Legal Sanctions: If a woman is to be accused of not protecting children
from the danger that is the assailant’s violence, the abuser should first be
convicted of endangering the child. Any failure by the courts to sanction
him serves to reinforce the ability of the batterer to continue to abuse.
The author advocates mandatory sentencing requirements for domestic
abuse convictions that match those of non-domestic assaults.

Joint Custody: If courts believe that mothers should have protected their
children firm the abuser’s violence, courts should also be held to the
same standard, and protect the children fiom the abuser, as well. Joint
custody or unsupervised visitation places the children in the same danger
that the victim was expected to prevent. It should be expected of the

courts that they act in the matter of protection based on the same standard

211

upon which they hold the mother. Therefore, courts should not grant
unsupervised visitation rights to abusive fathers.

Removal from the Home: Rather than remove the children, the assailant,
who is the source of the violence, should be the one displaced. Once the
assailant is removed, strategies to contain him fiom further accessing and
damaging the children are essential. If the victim is safe, the children will
be, as well.

Termination of parental rights: If the assailant is so dangerous as to be a
threat to his children, his parental rights should be terminated, not hers.
Affirmative Defense: Some states (Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas and
Minnesota) have already adopted this legal option. It would allow
mothers to legally argue under this defense that to have intervened
beyond her attempts to protect her children would cause greater,
retaliatory harm due to the domestic violence. Michigan is not one of the
states that has adopted this defense.

Assigning Responsibility: Battered women cannot, nor should they be
expected to, stop an assailant’s violence. Only the assailant can do that.
Expecting anything else further traps the victim and her children, and
significantly decreases the odds that they will ever safely escape. All
systems must adopt processes that assign responsibility to the assailant,
and sanction him within the context of that responsibility.

Supporting the Successful Escape: Services and resources that fill in the

gaps of those assets victims lose when they leave the relationship are

212

 

essential for their ability to provide and thrive. Emergency shelter,
affordable housing, capable and competent legal services, gainful
employment, transportation and childcare are all critical factors. Funding
for these services at levels that ensure no women is forced to stay for
economic reasons will allow them to leave and still provide.

Cultural Considerations: Systems workers need education on the cultural
issues that factor into the decisions that abused women make. These
factors, including concern over racial disparity in the correctional system,
and over-representation in helping systems require that all systems be
under greater pressure to hold the assailant responsible through their own
systemic functions, policies and procedures.

Societal Considerations: The public needs education on the dynamics of
domestic abuse, in order to change their belief that somehow the victim is
to blame for the abuse. Communities need to be aware of what services
are available, why they are important, and how to support those who are
in the situation in ways that are helpful. Violence awareness education
for young adolescents will give them references upon which to base a
healthy relationship.

Patriarchal Norms: The patriarchal norms that allow and sanction women
to be seen as subordinate, hysterical, illogical and defective contribute to
systems’ failure to protect and support the women and children in abusive
settings. These norms are detrimental to the ability of women and their

families to succeed. Unrealistic, disparate and unjust expectations and

213

beliefs regarding women’s roles, equality, familial hierarchy, and inherent
worth must be challenged and changed at all levels.

Limitations of the Study

The sample in this study was small, and with all qualitative research, has inherent
difficulties with replication. Recruiting was difficult, and many declined the opportunity
to be part of the study. Absent in this work is the voice of the batterer, the children, and
workers from related systems. It is unknown what their contributions may have meant to
this work. The women were of only two races, and so results cannot be even slightly
generalized to women of other races. Women experience domestic abuse within the
context of their etlmic communities. Since more women of minority ethnicity are socio-
economically disadvantaged, the literature supports the fact that they will come to the
attention of social service institutions more frequently than their wealthier counterparts.

The number of individuals who refused to participate in the study appeared to be
linked to their trust that they could and would be protected by the researcher. In the case
of the study population, women expressed mistrust in systems that had failed them
numerous times before. It is very possible that the population believed that like others
within a ‘helping system’, the researcher would also fail them. It is unknown what their
contributions may have meant to this study.

The methodology required that the researcher understand and be able to relate
with accuracy the meaning of the words of the women in the study. Within that concern
is the researcher’s own experiences in serving women in abusive relationships. The

epoche in this document outlines the concerns this issue raises.

214

The questions asked of participants were those designed by the author in an
attempt to gather relevant information. To what degree that the questions were the ‘right’
ones, or the manner in which they were delivered could influence how participants’
stories were told. The facilitation of a semi-structured interview and use of participants’
own words, as told by them, was designed to address this issue. Beyond that, it is unclear
if indeed the questions were the ‘right’ ones.

The accuracy of the information provided by participants was dependent upon
their ability and willingness to be honest in telling their stories. Likewise, the author had
to rely on recruiters fiom victim services to avoid hand-selecting those cases that are not
representative of most abused women and their children. To what degree they did not
hand-select cases, I cannot attest.

The art of recall is problematic, as humans tend to conceptualize events and
circumstances in ways that allow them to cope and at times, memories are faulty. Many
of the women in this study were at the time of interview, fighting for their children. They
would be understandable defensive and under duress, given their situations. What
influence these factors had on the responses of the women is unknown.

This study was situated in Michigan. Other states may have statutes and
procedures that would facilitate very different results than those reported in this study. In
addition, as this study was completed, the Michigan Department of Human Services was
revamping the Structured Decision Making tool. This may change the way in which
victims of domestic violence are assessed. The department has also rolled out a new

program that structures the decisions made on families within a community roundtable.

215

This program has had mixed reviews, and is too recent an endeavor to know what effect,
if any, it will have on victims of domestic violence.

Women experienced services in several different counties, and reported that their
experiences changed between counties and indeed, within counties. The degree to which
their experiences are typical across the state is unknown. Recently, Michigan’s state
workers were offered early retirement, in an attempt to reduce state payroll expenses.
This created a CPS workforce that was restructured, streamlined, and vastly devoid of
more experienced workers. It is unknown what effect, if any, this had on the cases
represented in the study.

High profile cases of child abuse resulting in the death of children have caused the
Michigan Department of Human Services to come under public scrutiny and criticism for
failing to adequately protect children in its services. To what degree that has influenced
the decisions made by workers involved in the representative cases is unknown.

rtrmities for Future Rem

First and foremost, research on the role of personal experiences and perceptions
that may color the decisions of workers in their response to domestic abuse victims is
essential if we are to take faulty paradigms out of the equation for survivors and their
children. Further, research that delves into these perceptions as they relate to patriarchal
norms is important. Researchers interested in the extent of issues raised in the study may
wish to expand the sample to other racially diverse groups, and include batterers and their
children, as well. A larger sample may yield other important results.

The effects of policies such as Joint Custody, Structured Decision Making,

Permanency Placement, Failure to Protect, placement of removed children with

216

perpetrators and/or their families, Dual Arrest and Affirmative Response are of interest,
and little data exist regarding these options. Included in that research may be discussions
with adults who as children experienced the consequences of some of these policies.

The quality of legal representation the women in the study experienced was of
significant concern to the researcher. It would appear that access to quality
representation, either through their financial ability to hire quality representation, or
through access to a network of free or low-cost specialized attorneys determined the
outcomes for the women in the study. Reports of attorneys falling asleep, playing
solitaire and answering e-mails on their laptop in court raise the question of competency.
Studies that would allow observation of attorneys and guardians ad litem in court settings
and record the quality of representation they provide for victims of violence may yield
answers to the concerns this study raises. Likewise, studies that track and report judges’
decisions may yield data on the degree to which judges understand and respond
appropriately to victims of domestic violence and their children. In a related issue,
research that documents the degree systems interact with parents as equally responsible
for the well being of children, and not just in cases of custody, are warranted.

In this study, I was amiss in not collecting more information as to why
participants were unwilling to participate in the study. Were more white women reticent
to participate? Were more black women less likely to participate? If either are true, what
is the reason for the differences in the willingness to participate?

Studies on the batterer’s strategy of purposeful seduction and that of seeking
individuals who may be particularly vulnerable may yield information on the ways in

which perpetrators seek their victims. More studies are needed that determine the degree

217

to which perpetrators are diverted into programs that have been proven largely ineffective
with this population, such as anger management and batterer’s intervention.

Research that would document the degree to .which PPO’s, weapons and parole
violations are ignored also may be merited. More research on the effects of joint custody
and weapons-related violence by perpetrators may yield data on the extent to which
perpetrators of domestic violence are involved in the use of weapons and to what degree
the women and children are affected by the presence of threats they may bring.

Research that would outline the training judges, attorneys, law enforcement and
service providers are provided as part of their career preparation may indicate gaps
between what is provided and what is needed. Additionally, there are materials provided
to these groups to be used as guidelines. For instance, the National Council of Family
Court Judges has produced a benchbook for judges on cases of domestic violence and
custody decisions. How many judges have read these materials and/or use them?

Studies that would explore the ways in which different courts share information,
for instance, between criminal court and family court, may provide a clearer picture of
what judges know in each court about behaviors that are addressed in another court, and
how they integrate this information into their own rulings. Are domestic violence
charges entered into another court made known to judges making custody decisions?
What weight are they given, if they do factor into custody decision?

The women in the study reported being assisted by some workers to which
participants credit as having saved their lives. A study of workers like those who were so

effective in assisting victims may tell us what they know, or how they operate. This

218

information would be invaluable to new workers coming into the field, and to those that
may not be effective in supporting domestic violence victims.
Policy Implications

As Trepiccione (2001) stated, “Children cannot be protected without protecting
their caretakers as well (p. 10).” This study firmly convinces me of that fact. I also agree
with Scott (1996) who indicated that the answers to this complex issue is in the
elimination of patriarchal norms that prevents an honest look at the power struggle that
exists in male-female relationships. To correct this problem, the first move rests firmly in
the courts. Alksnis (2001) asserts that the failure of the courts to facilitate just outcomes
only serves to foster the practice of male violence. In addition, I believe that violence
will continue to be perpetuated, as children observe systems that ignore or discount the
violence they experience. These children are the next generation of potential abusers and
future victims. By ignoring the person responsible for the violence, we teach children
that it is all right to abuse, and we teach future victims that they may expect to be abused,
and that there will be no help for them, when it happens. Courts must assume and carry
out their responsibilities to “hold fathers accountable and punish them for their abusive
behaviors” (Enos, 1996, p. 263).

CPS workers must change their paradigm, as well, recognizing that “it is
particularly shortsighted to remove children from the care of their battered mothers
without first trying to remove or change the source of the domestic violence risk, the
batterers” (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), 1999, p.
19). The NCJFCJ added that service providers have a responsibility to ongoing internal

fact-finding to determine whether diverse families are served with fairness and respect.

219

Confidentiality and privileged communication are sacrosanct to the women who
suffer the abuse. All systems must pledge to understand and act in a way that protects the
safety of adult and child victims of domestic abuse. Private information in the hands of a
batterer who is relentless in stalking his victim is a weapon that we can ill afford to give
him.

Attorneys must be diligent in their defense of battered women, and seek the
knowledge that will enable them to understand and represent them in a way that is just.
Police ofiicers must continue to make strides in their informed and just response to
victims of domestic violence. Training for these workers is essential, and must be
uniformly part and parcel of their preparation for their careers.

The practice of victim blaming so prevalent in the stories of the participants, and
well documented in the literature must stop. Children must not be placed with
individuals who are known to be violent, or their relatives. CPS further must require the
male caretakers in the home to successfully complete and comply with parenting
agreements at the same level as their female counterparts, if they are to have future
contact with the children.

All systems should review their practices and policies to ensure that women and
their children are not labeled as defective or dysfunctional. Attorneys need to be
educated in the dynamics of domestic abuse, and represent their clients with the vigor and
expertise that anyone in our legal system deserves. So, too should guardians ad litem be
expected to understand and represent their young clients in ways that support their safety

within the context of their lived experiences. Additional research with adults effected by

220

domestic violence as children may provide information on what is best for children
witnessing domestic abuse.

Prevention programs that teach young people the characteristics of supportive vs.
abusive relationships is key for young people with poor references to what a healthy
relationship looks and feels like. We owe the next generation no less.

Domestic violence victim service providers are encouraged to discuss the issues
surrounding victim responses to their abuse and how those behaviors are conceptualized
within community systems. I would posit that by insisting that their behaviors are logical
without educating other systems as to why they behave in the way they do decreases
credibility. In my opinion, it does a disservice to merely claim that victims are not
defective. I believe that framing victims’ experiences in terms of hostages is a way in
which to flame their behavior that fosters greater understanding.

Additionally, I would respectfully argue with my colleagues that the behavior of
victims and survivors is outside of normal expectations, but that it also should be
expected. What individual subjected to their experiences would not have some negative
consequences? What person would not have some psychological affects from such
treatment? I believe that we need to acknowledge that in some terms, that do not blame
victims, but provide a reference as to the logic in their choices and behaviors. In this
way, victims are less likely to be perceived as simply defective, but rather deserving of
understanding and support.

Finally, for those who suffer in isolation and silence, we owe an array of easily
accessible services to assist them in their desire to escape. The services must include the

resources necessary for them to survive and thrive beyond the separation. They will be

221

reticent to leave if they think their children will suffer as a result of a decision to separate
fi'om the abuser. We can continue to blame them unfairly, or we can support them in a
way that ensures they can care for themselves and their children. Just like the abuse,
victims do not have the power to change our choice of behaviors. Just like the batterers,

we are the only ones who can.

222

 

Appendix A

Dear Colleague:

I am asking your help in locating former clients from your agency that may be
interested in participating in a research study that is the basis for my doctoral dissertation.
The study will examine the concurrent issues of domestic violence and failure to protect.
The research is designed to explore the lived experiences of women who had their
parental rights temrinated under failure to protect charges Specifically, participants must
be: female, victims of domestic violence, mothers whose rights were terminated as a
result of failure to protect charges, and interested in participating in a study on their
experiences. The goal of the study is to lend victims’ voices to the growing cache of data
being collected on the intersecting issues of child witnesses to violence and domestic
abuse. Currently, there are no studies that provide data from the perspectives of the
women involved.

I would like to interview a total of nine women statewide, of various ethnicity and
socio-economic backgrounds. The interview, with your permission, would take place in
your facility, and would take about two hours. Participants in the study would receive a
small token gift in recognition of the time spent in the interview.

The study is authorized by Michigan State University, and has been reviewed and
approved by my doctoral committee (of which Dr. Cris Sullivan is a member). If you are
willing to assist me in locating these women, or have questions regarding this study,
please contact me at (231) 894-6236 and leave a message, or contact me via the coalition
listserve. As your part, you will be asked to contact the client, verify eligibility, share the
purpose of the study, get permission to share her contact information with me, and pass
on that information if she agrees. In addition, I have enclosed a University approved
Informed Consent Form that you would be asked to review with the participant prior to
her agreeing to participate. I will also review again the consent form, answer any
. questions she may have regarding the consent process, and will obtain the required
consent signature prior to the interview. Thanks for your help in this matter.

Sue Johnson, Every Woman’s Place, Muskegon

223

APPENDIX B

Interview Topic Guide
Tell me about:

0 The history of the abusive relationship?

0 How you feel about your children?

0 What your children knew about the violence?

0 What you did to protect them from the violence?

0 How your children influenced your decisions at that time?

0 Your experience with Child Protective Services?

0 Your experience with the police and the courts?

0 What happened to your assailant?

o How the interaction with CPS affected you and your family?
0 What was helpful to you in your interaction with CPS?

o What was not helpful to you in your interaction with CPS?

0 Anything else would you like to say about this subject that I haven’t asked

you?

224

APPENDIX C

W

Introduction: My name is Susan Johnson. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State
University, and am doing a dissertation study as my final examination prior to being
awarded a doctoral degree. A dissertation is a research project that results in a published
document. You are being asked if you would like to be part of this study. You probably
have questions about what it would mean to you to be part of the study. This form may
answer some of those questions. I will be glad to answer other questions that you may
have that this form does not. Please read it carefully. If after reading this, if you would
like to be part of the study, you will be asked to sign it. If at any time after the interview,
if you would like to speak with me, you may contact me at (231) 759-7909, or at home
(231) 894-6236, or by e-mail at ewpmuskegon@hotmail.com.

Interviewer Credentials: In my current position, I have worked with survivors of
domestic violence for eight years in both a counseling and administrative role. In my
four years of graduate classes at Michigan State University, I have been prepared by my
professors to be caring, supportive and sensitive to the special circumstances that you
have experienced. You have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. I will
honor that right.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to gather information on the experiences of
women who are victims of abuse and have had contact with Child Protective Services.
Interviews with women who have personal insight and stories to share about their
experiences will be used to gather the information.

Time Commitment: The interview will take about two hours, and will be tape-recorded.
The tape recording will be written into a report that will be given to you to read. The
report will state exactly what questions you were asked, and how you answered them. It
will take about a half-hour to an hour to read it. The tape recordings will be kept locked
in a safe until after the study is finished, and the review process is complete. Once that
occurs, the tapes will be fed through a shredding machine. By signing this form, you are
giving me permission to tape record our interview.

Volunteering for the Study: Women are being asked if they would like to volunteer for
this study. You have the right to choose to be part of the study, or decide that you do not
wish to be part of the study. If you choose to be part of the study, you can change your
mind at any time before the dissertation is turned in to the University. If you change your
mind, the answers you gave would not be used in the report. There is no penalty for
deciding not to be part of the study. If you decide to be part of the study, you can choose
not to answer any question that you feel you do not wish to answer. Again, there is no
penalty for choosing not to answer a question.

Privacy: Your name, address, phone number or any other personal identification will not
be given out to anyone in the written report. You will be given a false name in the

225

document to protect your privacy. I am the only one who will know who you really are.
I am required to protect your privacy to the maximum extent allowable by law, and I will
do so.

Contact Persons: If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact
the primary investigator Dr. Cris Sullivan. You may reach her at Room 130, Psychology
Building, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or
concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with
any aspect of this study, you may contact—anonymously if you wish—Peter Vasilenko,
Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) at (517) 355-2180, fax (517) 423-4503, e—mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Risks to you: Sometimes telling your story can bring back painful memories. If that
happens to you, you can get help. The staff, here at this agency, has promised to provide
you with fiee counseling, if you ask them for it. Below is a statement on other types of
injuries and protections:

Costs to you: Your participation in this research project will not involve any costs to
you or your health care insurer.

Awards: Ifyou choose to participate in this study, you will be given a $20.00 gift
certificate to a local store.

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study:

 

 

Participant name date

226

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, D. (1989). Identifying assaultive husbands in court: You be the judge. Boston
Bar Journal, 33, 23-25.

Almeida, R., Woods, R., Messineo, T., and Font, R (Eds). (1998). Cultural context
model: Revisioning family therapy, race, culture, gender and sexual orientation in
clinical practice. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

American Bar Association. (1994). The impact of domestic violence on children.
Chicago: American Bar Association.

American Humane Association. (1996). Violence in the family: Report of the American
Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on violence and the family.
Washington, D.C.: American Humane Association.

American Psychological Association. (1996). Violence and the family: Report of the
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the
Family. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Anderson, S., and Craner-Benjamin, D. (1999). The impact of couple violence on
parenting and children: An overview and clinical implications. The American
Journal of Family Therapy, 27(1), 1-19.

Andrews, B., and Brevin, C. (1990). Attributions of blame for marital violence: A study
of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 757-
767.

Appel, A. (1997). Protecting children or punishing mothers: Gender, race and class in the
child protective system. South Carolina Law Review, 7, 577-585.

Aron, L., and Olson, K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic
violence. Public Welfare, 55, 4-13.

Asbury, J. (Ed.). (1999). What do we know now about spousal abuse and child sexual
abuse in families of color in the United States? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ayoub, C., Deutsch, R., and Maraganore, A. (1999). Emotional stress in children of high-

conflict divorce: The impact of marital conflict and violence. Family and
Conciliations Courts Review, 3 7(3), 297-314.

227

Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bachman, R., and Coker, A. (1995). Police involvement in domestic violence: The
interactive affects of victim injury, offender history of violence, and race. Violence
and victims, 10, 91-106.

Bachman, R., and Salzman, L. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates fiom a
redesign survey. Washington , D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Statistics.

Bancrofi, L., and Silverman, J. (2000). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of
domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Becker, M. (1995). Double binds facing mothers in abusive families: Social support
systems, custody outcomes, and liability for the acts of others. University of
Chicago Roundtable, 2(1), 13.

Beeman, S., Hagemeister, A., and Edelson, J. (1999). Child protection and battered
women's services: From conflict to collaboration. Child maltreatment, 4, 114-126.

Bent-Goodley, T. (2001). Eradicating domestic violence in the Afiican American
community: A literature review and action agenda. Trauma, Violence and Abuse,
2(4), 316-330. -

Berg, B. (2001 ). Qualitative research methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Blum, A., Harrison, J ., Ess, B., and Vachon, G. (1993). Women's Action Coalition Stats:
The facts about women. New York: New Press.

Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersection of race, class,
sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(3), 25-
23.

Bowker, L. (Ed.). (1999). A battered woman’s problems are social, not psychological.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes
and policy implications. American Psychologist, 10, 1077-1087.

Campbell, R. (2002). Emotionally involved: The impact of researching rape. New
York: Routledge

Campbell v. State, 999 649, 654 (Wyoming Court of Appeals 2000).

228

Caputo, R. (1991). Police classification of domestic violence calls: An assessment of
program impact. Abused and battered: Social and legal responses to family
violence, I 4 7.

Carlson, B. E. (Ed.). (1996). Children of battered women: Research, programs and
services. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carter, J. (1995). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for family preservation
practitioners. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Social Services.

Coley, S., and Beckett, J. (1988). Black battered women: Practical issues. Social
Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 69, 483 -490.

Creswell, J. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czapanskiy, K. (1993). Domestic violence, the family and the lawyering process:
Learning from studies on gender bias in the courts, Part II. Family Law Quarterly,
27, 247-255.

Dalton, C. (Ed.). (1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting battered parents and their
children in the family court system (V 01. 37: 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Daro, D., and Cohn, A. (Eds.). (1988). Child Maltreatment and evaluation eflorts: What
have we learned? Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Davidson, H. (1995). Child Abuse and Family Violence: Legal connections and
controversies. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 357-373.

Davidson, H. (Ed.). (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence: Legal connections and
controversies (Vol. 29:2). Chicago: American Bar Association.

Davies, J ., Lyon, E., and Mouti-Cantania, D. (1998). Safety Planning with Battered
Women: Complex Lives, Dtflicult Choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Delgato, R. (1999). A skeptical look at judicial independence. California Law Review,
72, 425-434.

Dennis, R., Key, L., and Smith, A. (1995). Addressing Domestic Violence in the African
American Community. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 6,
248-293.

Dobash, R. E., and Dobash, R. ( 1979). Violence against wives: A case against the
patriarchy. Harvard Law Review, 246.

229

Dohm, B. (1995). Domestic Violence, child abuse and the law: Bad mothers, good
mothers and the state: Children on the margins (Roundtablel , Session 5). Chicago:
University of Chicago Law School.

Dutton, M. (1993). Understanding the woman's response to domestic violence: A
redefinition of battered women's syndrome. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 1191-1242.

Echlin, C., and Marshall, L. (Eds.). (1995). Child protective services for children of
battered women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edelson, J. (1995). Mothers and children: Understanding the links behveen woman
battering and child abuse. Paper presented at the Strategic Planning Workshop on
Violence Against Women, Washington, DC.

Edelson, J. (1999). Children witnessing of adult interpersonal violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 839-870.

Edelson, J. (2000). Should childhood exposure to adult domestic violence be defined as
child maltreatment under the law? Paper presented at the Children and Domestic
Violence Workshop, Washington, DC.

Edelson, J ., and Beeman, S. (1999). Responding to the co-occurrence of child
maltreatment and adult domestic violence in Hennepin County, [Internet].
Minnesota Coalition Against Violence. Available:
htpp://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/finrport.asp> [2004, 2/15/04].

Enos, P. (1996). Prosecuting battered mothers: State law's failure to protect battered
women and abused children. Harvard Law Review, I 9, 230-268.

Epstein, D. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence cases: Rethinking the
role of prosecutors, judges, and the court system. Yale Law Journal, I 1, 3-39.

Ewing, C., and Aubrey, M. (1987). Battered women and public opinion: Some realities
about myths. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 257-264.

Fagan, J. (1996). The criminalization of domestic violence: Promises and limits.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice.

Fantuzzo, J ., and Linquist, C. (1988). The effects of conjugal violence in children: A
review of analysis and research methodology. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 77-93.

Fantuzzo, J ., and Mohr, W. (1999). Prevalence and eflects of child exposure to domestic

violence (The Future of Children), [lntemet]. David and Lucille Packard
Foundation. Available: http/lwww.firtureofchildren.org [2003, 2/19/03].

230

 

Farmer, E. (Ed.). (1997). Protection and child welfare: Striking the balance. London:
Routledge.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2002). Statistics on violence: Statistical Report to
Congress (Congressional report). Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

Felix, A., and McCarthy, K. (1994). An analysis of child fatalities. Boston: Massachusetts
Department of Social Services.

Field, J ., and Cook, K. (2002). 'But he never hit the kids": Domestic violence as family
abuse. Michigan Bar Journal, 73(9), 922-925.

Fleury, R., Sullivan, C., and Bybee, D. (2000). When ending the relationship does not
end the violence. Violence against women, 6(12), 1363-1383.

Fleury, R., Sullivan, C., Bybee, D., and Davidson 11, W. (1998). "Why don't they just call
the cops?": Reasons for differential contact among women with abusive partners.
Violence and women, 13(4), 333-346.

F ordham, U. (2000). When are battered women negligent mothers? Fordham Urban Law
Journal, 27, 565-591.

Franklin, D. (2000). What's love got to do with it? Understanding and healing the rift
between black men and women. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Freeman, D. (1982). Legal systems, patriarchal ideologies and domestic violence: A case
study of the English legal system. Research in Law: Deviance and Social Control,
4, 13 1-161 .

Freeman, M. (Legal systems, patriarchal ideologies and domestic violence: A case study
of the English legal system). Research in Law: Deviance and Social Control.

Frieze, 1., Hymer, S., and Greenberg, M. (Eds.). (1984). Describing the victims of crime
and violence. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Fugate, J. (2001). Who's failing whom? A critical look at failure to protect laws. New
York Law Review, 76, 272-308.

Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising Children in a Socially Toxic Environment. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
New York: Basic Books.

231

Geffner, R., Barrett, M., and Rossman, B. (Eds.). (1999). Family violence: Current
issues, interventions and research. New York: Hayworth.

Glesne, C., and Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction.
White Plains, NY: Longman.

Gondolf, E. (1998). Assessing women in battering in mental health services. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goolkasian, G. (1986). Confronting domestic Violence: The role of criminal court
judges. United States Department of Justice Bulletin, 1(7).

Gordon, L. (1988). Heroes of their own lives: The politics and history of family violence.
New Yok: Viking Penguin.

Graham, D., Rawlings, E., and Roigsby, R. (1994). Loving to survive: Secial terror,
men 's violence, and women's lives. New York: New York University Press.

Grossier, S. (1991). Battered women and their battered children: Criminal and civil
allegations of the woman 's failure to protect.Unpublished manuscript, Boston.

Groves, B. (2001). When home isn't safe: Children and domestic violence. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 71(2), 183-207.

Guggenheim, M. (1995). The effects of recent trends to accelerate the termination of
parental rights of children in foster care: An empirical analysis in two states.
Family Law Quarterly, 29, 121-139.

Hampton, R., Carillo, R., and Kim, J. (Eds.). (1998). Violence in communities of color.
New York: Springer.

Hampton, R., and Yung, B. (Eds.). (1996). Violence in communities of color: Where we
were, where we are, and where we need to be. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Harlow, C. (1991). Female victims of violent crimes. Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Justice.

Hart, B. (Ed.). (1988). Beyond the duty to warn: A therapist's duty to protect battered
women's children. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hill, R. (2002). Disproportinality of minorities in child welfare: Synthesis of research
findings. Meta-analysis report prepared for the Race Matters Consortium.
University of Illinois School of Social Work: Urbana-Champaign, 111: Children
and Family Research Center Publications

Hofl‘, L. (1990). Battered women as survivors. London: Routledge.

232

Holden, G. (1998). Introduction: The development of research into another consequence
of family violence. Washington, D.C.: Zero to Three Publications.

Holden, G., and Richie, K. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and
child behavioral problems: Evidence from battered women. Child development, 62,
311-327.

Holstein, J ., and Gubrium, J. (Eds.). (1997). Qualitative Interviewing. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Humphries, C. (2000). Social Work, domestic violence, and child protection. Bristol,
England: The Policy Press.

Huxtable, M. (1994). Child protection: With liberty and justice for all. Social Work,
39(1), 60-66.

In re: D.K.W., 415 69 (Pennsylvania Supreme Comt 1980).

In re: Dalton, 424 1226 (Illinois Court of Appeals 1981).

In the Interest of A.V., 525 778 (Pennsylvania Appelate Court 1987).

In the Interest of Brown, 410 486 (Illinois Appelate Court 1980).

In the Interest of C.D.C., 455 801, 807 (Nebraska Court of Appeals 1990).

In the Interest of S.D.S., 648 351, 352 (Texas Court of Appeals 1983).

In the Matter of Farley, 469 295 (Michigan Supreme Court 1991).

Jacobs, M. (1998). Requiring women to die: murder liability for mothers under the
failure to protect statutes. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88(2),

579-660.

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., and Wilson, S. (1990). Children of Battered Women. New York:
Sage.

Jones, A. (1994). Next time she '11 be dead. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Jones, L., Gross, E., and Becker, 1. (2002). The characteristics of domestic violence
victims in a child protective caseload. Families in Society, 83(4), 405-415.

Joseph, J. (Ed.). (1997). Women battering: A comparative analysis of Black and White
women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

233

Kantor\Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: When does domestic
violence equate with failure to protect? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4),
338-355.

Kasl, C. (1990). The twelve step controversy. Ms. Magazine, November-December, 30-
3 1.

Kent, L. (2001). Addressing the impact of domestic violence in children: Alternative to
laws criminalizing the commission of domestic violence in the presence of a child.
Wisconsin Law Review, 5, 1337-1339.

Kopels, S., and Sheridan, M. (2002). Adding legal insult to injury: Battered women, their
children, and the failure to protect. Aflilia, 1 7(1), 9-29.

Lehman, P., and Carlson, B. E. (Eds.). (1988). Crisis intervention with traumatized child
witnesses in shelters for battered women (Vol. 99-128). New York: Springer.

Levendoski, A., Lynch, S., and Graham-Bennann, S. (2000). Mothers perceptions of the
impact of women abuse on their parenting. Violence against women, 6(3 ), 247-271 .

Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lyon, T. (Ed.). (1999). Are battered women bad mothers? Rethinking the termination of
abused women 's parental rights for failure to protect. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mabanglo, M. (2002). Trauma and the effects of violence exposure on children: A
review of the literature. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 72(2), 231-251.

Magen, R. (1999). In the best interest of the battered woman: Reconceptualizing
allegations of failure to protect. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135.

Magen, R. (1999). In the best interests if battered women: Reconceptualizing allegations
of failure to protect. Child maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135.

Magen, R., Conroy, K., Hess, K., Panaceria, A., and Simon, B. (1995). Evaluation of a
protocol to identify battered women during investigations of child abuse and
neglect. Paper presented at the Fourth International Family Violence Conference,
University of New Hampshire.

Mahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of
separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 1-94.

Malmquist, C. (1986). Children who witness parental murder: Posttraumatic aspects.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 45, 320-325.

234

 

Marsh, C. (1983). Sexual assault and domestic violence in the Afiican American
community. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 1 7(3), 149-155.

Marshall, C. (1987). Report to the Vanderbilt Policy Education Committee. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University.

Marshall, C. (Ed.). (1990). Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgment calls?
Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.

Marshall, C., and Rossman, G. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Masschusetts v. Larovich, 574 340 (Massachusetts Supreme Court 1991).

Matthews, M. (1999). The impact of federal and state law on children exposed to
domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9(3), 50-66.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Pake, CA: Sage

McCloskey, L., and Walker, M. (2000). Post-traumatic stress in children exposed to
family violenceand single-event trauma. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(1), 108-1 15.

McCroskey, J ., and Meezan, W. (1997). Family preservation and family fitnctioning.
Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America.

McDonald, K. (1998). Michigan's efforts to hold women criminally responsible and
civilly liable for failure to protect: Implications for battered women. Wayne Law
Review, 44, 289-309.

McGill, J ., Deutsch, R., and Zibbell, R. (Eds.). (1999). Visitation and domestic violence:
A clinical model of family assessment and access planning (Vol. 37:3). Thousand
Oaks, CA.: Sage.

McKibben, L., DeVos, E., and Newberger, E. (Eds.). (1987). Victimization of mothers of
abused children: A controlled stuafv. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Meuer, T., and Webster, K. (1997). Effects of domestic abuse on child witnesses. Wiley
Family Law Update, 9.6.

Miccio, K. (1995). In the name of mothers and children: Deconstructing the myth of the
passive battered mother and the protected child in child neglect proceedings. Albany
Law Review, 58, 1087-1107.

Miller, D. (1988). Family violence and the helping system. Managing larger systems of
childhood 421 .

235

 

Miller, J. (Ed.). (2000). Family Violence Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Mills, L. (Ed.). (1988). Integrating domestic violence assessments into child protective
service interventions: Policy and practice implications. New York: Springer
Publishing.

Mills, L. (2000). Women abuse and child protection: a tumultuous marriage. Children
and Youth Services Review, 22(3-4), 199-205.

Myers, S. (2002). A heueristic study of battered Appalachian women: The role of
women 's service programs and the legal justice system in providing shelter and
protection for victims of domestic violence. Digital Dissertations [2003, April 16].

National, C. o. J. a. F. C. J. (1994). Family violence: A model State code. Reno: National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National, C. o. J. a. F. C. J. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and child
maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice (Sourcebook). Reno:
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

National, R. C. o. D. V. (2002). Children exposed to intimate partner violence.
Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Nefi', J ., Holamon, B., and Schluter, D. (1995). Spousal violence among Anglos, Blacks
and Mexican Americans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial
predictors and alcohol consumption. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(1), 1-21.

Office, 0. J. J. a. D. P. (2000). Safe fiom the start: taking action on children exposed to
violence (10). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice.

O'Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violence families. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 10(1), 3-25.

Osofsky, J ., and Fenichel, E. (1996). Islands of safety: Assessing and treating young
victims of violence. Zero to Three Publications.

Pagelow, M. (1990). Effects of domestic violence in children and their consequences for
custody and visitation agreements. Mediation Quarterly, 4, 347-350.

Pence, B., and Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth
Model. New York: Springer Publishing.

Perakyla, A. (Ed.). (1997). Reliability and validity in research based on tapes and
transcripts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

236

Pfouts, J. (1978). Violent families: Coping responses of abused wives. Child Welfare,
57(2),101-111.

Phillips, J. (1992). Re-victimizes battered women: Termination of parental rights for
failure to protect children fiom child abuse. Wayne Law Review, 38, 1549-1578.

Phillips v. Diehm, 541 566 (Michigan Court of Appeals 1995).

Polkinghome, D. (1989). Documents of Life: An introduction to the problems and
literature of a humanistic model. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Porter, S. (2002). Experiences with domestic violence and the child welfare system:
Voices of women. Digital Dissertations [2002, June 16].

Rainford, W. (2004). Patemalistic regulation of women: Exploring punitive sanctions in
temporary assistance to needy families. Aflilia, 19(3), 289-304

Roberts, A., and Burman, S. (Eds.). (1998). Crisis intervention and cognitive problem
solving therapy with battered women: A national survey and practice model. New
York: Springer.

Rounsaville, B. (1978). Theories in marital violence: Evidence from a study of battered
women. Victimology: An International Journal, 3, 11-31.

Rubin, H., and Rubin, S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sampson, R. (1987). Urban Black Violence: The effect of male joblessness and family
disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 348-382.

Saunders, D., and Size, P. (1986). Attitudes about women among police officers, victims,
and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 25-42.

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the
battered women 's movement. Boston: South End Press.

Schechter, S., and Edelson, J. (1994). In the best interest of women and children: A call
for collaboration between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies. New
York: Ford Foundation.

Schechter, S., and Edelson, J. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and
child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno: National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Schwartz, M. (2000). Methodological issues in the use of survey data for measuring and
characterizing violence against women. Violence against women, 6(12).

237

 

Scott, K. (1996). Negligence action by abused children against parents and caretakers.
Michigan Bureau of Justice, 75, 654.

Skinazi, H. (1997). Not just a conjured afterthought: Using duress as a defense for
battered women who 'fail to protect'. California Law Review, 85, 993-1042.

Smith, R., and Coukos, P. (1997). Fairness and accuracy in evaluations of domestic
violence and child abuse in custody determination. The Judge 's Journal, 33.

Sosnick, H. E. (1994). Judges and domestic violence: We can save lives. Michigan Bar
Journal, 73(9), 918-921.

Spaccerelli, S., Sandler, I., and Rosa, M. (1994). History of spouse violence against
mothers: Correlated risks and unique effects in child mental health. Journal of
Family Violence, 9(1), 79-98.

Spears, L. (1996). Domestic violence is a child welfare issue. Children 's Voice, 5(3), 4-6.

Stark, E. (1992). Framing and reframing battered women. Domestic Violence, 1, 271-279.

Stark, E. (1995). Re-presenting woman battering: From battered woman's syndrome to
coercive control. Albany Law Review, 58, 973-1023.

Stark, E., and Flitcrafi, A. (1985). Women and children at risk: A feminist perspective on
child abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 181, 97-118.

State of North Carolina v. Aleen E. Walden, 293 780, 787 (North Carolina Supreme
Court 1982).

State of Wisconsin v. Terry Williquette, 385 145, 155 (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1986).

Stets, J. (1991). Cohabitation and marital aggression: The role of social isolation.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 669-680.

Stone, A., and Fialk, A. (1997). Recent development: Criminalizing the exposure of
children to family violence: Breaking the cycle of abuse. Harvard's Women’s Law
Journal, 20, 205-227.

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strube, M. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: emperical evidence and
theoretical issues. Psychology Bulletin, 104, 23 6-250.

238

 

Sullivan, C., Nguyen, H., Allen, N., Bybee, D., and Juras, J. (2000). Beyond searching
for deficits: Evidence that physically and emotionally abused women are nurturing
parents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(1), 51-71.

Sullivan, C., and Rumptz, M. (1994). Adjustment and needs of African American women
who utilized a domestic violence shelter. Violence and Victims, 9, 275-286.

Sutherland, C., Bybee, D., and Sullivan, C. (1998). The long term effects of battering on
women's health. Women's Health: Research on Gender, Behavior and Policy, 4(1),
41-70. '

Tj adin, P., and Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate
partner violence: Findings fiom the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Trepiccione, M. (2001). At the crossroads of law and social science: Is charging a
battered mother with failure to protect her child an acceptable solution when her
child witnesses domestic violence? Forfltam Law Review, 69(4), 1487-1522.

United, S. D. o. J. (2000). Studies involving batterer intervention, [lntemet]. United
States Department of Justice. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/vol1__2/01.htrnl
[2003, May 15].

United, S. D. o. J. (2000). Studies involving batterer intervention, [lntemet]. United
States Department of Justice. Available: http://www.ncjrs.org/rr/voll_2/01.html
[2002, February 1].

Unknown. (2000). When are battered women negligent mothers? F ordham Law Review,
27, 565-591.

Unterberger, G. (1989). Twelve steps for women alcoholics. The Christian Century,
1 150-1 152.

Ver Steegh, N. (2000). The silent victims: Children and domestic violence. William
Mitchell Law Review, 26(3), 775-809.

Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.
Walker, L. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.

Waller, G. (2001). Small justice: Little justice in America 's family courts [Video training
material]. Seattle: Intermedia.

West, C. (Ed.). (1998). Lifting the "political gag order ": Breaking the silence around
partner violence in ethnic minority families. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

239

West, T. (1999). Wounds of the spirit: Black women, violence and resistance ethics. New
York: New York University Press.

Whatley, M., and Riggio, R (1993, August). Attributions of blame for female and male
victims. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Francisco.

Wolf, A. (2002). The effect if exposure to domestic violence on children: A longitudinal
examination of children's outcomes, [lntemet]. Digital Dissertations [2003, May
20].

Wright, R. J ., Wright, R. O., and Issac, N. (1997). Response to battered mothers in the
pediatric emergency department: A call for an interdisciplinary approach to
violence. Pediatrics, 99, 182-192.

Zorza, J. (1991 ). Women battering: A major cause of homelessness. Clearinghouse
Review, 61, 421-429.

Zorza, J. (1996). Most therapists need training in domestic violence. Domestic Violence
Report, 1(6).

Zorza, J. (1998). Batterer manipulation and retaliation in the courts: A largely
unrecognized phenomenon sometimes encouraged by court practices. Domestic
Violence Report, 1 (6).

Zorza, J ., and Waite, K. (2001 ). When children are involved in domestic violence cases:

Custody, fiiendly parent provisions and child support. Washington, D.C.: Civil Law
Institute, American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.

240

..E i? .

.13.:
If: u c .4.

it..?)
LIZ. 97x

1...?
cit ...

x

n

h.

...
.1

z
4

 

{3 .

4;.
, i re

'u 4-
. .r-