A Thousand Tiny Fists: A Typology of Intimate Partner Violence/ Evaluating Californias Legislative Response to Psychological Violence and IPV

Prevention

Capstone Submitted to the Faculty of Kroc School of Peace Studies in Fulfillment of the Degree Master of Arts Peace and Justice Studies In Conflict Analysis, Resolution and Prevention

Candy Marie Nasir

San Diego, California

December 2012

Abstract Addressing the need for Intimate Partner Violence (IPV1) has been a priority for California policy-makers since the emergence of the Battered Womens Movement in the late 1970s. Historically, the primary focus has been on punitive justice informed by a victim-centered epistemology. The California legislatures progressive reform of IPV laws reflected in punitive mechanisms exemplifies this. However, there are a greater many areas, in which victims/survivors of abuse and their families are still not being served.

IPV has multidimensional impacts on the victim/survivor of abuse and their families. Though psychological and emotional violence underscore IPV, and while agency and survey data reflect that it precedes every incidence of Intimate Terrorism and Violence Resistance, psychological and emotional forms of abuse remain legal under the current California Penal Code (CPC). This purpose of this study is to evaluate Californias legislative response to psychological abuse and IPV prevention. The first section represents a typology of IPV in North America, and contextualizes its psychologically abusive aspects, which inform the holistic needs of IPV victims/survivors and their families. Section two conceptualizes a victim centered approach, which has informed the historical progression of Californias legislative response to IPV, as well as San Diegos Community Coordinated Response (CCR). This section looks at: (1) the prevalence of IPV; (2) policy approaches to prevention; and (3) and a key piece of legislation, which has remained historically absent. Section three makes recommendations, which are underscored by appreciative inquiry, based on the limitations of the California Legislatures approach to IPV prevention.

1| PAGE

2| PAGE

Prologue A Thousand Tiny Fists, is one part of a larger body of work, of a paper in progress, and is by no means meant to be an exhaustive inquiry; however, what has emerged is very much a culmination of my studies at the Kroc School of Peace Studies at University of San Diego. I must acknowledge the many individuals who served as mentors, advisers, confidants and friends through this process. In particular I am grateful to my family Betty and Ken Roberts, to my friend and sister Deida Garcia, to Steve Willard and Jennifer Anderson of the Family Justice Center for their compassion and for giving me the language with which to conceptualize and translate experiential knowledge into academic writing, to the Kroc School of Peace Studies for their guidance and intervention, and to Michael Nagler of the Metta Center for Nonviolence Education for his ongoing mentorship. During the course of this research I have spent the last year working with an organization committed to serving victims and survivors of Intimate Partner Violence where I had opportunity to dialogue with professionals from multiple disciplines including prosecuting attorneys, law enforcement, social workers and medical professions working in the field, as well as victims and survivors themselves. In addition to analyzing a review of the literature, and data sets derived from both agency and survey reports, my own experiential knowledge of family violence, as a student practitioner, as a woman, as a survivor, has informed my inquiry greatly. Reflecting now upon the experiential knowledge, which has contributed to the development of my Self and social identities, I draw on a constructed metaphor of the pearl. Every pearl begins as a simple grain, developing in reaction to its environment within the soft tissue of another living being. Layer upon layer of calcium carbonate is deposited in concentric layers to protect the delicate mollusk, which surrounds it creating a barrier. Ideally, a pearl is

3| PAGE

round and smooth, but many take other shapes. Despite the skill with which I had constructed my own pearl in reaction to my environment, I have learned to embrace all that, which comprises my Self: this vulnerable, fantastically irregular little grain. My youth - growing up in group homes away from my father, existing in a fog of medication and desperate diagnosis for most of my childhood, unable to form relationships, unable to understand the world around me, with the daily urge to escape from my skin - were the most painful years Ive lived. As a young adult and later as a woman, I was so angry, so fearful. I trusted no one, I feared myself, my choices, because I felt lost in my own body. I was a visitor, a fraud, imitating a living being but unable to empathize with life. Despite the mandate of the California Welfare System, I, like many other youth experienced a perpetual re-victimization by the very individuals and institutions tasked with the protection of child victims of family violence. However, in a very significant way it was an experience as an adult of caring for my father while he died the man I held responsible for my trauma, which emerged as the central experience guiding my practice both professionally and academically today. At just 49 years of age, my father was diagnosed with end-stage alcoholism and persistent depression. In the way that many individuals attempt to solve their problems with the same actions, which created them, my fathers drinking was a coping mechanism for dealing with profound sadness, loneliness, and guilt, compounded by a family history of genetic risk factors. As a child, he was a victim of family violence, the trauma of which was never addressed. As an adult he physically victimized his first and second wives, and psychologically terrorized his children all of whom he either isolated or abandoned. The experience of being with my father while he died stimulated a cognitive conflict, an incompatibility between my values and that, which I valued. I wanted to hold on to anger, but

4| PAGE

could not. I was a like child again, shaking my tiny fist at the universe yelling, as if in a dream where ones screams pierce the throat but sound never emerges. The experience also allowed me to humanize him, and to understand his behaviors in context, as reactions to profound pain. The caregiver-child dynamic, which characterized the two months I spent with my father, was all too familiar in my earlier long-term relationships and would remain so in my subsequent ones. It would also come to typify my own marriage years later. When the manchild in my marriage demanded too much, when my actions attempting to liberate the child within myself - proved repressive and stifling, when I rebelled against the role I had created for myself and my co-dependent husband nurtured; and when psychological and physical abuse came to characterize our partnership, my mind would float back to these two months with my father. It is this caregiver-child mentality that many child and teenage survivors of family and relationship violence go on to project in their adolescent and adult relationships. And it is the attempt to heal the self inversely, which drives so many serving in the field of social work, working with survivors of family violence, helping to empower women, children and men. However, it is the inability to reflect, to connect experiential knowledge with present behaviors, phenomena, and contexts, which fosters the continuity of this fruitless pursuit: to heal the self from the outside in. It is through this reflection on the self, the multiple modes of being in the world, understanding the self in relation to the self and to the social, and the ability to discern meaning and value from suffering, which truly heals. The ability to humanize my father in the context of his own historical narrative allowed me to transform the rage of injustice I felt towards him as a

5| PAGE

child into desire and passion as an adult: desire to live more fully, passion to fight for the vulnerable. It also allowed me recognize the aggression in the individuals who victimize and terrorize the clients I serve as a reaction to profound unhappiness with the self, an expression of the self hatred these humans possess without knowing why or from whence it derives. I see the neglected soul in the abuser of souls. It challenges my very fiber to empathize with the suffering of those who inflict violence upon the vulnerable; it challenges me because I dont will it. I resent the behaviors and attitudes of intimate terrorists while simultaneously wondering who hurt them, what went wrong in their life. How did the victim become the perpetrator? from surviving? Who took their Voice? An overarching theme of this paper is Voice, and the necessity of the restoration of Voice in Intimate Partner Violence prevention. When we start with the individual, defining trauma and its relationship to the holistic health of society or lack thereof when left unrecognized, we see the destructive cycle beginning with disempowerment at the personal level. At the social and structural levels, gender socializations, archaic notions of paternalism and the perpetual victimhood of women aid the continuity of abuse cycling and reinforce the structurally violent paradigms of patriarchy and privilege, which underscore the historical narrative of family violence itself. The constant is the absence of Voice. What has kept them

6| PAGE

Contents

Abstract Advocacy and Empowerment Wheel Prologue Contents List of Terms List of Diagrams Power and Control Wheel Part I: A Typology of Intimate Partner Violence Conceptualizing Psychological Abuse in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence Intimate Terrorism Emotionally Dependant and Sociopathic Intimate Terrorists Coercive Control Threats and Intimidation Economic Abuse Stalking Summary Violent Resistance Situational Couple Violence Summary

1 2 3 7 8 9 10 11 13 16 16 20 21 22 23 25 27 29 29

Part II: A Victim-Centered Model and Californias Legislative Approach to IPV Prevention San Diegos Community Coordinated Response Measuring Prevalence of IPV in California Prevalence of IPV Californias Response to IPV Prevention: A Timeline Policy Approaches to Prevention Part III: Limitations of Californias Approach to IPV Prevention Recommendations Summary Bibliography Endnotes 32 33 35 35 36 38 40 40 42 47

7| PAGE

List of Terms

(BIP) (CAPC) (CCR) (DA) (DV) (FJC) (IPV) (IT) (MA) (NFJCA) (PA) (PJ) (PP) (RJ) (SCA) (SCV) (TJ) (VCA) (VR)

Batterer Intervention Program California Penal Code Community Centered Response Dominant Aggressor Domestic Violence Family Justice Center Intimate Partner Violence Intimate Terrorism Mandatory Arrests National Family Justice Center Alliance Primary Aggressor Punitive Justice Preventative Justice Restorative Justice Survivor Centered Approach Situational Couple Violence Therapeutic Jurisprudence Victim Centered Approach Violent Resistance

8| PAGE

List of Diagrams

1. Advocate and Empowerment Wheel 2. Californias Response to IPV Prevention: Time Line 3. Coercive Control and Intimate Terrorism Wheel 4. Community Accountability Wheel 5. Community Coordinated Response Wheel 6. Intra-personal Characteristics of an Abuser Wheel 7. Power and Control Wheel 8. Typology of Intimate Partner Violence Wheel

9| PAGE

10| PAGE

Part I: A Typology of Intimate Partner Violence In 1992, The Family Violence Prevention Fund defined Intimate Partner Violence as a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors that may include inflicted physical injury, psychological abuse, sexual assault, progressive social isolation, stalking, deprivation, intimidation and threats.2 While the earlier literature emerging from the battered womens movement tended to adopt the violence is violence perspective, what we now know about the conditions and risk factors associated with different dimensions of family violence both genetic and environmental requires a multi-dimensional approach to victim/survivor advocacy. Because all violence is not the same, is not motivated by the same sources of conflict - is neither necessarily underscored by patriarchal and or misogynistic attitudes, nor always gendered approaches to victim/survivor empowerment ought to reflect an understanding of differing contexts. Intimate Partner Violence, one aspect of family violence, permeates our society; abuse takes place in heterosexual and homosexual relationships, between partners both married and unmarried, between adults, and between adolescents. It makes no distinctions between socioeconomic strata, political status or lack thereof. However, just as there are different aspects of family violence, there are different dimensions to Intimate Partner Violence itself. The three

categories of IPV: (1) Intimate Terrorism; (2) Violent Resistant; and (3) Situational Couple Violence, are derived from over 30 years of social science research on violence between intimate partners.3 Distinguishing the three includes: (a) power and control tactics; (b) conditions for the transition from conflict intensification and escalation to violence; and (c) the presence and degree of physical violence.4 Key to understanding the distinctions made is the presence of coercive control.

11| PAGE

12| PAGE

In terms of gender symmetry in IPV, both evidence and practice based research reflect data showing relative gender symmetry only in Situational Couple Violence.5 This contrasts the information gleaned in agency reports published by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which neglects to distinguish between dimensions of IPV, presenting data which reflect gender symmetry and homogenous conditions, risks and conflict drivers in all forms of IPV.6 However, not all Intimate Partner Violence is exclusively motivated by an individuals desire to gain or resist control. It may be a matter of self-image, emotional dependence, little or underdeveloped self identity. Violence may be motivated by a perceived threat to personal character, i.e. how individuals conceive of themselves relative to a partners verbalized perception.7 Other times violent reactions to conflict are simply an attention seeking behavior, the inappropriate expression of anger derived from emotional infantilism. Violence may also be motivated by a desire to escape an abusive and potentially deadly relationship. With this in mind, contextual inquires surrounding the nature of violence throughout the entire relationship must precede the analysis of IPV incidences. Conceptualizing Psychological Abuse in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence Part one of this inquiry looks at these three types of Intimate Partner Violence. What individual, community and structural factors may be associated with their incidences? What are the conditions of and risks associated with their development? What are the dimensions and impacts of Intimate Partner Abuse on the target of abuse, their children and families? Part two will indentify some of the existing approaches designed to address victims/survivors needs in San Diego. It looks at the California Legislatures approach to IPV prevention, and asks, how well are individuals needs being served; what is working and what is missing?

13| PAGE

The maltreatment and abuse of children is no longer tolerated; bullying, corporal punishment in schools, workplace discrimination and sexual harassment are all illegal. Public and political intolerance of these dimensions of psychological and emotional abuse is a testament to societys rejection of the notions of women and children as property. However, there are a great many areas in which targets of IPV are still not being served. Survivors continue to suffer in silence; abusers are still not being held accountable to the degree necessary, and preventative and restorative justice mechanisms continue to be deemphasized relative to punitive ones.8 Historically underrepresented populations experiencing IPV remain vulnerable to abuse, both interpersonal and structural. And when unacknowledged or invalidated, IPV related psychological and emotional traumas continue to foster abuse cycling in families, communities and society. Part three will discuss the significance of the latter, in terms of the holistic health of society, arguing for a shift in how Intimate Partner Violence is conceptualized and empowerment understood, in the context of a survivor-centered epistemology which locates the restoration of Voice as central to both justice and prevention mechanisms. Doing so will also allow us to address some common yet harmful misconceptions surrounding intimate abusers and their partners, including the notion that IPV is not a problem in our community but anothers; that IPV is only prevalent among the economically impoverished or minority populations; that substance abuse and mental illness are primarily to blame for Intimate Partner Violence; that IPV is a personal problem between husband and wife. Perhaps the most harmful myth is the belief that targets of abuse choose to stay in potentially deadly situations. The notion that, if it were that bad she would just leave; why doesnt she just resist, reflects both an under-education around the dynamics of IPV, and the degree of public justification of violence, which persists

14| PAGE

today. In reality, the most dangerous time for a woman being terrorized is right after she attempts to leave the relationship, the home, or both. With the help of Community Coordinated Responses9 to victim/survivor empowerment, and with the support of friends, family, and community, many victims of IPV do leave abusive relationships and are successful at making the transition from victim to survivor. By examining the different aspects of Intimate Partner Violence we may continue developing a more inclusive picture of the typology of family violence, including the motivations and drivers of the escalation of conflict to abuse, and the risk factors known to characterize abusive relationships. Intimate Terrorism Early theorists argued that all intimate violence was rooted in patriarchy, gender issues, and coercive power and control; however, in the 1990s professionals from multiple disciplines began distinguishing between types of violence in the context of IPV. Engendered theories and frameworks incorporate specific cultural narratives and psycho-social models of human interaction, and thus require a multidisciplinary approach to analysis (from the characteristics of individuals and their respective developments to the interpretation of processes at the individual, interpersonal and community levels, to the limitations and empowerments at the social and structural levels).10 Contemporary conceptualizations of IPV are underscored by an understanding that there are distinctions between types of violence and that different theoretical approaches will be relevant to the different dimensions of violence. A typology of Intimate Terrorism includes: (1) emotionally dependent intimate terrorists; and (2) sociopathic intimate terrorists11; both are rooted in coercive control. Intimate Terrorism is physical and or psychological violence enacted in the service of taking control of ones partner.

15| PAGE

The conditions under which Intimate Terrorism would be found in an intimate partnership, include: the presence of coercive control of one partner over another; interpersonal and structural conditions that permit and foster violent control, e.g. patriarchy and or culturally embedded misogyny; and the interpersonal or social conditions, which prevent one partner from leaving the relationship, e.g. economic dependence, pressure or isolation from family, and or influential community members, e.g. religious or spiritual leaders working with the family or the victim.

16| PAGE

Emotionally Dependent and Sociopathic Intimate Terrorists Emotionally dependent intimate terrorists are discriminate; they are not generally violent towards anyone but their partner. They may score high on measures of borderline personality disorders, jealousy and dependency, and often have no history of criminal behavior. Like sociopathic intimate terrorists, they can act to appear charming, perpetually victimized or both; however, neither is their authentic self. In contrast, sociopathic intimate terrorists seek to control their partner as well as their social environments, may be violent both inside and outside of the relationship, usually have criminal histories, and score high on measures of antisocial behaviors.12 Boys who raised witnessing male perpetrated abuse against a female relative are placed at higher risk of perpetrating violence, in contrast, girls who witness violence and or were victimized as children have been placed at a much higher risk of becomes victimized as adults.13 Family violence incidences in the home, even when not directed toward children, shape childrens self and social identities. The development of childrens attitudes toward conflict and its resolution are especially impacted during key stages of cognitive development.14 There is a growing body of literature, which documents the harmful impacts of trauma on individuals exposed to family violence in childhood as positively affecting risk of IPV perpetration and or victimization in adulthood. For this reason, the California Legislature has required judges since the 1990s to consider any history of spousal abuse by a parent before determining child-custody rights for that parent.15 One of the most significant impacts on child witnesses of family violence surrounds psychological and emotional trauma and the cognitive and learning impairments, which correlate to long-term developmental issues including low or underdeveloped self-identity, self worth, and

17| PAGE

capacity for empathy. The ability to form and maintain healthy relationships is negatively affected by violence related trauma, which takes place during key stages of mental, emotional and physical development in children and adolescents. Finally, separation anxiety and attachment disorders in children, which develop into personality disorders as adults, significantly contribute to an increase of child witnesses of abuse becoming targets of abuse in adulthood.16

18| PAGE

There is not a heavily gendered trend in antisocial or emotionally dependent behavior women are just as likely as men to exhibit either or both, and though both types of intimate terrorists lack overt patriarchal motivation - one obvious connection is that patriarchal and misogynistic attitudes support mens control of women. Thus, in any situation of IPV, where patriarchal or misogynistic attitudes underscore motives for control of one partner by another, we will overwhelmingly find a trend of exclusively male perpetrated violence, in heterosexual relationships. Abusers are very aware that control may be obtained by many means outside of physical abuse or threats of physical violence. They also utilize tactics including verbal abuse, withholding information, minimizing or denying violent incidences, manipulation, gas-lighting, (re-writing history) and humiliation sexual and otherwise. Coercive emotional abusers employ tactics which are meant to confuse their partners, leading them to question their own perceptions, or doubt whether events actually occurred the way they recall them.17 Targets of abuse who begin to question the validity of their own experiences, perhaps their sanity, and who feel worthless often do not perceive the power to resist, and may begin to internalize the abuse. Unable able to discern the root of their abusive partners behaviors, they may begin to hold themselves accountable, believing something they did, or could have done better, is affecting the abuse cycling in their relationship.18 Coercive Control Types of psychological violence projected by abusers may include: isolation of the partner or spouse from anyone the abuser feels may validate the victims feelings or empower the partner to question the abuse in the partnership; punishment for undesired behaviors, (e.g. breaking the partners cell phone for failing to constantly call to check in) withholding

19| PAGE

information is also a form of punishment; and or one-sided power games, (e.g. driving a wedge between family and the partner, or in-laws and the partner, in order to further isolate). Abusers may even lead a partner to believe that it is the abusers families, friends, or peers who are avoiding contact or communication, while lying to, or manipulate their own parents, friends or peers in the same way. The underlying motivation of an abuser is to stimulate a partners internalization of the abuse, in an attempt to validate the abusers own desired self-image.

20| PAGE

Coercive emotional abusers can be highly educated, charming, respected by their friends, family and co-workers. They may be skilled at restraining their abusive behaviors in public in order to maintain their desired appearance, which is incredibly important to them given their underdeveloped self image, self-identity and low feeling of self-worth.19 In fact, it is not uncommon to hear a survivor of such abuse describe how friends, family even co-workers expressed doubt when confronted with the behaviors of an abuser. It is via an abusers violence against their partners that they feel worthy, important, and in control; this compulsion to exert control over their partners and or social environments derives from the little or no control they feel internally over their own lives and autonomy. However, it is the very lack of self-identity, and thus empathy, which underlies an abusers violent reaction to a partner, and betrays the projected persona of the charming, loving, doting partner as nothing more than a role being enacted, a means to an end: control. Threats and Intimidation Coercive emotional abusers tactics also lead to blaming the coercion on their partner (e.g. if only they were not so useless, so sexually unresponsive or responsive, if only they were home more, at school or work less, with the children, friends or family less, etcetera).20 One of the most successful ways of determining whether or not an individual is employing coercive emotional tactics to psychologically terrorize a partner has been utilized by individuals empowered with the language to identify coercive strategies, to reveal an abusers behaviors and underlying motivations for what they authentically are. Survivors, who have seen and dealt with verbal and emotional abuse, and threats and intimidation, know that each threat is a projection of an abusers feeling of powerlessness.

21| PAGE

Abusers can perceive great threat in the strength of a partners will to resist the internalization of abuse. They may even react with ridicule when confronted with language that typifies their behavior as textbook; so much so that the tactics utilized by abusers actually comprise a checklist of red flags. The first Lethality Risk Assessment, developed by Jackie Campbell, and now utilized across the country by professionals in the field, exemplifies this. Precursors to IPV, acknowledged by Campbell, include: psychological, emotional and verbal abuse, jealousy, stalking, threats of suicide or threats to harm the partner or their shared children, past physical abuse, past threatening or terrorizing behavior, intimidating the partner and or children, and past threats of, or harm to, a family pet, etcetera.21 Economic Abuse Economic abuse is another tactic, which is employed as leverage by abusers to keep a partner from leaving the relationship, from preparing to leave, or from enlisting help from law enforcement, family or friends. The attempt to control a partners or familys income is a way abusers act to maintain or exert control. This may range from anything from exerting his status as head of household, (e.g. Im earning, youre not,) to restricting the amount of money a partner, and or the children have to purchase house hold necessities.22 A partner who works outside the home, or otherwise gleans an income, may be expected to turn over those funds to the abuser, to ration out or hide purchases utilizing those funds, or to account for every purchase while the abuser assumes control over the familys income. This is especially typical of partners or spouses dependent upon an abuser for immigration sponsorship, or who is undocumented.23 Another way of isolating the target of abuse and or preventing them from leaving a relationship is to remove any source of financial support they may have, or any

22| PAGE

important documentation without which they cannot leave, e.g. hiding or taking their wallet, destroying a partners original documents, identification cards, residency cards. Stalking Intimate terrorists use a variety of strategies to undermine their partners willingness or ability to fight for freedom from control. Coercive abusers will attempt to convince their partners that they are worthless, crazy, bad wives, cooks or parents when at home, and or neglectful of their needs when they are outside of the home. Another aspect of coercive control involves surveillance or stalking, with the aim of wearing down a target of abuses resistance. Because abusers feel a lack of control within their own lives, stalking is perceived as a viable means of exerting control over a partner. They may become enraged should their partners general schedules, not be determined by or set in accordance with the abusers. The need for a feeling of power-over is such, that abusers may frequently demand to know where their partners are at any given time, follow their partners to work, to school, tracking them through friends or family, etcetera, in order to remain in constant contact.24 Much of what we know about contemporary gender-socializations the North America can be traced back to the early 20th century. However, contrary to the psychoanalytical myths of female masochism generated by professionals operating within the confines of the 1920s and 30s, the notion that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience25 is no longer a valid one. What was once viewed as perhaps romantic persistence by our grandparents, what we understand today as stalking, has also been identified as a primary precursor to male perpetrated intimate homicide of women.26 However, this image of the romantic pursuit still typifies stalking behaviors portrayed in popular media and movies.

23| PAGE

The film, Theres Something About Mary, exemplifies this. While the audience is expected to perceive the three men, who stalk Mary for just about the entirety of the movie, as love sick, crazy and juvenile, it doesnt prevent our main love interest from being wooed and finally falling for the least psychologically dysfunctional of the three (whose courtship of Mary consequently - began when he hired a private detective to follow her).27 Despite what we know about stalking behaviors in the context of IPV and intimate homicide, stalking behaviors unfortunately persist in romantic comedies and are portrayed as a normative means establishing a relationship. The perceived need of abusers to exert more and more control, or employ increasingly repressive and coercive tactics is proportionate to the lack of control an abuser is feeling. In male perpetrated stalking incidences, these behaviors may be a projection of the powerlessness or emasculation an abuser feels by his partners courage to leave, while internally he feels insecure, perhaps questioning his Self identity as a man in light of his inability to control his woman, questioning his social-identity outside of the man box paradigm, which he has constructed - and his environment reinforced - the socialization of violent behaviors held in synonymy with masculinity.28 (Video, The Man Box, here [00:00-01:40]) Though Intimate Terrorism is underscored by structurally violent factors, a highly patriarchal social context, alone, does not necessarily equal more frequent incidences of IPV; rather, it is during or after situations in which a target of abuse has become uncooperative (i.e. has already began to receive help from a friend, family member or peer who has empowered them to identify the abusive trends in the abusers behavior, or when the partner has been encouraged to leave the abuser) that we seeing higher reporting rates. Male perpetrated IPV is often motivated by a mans sense of masculinity, which for abusers includes the belief that

24| PAGE

exerting power-over is central to control control of his partner, of his environment; control of his self.29 (Video, The Man Box, here [03:32-05:25]) Summary Intimate Terrorism is about coercion and control. Abusers actions are both methodical and intentional, disempowering and isolating their partners socially from family, in-laws, friends, and any other sources of support. The four overarching dimensions characterizing Intimate Terrorism, relative to Situational Couple Violence and or Violent Resistance, include: (1) patriarchal and misogynistic ideologies; (2) a perceived absence of personal or social control; (3) a potential abusers comfort level with the abuse; and (4) vulnerability of the target of abuse. Repressive ideologies, particularly patriarchal and misogynistic ones, typify IPV motivated by a desire to control ones partner, which characterizes Intimate Terrorism, almost exclusively perpetrated by men against women in the context of heterosexual intimate relationships. Finally, when all these factors are combined, in addition to the trauma, isolation, disempowerment, and lack of financial resources, the vulnerability of a target of abuse is such that the frequency and degree of violence may increase exponentially over a short period of time. With a perception of few options, it is not uncommon that victims of abuse decide to either end their lives, to stay in abusive relationships, or to leave one abusive relationship for yet another. A less common but nevertheless significant option perceived by victims of Intimate Terrorism is the decision to react to the abuse in Violent Resistance. Violent Resistance Violent Resistance describes an individuals reaction to an Intimate Terrorist. It is physical violence enacted in the service of escaping a real or perceived threat based upon a pattern of victimization, and is not underscored by coercive control.30 Though it is commonly

25| PAGE

understood as self-defense, Violent Resistance does not necessarily meet the legal definition of self-defense, and thus, may not always be conceptualized as such by law enforcement, the courts, or by the women who use it to escape an abusive and potentially deadly relationship.31

Violent Resistance comes as a result of a persistent and long term pattern of physical violence underscored by psychological terrorism. In almost all cases of female perpetrated intimate homicide, the target is a spouse or partner, whose pattern of victimization and abuse has

26| PAGE

been documented by law enforcement, reported by friends and or family. Violent Resistance is never a first resort. Yet, controversy surrounding what constitutes Violent Resistance vs. intimate homicide persists in media, in film, and popular discourse. Much of the scholarly literature on the subject of intimate partner homicide draws on agency data sets, which measure incidence rates and trends of female perpetrated homicide alongside male, but lacks the necessary contextual inquiry of specific incidences. In the context of agency data, gleaned from the courts, social services, and shelters, reports make some key distinctions, which may lend to a developing hypothesis surrounding Violent Resistance perpetrated by women in heterosexual intimate partnerships. Contrary to the notion that female victims of IPV choose to stay in abusive relationships, both agency and survey data portray Violent Resistance as almost always proceeded by a pattern of non-violent resistance.32 In almost all cases of female perpetrated intimate homicide: (1) a protection order was or is in place against an abuser; and (2) the abuse has been reported and documented at least once and typically on more than one occasion with local law enforcement.33 Conversely, in incidences of male perpetrated intimate homicide, the target is typically a spouse or partner, who has left the abusive relationship, sometimes more than once, or is in the process of doing so. Unlike female perpetrated homicide, men who murder their spouses or partners have often done so in addition to taking their own lives, and or the lives of one of more of the children.34 Because Violent Resistance involves an individual fighting back against an intimate terrorist, it is very much asymmetrical and predominately female perpetrated, in contrast to Situation Couple Violence, the third dimension of the IPV.

27| PAGE

Situational Couple Violence Like Violent Resistance, Situational Couple Violence is not a part of pattern of coercive or controlling behavior, typically taking place within the context of a single or set of isolated incidences.35 Fear of ones partner may not be characteristic. Situational Couple Violence may result from destructive conflict escalation to physical violence, and is the most common forms of physical aggression in intimate relationships. Relative to Intimate Partner Violence and Violent Resistance, Situational Couple Violence is gender symmetrical, and may be instigated by one or both partners.

28| PAGE

The violence is situationally provoked. Conflict drivers can range anywhere from economic factors, such as the under-employment or unemployment of one or more partners, to substance abuse; however, it is important to distinguish between drivers of this dimension of IPV and causal factors. Neither substance abuse or socio-economic factors, nor emotionally immature conflict resolution skills alone account for violence incidences. Implicit in attitudes to the contrary is the notion that economic poverty precipitates violence, which is not only inaccurate but structurally violent insofar as it holds individuals accountable for circumstances that are often beyond their immediate control. Summary Two of the most lethal dimensions of Intimate Partner Violence are underscored by control and resistance. Incidences of Intimate Terrorism and Violent Resistance comprise the bulk of the data gleaned in agency samples within which feminist theorists primarily operate. The third dimension of IPV, Situational Couple Violence, which characterizes the majority of the violence reported in general survey data, is not rooted in coercive control, rather; it is grounded in dynamics of destructive family conflict escalation. It is important, however, to emphasize that all forms of Intimate Partner Violence are both significant and may prove potentially fatal to one or both partners. IPV needs to be defined, understood and conceptualized both by and internal to the control context within which abuse takes place. Taking a victim-centered approach, to advocacy and empowerment, means locating the individuals affected by violence as central to that context. It means focusing on the immediate needs of individuals and communities, and prevention. What has emerged as a Community Coordinated Response in San Diego represents one of the most effective methods of preventing family violence.

29| PAGE

Part 2: A Victim-Centered Model and Californias Legislative Approach to IPV Prevention We know that Intimate Partner Violence has multidimensional impacts at the individual, social and community levels. Though IPV is often treated as a personal issue happening behind closed doors, it is also very much a social and structural violence issue. It affects victims/survivors, their families, and the abusers themselves in ways that are both visible and

30| PAGE

invisible, and in ways, which both foster and facilitate the continuity of abuse cycling in communities. The individual and collective voices of victims and survivors of abuse, whose lives have been forever altered by the effects of IPV, are often silenced. A primary need of these individuals is the restoration of dignity and Voice. Acknowledging the injustice, being listened to and taken seriously, validates both the individual and the experience of suffering. Acknowledgment recognizes the injustice of violence as a phenomenon, in light of the limitations of systems within which advocates operate. Helping individuals to identity the violence, empowering them with the language to know the abuse, assessing risk, and safety planning, aids in the prevention of future IPV incidences. And promoting access to necessary resources and community services, while respecting individuals autonomy being with them where they are and respecting their choices works to rebuild trust, restore dignity and Voice.36 San Diegos Community Coordinated Response Informed by a victim-centered approach to advocacy and empowerment, the Family Justice Center Movement37 has emerged as a response to the complexity of needs of individuals affected by family violence. Since 2002, the San Diego Family Justice Center (SDFJC) has worked to provide the multiple and diverse resources needed by victims/survivors and their families, by colocating the services, which need accessing rather than placing the burden upon the individual themselves to travel from one agency after another.38

31| PAGE

Since 2006, San Diegos FJC has been supported by the National Family Justice Center Alliance (NFJCA), which serves as the fiscal agent for the local service center, provides technical assistance and training to both practioners and survivors, helps assess the need for Family Justice Centers nationwide, and assists communities in developing their own coordinated responses. The Alliance has partnered with hundreds of agencies across the country, and has colocated over a dozen onsite at the San Diego Family Justice Center. Working in coordination with the San Diego Police Department, the FJCs in-house partners provide services including: case management, emergency and transitional housing resources, therapeutic services for both adults and children, work reentry preparation, immigration and legal-oriented services such as applying for Temporary Restraining Orders, UVisas, and VAWA waivers, and connects individuals with community legal advocates who assist

32| PAGE

with custody, and marital dissolutions.39 The mission of the FJC in San Diego, and FJCs nationwide, is to continue collaborating with agencies, professionals, advocates, victims/survivors and their families, with the aim of educating, empowering and preventing family violence. And since the emergence of the Battered Womens Movement in the 1970s, designing policies aimed at addressing and preventing Intimate Partner Violence has also been the primary goal of the California Legislature. Measuring Californias Legislative Approach to IPV Prevention Over the last 30 years, Intimate Partner Violence has proven difficult to measure for a variety of reasons, two of which surround methods of reporting, and the factors affecting reporting trends themselves. The categories of Intimate Partner Violence presented in section one represent agency and survey data reports, and a body of literature informed by family violence theories, psycho-social frameworks, and debates surrounding gender symmetry, collected over three decades. While the majority of the survey data gleaned reflects abuse as rooted in destructive conflict escalations, and thus, relatively gender symmetrical, much of the literature informed by agency data operates from the premise that IPV is rooted in coercive power and control and predominately male perpetrated. In the context of the latter, much of the information gleaned reflects national and global samples, thus, agency data may be limited in terms of extracting the finer details of individual IPV incidences, which are more challenging to quantify.40 Intimate Partner Violence is also difficult to measure because violence often occurs in the home. Targets of abuse can often be reluctant to seek assistance out of fear of abuser retribution. Underreporting of IPV incidences may be influenced by an individuals sense of shame. Having internalized the violence they may feel hindered by feelings of embarrassment in light of family,

33| PAGE

friends, or a community, which holds them accountable for their abuse. Individuals may even be convinced that something they did or could have done has positively affected the abuse in their respective relationships.41 Other times, there is a general feeling that the individuals and agencies tasked with victim protection are unwilling or unable to help them because the violence has not yet escalated to physical. This is often the case in incidences of IPV underscored by a pattern of psychological terrorism. Because punitive approaches to IPV have emerged over the last 40 years in response to an engendered and paternalistic cultural narrative, California legislation is primarily informed by agency reported data. In light of the inherent complexities of gleaning homogenous data across reporting agencies and through survey samples, the purpose of this section is: (1) to illustrate the progression of Californias legislative approach to Intimate Partner Violence prevention; (2) to look at the prevalence of IPV; (3) and policy approaches to prevention to date; and (4) and identify a key piece of legislation, which has remained historically absent, and continues to present significant challenges to IPV prevention. Prevalence of IPV Between 1990 and 2000, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reported, arrests for corporal injury to a spouse, partner or cohabitant the most common IPV related offence under the California Penal Code (CAPC) - increased from 43,000 to 53,000. In 1999, a survey published by the DOJ showed nearly 200,000 incidents of domestic violence reported to law enforcement agencies for that year. In 2000, DOJ reported 130 intimate homicides in the state, 102 male perpetrated/28 female. And in 2001, of the 345 women murdered in California, 140 of were intimate homicides. However, factors affecting underreporting of abuse remain a concern, and

34| PAGE

the prevalence data reflected in both DOJs reports imply that over two-thirds of women victimized by intimate partner abusers in California do not involve law enforcement.42

The last four decades of California legislation reflect the seriousness with which IPV prevention has been addressed in this state; however, California was not the first state to acknowledge that the abuse of intimate partners ought to be illegal. In fact, four other states rejected the notion that, beating ones spouse was perfectly acceptable, 75 years before California did. In 1871 Alabama and Massachusetts became the first states in the nation to make IPV illegal. Three years later, North Carolina followed suit, and in 1882 Maryland was the first state to hold abusers accountable for their behavior.43 Fast forward more than seventy years to 1945;

35| PAGE

the California Legislature defined Intimate Partner Violence as a crime, where partner was narrowly defined as husband and violence as willful corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition. However, it was not until the 1970s, just prior to the emergence of the Battered Womens Movement, that IPV began to be viewed as a serious social problem. And it would be nine more years before rape of a spouse was considered an IPV related crime, prior to which time it was legal.44 Policy Approaches to Prevention Since IPV was criminalized in California in 1945, the definition of intimate has been expanded to include individuals who cohabitate or do not, and partner now refers to former or current spouses, partners or individuals in a dating relationship of the same or opposite sex. The current California Penal Code continues to define violence in IPV as corporal punishment resulting in a traumatic condition.45 Though definitions and reporting trends have changed in the last half century, IPV continues to affect both men and women. Findings submitted to the U.S. Senate Judiciary found as of 1990 IPV was the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15 to 44 in the United States;46 and just ten years later the National Violence Against Women Survey published a report approximating 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.47 The emergency of the Battered Womens Movement of the late 1970s, coinciding with much of the California Legislatures progressive approach to IPV prevention,48 was very much informed by the Childrens Rights Movements of the mid-twentieth century. While the latter came in response to an increasing public awareness of the widespread yet previously hidden face of child maltreatment, underscored by a paternalistic epistemology; the former arose out the

36| PAGE

Womens Liberation Movement nearly two decades later, and rejected paternalistic views on the basis they implicitly presumed the perpetual victimhood of women. The psychological abuse of children has been considered a crime since 1962,49 when the publication of, Battered Childrens Syndrome, brought national attention to the impacts of this aspect of abuse. More than 50 years later, Californias Legislature passed a law making verbal and emotional abuse of individuals, based upon sexual orientation and or gender, a crime in the year 2000. In 1998, California became the first state in the nation to recognize the long-term psychological effects of stalking on victims, expanding the 1990 legislation to include electronic technologies (Cyber-Stalking), which was subsequently criminalized.50 In 2003, California set precedence yet again as the first state to introduce the "Healthy Workplace Bill,"51 in recognition of the psychologically harmful impacts of workplace harassment on employees. Finally, in January 2012, the California Legislature enacted the first anti-bullying laws in the state, along with Senate Bill 1172 (set to take effect in January of 2013), which are both being hailed as a landmark victories for civil rights, 52 and a testament to a growing public and political intolerance of psychological abuse. Today, in bodies of literature surrounding the nature of Intimate Partner Violence - from the first feminist journal published in 1972 to the present; every set of agency data collected spanning the last 30 years, every law enforcement and advocate training guide, on every family violence resource centers list of Best Practices - psychological abuse has been acknowledged as having devastating effects on individuals, families and communities. Yet, as of today, December 13 2012, psychological abuse in Intimate Partner Violence remains legal.

37| PAGE

Part III: Limitations of Californias Approach to IPV Prevention What is the constant underscoring Californias overt rejection of psychological abuse of children, of vulnerable populations subject to discrimination, of employees in the workplace, of stalking victims? The constant is Voice. How is it that the necessity for restoration of Voice in victim/survivor empowerment remains indiscernible in the context of Intimate Partner Violence prevention? When did the phenomena of IPV prevention cease to be an issue of equal protection under the law? If it is legal to psychologically terrorize family members, and emotionally abuse family members, why is it illegal to abuse employees, co-workers, children, even perfect strangers, in the same way? Given what we know now about psychological abuse - which characterizes the two most violent and consistently fatal dimensions of IPV, nearly every incidence of intimate homicide, and PTSD related suicides by IPV victims - how can this be? Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has been diagnosed in rape victims, sexually abused children and adults, military personnel and veterans. And in the last 30 years, there has been an increase in PTSD diagnosis among victims/survivors of IPV. The perceived brutality of the violence, the duration and exposure to the trauma, and the individuals cognitive assessment of the violence,53 all positively affect the severity and duration of the symptoms. While psychological abuse among women victimized by male perpetrated violence has been relatively understudied, both evidence and practice based research suggests that the effects of psychological abuse can be even more damaging than the effects of physical abuse in terms of PTSD. 54 Hundreds of women victims of Intimate Partner Violence dont survive. Many take their own lives because living becomes too difficult. These women suffer in silence because they

38| PAGE

dont know what to call what they feel, because no matter what changes are affected around them; they continue to exist within the Self, which has become a prison. A prison constructed from walls of suffering, silence, disempowerment, and invalidation - walls, which may be broken with self-knowing, language to know the abuse, and validation to empower. The absence of Voice fosters a destructive cycle of disempowerment among victims of IPV. Many feel weak and responsible because they have been held accountable for their suffering by the individuals and systems even well meaning systems tasked with their protection. When abuse is witnessed by their children, it is their children who are removed from the home, their children who are mandated to counseling; it is their children who are separated from their families. The constant message being sent to these children is that they are the toxic element poisoning the home not the abuser. The constant message being sent to these parents is that they must be punished for allowing this abuser into their lives and the lives of their children - children who often grow up to become victims or perpetrators of abuse themselves, whose approach to conflict and its resolution is forever informed by a feeling of vulnerability and powerlessness, children who are held accountable as adults for the violence they project or internalize - children who grow up to have children. How is it that, what we know about childhood victimization and exposure to family violence, as primary risk factor for IPV victimization and or perpetration in adulthood, has not influenced Californias Legislation, particularly our states women policy makers - 1 out of 4 of whom, according to literature, have experienced some dimension of IPV in their lifetimes.55 We need to reflect upon the implicit messages, which are being sent to victims of abuse whose suffering is not valid under the law. We need to consider that what messages are being sent to abusers who may find confidence in the knowledge that they will not be held accountable

39| PAGE

for psychologically terrorizing their families? We need to ask ourselves whether or not Californias resistance to creating laws, which reflect what we know about psychological abuse, exemplifies our position? Is this what our communities believe, that emotionally abusing

family members is perfectly acceptable? For, implicit in the state legislatures opposition to criminalizing psychological abuse of family members, is the notion that it ought to be legal to abuse our wives, our husbands, our partners. Summary We need to carefully evaluate Californias existing approach to the prevention of Intimate Partner Violence if it continues to exclude this significant dimension. The key piece of legislation, which has remained historically absent, is the psychological abuse women, children and men. A coordinated response between California state and federal agencies needs to be developed to improve data collection strategies. The multidimensional impacts of IPV necessitates that California prevalence survey data also reflect the conditions of and risks associated with, the development of family violence, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood. IPV prevention policies must reflect a coordinate community approach between the systems, agencies and individuals working towards the transformation of those conditions and risks. How psychological violence is understood in the context of IPV needs to be reconceptualized. Victimization is not about the weakness of targets of abuse, but the weakness of individuals who victimize. Victimization is about power imbalances, which abusers attempt to reconcile via coercive control. The continuity of social inequity is fostered when the individuals they victimize lack social support. Understanding the extent to which the general public justifies IPV is necessary to explain perpetration, victimization, and violent reactions to abusive behavior.

40| PAGE

When communities take the position of non-interference in so-called private or martial conflicts, the message being sent is two-fold: the victims suffering is not valid, and the abuser will not be held accountable. When friends, family and co-workers choose to ignore abuse or express disbelief, disclosure on the part of the victim is discouraged. When disclosure is made and doubt is stimulated, the victim often internalizes guilt, shame and accountability. In contrast, when a communities refuse to turn a blind eye to abuse, refuse to remain indifferent, an abusers comfort level with physical and psychological violence increases as the expectation of being held accountable increases. Acknowledgment both validates and liberates individuals and experiences. It makes the distinction between actions and actors. It holds abusers accountable for their behaviors, not the victims/survivors. While recognizing that even well meaning systems and agencies experiencing multidimensional challenges may often retraumatize albeit unintentionally - the victims, survivors, and the children they serve; acknowledgement sends the message that it violence itself, which is the toxic element in relationships. Validation and acknowledgement foster transformation and healing by giving Voice to suffering. Our liberation as individuals is tied to the liberation of our communities, then stigmatizing abuse - refusing to give Voice to suffering - we imprisons us all. Giving Voice to suffering means making the personal political, it means removing any sources of isolation, removing the stigma attached to abuse, which impairs the holistic health of our societys development in the present and over generations. Ultimately, it is Voice, which transforms victims into survivors.

41| PAGE

Bibliography

Anderson, Jennifer Director of Technical Assistance at the Family Justice Center, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Engaging Men's Groups in the Fight Against Violence Against Women, (Feb-April 2012). Black, M.C., et al, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) 2010. Summary Report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention & Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011, PDF www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf [accessed 2012]. Brown, Sandra L. Counseling Victims of Violence. Alameda: Hunter House, Inc. Publishing, 2007. Campbell, Jackie. Lethality Risk Assessment and Safety Planning, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2008 [accessed 2012]. Chang, Valerie Nash. I Just Lost Myself: Psychological Abuse of Women in Marriage. Westport: Praeger, 1996. Dag McLeod et al. Batterer Intervention Programs in California: An Evaluation. Research Report, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, Judicial Council of California, San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2009, PDF www.courts.ca.gov/documents/batterer-report.pdf [accessed 2012]. Family Violence Prevention Fund of California. Intimate Partner Violence and Healthy People: 2010 Fact Sheet. Fact Sheet, San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2010, PDF www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children.../ipv.pdf [accessed 2012]. Gwinn, Casey and James Henderson. Children Witnesses of Domestic Violence, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2009 [accessed 2012].

42| PAGE

________________________. "Children Witnesses of Domestic Violence: Coordinated Community Response." The 12th Annual International Family Justice Center Conference. New Orleans: National Family Justice Center Alliance, 2012. Gwinn, Casey. Children Caught in the Crossfire, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2009 [accessed 2012]. Gwinn, Casey President of the National Family Justice Center Alliance, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Children Witnesses of Domestic Violence, (April 2012). Harrington, Carol. Politicization of Sexual Violence: From Abolitionism to Peacekeeping. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010. Healthy Teens Network. Boys Will Be Boys: Understanding the Impact of Child Maltreatment and Family Violence on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Behaviors of Young Men. Research Report, Washington: Healthy Teens Network, 2006, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012]. Henderson, James at the Battered Womens Justice Project, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Community Coordinated Responses: Offender Accountability and Therapeutic Jurisprudence (April 2012). Hughs, Margaret and Loring Jones. Women, Domestic Violence, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), San Diego State University, Department of Health and Human Services, Sacramento: California State University Faculty Research Fellows Program for the California Governors Office of Planning and Research, PDF www.csus.edu/calst/government_affairs/reports/ffp32.pdf [accessed 2012]. Jackson, Nicky Ali and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examining Sociological and Psychological Issues. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998.

43| PAGE

Johnson, Michael P. A General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]. _________. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two Forms of Violence Against Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, (2) (1995, PDF cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/johnsondv.pdf 1995 [accessed 2012]): 283-294. _________. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008. Kabat-Zinn, Jon. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York: Bantam Dell, 2005. Knudsen, Joann Miller and Dean D. Family Abuse and Violence: A Social Problems Perspective. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2007. Kovacs, Elvira., Group of the European Peoples Party. Psychological Violence. Draft Referendum Report, Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, 2011, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012] LaValley, Rebecca ed. California's Response to Domestic Violence. Public Health Report, Sacramento: California Senate Office of Research, 2003, PDF publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/reports/DomesticViolence03.pdf [accessed 2012]. Lowell, Maureen. 17 Shades of Collaborative Capacity, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2012 [accessed 2012]. Murphy, Clare. Women Coping with Psychological Abuse: Surviving in the Secret World of Male Power and Control M.A. dissertation, University of Waikato, 2002, PDF www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/Clare%20Murphy.pdf [accessed 2012]. Myers, John E.B., Child Protection in America: Past, Present and Future, New York: Oxford University Press, (2006). 44| PAGE

Ohio Family Violence Prevention Center. Excellency in Advocacy: A Victim-Centered Approach. Public Health Providers Report, Office of Criminal Justice Services, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, 2010, PDF www.ocjs.ohio.gov/VictimServicesPublication.pdf [accessed 2012]. Ola Barnett, et al. Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005. O'Leary, K. Daniel and Erica M. Woodin, ed. Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions. Washington: American Psychological Association, 2009. Philaretou, Andreas. An Analysis of Masculine Socialization and Male Sexual Anxiety Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001, PDF scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12102001.../Dissert1-5new.pdf [accessed 2012]. Porter, Tony. "TEDWomen: Tony Porter/'Don't Act Like a Man." Ted Talks. December 9, 2012. www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html [accessed April 2012]. Ptacek, James. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999. Seeley, Janis Wilson. The Psychologically Battered Child: Strategies for Identification, Assessment and Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1986. Shorey, Ryan C., et al., "Gender Differences in Depression and Anxiety Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: The Moderating Effect of Shame and Proneness." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 (2011 [originally published online 2010], PDF jiv.sagepub.com/content/26/9/1834.full.pdf [accessed 2012].): 1834-1850. ___________., The Consequences of Perpetrating Psychological Aggression in Dating Relationships: A Descriptive Investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (15) (2012, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012].

45| PAGE

Staik, Athena, "The Relationship Between Violence Experienced and Witnessed in Adolescence and Violence in Current Couple Relations: A Gender Perspective" Ph.D. dissertation, Abstract No. 1587, 2003, PDF http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd [accessed 2012]. The United States Conference of Majors. City Responses to Domestic Violence. City Policy Associates Washington, DC. Survey, The United States Conference of Majors, 2010, PDF http://www.comcon.org/materials-database/city-responses-domestic-violence-77city-survey [accessed 2012]. United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, online database http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ [accessed 2012]. Ventrell, Marvin and Donal N. Duquette eds., The History of Child Welfare Law, in Child Welfare Law and Practice: Representing Children, Parents, and State Agencies in Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency Cases, Denver: Bradford Publishing Co., 2005. Waltermaurer, Eve. "Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature." Trauma, Violence and Abuse (Sage Publications) 13, no. 167 (2012, PDF http://tva.sagepub.com/content/13/3/167 [accessed 2012]). Websdale, Neil. Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999. Willard, Steve San Diego Police Officer at the Family Justice Center, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Intimate Partner Violence: Law Enforcement Responses San Diego, California, (2011; 2012). ___________. Intimate Partner Violence: Serving Victims and Survivors with IPV related PTSD/Challenges (March-September 2012). Williams, Cody, ed. Philosophical and Theoretical Perspectives for Advanced Nursing Practice. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2013.

46| PAGE

Endnotes
1

(1) Victim/Survivor is used interchangeably in this study with Target of Abuse as an acknowledgment that many individuals do not identify as victims, while others have not yet made the transition to survival; (2) Perpetrator and Abuser may be used interchangeably; (3) While the term Intimate Partner Violence is retrojected in sub-sections of this paper, it normatively describes what is understood as Spousal Abuse, and or Domestic Violence, and what was referred to as Wife Beating, while reflecting the legal expansion of Partner, Intimate and Violence; and (4) Violence, and Abuse are used interchangeably as well but refer to the same phenomena in the context of family violence.
2

Family Violence Prevention Fund of California. Intimate Partner Violence and Healthy People: 2010 Fact Sheet. Fact Sheet, San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2010, PDF www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children.../ipv.pdf [accessed 2012].
3

Michael P. JohnsonA General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012].
4

Jackie Campbell. Lethality Risk Assessment and Safety Planning, Webinar, National Family Justi ce Center, San Diego, 2008 [accessed 2012]; Carol Harrington. Politicization of Sexual Violence: From Abolitionism to Peacekeeping. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010); Nicky Ali Jackson and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examining Sociological and Psychological Issues. (Woburn: ButterworthHeinemann, 1998); Michael P. JohnsonA General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]; Michael P. Johnson. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two Forms of Violence Against Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, (2) (1995, PDF cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/johnsondv.pdf 1995 [accessed 2012]): 283-294; Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008); and Sandra L. Brown. Counseling Victims of Violence. (Alameda: Hunter House, Inc. Publishing, 2007)
5

Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008); Ola Barnett, et al. Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction. 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005); and Daniel K. O'Leary and Erica M. Woodin, ed. Psychological and Physical Aggression in Couples: Causes and Interventions. (Washington: American Psychological Association, 2009)
6

Nicky Ali Jackson and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Exami ning Sociological and Psychological Issues. (Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998); and Michael P. Johnson. A General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]
7

Healthy Teens Network. Boys Will Be Boys: Understanding the Impact of Child Maltreatment and Family Violence on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Behaviors of Young Men. Research Report, (Washington: Healthy Teens Network, 2006), PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012]; James Henderson at the Battered Womens Justice Project, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Community Coordinated Responses: Offender Accountability and Therapeutic Jurisprudence (April 2012); Nicky Ali Jackson and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examining Sociological and Psychological Issues. (Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998); Michael P. Johnson. A General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Pen n State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]; and Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008)

47| PAGE

Rebecca LaValley, ed. California's Response to Domestic Violence. Public Health Report, Sacramento: California Senate Office of Research, 2003, PDF publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/reports/DomesticViolence03.pdf [accessed 2012]; and Ryan Shorey et al., The Consequences of Perpetrating Psychological Aggression in Dating Relationships: A Descriptive Investigation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (15) (2012, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012]
9

James Henderson at the Battered Womens Justice Project, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Community Coordinated Responses: Offender Accountability and Therapeutic Jurisprudence (April 2012); National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Community Coordinated Response, http://www.ncdsv.org/publications_ccr.htmlhtml [accessed 2012]; and The United States Conference of Majors. City Responses to Domestic Violence. City Policy Associates Washington, DC. Survey, The United States Conference of Majors, 2010, PDF http://www.comcon.org/materials-database/city-responses-domestic-violence-77-city-survey [accessed 2012]
10

Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008)
11

What Holtzworth-Munroe refers to as generally violent/antisocial. Meehan A Holtzworth-Munroe et al, Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart: Batterer Typology, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000-1019, 1994; 2000.
12

Nicky Ali Jackson and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examining Sociological and Psychological Issues. (Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998). Michael P. Johnson. A General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]; Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008); and James Ptacek. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999)
13

Casey Gwinn. Children Caught in the Crossfire, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2 009 [accessed 2012]; Healthy Teens Network. Boys Will Be Boys: Understanding the Impact of Child Maltreatment and Family Violence on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Behaviors of Young Men. Research Report, Washington: Healthy Teens Network, 2006, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012]; and Michael P. Johnson. A General Theory of Intimate Partner Violence, Working Paper., Professor of Sociology and Womens Studies, Penn State, 2006, PDF www.personal.psu.edu/mpj/2006%20TCRM.doc [accessed 2012]
14

Cf 14.; Andreas Philaretou. An Analysis of Masculine Socialization and Male Sexual Anxiety Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001, PDF scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd12102001.../Dissert1-5new.pdf [accessed 2012]; Tony Porter. "TEDWomen: Tony Porter/'Don't Act Like a Man." Ted Talks. December 9, 2012. www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html [accessed April 2012]
15

Rebecca LaValley, ed. California's Response to Domestic Violence. Public Health Report, Sa cramento: California Senate Office of Research, 2003, PDF publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/reports/DomesticViolence03.pdf [accessed 2012]
16

Cf., 15; 16; and Athena Staik. "The Relationship Between Violence Experienced and Witnessed in Adolescence and Violence in Current Couple Relations: A Gender Perspective" Ph.D. dissertation, Abstract No. 1587, 2003, PDF http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd [accessed 2012]
17

Clare Murphy. Women Coping with Psychological Abuse: Surviving in the Secret World of Male Power and Control M.A. dissertation, University of Waikato, 2002, PDF www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/Clare%20Murphy.pdf [accessed 2012]

48| PAGE

18

Cf 18.; Michael P. Johnson. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two Forms of Violence Against Women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, (2) (1995, PDF cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/johnsondv.pdf 1995 [accessed 2012]): 283-294; and Ryan C. Shorey, et al., "Gender Differences in Depression and Anxiety Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: The Moderating Effect of Shame and Proneness." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 (2011 [originally published online 2010], PDF jiv.sagepub.com/content/26/9/1834.full.pdf [accessed 2012].): 1834-1850.
19

Dag McLeod et al. Batterer Intervention Programs in California: An Evaluation. Research Report, Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court Research, Judicial Council of California, San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, 2009, PDF www.courts.ca.gov/documents/batterer-report.pdf [accessed 2012]; Jackie Campbell. Lethality Risk Assessment and Safety Planning, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2008 [accessed 2012]; and Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008)
20

Valerie Nash Chang. I Just Lost Myself: Psychological Abuse of Women in Marriage. (Westport: Praeger, 1996); Campbell, Jackie. Lethality Risk Assessment and Safety Planning, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2008 [accessed 2012]; and Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008)
21

Ibid Jackie Campbell. Lethality Risk Assessment and Safety Planning, Webinar, National Family Justice Center, San Diego, 2008 [accessed 2012]
22

Ibid Ibid

23

24

Healthy Teens Network. Boys Will Be Boys: Understanding the Impact of Child Maltreatment and Family Violence on the Sexual, Reproductive, and Parenting Behaviors of Young Men. Research Report, Washington: Healthy Teens Network, 2006, PDF [accessed via the University of San Diegos online journal database, 2012]; Nicky Ali Jackson and Gisele' Casanova Oates. Violence in Intimate Relationships: Examin ing Sociological and Psychological Issues. (Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998); and Ryan C. Shorey et al., "Gender Differences in Depression and Anxiety Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: The Moderating Effect of Shame and Proneness." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26 (2011 [originally published online 2010], PDF jiv.sagepub.com/content/26/9/1834.full.pdf [accessed 2012].): 1834-1850
25

Herstory, Herstory: A Timeline of the Battered Womens Movement, https://people.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Supplement/-ConceptsSup/Gender/HerstoryDomV.html [accessed 2012]; and Ola Barnett, et al. Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction. 2 nd ed. (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2005)
26

Steve Willard, San Diego Police Officer at the Family Justice Center, (informal) interview by Candy Marie Nasir, Volunteer Client Resources Assistant and MA Candidate at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. Intimate Partner Violence: Law Enforcement Responses San Diego, California, (2011; 2012)
27

Gwen Sharp, Is It Romance or Stalking? Sociological Times, http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/07/07/is-it-romance-or-stalking/ [accessed 2012].

28

Tony Porter. "TEDWomen: Tony Porter/'Don't Act Like a Man." Ted Talks. December 9, 2012. www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html [accessed April 2012]; and Andreas Philaretou. An Analysis of Masculine Socialization and Male Sexual Anxiety Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001, PDF scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12102001.../Dissert1-5new.pdf [accessed 2012].
29

Ibid

49| PAGE

30

Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008); Clare Murphy. Women Coping with Psychological Abuse: Surviving in the Secret World of Male Power and Control M.A. dissertation, Un iversity of Waikato, 2002, PDF www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/Clare%20Murphy.pdf [accessed 2012]; and James Ptacek. Battered Women in the Courtroom: The Power of Judicial Responses. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999)
31

Ibid Ibid

32

33

Neil Websdale. Understanding Domestic Homicide. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999); and Steve Willard. Intimate Partner Violence: Serving Victims and Survivors with IPV related PTSD/Challenges (March-September 2012)
34

Neil Websdale. Understanding Domestic Homicide. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999)

35

Michael P. Johnson. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resist ance, and Situational Couple Violence. (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2008)
36

www.familyjusticecenter.org; and Ohio Family Violence Prevention Center. Excellency in Advocacy: A Victim Centered Approach. Public Health Providers Report, Office of Criminal Justice Services, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, 2010, PDF www.ocjs.ohio.gov/VictimServicesPublication.pdf [accessed 2012].
37

www.familyjusticecenter.org Ibid, About Us; Our Mission; Out Partners Ibid, Resource

38

39

40

The United States Conference of Majors. City Responses to Domestic Violence. City Pol icy Associates Washington, DC. Survey, The United States Conference of Majors, 2010, PDF http://www.comcon.org/materialsdatabase/city-responses-domestic-violence-77-city-survey [accessed 2012]; and United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, online database http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ [accessed 2012].
41

Eve Waltermaurer. "Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Literature." Trauma, Violence and Abuse (Sage Publications) 13, no. 167 (2012, PDF http://tva.sagepub.com/content/13/3/167 [accessed 2012]); and Steve Willard. Intimate Partner Violence: Serving Victims and Survivors with IPV related PTSD/Challenges (March-September 2012).
42

Ibid

43

Cf. 26; Conviction and sentencing in could result in up to 40 lashes or one year in jail if convicted AND found guilty
44

Ibid, A Timeline of the Battered Womens Movement

45

The Violence Against Women Act and Its Impact on Sexual Violence Against Women, A Majority Staff Report," Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 102nd Congress, October 1992, p.3
46

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, 2003 PDF new.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/vawa-svpubpol.pdf [accessed 2012]

50| PAGE

47

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control. Atlanta, 2003 PDF new.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/vawa-svpubpol.pdf [accessed 2012].
48

Cf. 26

49

Myers, John E.B., Child Protection in America: Past, Present and Future, New York: Oxford University Press, (2006)
50

Rebecca LaValley, ed. California's Response to Domestic Violence. Public Health Report, Sacramento: California Senate Office of Research, 2003, PDF publichealth.lacounty.gov/mch/reports/DomesticViolence03.pdf [accessed 2012].
51

Ibid

52

California Legislative Information, SB 1172, Chapter 835, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172 [accessed 2012].

53

Margaret Hughs and Loring Jones. Women, Domestic Violence, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), San Diego State University, Department of Health and Human Services, Sacramento: California State University Faculty Research Fellows Program for the California Governors Office of Planning and Research, PDF www.csus.edu/calst/government_affairs/reports/ffp32.pdf [accessed 2012].
54

Ibid

55

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000, PDF www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf [accessed 2012]; and The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Womans Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Womens Health, 1999 www.commonwealthfund.org [accessed 2012].

51| PAGE