Why is Domestic Violence a Problem in Co Parenting?

Anyone who has been through domestic violence can tell you exactly why: because the abuser is not interested in cooperation or meeting others' needs. It's that simple.

The assumption behind using co parenting classes to deal with conflict is that even if there domestic violence or mental health issues, these issues will not affect the parent's ability to take care of the children or to work with the other parent. Courts do not generally recognize domestic violence or mental health issues as a reason that co parenting will be a problem. Take a look at that this excerpt from a court ordered co parenting class manual:

On the surface this sounds alright to some people. What happens between the parents is between them. People get stressed out in a divorce and they sometimes don't act the best. Once things from the divorce get settled down though, everything will return back to normal. But the implications of this are definitely off if you start walking through it.

If the domestic violence is just a temporary result of the other parent wanting to leave, then the other parent is the cause of the violence. If the other parent stayed, then the whole family would just be happy. This isn't consistent with the body of scholarly literature on domestic violence and abuse. It shows that:

• Regardless of whether children are the direct targets of physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence often leads to serious psychological trauma for many children (e.g., Edleson, 1999; Graham-Bermann & Edleson, 2002; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2004);
• Half of men who batter also physically abuse their children (Straus, 1983);
• Battered women’s risk of abusing their children is also above the norm, but is half that of men who batter and seems to be more situational (Saunders, 2007);
• Many men who batter, more than fifty percent in one study, become abusive in a subsequent relationship (Woffordt, Mihalic, & Menard, 1994); therefore, separation does not necessarily end children’s exposure to violence (Saunders et al, 2012). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf )?

So a person who commits domestic violence is very likely to have serious mental health problems already and as discussed in the previous pages, those mental health problems are going to affect the child regardless of the parents divorcing or staying together. Domestic violence doesn't end with divorce either:

stalking, harassment, and emotional abuse often continue and may increase after separation (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Leighton, 1989; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a); and

the risk of homicide increases after separation (Saunders & Browne, 2000).

(Saunders et al, 2012). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf

Domestic abuse survivors and their children may experience serious harm as a result of family court decisions. Offenders may be able to continue their abuse of their ex-partners and children due to unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation arrangements (Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Radford & Hester, 2006); sole or joint custody of children may be awarded to a violent or potentially violent parent rather than a non-violent one; and mediation may be recommended or mandated in a way that compromises victims’ rights or places them in more danger. Tragically, in some cases post-separation contacts end in the homicide of a mother and/or her children

16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

(Saunders, 2009; Sheeran & Hampton, 1999). Ironically, battered mothers’ attempts to protect their children may be used against them in custody and visitation decisions.

Despite the potential for negative outcomes, little is known about the extent to which they occur. No representative national or international studies have investigated the rates at which abusers are awarded sole or joint custody. However, some representative studies have been conducted in states and local jurisdictions. For example, a study of (domestic violence) DV survivors involved in child custody mediation in California revealed that only 35 percent of survivors received primary physical custody—lower than the 42 percent of non-victims who were awarded primary custody (Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). In contrast, a representative study of case files in Washington state found that, excluding cases awarded joint custody, approximately 90 percent of the DV survivor-mothers received primary custody (Kernic, Monary-Ernsdorff, Koepsell, & Holt, 2005). A record review of DV cases in New York City found that 77 percent of mothers and 13 percent of fathers were given residential custody, and 6 percent shared custody (Davis, O’Sullivan, Susser, & Fields, 2010). One study of DV cases across six states found that in 64 percent of cases mothers were granted sole physical custody. In another 24 percent of cases, they were granted primary or shared physical custody (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005); only 39 percent were granted sole legal custody, while 56 percent were granted joint legal custody. Custody evaluators in one survey—primarily psychologists in private practice—indicated that, in half of cases with a single DV perpetrator, they recommended the victim receive sole legal and physical custody. In 39 percent of cases, however, they recommended joint legal custody and primary physical custody for the victim (Bow & Boxer, 2003). One widely cited educational booklet from the American Judges Association states that, “studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases” (American Judges Association, n.d., p. 5). However, the Association did not conduct original research on this topic or provide references to support the statistic. 

It's also not uncommon for the courts and judges to get involved in basically helping the abuser continue to abuse the other parent through the court system:

Legal Abuse

Gutowski, E. R., & Goodman, L. A. (2023). Legal abuse and mental health: The role of judicial betrayal. Psychology of Violence, 13(6), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000483

Objective: When mothers who have survived intimate partner violence separate from their partners, they often turn to family court for help with a range of issues from division of assets to child custody arrangements. Often, however, they face ongoing legal abuse when abusive partners use court processes to further enact coercive control and judicial betrayal, when judges fail to prevent such harms and/or add to the mistreatment. Although both processes may undermine survivors’ mental health, existing research on this topic is limited and no known research has explored the relationship between the two constructs. To address this gap, we explored the direct association between legal abuse and mental health, as well as the possible mediating role of judicial betrayal. Method: In a sample of 218 family law-involved survivor-mothers who responded to a survey, we explored the relationship between legal abuse and mental health and the mediating role of judicial betrayal in that relationship. Results: Legal abuse was related to elevated symptoms of both posttraumatic stress disorder and depression even after controlling for prior psychological, physical and sexual abuse, and demographic variables. Further, associations between legal abuse and mental health were mediated by one of the two dimensions of judicial betrayal (Missing the Abuse), though not by the other (Mistreating the Survivor). Conclusion: Findings highlight the profound damage associated with legal abuse, especially when it is mediated by judicial betrayal. They underscore the key role that judges can play in protecting survivor-mothers’ mental health in family court. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved) https://psycnet.apa.org/search/display?id=d239f14d-23c0-0b6b-dc6c-b272ea059b81&recordId=3&tab=PA&page=1&display=25&sort=PublicationYearMSSort%20desc,AuthorSort%20asc&sr=1

Abstract

A review is made of female intimate abuse. It is concluded that females are as abusive as males in intimate relationships according to survey and epidemiological studies. This is especially so for younger "cohort" community samples followed longitudinally. Predictors of intimate violence with women appear to be similar to those of men; including antisocial criminal records, alcohol abuse, and personality disorder (Dutton et al, 2005) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233311739_Female_Perpetrators_of_Intimate_Abuse

The review found that females abuse their intimate partners at least as often as males and frequently with the same degree of severity and negative outcomes for both male and female victims (homosexual relationships). Research has identified a common set of psychosocial factors in female abusers. Contrary to the common belief that women's aggression against their partners is primarily, or only, self-defense against male partners' abuse, women have been found to abuse nonabusive partners. Preliminary research suggests that women aggressors against partners who are primarily acting in self-defense against victimization can be distinguished from women who initiate partner abuse. The women who initiate abuse against their intimate partners have many of the same characteristics as male offenders, including similar motives and psychosocial characteristics such as a history of aggression, substance use, and personality disorders. The family backgrounds of female and male abusers are also similar; this includes having witnessed interparental abuse, and having been abused by a caregiver. Research to date suggests that female abusers have elevated psychoticism and neuroticism scores. Adolescent conduct disorder and aggression have been found to distinguish women in abusive relationships from women in nonabusive relationships. Suggestions for treating women who abuse their partners include consideration of violent behavior as a choice; exploration of more effective coping and problem solving strategies; and the development of communication skills, self-esteem, frustration tolerance, and socially appropriate assertiveness. The methodologies as well as the findings of some of the primary research examined are described. 87 references

Dutton et al 2005 https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/female-perpetrators-intimate-abuse

Intimate partner violence is predominantly viewed as a social problem of men's violence against women. However, a growing evidence base suggests an equal prevalence rate for male and female perpetrated intimate partner physical aggression. Moreover, female perpetrated intimate partner violence is often assumed to be reactive, yet there is limited evidence to support this notion. In this article, we describe the results of two studies that investigated the prevalence of female perpetrated intimate partner physical aggression, and its correlates in heterosexual female university students. The relationships of personality traits, resting heart rate, and heart rate variability (a correlate of vagal activity) were compared between females who did and did not report having engaged in intimate partner physical aggression. In Study 1, we found that 30.9% of participants reported enacting intimate partner physical aggression during the preceding 12 months. This finding suggests that a considerable number of undergraduate females aggress against their intimate partners. Perpetrators, relative to nonperpetrators, scored higher on secondary psychopathic traits. In Study 2, female intimate partner violence was shown to be associated with low resting heart rate and high heart rate variability. Perpetrators, relative to nonperpetrators, scored higher on psychopathic traits that index emotional resilience and unempathic tendencies, and reported increased proactive and reactive aggression. This raises the possibility that some incidences of female intimate partner physical aggression represent proactive aggressive acts. These findings also support the frequently found association between low resting heart rate and aggression, but raise the prospect that the reported aggressive acts reflect high heart rate variability and strong parasympathetic nervous system activity.

Artur Brzozowski 1, Steven M Gillespie 2, Louise Dixon 3, Ian J Mitchell 1

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29806562/

This article critically reviews 62 empirical studies that examine the prevalence of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence across three distinct populations (adolescents, college students, and adults). All studies were published between 1996 and 2006 and reported prevalence rates of physical, emotional, and/or sexual violence perpetrated by females in heterosexual intimate relationships. The highest rates were found for emotional violence, followed by physical and sexual violence. Prevalence rates varied widely within each population, most likely because of methodological and sampling differences across studies. Few longitudinal studies existed, limiting the extent to which we could identify developmental patterns associated with female-perpetrated intimate partner violence. Differences and similarities across populations are highlighted. Methodological difficulties of this area of inquiry as well as implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.

Jessica R Williams 1, Reem M Ghandour, Joan E Kub

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18936281/