Domestic Violence 101

by Steve Baron (MA, LMFT)

Domestic Violence 101 The National Domestic Violence Hotline defines domestic violence, DV, (also referred to as intimate partner violence (IPV), intimate terrorism, dating abuse, or relationship abuse) as a pattern of behaviors used by one partner to maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship. DV includes behaviors that physically harm, intimidate, manipulate or control partners, or otherwise force them to behave in ways they don’t want to, including through physical violence, threats, emotional abuse, or financial control. People of any race, age, gender, sexuality, religion, education level, or economic status can be a victims — or perpetrators — of domestic violence (National Domestic Violence Hotline).

Over 1 in 3 women and 1 in 10 men in the US have experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an IPV-related impact during their lifetime (Smith, 2018). Individuals identifying as female are far more likely to be killed in domestic violence situations than those identifying as male. Because the majority of the domestic violence awareness movement had focused on heterosexual relationships, members of the LGBTQ community had been largely left out of the movement. However, recent research shows that LGBTQ members fall victim to domestic violence at equal or even higher rates compared to their heterosexual counterparts. The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500% and the vast majority of those killed in intimate partner relationships are female. 1 in 10 high school students has experienced physical violence from a dating partner in any given year. Nearly 1 in 3 college women (29%) say they have been in an abusive dating relationship. (National Domestic Violence Hotline)

Most recently the concept of “Coercive Control,” a term coined by Evan Stark in his 2007 book, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Stark, 2009), has received increasing attention. “Coercive control” is typically defined as the non-physical abuse of power such as psychological, financial and emotional abuse. It can include stalking, harassment, gaslighting, intimidation and threats. The goal of coercive control is to make the other person subordinate or dependent by isolating her (“her” is used because females are the vast majority of those victimized by this pattern of abuse) from sources of support, regulating her everyday life, exploiting her resources and capacities, and depriving her of the means needed for independence, resistance, and escape. Several countries, including Scotland, France, England, Wales, and Ireland, have adopted coercive control laws over the last decade. As of now, two states—first Hawaii and then California—have recently taken the groundbreaking step of passing the nation’s first laws against coercive control. (Baker, 2020)

New California law defines coercive control as “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty,” including: Isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support; depriving the other party of basic necessities; controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other party’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services; compelling the other party by force, threat of force, or intimidation, including threats based on actual or suspected immigration status, to engage in conduct from which the other party has a right to abstain or to abstain from conduct in which the other party has a right to engage. In addition to allowing protective orders against people engaged in coercive control, the California law amends the state’s Family Code so that coercive control will be considered in custody and visitation decisions. (Baker, 2020)

Finally, but of critical importance, children are the often forgotten victims of domestic violence. The now internationally celebrated Adverse Child Experiences Study demonstrated that 12.5% of over 17,000 adults interviewed by the Kaiser Permanente health care system reported that as children they had been exposed to having their mothers treated violently in their presence. (Vincent J. Felitte, 1998) Those results turn out to have probably been a significant underestimate. For example, Dong et al.’s investigation of adverse childhood experiences for 8,600 adult members of the Kaiser Health Plan found that 24% of those sampled recalled having been exposed to domestic violence before the age of 18 (Dong, 2004). And considering all the various research variables and findings, one researcher has estimated conservatively that at least 10 to 20 percent of children are exposed to intimate partner violence annually, with as many as one-third exposed at some point during childhood or adolescence. (Carlson, 2000). But does being exposed to intimate partner violence actually do any trauma to the children if they’re not themselves physically harmed by the offender? The answer is resounding YES. For a quick demonstration of the harm caused, you can watch the fourteen-minute video available on You Tube: “First Impressions: Exposure to Violence and a Child’s Developing Brain” from the California Office of the Attorney General, and featuring international expert on child development and trauma, Bruce Perry, MD, Ph.D. For a wealth of information and resources on the mechanisms of trauma and it’s effect on childhood development, The Center for the Developing Child at Harvard University (https:// developingchild.harvard.edu/) is the place to go.