The Genocide of Battered Mothers and their Children

Archive for November, 2010|Monthly archive page

Shooters On The Line. Abusers Of The Badge

In domestic law on November 30, 2010 at 11:36 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Motherhood Don’t Replace Her | extended

In domestic law on November 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

children taken away from mother by court

In domestic law on November 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Family court consequences | Anonymoms

In domestic law on November 29, 2010 at 5:20 pm

Vodpod videos no longer available.


In domestic law on November 29, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Source RightsForMothers

Claudine Dombrowski after being beaten and raped by ex-husband Hal Richardson. Bruce Eden claims this picture looks "fake."

This article below is from the journal “Opposing Viewpoints.”  When looking at statistics on domestic violence, you need to keep the facts in this article in mind.

Every so often, Bruce Eden, “Civil Rights Director” of “Dads Against Discrimination” comes by to bother and insult us.  This was his latest comment, left a couple days ago, typical of guys like him (he is speaking of a picture of Claudine Dombrowski, after she had been beaten and raped by her ex-husband, Hal Richardson….Claudine by the way is now 100% disabled and supported by us taxpayers because of her injuries from Richardson):

The picture looks fake. if not, this is just another example of the radical Marxist-feminists’ domestic violence hysteria. We can produce hundreds of pictures of battered, abused and dead men as well.

Given that men account for between 40-50 percent of domestic violence victims (from empirical, academic, government and DOJ statistics; not my statistics), it is high time that men get Due Process & Equal Protection Under Law and start to get a substantial portion of the VAWA funding that ONLY goes to women’s groups and programs. This law is gender biased on its face and is creating a victim and perpetrator class based on gender. Time for the radical feminists, bar associations and complicit judges & politicians to stop the pandering to only one-half of society and denying the taxpaying half of society of their rights.

These groups are frequently filled with abusers that also frequently scream about “false allegations.”  Frankly, I am pretty tired of them bothering me, as I have never said all guys/fathers are abusive, and have not said all women/mothers are saints.  I have never said the men aren’t also battered.  (In fact many battered males are beaten by their gay partners).  However, Domestic violence IS NOT 50-50, plain and simple.  So on to the article, one of many that explain this:

Male Violence Is Fundamentally Different from Female Violence

Kerrie James, “Understanding Men’s Versus Women’s Intimate Partner Violence,” Australian Government Office for Women, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Partnerships against Domestic Violence 2, Commonwealth Government of Australia, 2004. Funded by Partnerships Against Domestic Violence 2, an initiative of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, and commissioned by Relationships Australia, SA. Reproduced by permission.

Kerrie James is the clinical director of Relationships Australia, a nonprofit relationship support and counseling service with offices throughout Australia.

Debates about the prevalence of women’s violence towards their male partners continue to provoke controversy in the literature and media. Practitioners are often confronted with claims such as ‘she is the violent one’ or ‘it was mutual violence’. The controversy arises not only from men who claim to be victims of women’s violence, but from the conflicting outcomes of research studies, some of which indicate equal rates of perpetration of physical abuse by men and women, and others showing much higher incidence of violence by men. In addition, comparison of studies is difficult because of differing definitions of violence, methodologies and samples.

In my previous paper, ‘Truth or Fiction: Men as Victims of Domestic Violence?’ I argued that although women do commit ‘intimate partner violence’ (IPV) towards male partners, their violence is not equivalent to men’s violence either in intent, frequency, severity or outcome. In this paper, I will review the research that has been conducted since that paper was written, to see if those claims are still current.

I will first address the relative incidence of male versus female IPV; secondly, the relative severity of violence committed by men and women; thirdly, the meaning of violent acts, including intentions of each gender and the relationship context in which violence occurs.

Incidence of Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence

Some studies have found that women are equally violent in heterosexual partnerships. A meta-analytic review, which examined 82 studies comparing male and female violence, found that women appear as ‘likely or slightly more likely than men to use physical aggression during conflicts with an intimate partner’ [John Archer cited in a 2004 article by Kris Henning and Lynette Feder]. These studies are mostly based on community surveys using the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS or CTS2), which asks subjects about their use of violence, and their partner’s use of violence. Many of the studies that report equal use of violence by men and women used the Conflict Tactics Scale to measure the perpetration of violent acts. This scale has been criticised for:

  • not considering the context and consequences of violence
  • not addressing sexual aggression
  • not taking account of motivations for aggression, such as self-defence
  • not taking account of the wider historical context of the relationship.

[Murray A.] Straus developed the revised CTS2 that addressed some of these concerns. A study of college students using the CTS2 still found that

  • males and females committed physical aggression at equal rates
  • that women were more psychologically abusive
  • that women who physically aggress are not always acting out of self-defence
  • and that women do sexually coerce men, but, unlike men who sexually coerce, do not use physical abuse or intimidation to engage in unwanted sex.

Studies of incidence of IPV by gender have been criticised for bias, particularly those that use the CTS in the context of telephone surveys. Criticisms include the following:

1. Framing of questions: In studies that use CTS, or the revised CTS 2, the questions about violence are framed in terms of normal disagreements, annoyances etc. within which violence might erupt. This might steer people to only report on violence in relation to conflict, as opposed to violence that occurs not in a context of conflict. Such phrasing of questions could lead to over-reporting of violence, making it look more equal than it is.

2. Comparing different samples: Studies appear to be comparing different samples, one from the general community and the other from ‘help seeking’ or clinical settings. ‘Studies with shelter samples, for example, include physical aggression by women but much higher rates by men; community samples, on the other hand, tend to show about equal rates of aggression’ [John Archer, 2000, cited in D. Saunders, 2002].

Community samples have led to the use of the term ‘family violence’ to imply that men and women are equally likely to be both perpetrators and victims of less serious IPV, as compared to clinical samples, where men are more likely to be perpetrators of violence that is more severe. In clinical samples, women are overwhelmingly represented as litigants in legal procedures, in refuges and in medical/hospital settings as victims of men’s domestic violence. Straus found that men’s average frequency of assaults against partners was 21% greater than the frequency of such assaults by women, and 42% greater for severe assaults. In a recent study [2004] by [Steve] Basile, the ratio was 10 to 1, and in another it was 5 to 1. These researchers argue that men do not come forward to apply for protection orders because of institutional and cultural constraints, particularly men’s reluctance to seek help. However, it has also been estimated that 20% of women do not report partner violence or seek medical help because of shame and fear.

3. The issue of ‘lying’ or under/over-reporting: Studies relying on men’s testimony of their own and partner violence typically find that men under-report, lie or minimise their own violence while ‘there is a tendency for women to downplay the effect of violence used against them’ [D.H. Currie, cited in Henning and Feder’s 2004 study].

4. Context of questions: The National Violence Against Women Survey, which interviewed 8,000 men and 8,000 women, used a range of measures to assess subjects’ victimization in IPV. This produced a much greater discrepancy between the genders with women being victims of violence at a much greater rate than men. Interestingly, the investigators asked only about victimization, not their experience of perpetrating violence. Asking about victimization and perpetration leads people to compare themselves with their partner, and perhaps balance the ledger by focusing on the other’s wrongs. In other words, if researchers only ask about being victimized, people are able to honestly report on this, without having to weigh up who is the worst offender.

Violence in lesbian relationships, and the abuse perpetrated by women towards dependent children, speaks of the capacity of women for physical violence.

This study avoids the methodological problems of solely relying on the CTS, and stands up to rigorous scientific methods including substantial sample size and sampling techniques. Although, like other surveys, it taps the community sample, it does reveal a significant difference in perpetration of violence with men being the major perpetrators.

The study found that women were significantly more likely than men to report being victimized by a current or former marital/opposite-sex cohabitating partner, whether the time period considered was the individual’s lifetime or the 12 months preceding the survey, and whether the type of violence considered was rape, physical assault, or stalking…. Women were 22.5 times more likely to report being raped, 2.9 times more likely to report being physically assaulted, and 8.2 times more likely to report being stalked by a current or former marital/opposite-sex cohabiting partner at some time in their lives. In addition the average frequency of victimization was significantly greater for women than men.

This study gives much wanted clarity to the debate, confirming that men’s violence occurs more frequently. This is not to assert, however, that women’s violence and aggression towards men does not exist. Violence in lesbian relationships, and the abuse perpetrated by women towards dependent children, speaks of the capacity of women for physical violence. Women certainly report themselves as being violent in a number of studies, so it is not just a matter of men unfairly accusing women of violence towards them.
However, overall men appear to perpetrate IPV at a greater rate than women, and they are far more likely to cause serious injury. The rates of serious injury suffered by women as measured by women presenting at legal and medical services remains at a much higher level than that for men. In some places in the USA, ‘pro-arrest’ policies mean that women are being arrested for domestic violence at the same rate as men, if both have been involved in IPV, regardless of who has been more seriously injured, or who initiated the violence, or who has the greatest history of violence.

This leads to a consideration of the differences in gender of type of violence and severity of injuries.

Severity of Violence

Although many more women victims of IPV apply for some kind of help, the studies by Basile and [J.] McFarlane found that the alleged violence of both male and female perpetrators was similar in type and severity. These authors argue that women’s violence is therefore as serious as men’s and should be taken as seriously. Basile, in his study of litigants in domestic assault cases, which included same sex couples, found that overall, females were more psychologically abusive and equally physically assaultive. The significant difference was that male defendants were more likely to use sexual coercion. This study used the revised CTS2 to analyse affidavits submitted to the courts describing the violence the plaintiff felt warranted protection.

However, other studies conclude that the most serious violence is more likely to be perpetrated by men. In a meta-analysis of over 80 studies, Archer found that while women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, men were more likely to inflict an injury. Overall, 62% of those injured by a partner were women. Other studies have looked at applicants for protection orders, and have compared the type and severity of violence alleged by both male and female victims. [H.] Melton and [J.] Belknap report that men were more likely than women to use pushing, grabbing, shoving, dragging and strangling, whereas women were more likely to use hitting with or throwing an object and biting the victim. The National Violence Against Women Survey, 1995, found a 42% injury rate for women, and 19% for men. A large number of studies have found that males are more likely to inflict injury. As violence gets more severe, women sustain more serious injuries and at a greater rate than do men. Studies have also failed to include or identify separating and divorcing couples where the rates of injuries sustained by women are much greater. Statistics Canada reports that in recent years, 60% of women and 25% of men sustained injuries from IPV requiring medical attention. When incidence rates of IPV and charges for criminal violence are examined, it appears that men not only perpetrate violence at higher rates but more severely.

The distinction … is between violence that is contained within the family, and violence where the perpetrator has a criminal history and is violent in other contexts.

There are three areas where women are decidedly more victimised but which are not focused on in studies as much as physical injuries. These areas are fear and intimidation, sexual abuse and homicide.

  1. Fear and intimidation: [K.] Malloy et al. report on a number of studies that found that women reported significant, long term levels of fear and more negative impacts on their physical and psychological functioning, compared to male victims of female violence. [P.] Tjaden and [N.] Thoennes report that men are much more likely to make serious threats that induce significant fear in women.
  2. Sexual abuse: Many studies have failed to include sexual abuse, which was found to be perpetrated by men up to 20 times more than for women.
  3. Homicide: There is also a compelling difference in homicide rates, with 70% women victims killed by male partners, and 30% of men killed by female partners as reported by [D.] Saunders [in 2002]. In recent years, men are committing more homicides, and the rates for women have declined.
Style of Violence

A number of studies have attempted to ‘drill down’ further in order to understand gender differences in the style of violence. As previously mentioned, differences arise in research partly because samples from the criminal justice system or ‘clinical’ settings are compared to samples obtained from the general community. Variability between genders in the style of violence emerges when comparisons are made between community and clinical samples. Differences in violence in each context have been termed ‘intimate terrorism’ and ‘common couple violence.’ The distinction here is between violence that is contained within the family, and violence where the perpetrator has a criminal history and is violent in other contexts. Clinical samples are more likely to show ‘intimate terrorism’ and community samples ‘common couple violence’. The studies that use the CTS in community sampling research do not capture the most severe violence. Similar distinctions are made by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart in 1994 in their ‘family only violence’ and ‘anti-social domestic violence offenders’ categories. The latter are predominantly men who engage in ‘severe physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against intimates’ [as cited in Henning and Feder’s 2004 study]. Henning and Feder argue that men who perpetrate the most severe domestic violence are much more likely to have a history of criminality, but not necessarily violence, outside of the family. They imply that where this is not the case, violence is less severe, is less likely to escalate and the female partner is likely to be as equally violent, i.e. common couple violence.

Other studies report different styles of violence within the population of violent men. [J.] Gottman and [N.] Jacobson distinguished the ‘Pit-Bull’ and the ‘Cobra’. The Pit-Bull is the man whose violence is purposeful, who intends to maintain dominance and control of his partner through implementing a regime of fear, using intimidation, punishment and a range of violent behaviours, including rape, stalking, beatings and threats to kill. He may or may not be violent in other contexts, but is generally intimidating and emotionally distant.

The Cobra’s violence is different. He explodes if he does not get his own way. His violence is sudden and unexpected, erupting often in the context of his partner’s verbal and/or physical attack. He aims to silence his partner, as well as to punish her for ‘getting in his face’ or for attempting to influence his life. His message is ‘get away from me’. While his violence is extremely severe, he is often easier to leave.

Men have the option, more than women, to use their physical strength in response to someone else’s first strike.

[K.] James et al. also found similar differences in men’s violence, as reported by men to interviewers in a qualitative study examining men’s construction of their own violence. They identified ‘tyrants’ and ‘exploders’. Tyrants were similar to the ‘Pit-Bulls’, exercising a regime of control and terror. They most feared losing their partners, felt insecure, and were more inclined to stalk them. Exploders, on the other hand, were like the Cobras, exploding into violence when they felt provoked or attacked.

How might these differences between men who use IPV shed light on the broader gender question of who is the most serious perpetrator of IPV? Firstly, the most severe [Pit-Bulls and tyrants], and men with criminal justice histories, are capable of implementing a reign of terror backed by the threat and actuality of physical violence. They are capable of intimidating and controlling to a degree the majority of women are unable to match. Such men use violence to get their own way, have done so for a long time and will not tolerate a partner’s assertion or attempts to leave. It is hard to imagine a relationship where a woman is able to instil the same fear and terror in a man through the use of such tactics.

‘Exploders’ described their own violence as occurring in relation to a woman’s provocation or attack. If a woman attacked an exploder, he would be likely to escalate his violence, to explode in a rage perhaps aiming to gain control, to prevent injury to himself, to immobilise or injure her, but foremost to stop her attack. An exploder would do whatever it took. In other words, men have the option, more than women, to use their physical strength in response to someone else’s first strike. Because of their physical strength, acts such as ‘shoving’ ‘pushing’ ‘punching’ or ‘hitting’ will inevitably cause more damage when done by a male than a female.

Common Couple Violence

But are women equally violent in ‘common couple violence?’ Violence that is contained to the couple relationship, Henning and Feder argue, is more likely to involve both parties, does not escalate and is less severe. This is the image of the ‘tit’ for ‘tat’ violence, mutual shoving and pushing, maybe ending in a punch from the man. It is here that women’s motivations for violence differ from those of men. They are more likely to use violence in self-defence, while smaller percentages report resorting to violence to ‘get through’ to their partner, to engage emotionally or in retaliating for emotional hurt. How likely is it that a man would let a woman ‘win’ a physical fight? No doubt there are some men who are firmly committed to non-violence, or non-violence to women, who, even if their partner did attack them, they would restrain themselves.

Using the term ‘common couple violence’ can be misleading, because in community surveys men have been found to cause greater injury. In other words, violence that is contained to the couples’ relationship is not necessary minor in nature. Men cause greater injury when they use shoving, choking, beating up or strangling their partners, whereas women do more damage when they use a weapon. The research suggests that women use implements and other means to ‘equalise’ their strength. The concept of ‘common couple violence’ is meant to suggest minor violence, and equal participation of women as perpetrators. The danger of uncritically accepting this concept is that women rarely escalate violence, they match it; the woman is most likely acting in self-defence; and the man is likely to employ his greater strength to ‘win’ the contest.

In Henning and Feder’s study of people arrested for IPV, women were more likely to have used a weapon in the attack, and were therefore arrested more often. There were a number of differences, however, which led them to conclude that men presented the greatest risk for recidivism and men were the gender of most concern. Although the women who were arrested had committed a more severe offence, their violence was more likely than the men’s to be in self-defence and they were no more likely to cause injury. Secondly, compared to men, the women in the study were less likely to escalate the conflict, or to use threats to kill. Compared to men, the women had less access to guns. Men were more likely to have histories of severe assaults, have violated protection orders, parole or probation requirements and also have a history of non-violent offences. This leads us to consider the differences in intent and motivation for violence.

Considering Intentions and Motivations

It has been frequently argued that women’s violence is often in self-defence whereas men’s violence is often in order to control and dominate their partner. A number of studies have found that women who have criminal justice histories and who are violent in the couple relationship are more likely to use violence in self-defence, and suffer the greatest injury. This is especially the case for homicides committed by women, who report much higher levels of fear than for men who murder their partners. Men’s motives for killing their partners are more likely to involve jealousy and control, particularly in relation to termination of a relationship.

Researchers have examined the assertion that women’s violence is in self-defence by seeing who out of the couple initiated the violence. Some studies found that women initiated violence more often than men. Although in these studies the women initiated physical assault, the meaning of this cannot be determined without knowing more about the context of the violence and file history of the relationship. For instance, having initiated IPV, it doesn’t mean that self-defence doesn’t come into play as the partner becomes more violent.

It is not that women are “nicer” or “good.” … It’s that relative to men, women have less power and status in heterosexual partnerships, are less able to “win” a physical fight, or assert difference without being threatened and attacked, and are more likely to be dissatisfied with the relationship and want to leave.

When women strike first, their partners’ reactions are often fierce. She may receive more severe injuries, and end up fighting back in self-defence. The contest is often uneven from the start. Therefore, initiation of aggression does not mean that self-defence is not a factor as violence escalates. Straus himself points out that initiation of violence can still be in response to perceived greater harm, when there is a long history of abuse. However, it is equally likely that men might also be acting out of self-defence, if their partner initiates aggression. However, the man is usually able to use more severe violence, even when he has not initiated a particular instance.

Violent Men Are More Dangerous than Violent Women

Despite the existence of women’s violence towards men, men’s violence remains the more serious violation. The conclusions of my previous paper remain: men inflict greater injury; are motivated by domination, control and punishment; and are more able to instil fear and terror in women partners who, when compared with men, are less able to escape. They are more likely to sexually assault their partners, and to kill them. Women can inflict severe injury on their male partners when they use a weapon, and are as likely as men to engage in minor forms of violence. They may initiate violence in a minor way, but are likely to end up more seriously injured.

There are of course, some situations where a man is afraid, feels unable to escape and/or is seriously injured, when he himself is not violent. However, these situations are rare in comparison to the prevalence of the alternative. Nevertheless, women’s violence should not be condoned, and service providers should assess claims of women’s violence, especially in the light of the greater risk to her if her partner is also violent. In addition, through an exploration of women’s violence, differences in degree, risk and outcomes can be explored.

It is not that women are ‘nicer’ or ‘good’. Women are capable of misusing power, perhaps in different ways. It’s that relative to men, women have less power and status in heterosexual partnerships, are less able to ‘win’ a physical fight, or assert difference without being threatened and attacked, and are more likely to be dissatisfied with the relationship and want to leave. The latter, wanting to leave, puts them at great risk of men’s IPV.

Further Readings
  • David Adams Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2007.
  • Lundy Bancroft When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2004.
  • Ola W. Barnett, Cindy Miller-Perrin, and Robin Perrin Family Violence Across the Lifespan: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2004.
  • Richard J. Bonnie and Robert B. Wallace Elder Mistreatment: Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation in an Aging America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002.
  • Ricardo Carrillo and Jerry Tello, eds. Family Violence and Men of Color: Healing the Wounded Male Spirit. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2008.
  • Christina Dalpiaz Breaking Free, Starting Over: Parenting in the Aftermath of Family Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.
  • Richard L. Davis Domestic Violence: Intervention, Prevention, Policies, and Solutions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2008.
  • Donald Dutton Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006.
  • Margaret M. Feerick and Gerald B. Silverman, eds. Children Exposed to Violence. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishers, 2006.
  • Barry Goldstein Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths from Family Violence to Safety. Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed Publishers, 2002.
  • J. Hamel and T. Nicholls, eds. Family Approaches to Domestic Violence: A Guide to Gender-Inclusive Research and Treatment. New York: Springer Publishing Company, 2006.
  • Karel Kurst-Swanger Violence in the Home: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
  • Kathleen Malley-Morrison and Denise A. Hines Family Violence in a Cultural Perspective: Defining, Understanding, and Combating Abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.
  • Linda G. Mills Insult to Injury: Rethinking Our Responses to Intimate Abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
  • Audrey Mullender, Gill Hague, Umme F. Iman, et al. Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
  • Andrea Parrot and Nina Cummings Forsaken Females: The Global Brutalization of Women. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
  • Janice L. Ristock No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships. New York: Routledge, 2002.
  • Phil Arkow “Expanding Domestic Violence Protective Orders to Include Companion Animals,” American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, eNewsletter 8, Summer 2007.
  • Emily Bazelon “Hitting Bottom: Why America Should Outlaw Spanking,” Slate, January 25, 2007.
  • Larry Bennett and Oliver Williams “Controversies and Recent Studies of Batterer Intervention Program Effectiveness,” National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women (VAWnet), August 2001.
  • Emma Bevan and Daryl J. Higgins “Is Domestic Violence Learned? The Contribution of Five Forms of Child Maltreatment to Men’s Violence and Adjustment,” Journal of Family Violence 17, no. 3, September 2002: 223-45.
  • Bonnie Brandl and Loree Cook-Daniels “Domestic Abuse in Later Life,” Applied Research Forum, National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women (VAWnet), December 2002.
  • Doris Williams Campbell, Phyllis Sharps, and Faye Gary “Intimate Partner Violence in African American Women,” The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 7, no. 1, January 2002.
  • Clifton P. Flynn “Woman’s Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion Animals in the Lives of Battered Women,” Violence Against Women 6, no. 2, February 2000: 162-77.
  • Amy Holtzman-Munroe “Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial Findings into Context,” Journal of Marriage and Family 67, December 2005: 1120-25.
  • Tom Jackman “Woman Beaten by Husband Wins Suit,” Washington Post, August 18, 2006, B01.
  • Alan E. Kazdin “Spare the Rod: Why You Shouldn’t Hit Your Kids,” Slate, September 24, 2008.
  • Christopher D. Maxwell, Joel H. Garner, and Jeffrey A. Fagan “The Effects of Arrest on Intimate Partner Violence: New Evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program,” National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, July 2001: 1-15.
  • Judith McFarlane, Ann Malecha, Julia Gist, et al. “Protection Orders and Intimate Partner Violence: An 18-Month Study of 150 Black, Hispanic, and White Women,” American Journal of Public Health 94, no. 4, April 2004: 613-18.
  • Vera E. Mouradian “Battered Women: What Goes into the Stay-Leave Decision?,” Wellesley Centers for Women Research and Action Report, Fall-Winter 2004: 34-35.
  • Karen S. Peterson “Studies Shatter Myth About Abuse,” USA Today, June 22, 2003.
  • Loretta Pyles “Economic Well-Being and Intimate Partner Violence: New Findings about the Informal Economy,” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, September 1, 2006.
  • Warren Richey “Court Sides with Police in Restraining-Order Case,” Christian Science Monitor, June 28, 2005.
  • Linda E. Saltzman, Y.T. Green, J.S. Marks, et al. “Violence Against Women as a Public Health Issue,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19, no. 4, 2000: 325-29.
  • Melissa M. Stiles “Witnessing Domestic Violence: The Effect on Children,” American Family Physician 66, no. 11, December 1, 2002: 2052-65.
  • UNICEF “Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls,” Innocenti Digest, no. 6, June 2000: 1-27.
  • Diana Wempen “Four-Footed and Largely Forgotten: Exploring the Connections Between Animal Abuse and Domestic Violence,” American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, eNewsletter 8, Summer 2007.
  • Hallie Bongar White and Jane Larrington “Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Victimization in Indian Country,” Southwest Center for Law and Policy/Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005.
  • Eilene Zimmerman “Spanking Mad,” Salon, February 5, 2007.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2001 Greenhaven Press, COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale.

Source Citation:

James, Kerrie. “Male Violence Is Fundamentally Different from Female Violence.”Family Violence. Ed. J.D. Lloyd. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Nov. 2010.

Document URL

Gale Document Number: GALE|EJ3010045233


In domestic law on November 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm


by mamaliberty


I think the appropriate word for this dude isninny….

UK based mail online MR. Justice Coleridge states that:

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.

The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.

He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.

The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.

Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.

Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’

He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.

First things first….how you could even take this Marie Antoinette cross dressing wannabe serious is beyond me!  If the laws were applied the same for fathers abusers to be to held to the same standards in family court we would have no issue.

BUT….this is NOT the case in family court. 

Mothers and children are dying at the hands of their former abuser thanks to family court ordered visitation abuse.  Maternal deprivation is NOT acceptable any longer.

So as the old Monty Pythons Flying Circus recurring joke goes….Whats brown and sounds like a bell?

The idiot above.


In domestic law on November 28, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Rights For Mothers

In light of Dr. Richard Warshak continuing to censor most comments that oppose him or question him in any way, discussion must continue on the many other websites that have been covering this issue that the Huffington Postcontinues to ignore.  Here is an interesting article to read, especially since I have been reading Warshak is denying any involvement in a “treatment” center.

Speaker’s Corner: Does the Warshak workshop work?

By Jan Weir | Law Times Publication Date: Monday, 19 April 2010

It can be put no better than the oft-reported quote of Dr. Sol Goldstein, who talked about the “scourge” of parental alienation in Canada.

Some commentators call it the “20/80” of the court, referring to the 20 per cent of the cases that take up 80 per cent of the time. There seems to be no effective solution.

Dr. Richard Gardner, a New York psychiatrist, proposed a theory in the early 1980s that some alienation was irrational in that the accepted parent had brainwashed the children to the extent that the cure was to deprogram them of their rejection of the other parent.

Enter Richard Warshak into the Ontario court system. He’s a psychologist from Texas who claims to have developed a four-day workshop at a cost of up to $20,000 to cure the irrational brainwashing type of alienation.

Only a handful of psychologists have training in the techniques. In some cases, the courts will order children into the custody of the rejected parent, who will then have them take the program. Sometimes, the court suspends contact with the accepted parent for a period of time.

One criticism of this theory is that it gives a tremendous amount of power to the health professional in that a misdiagnosis takes away the children’s right to object to certain parental behaviour and subjects them to an intimidating experience. The risk of that scenario increases when one parent is wealthy and the other is unable to retain an expert.

But how successful is the workshop? While it’s been around for 17 years, there hasn’t been an independent study to decide the criteria for evaluating success, monitor the cases, and compile the data.

The courts have developed rules of evidence on expert opinions because judges are intelligent amateurs who don’t want to pass judgment on the validity of scientific theories.  Thus, they are gatekeepers. For the first test of admissibility, they rely on the scientific community to determine whether the theory or technique is generally acceptable. There is no such evidence for the Warshak workshop.

Additionally, because there is a recognition that a novel theory or technique may not have been in existence long enough, the courts have developed four criteria to admit such evidence. The Warshak workshop doesn’t meet the criteria for novelty because it has been around for more than 17 years.

However, even if it were novel, the reliability of the evidence on its validity wouldn’t meet the four-part test. That’s because the first element is that it’s capable of being and in fact has been tested. Here, while the data is available for an independent test, none has taken place according to generally accepted scientific principles.

Warshak has recently published a study he did himself claiming the workshop is highly effective. But this work doesn’t meet generally accepted principles for a valid scientific study.

The guarantee of validity is independent confirmation or repeatability by other scientists. The history of science is replete with examples of very intelligent and respected scientists who have made claims that, after review by other experts, have proven unreliable.

There is enough data for short- and long-term evaluation of the Warshak workshop. One of the concerns is whether, even if the data confirms the claims, the workshop works for the right reasons.

The procedure may be so intimidating that it may frighten the children into submission. Some of them are now old enough to give feedback on such concerns.

I know of the results of just two orders from Ontario judges sending children to the Warshak workshop. One is J.K.L. v. N.C.S. The other is a case widely reported in the media in which an older brother sought to intervene to get custody of his brothers after an associate of Warshak sent them to a hospital psychiatric department alleging they had mental health issues.

The report in The Globe and Mail on the case noted that the psychiatrist at the hospital said there was nothing wrong with the boys.

Judges appear to be ignoring the Mohan general acceptance test out of desperation for a solution to this seemingly unsolvable problem. But will this prove justified?

Given that judges are making these orders and there is now local data, a study could keep track of these cases. It’s an important issue for which a research grant would likely be available.

Warshak may also reach into his altruism to make his techniques known to the health profession at large. Although it would entail a significant financial sacrifice, doing so would bring the benefit of these methods to people of more modest means and permit evaluation of them according to the usual cautionary measures of science.

The idea isn’t to deny that the workshop is effective. Warshak’s claims may in fact be correct. What’s missing is the proper scientific basis to support them and hence their admissibility in court.

There is no doubt in my mind that Warshak believes in his theory and techniques. However, as Ontario’s recent experience has shown, belief in a beneficial theory can be harmful. The only safe control on such good intentions is an independent review by the scientific community.

Jan Weir is a Toronto lawyer who was involved in S.G.B. v. S.J.L., a case in which a judge overturned an arbitrator’s award ordering participation in Warshak’s program. That matter is to go back to court for a new trial.


In domestic law on November 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm

In light of Dr. Richard Warshak continuing to censor most comments that oppose him or question him in any way, discussion must continue on the many other websites that have been covering this issue that the Huffington Post continues to ignore. Here is an interesting article to read, especially since I have been reading Warshak is denying any involvement in a “treatment” center.

Amplify’d from

Dr. Richard Gardner, a New York psychiatrist, proposed a theory in the early 1980s that some alienation was irrational in that the accepted parent had brainwashed the children to the extent that the cure was to deprogram them of their rejection of the other parent.


Domestic Violence Killings creeping upward in Wisconsin

In domestic law on November 23, 2010 at 11:34 pm

 But notice that the authorities have a Plan. More anger management for abusers! Which of course, has been PROVEN to be ineffective….

West Allis murder-suicide hastens city’s effort to combat family violence

Grace Krejci


Calls from West Allis police to domestic violence hotline so far in 2010, second-most in Milwaukee County.


Calls from city of Milwaukee police, tops in the county.


Calls from Cudahy police, third in the county.

Source: Sojourner Family Peace Center

West Allis — The murder-suicide that caused the deaths of a young couple here last week came just as the city was preparing to step up its attack on domestic violence.

Matthew Krejci, 27, was under a judge’s orders – issued when he was convicted of violating a restraining order his wife had sought – not to have contact with her, or with firearms. And his wife, Grace, 23, had been a client of Sojourner Family Peace Center, which advocates for domestic violence victims.

That didn’t prevent Krejci from killing his estranged wife before turning the gun on himself.

According to the medical examiner’s report, Grace Krejci’s father found the couple’s bodies in an upstairs bathroom of the house where she lived with a sister and brother-in-law. The couple’s 3-year-old daughter was found cowering in a nearby bedroom, the report says. The father had come to check on them after their 5-year-old son’s school called because the boy hadn’t been picked up.

Grace’s father, Jerry Winiarski of New Berlin, said he was fearful for his granddaughter when he found the bodies of her parents.

"I was so panic stricken," Winiarski said. "I was hoping it wouldn’t be a third body. I was so grateful to God that I heard her voice and she came to Grandpa."

West Allis Mayor Dan Devine says that although the city was already planning to upgrade domestic violence prevention before the Krejci murder-suicide, "It kind of reinforces the need for it."

Grace Krejci’s death was the year’s first homicide in West Allis, city officials say, but domestic homicides have been trending up in Milwaukee County and statewide in the past two years. This fall, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence reported that 67 people died in 2009 in domestic violence related homicides – far more than any other year since the group started tracking them in 2000.

Tony Gibart, a spokesman for the coalition, said the group doesn’t keep a running count of such deaths statewide during the year. But in Milwaukee County, he said, where they’re easier to track, there have been 17 or more such deaths this year, already eclipsing last year’s total of 12.

West Allis Police Chief Michael Jungbluth and Devine say their city of 60,000 experiences much more domestic violence that doesn’t result in deaths.

And the police chief says that even if a new program to reach out to first-time offenders was in place, it may not have done anything to prevent the Krejci tragedy.

But they see domestic violence as a growing problem in their community.

Deaths rising

Jungbluth cites statistics compiled by Sojourner Family Peace Center of calls to the group’s domestic violence hotline by police that show the city second only to Milwaukee in the county for such calls. And its numbers are far ahead of those from other suburbs.

Through October, the city logged 505 calls to the hotline, up 9% from last year at this time. Milwaukee had 5,344 calls in the same period – down a bit from 2009 – and the community in third place was Cudahy, with just 81 calls, also down from last year.

In an interview in October, and again in the aftermath of the killings last week, Jungbluth and Devine said they wanted to set up a program that would catch domestic violence offenders early on and help turn them around. The program would target people picked up for disorderly conduct in domestic violence cases and require them to participate in a meetings that would assess their problems and then assign them to such things as anger management.

Jungbluth and Devine also plan to appoint an advisory committee of experts on domestic violence – including representatives of the district attorney’s office, a member of the clergy, and possibly even a domestic violence victim.

These new initiatives would join other efforts already in place. West Allis has long had a protocol in place requiring its officers who make domestic violence arrests to offer the victims a cell phone connection to the Sojourner hotline.

And it also has had an on-staff victim advocate, Holli Stephens, since 2002 – first paid by grant money and in recent years, as part of the department’s budget.

Carmen Pitre, co-executive director of the Sojourner center, said her organization had a long partnership with West Allis.

"They have always taken this issue seriously" she said.

The new program is "an opportunity for the Police Department to take the issue to more of a community level," Jungbluth said. "It shouldn’t all just be on the shoulders of the Police Department."

Couple’s troubles

Court documents and an interview with Matthew Krejci’s lawyer, Jim Martz, showed that the troubles that led to the deaths started more than a year ago.

Grace Krejci filed for divorce July 10, 2009, and as Martz put it: "He did not want this divorce."

Martz also said, "Matt had a significant history of anxiety and depression."

In the 16 months since the divorce papers were filed, Matthew Krejci was issued a harassment restraining order, and then was convicted of violating the order by repeatedly calling and texting his wife – for which he was given 15 months of probation and ordered to have no contact with his wife. The orders, issued in May, were still in effect last week, a Department of Corrections spokesman said.

Martz said Krejci attempted suicide at least once, adding that his parents sought to have him treated for his emotional problems.

In the most serious attempt, he drank antifreeze to wash down an overdose of the anti-anxiety drug Xanax while he was caring for his 3-year-old daughter – and was charged with child-neglect, according to a Waukesha County criminal complaint.

Martz said the couple’s divorce was going to become final Dec. 2.

On Monday, Grace Krejci’s mother, Christine Winiarski, read a statement from the family over the phone:

"We are just beginning to experience the reality of our pain and sorrow, but at the same time we hold onto the joy of knowing that she is now safe with our Savior. . . .

"Praise God the babies are safe."

And though Matthew Krejci’s family did not want to be interviewed, his sister Anne Krejci said: "We’re grieving for both of them."


Richard Warshak Pretends To Show Concern For Abused Women Huffington Post Supports Abusers through Censorship

In domestic law on November 23, 2010 at 1:36 pm
He is more concerned about making money from his book and his ‘deprogramming’ of alienated kids. It’s Monetary—- it’s ALL about the money!!!
%d bloggers like this: