CHESTER COUNTY RANTS

Yes, please feel free to add this information on your other site.

As residents of Chester County we should all be very concerned about the practices of Bruce E. Mapes, PhD. Dr. Mapes, according to his OWN COUNT, HAS DONE 700 to 800 of these evaluations.

If your like me, YOU SHOULD BE ASKING how MANY OF THESE 700 to 800 CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS were based a TRUE reflection of the FACTS.

LETS JUST SAY THAT HE FUDGED 20 % of the 700-800 cases. This represents 140 to 160 children who were placed at risk or potentially experienced a negative custody change based on his inacurate reporting.

NOW lets consider that each of the children had 2 parents and 1 sibling. Add to that grandparents, stepparents, step siblings. THE NUMBERS GROW RATHER QUICKLY.

If anyone has had a similar experiences with BRUCE E. MAPES, PhD, they should be encouraged to post a comment and join the CAUSE to ELIMINATE BRUCE E. MAPES, PhD from the panel of expert WITNESSES in child custody cases.

Yes, please post this on your other site.

Very Concerned Parent in Chester County PA

Here is what Dr. Mapes wrote as the REASON for REFERRAL.

“[MY NAME] did not provide information concerning how he and [HER NAME] met, nor about the marriage, as he did not believe this to be relevant to the current evaluation”.

REALLY, Dr. Mapes? Here is what you asked during our interview : “Mr. Name you had indicated, that, you have given several issues in the relationship, that, such as… ”

In your report you directly quoted me re: the relationship. So here a question:

IF I DID NOT provide information about the marriage HOW IS IT THAT DR. MAPES QUOTE ME on the MARRIAGE in his REPORT? Did he just MAKE UP these quotes?

IF I provided information about the relationship to DR. MAPES (such that he could quote me) why did DR. MAPES say that I didn’t provide this information? DID he just ths MAKE UP too?

Accuracy counts when it comes to child custody. DiD Dr. Mapes make a MISTAKE or should his creditability as an EXPERT be question?

Dr. Mapes made an unlawful disclosure of my HIPAA protected health care information to opposing counsel. During the course of his testimony Dr. Mapes exhibited selective amnesia:

DR. MAPES: “I did not recall doing that” (related to an unlawful release of
protected health information).

Discussion: Dr. Mapes made this unlawful release of personal health information and attempted to conceal this disclosure through selective recall. In May, Dr. Mapes unlawfully released the name of a confidential health care provider to opposing counsel in correspondence without my written authorization, and made outside of the scope of the Honorable Judge Hall’s court order. The facts related to this unauthorized release are well document by the United States Department of Health and Human Service, Office of Civil Rights.

Clearly, Dr. Mapes wrote the letter with the knowledge that he was releasing the names of a confidential treatment provider. He demonstrated a command of the content of that specific document in which the disclosure was made when opposing counsel questioned him and often referring to a copy of the document when he “did not recall doing that”.

Hyper technical violation or BLATANT violation of the oath he took to tell the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH? What do you think?

It is interesting, Bruce MAPES wrote a book in 1995 entitled Child eyewitness testimony in sexual abuse investigations. Despite his recognition of the necessity for neutrality, Mapes seems to identify more with victims than with the falsely accused. MANY OF THE REFERENCES AT THE END OF THE BOOK ARE NOT USED IN THE TEXT AND THE BOOK OFTEN APPEARS UNBALANCED.

In short, at least one reviewer back in 1995 questioned Mapes neutrality.

NOT CONCERNED YET? Hold on there is more…

Chester County Children and Youth Services has Bruce E. Mapes, PhD in their 2009 operational budget for $80,000 for consultation services. Are you at all CONFORTABLE with this expenditure of TAX PAYER money? Are we getting what WE as tax payers PAY FOR?

There is still more to consider:

Dr. Mapes has provided in-service training to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas (Judges) in the past. Specifically referencing CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION. I have a copy of his handouts. Are you CONFORTABLE with the Chester County Bench receiving in-service training FROM Dr. MAPES, who by the way makes what appears to be a very comfortable living on the referrals he receives from the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.

I for one think that a complete investigation of Dr. MAPES MUST be conducted by authorities outside of Chester County. It is clear that the County has a very biased view of MAPES as they continue to feed him cases through the Family Court, and Children and Youth-systems. We should call for a Special Investigator to be appointed, or an independent panel of professionals and parents to review his work. It would not be hard to evaluate if he followed the rules by a simple record review of his work.

If your concerned, I urge you to call the County and voice your concern. Call or write your County Commissioners, the Director of Children and Youth, Administrator of Family Court, and/or the President Judge.

With your help we can put an end to Chester County using Dr. Bruce Mapes in child custory matters on in providing consultation services involving Chester County’s social service agencies.

I AM SURE THAT Chestercountyrants will be mort than happy to post a link (or contact information) to all of the people/Agency’s mentioned above.

Master Lombardi aligned himself with a perpetrator’s viewpoint (in this case a father) to deny my child a Psychiatric evaluation despite the fact there were three Medical Doctors who requested in writing that she been seen. Sighting that Dr Mapes, a Psychologist, did not mention that it was needed in his custody evaluation.

This is when I had to step up and say “But the Psychiatric referral does not fall into the scope of Dr Mapes’ Evaluation.” He still denied my plea.

So Master Richard Lombardi, took the word of the perpetrator’s atty who stated that the reunification therapist, Randy Hess felt it necessary to force the victim/my child to see the perpetrator/father two times a week outside of the therapy session with supervision. So there it was ordered, without proof.

Lombardi also refused to meet with my daughter, even though Rose Anderson said that she would definitely meet with her to hear my daughter’s opinion. When asked why Lombardi did not want to speak with my child, he replied, “It’s not like she’s 16.”

The reunification therapist, Mr Randy Hess, decided that it would be in my child’s best interest to reunify them despite her intense fear of her father and his abusive history and the inability to control his anger and aggression.

Last week he assaulted her again during a supervised visit.

He had already been under house arrest and probation for violating the PFA.

And even though my daughter wanted desperately to speak with the Master, why was he allowed to dismiss her so easily?

I know that there are 100’s of people in Chester County that have be court ordered to see Dr. BRUCE E. MAPES. Were you shocked when you read his report only to find that he twisted beyond recognition what was discussed in the interview, left inportant facts our or taken statements out of context.

Share you experience. Leave a message or send a text to the Mapes On Exhibit (MOE) hotline. The number is (610) 295-5405.

Please no names, no obsenties, just your comments about your experience with Dr. Mapes.

I think there should be a class action suit against the Court System in Chester County. Can we bring it to the PA Superior Court? I feel sick that Mapes is playing with the lives of children to earn a living.
GM

I think that any parent that has NOT received a fair and objective evaluation by Dr. Mapes and can document this should file a complaint with the State Board of Psychology, the DA or let the Court know.

If you or I filed an inaccurate report with the Court or gave inacurate information while under OATH we would most likely be charged with perjury. Should ther be any different treatment of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes.

Experts like Bruce MApes have an obligation (morally and legally) to accurately report the facts and defend how they arrived at their recommendation. If his facts are inaccurate he also has an obligation to issue a corrected report.

Parents have the right to have this information corrected and MUST DEMAND that it be corrected.

Lets say your custody arrangement is acceptable for the moment. 12 months down the road circumstances change and you wish to make a change. On review of Dr. Mapes report you recall that he twisted and manipulated the truth to make the other parent look better than she actually was, that he had reported on things that were not true, and totally misrepresented your position re: custody.

Do you think that you will have any chance to get a custody modification with DR. MAPES report sitting on top of the file.

Chances are that the report, will be looked on as “pearls of wisdom”.

His “hit and run” report with all its errors of fact, misquotes and inaccuracies of what was said during the interview will never be corrected. YOU WON’T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO CONFRONT DR. MAPES UNDER OATH, yet his report will have a lasting impact.

Parents should and must demand that Dr. Mapes be held accountable. If his reports are ture and accurate he has nothing to fear.

Share you experience. Leave a message or send a text to the Mapes On Exhibit (MOE) hotline. The number is (610) 295-5405.

Please check our new post updated Bruce Mapes very concerned parents update. http://www.chestercountypost.com

So here is the question folks, we have parents that have posted comments here and several that left messages on the MOE hot-line. What are we going to do about Dr. Bruce E. Mapes?

He has not responded to any of these facts, he continues to do his verison of a “child custody evaluation” albeit incompleted and of questionable valuet to the courts. Families continuing to get hurt by his lack of objective practices.

I wrote the President Judge of Chester County Court of Common Pleas (Judge Ott) outlining my concerns about the continued use of the evaluator and my request for a judicial review of Dr. Bruce E. Mapes. In October 2008, I received a telephone call Judge Ott’s legal clerk. She indicated that my letter was being taken seriously.

Any parent that has experienced first hand a Mapes evaluation and been subject to the truth being twisted should DEMAND his removal and should DEMAND that their money be returned. We did not get way we paid for!

A MORNING protest of Dr. Mapes office (60 Boot Road, West Chester, PA) may help bring some free advertising to Dr. Mapes and this cause. If you want this guy to stop his unfair evaluation practice we need to organize.

We could assemble at WAWA and walk up to his office. Someone suggest a DATE AND TIME.

http://chestercountyrants.com/2009/06/25/children-and-youth-rita-borzillo-nosy-neighbors-in-downingtown-teachers-teen-suicide/

Dr Mapes also twisted many facts in my case, and then punted me and my ex off to individual counselling since he made no decision (maybe that was a good thing). All the time and money wasted going to sessions with him were wasted. He did nothing more than complicate our case and then sent us off to someone else. He probably was laughing all the way to the bank with the fees we had to pay to him

I’m sure he went he laughing all the way to the bank. He is nothing more than a hired hand who will sell his BS story to the highest bidder.

Ethics be damned, truth be damned.

Did you have the same experience where he put you in a downstares location to complete the MMPI? Did he also tell you to leave the MMPI test form (with your name on it) unattended in that location?

Can you verify that he lied in your report? If so we should talk. See the MOE hot line in an earlier post.

THANK GOD FOR DR. BRUCE MAPES. THIS MAN WAS ABLE TO PUT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THOUGHT AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE TOWARDS MY VERY DIFFICULT CASE. I INCLUDE DR. MAPES IN MY PRAYERS AT NIGHT FOR ALL HE HAS DONE FOR ME AND MY CHILDREN. I CONSIDER THIS MAN TRULY CARING TOWARDS THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN HE SEE’S AND WORKS WITH IN HIS OFFICE.
ABSOLUTELY PROFESSIONAL PERSON WITH TREMENDOUS RESOLVE IN THE DIFFICULT MATTERS HE DEALS WITH.
THANK YOU DR. MAPES.

Dr. Mapes did not take enough time to truly evaluate everything. He saw us, for what felt like, a nano second, and placed my child in a position to be physically abused by her father again.

Albeit the physical altercation happened 3 months after the evaluation took place, but he is a psychologist, he is suppose to understand human nature and to evaluate the parents to see if there is a propensity to harm the child. And in my case he did not see it. In fact, his written evaluation was incomprehensible in some places and was filled with half truths and flat out lies against me.

Too much of what he says is held in high regard within the courts system in Chester County. He needs to start taking more time to evaluate each case, and he should charge a lot less.
I feel robbed for not getting a fair evaluation and it seems to me that the courts do not care about how much things cost to hard working people.

I understand you lost custody so you are mad. I understand that and I am sorry for your loss. I dont think any human being is perfect and I dont think any human being can know everything. I only know that in this position it is difficult to be correct 100% of the time. If you want to bash the guy then thats your business. I think you should be less critical of this mans job and findings until you walk a mile in his shoes. He has a tough position and he is never going to please both parties and thats just a fact he has to deal with. I understand your feelings but I dont understand you method of dealing with it.

I have sole physical custody, and I am not mad. My daughter and myself have a restraining order against her father because he is an abuser. He had abused her in the past and is unable to control himself.
Mapes and Hess placed my daughter in a supervised setting with a psychopath who happens to be her father. Her father has rights, but luckily Hess has realized her father’s true colors, but Mapes had not spent enough time to see the real person behind the facade.
This is frightening because he is making life decisions about people he hardly takes time to understand.

In June the father backed off after a physical altercation that he pleaded guilty to. The therapist told my 12 year old that her father wants to have no contact with her for “years”… and she is very happy about that.. although we will need to go back to conciliation next month. I think it is sad, that she wants nothing to do with him, but she had seen him perpetrate violence against me and her little 12 lb dog… and had experienced injuries herself.. that I completely understand her reasoning for not wanting to be anywhere near him.
Getting back on topic…. when a mile in Mapes , shoes places a child in the hands of a perpetrator, or he makes a life decision based on the notes of a third party, I think he needs a new pair of shoes, maybe take a break and recharge himself.

The fundamental problem with the custody evaluation process is that it is inherently flawed. The law requires that custody decisions be based on the best interests of the child. There is no psychological diagnostic tool that can predict who is the better parent. Yet when it comes to child custody cases the courts defer almost exclusively to the report and testimony of the evaluating psychologist. The so-called expert opinion is based on tests that prove nothing and interviews that are so short as to be worthless. The custody decision is ultimately based on the rather unscientific game of he said-she said. And the children are caught in the middle.

I am with you on that. Custody evaluations are worthless. The best interest of any child is to have both loving parents in their life. But when one of the parents isn’t loving and the child is scared to the point of becoming suicidal, then there is a huge problem. And chester county courts will not talk to children.

Custody evaluations are a crock! Bruce E. Mapes may be viewed by some as a “professional” BUT, those of us that have seen and experienced his form of professionalism know that he is simply a BS artist who simply sells his story to the highest bidder or the attorney that has the greatest referral potential.

Experts are unbiased – Mapes is not unbiased. Mapes as a “professional” has long ago forgot about professional ethics! It is clear that releasing confidential information to attorneys without consent and outside of the court order is an unethical practice.

Custody evaluations completed by Bruce E. Mapes have no value other than helping Mapes make a good living.

The Chester County Court system needs to ditch Mapes and the attorneys in Chester County need to step up and stop tolerating the twisting of the truth, and other abuses that occur in the context of a child custody evaluation as completed by Bruce Mapes.

Just to clarify, I am not at all unhappy wth my custody arrangements. I am, however, appalled with the way Mapes conducts his interview and his lack of committment to the truth as put forth in his report.

An interesting note here is that Timothy J. Trott (if it is the same Timothy J. Trott) is a well respected attorney in West Chester, PA.

Mr. Trott, I think you know first hand the abuses that happen in custody evaluations especially those conducted by Bruce Mapes.

Why dont you take on the cause to end these abuses in Chester County? Help those who have suffered by the hand of this “professional”.

Please help those parents that can prove that Mapes twisted and turned the turth into an unrecognizable mess. You would be doing the right thing for the Chester County community (parents and children).

Its about the law not justice! We are entitled to a fair and unbiased evaluation of the facts and to have this ACCURATELY reflected back to the court so that the needs and best interest of our children can be met.

When Mapes can condone that an abusive sex addicted violent perpetrator should have a week long unsupervised visit with his 11 year old daughter, who is suicidal because of him.. there is something VERY wrong.. this violent sex addict ended up physically harming my 80 lb daughter in front of 2 supervisors leaving bruises on her for a week.

Not to mention the mental abuse and FORCED reunification with her perpetrator.

What does that tell you about Dr. Mapes?

I told Mapes that I had to pick up my daughter from her father’s house while he hosted a sex party.. come to find out that she was there many times during these parties and she was only 11 at the time…..

Tell me there isn’t something wrong with Chester County Family Court!

Mapes is gullible… he cannot identify a sociopath when he sees one.
This is very scary for the children in Chester County.

When will the CHILDREN have a VOICE?

Wake up folks. Power is in numbers.

You need to take action if you have had one of Dr. Mapes so called child custody evaluations and witnessed first hand his inability it be unbiased, experienced the way in which he twists and turns the truth or the inaccuracy reflected in his reporting and his lack of professionalism (including his standard “I need to run to the bank, post office etc.,” just leave that highly sensitive MMPI form in a commonly used copy room).

Protest at his office, protest at the court house on custody hearing days – he must be forced out of his “expert role” and it can not happen on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Trott will you be willing to help? GM can we talk? Anyone else out there willing to help please leave a comment on this site.

I will certainly state my case. I would like to talk to the media, or an attorney who can make a difference in the way custody cases are handled in Chester County.

Children need a voice, and they should not be reserved for people who can afford high priced lawyers.

Children need advocates.

The courts should be held liable if a parent commits violence against any child. If they are forcing children to be with dangerous parents they need to rethink their process and change the way cases are handled.

If a judges daughter was hurt during one of these “court ordered abuse” visits~ they would do something about it.

But since it is not and it’s just any girl from any town they do not care and it shows.

The courts are so afraid of being sued over parental “rights” being violated that it totally obscures the rights of the child.

Children have rights, the right to live in a home without the fear of being abused.

Lombardi refused to speak with my child AFTER Rose Anderson said that she would. NOW why isn’t there any consistency?

I have no choice but to fight for full custody, my 12 year old daughter said she’d kill herself if she has to be with her father.
So tell me what is a mother to do?

GM, many would argue that Bruce E. Mapes is the voice for the children caught up in custody matters. His role as a Court appointed “expert” is to represent to the Court “the best interest” of our children.

I think that those of us who have experienced Bruce E. Mapes know that the only thing he represents is his own twisted form of reality and his only motive is tomake a living.

If you think for one minute that Bruce E. Mapes cares about your child or the best outcome…think again.

His primary object is to make a good living. He is professionally lazy and really does not care about anything but his own self serving interests. His expert opinions are not based on the facts, but rather how many cases he can receive from the Chester County legal community.

Wake up people. If you want the truth represented in your child custody evaluation either seek another professional or have your attorney present during the evaluation.

I had no choice, he was appointed by the court. The Domestic Violence Center of Chester County said he was excellent and was highly recommended.

Boy, were they wrong. I’ll contact them later today and let them know that he is not as great as they make him out to be.

GM and anyone else reading this post,

Read carefully the APA Guidelines. APA gives you 10 years to file an ethics complaint. If you think there has been a violation of the APA ethical guidelines – consider filing a complaint.

It costs nothing for you to file a complaint however it can cost Bruce E. Mapes real $ to defend. Here is the address:

American Psychological Association
Ethics Office
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC
20002-4242
Phone: 202-336-5930
http://www.apa.org/ethics/homepage.html

You can also file a complaint with the State of PA against Mapes if you think that he acted in ways that go against the PA professional psychology practice act.

You have the right in this state to be protected from unethical professionals.

Again, there are no costs to you but for Mapes it can be a very costly to defend. No license, no practice = problem solved!

All matter presented in you complaint should be related to the practice act. Send in copies of all documents, letters, etc. to support your claim. Here is the address:

Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs
Department of State,
Professional Compliance Office,
PO Box 2649, 2601
North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649
1-800-822-2113
Here is the web site: http://www.dos.state.pa.us/bpoa/cwp/view.asp?a=1104&Q=432617&bpoaNav=|

GM,

Any other parent that took the MMPI as part of your child custody evaluation AND where shuffled off to the copy room AND were given the story by Dr. Bruce E. Mapes that he “needed to step out” – lets all join forces.

In an eariler post I indicated that the Mapes’ non standard administration of the MMPI represents unsound testing procedures.

Here is what the American Psychological Association Monitor and the APA’s Ethics Committee say about this practice

1. Nonmonitored administration of the MMPI does not represent sound testing practice and may result in an invalid assessment.
2. Test security cannot be guaranteed when the MMPI is allowed outside of the clinical setting [such as an unmonitored first floor copy room or left unattended for God knows how long].
3. There is debate as to whether there is even any circumstance in which it might be reasonable or appropriate to allow the MMPI to be completed outside of the clinical setting (Is a crappy little room used by the many non psychologist office occupants considered a “clinical setting”).

Here is what I am suggesting:

1) We all file a complaint withthe APA on some very specific grounds, i.e., improper test administration, failure to safeguard testing security, failure to safeguard personal and confidential information (ie unattended completed testing materials with your name on it).
2) We should work together on a coordinated filing date in order that our case against Mapes has more impact.
3) The date to submit the complaints to the APA should be posted on this page so that other who want to get behind this cause can do so.
4) We should also consider filing multiple complaints with the State of PA. It would be important that these be filed after the APA complaints AND for different issues (ie., NOT the MMPI issue).
5) Again, we should coordinate the submission date of the complaints.
6) Other wishing to get on board should read very carefully this post and reflect back on their dealings with Bruce E. Mapes and join this cause.

I trust that Chester County Rants will continue to support this very important cause by getting the word around to the loyal readers.

MOE

The copy room was a dump. I had assumed that the room was monitored remotely. But by the looks of his office it was evident that he did not put much money back into the business.

After all his “Packet” included that the money was supposed to be paid prior to any appointments being scheduled.

In Chester County Parental rights trump child safety, and they should not.

No one wants to understand the reason why my daughter feels unsafe, suicidal and afraid to be with her dad.I feel that she was a paycheck for Mapes.. and that her blatant abuse by the courts and Mapes disgusts me.

After all she went through at the hands of her father to be subjected to mental torture at the hands of the courts and Mapes is horrific.

GM and any other interested parties, lets work together to bring his professional conduct under review by the APA and the his liciencing group. You can leave a message on the MOE hotline.

If Mapes monitored anything via any electronic method including the interview without your expressed and written consent it is both a violation of PA law and against the APA code of ethics. I would not be surprised if he didn’t have his office wired to tape record these child custody evaluations.

If you review his written report iyou will find very long passages, often running 4-5 lines, that have quotes around them. This would indicate that it is a complete and verbatim statement you made during the interview.

Mapes is a 63 year old man, who likes to “drink matinies and smoke cigerettes”. It would not be too much of a stretch to assume that his memory is failing either by age or other circumstances. No way he could remember all that he puts in quotes and his chicken scratch notes are a complete mess.

He’s lazy professionally, and sure I think Mapes taped my interview as well without my consent or that of my children. It would not surprise me if he didn’t tape all of his interviews.

You can leave a message on the MOE hotline.

MOE

Is Dr Bruce Mapes practicing child custody evaluation from a scientific basis or is he just engaged in some form of junk science? Many suggest it is nothing but junk science.

excerpts from Family Court Review, April, 2009

Unfortunately, there is little scientific research on custody evaluations.

A substantial and important literature on custody evaluations does exist, but it is primarily directed at the performance or practice of evaluations. Much of this published work centers on the issue of best-practices standards for mental health professionals and tends to focus on micro, case-level issues related to how a responsible evaluator should conduct an assessment (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1996; American Psychological Association [APA], 1994; Bow & Quinnell, 2001; Gould, 2006; Martindale & Gould, 2004; Stahl, 1994).

There also is a research literature on the appropriateness and scientific validity of various psychological tests used in custody evaluations (Erard, 2007; Erickson, Lilienfield, & Vitacco, 2007a, b; Martindale & Gould, 2004; Quinnell & Bow, 2001). Addressing issues of measurement validity by identifying best practices and appropriate instruments is essential to all good science, but measurement validity is only the beginning. The scientific method also requires that testable hypotheses be formulated about the anticipated effects of practices such as custody evaluations and that these hypotheses be rigorously and empirically tested. Unfortunately, there is virtually no reported empirical research on custody evaluations that tests for hypothesized systemic effects. (Pruett, 2008).

Discouragingly, this assessment of the research on custody evaluations is not a new insight. Grisso (2005) indicates that “[t]he complaint that clinicians often exceed their scientific basis for child custody testimony was first heard about thirty years ago. . . .” Turket (2005) noted that, while custody evaluations are generally considered to be very important in processes related to resolving custody disputes, there is no research showing actual impact. Further, he notes that this assessment is unchanged from one based on his 1993 review of the same literature. Bala (2004) states the same overall conclusion: “This is not an area of professional practice that is guided by science, nor do many assessors engage in meaningful research to determine the validity of their individual analysis, predictions, or recommendations” and others have reached similar conclusions (Krauss & Sales, 2000; O’Donohue & Bradley, 1999). Because of the absence of rigorous scientific studies assessing the accuracy and impact of custody evaluations, it is not possible to determine whether custody evaluations have no overall effect, significant overall negative effects, significant overall positive effects, or some combination of positive and negative effects. This is distressing in light of the fact that courts consider the evaluations, often recognize evaluators as experts, and it is recommended that forensic child custody evaluations be scientifically informed (Gould & Martindale, 2007).

I am curious if there were follow up studies done in reference to the children who were subjected to custody evaluations in their past.

One these children turn into adults they should be able to go back and sue the courts and officers of the courts who placed them in harms way.

If a terrorist threatens the United states we put them away , if a parent threatens to hurt a child, the most vulnerable of our society, the courts hand them over to their terrorist. This does NOT make sense.

Like that 17 year old that fled to Florida, in her case both parents want to kill her…. and she has to “FIGHT’ to be kept safe? Does anyone see a problem with how things are for children?

We need a severe change in the way children are being treated in courts.

GM,

You’re not likening Bruce E. Mapes to a terrorist are you?

I will do some research on child custody evaluation outcomes. I’m sort of thinking that there is not much information out there about the long term impact. As noted above there is a general LACK of scientific data on these sort of evaluations. Its sort of a big black hole that these so call professionals want to keep secret. Remember were talking their meal ticket.

Perhaps Dr. Mapes could address this question. How about it Dr. Mapes?

Its sort of interesting that Mapes has not made a single comment to defend himself. I’m thinking he knows hes been caught with his hands in the cookie jar.

Lots of people have read this post and I’m sure that many lawyers are moving away from using this guy based on this post.

I made no correlation between Mapes and a terrorist.

But I believe that he can sleep at night completely free from guilt, even if he feels that he may be placing a child in a dangerous situation.

I believe that any person who instills fear in a child, by threats or harming them physically emotionally or mentally, are terrorists. The absolute worst type.

And when the victims are their own children, I see no difference between a parent who threatens a child, and a terrorist who threatens or attacks a country.

Mapes is just the enabler, I liken him to the Airport security guard who looks the other way.

Someone that we rely on to keep us safe, yet refuses to accept responsibility when his actions allow a perpetrator to get away with a crime.

Mape’s Custody Evaluation was based on lies, and while my ex does not have access to our daughter at the present time, his evaluation leaves open the door for week long visits in the future. And it was never amended after the physical altercation in front of two supervisors where she was left bruised for a week.

There is something VERY wrong in Chester County Family Court.

Hey GM,

Everyone who has ever had a child custody evaluation completed by Bruce E. Mapes has complained that they only received 45 mins to 1 hour as part of the evaluation process. Hardly enough time understand the facts, let alone the biopsychosocial issues.

Whats interesting is that it discusses the “average time a competent psychologist spends on conducting a child custody evaluation.

The title of the article is Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A Survey of Experienced Professionals (Revisited). By Marc J. Ackerman, and Melissa C. Ackerman. They are prolific writers on child custody evaluations.

It was published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 1997, Vol. 28, No. 2, 137-145 – © 1997 by the American Psychological Association Inc. THATS RIGHT THE APA.

“The average child custody evaluation, with report writing, takes 26.4 hours, which is 7.6 hours greater than it was in Keilin and Bloom’s (1986) study. However, almost all of this difference comes from the increased
amount of time spent reviewing materials and report writing.”

OK lets review Mapes evaluation time. Im being overly generous:

2 adult visits @ 45 min each = 1.5
2 child visits @ 45 min each = 1.5
2 adult/child visits @ 45 min each = 1.5

Grand total of time Bruce E. Mapes spends in direct face to face contact with parents and children in a “Mapes style” child custody evaluation is less than 6 hours.

So lets be generous lets give him 2 hours to reviw records, 1 hour to score the MMPI and 3 hours to dictate the report. Thats 12 hours.

Seems like a far cry from the average of 26.4 hours. Is it any wonder that he makes mistakes, fill in the missing information with his own version, or frankly just makes things up?

Dr. Mapes, its time for you to retire.

There was not enough time to do a complete investigation , in my case.

I am certain that many people ,even Mapes may believe that as long as he is “keeping the family together” he is doing his job.

Keeping the family intact at all cost despite the fear and suicidal ideation of a child, is not only wrong, it is a placing the most vulnerable of our citizens in the hands of their perpetrators.

When will the children have the basic human right to live in peace? Or have a home without domestic violence?

There is a long history of Domestic violence with this guy, so why are they treating this as if we are dealing with a normal dad who misses his daughter?

For 6 LONG months they tried to reunify them. It did not work.
I drove her and forced her to go every week, and somehow he blames me for it not working.

Reunification therapy was a joke. All he did was scream and yell at her telling her how rotten I am and how my family is evil…. in front of the therapist. And when she would stand up for her family, he would blow up and yell at her, ultimately leaving a session to violate the PFA by coming outside to scream obscenities at me, within earshot of my daughter and the therapist.

Even still, supervised visits were in order, and by the 4th one he hurt her, leaving her bruised for a week.

CY&F said that he needs to break a bone for it to rise to the level of abuse.
I must say if it rises to that level, she would be dead, because he is unable to control himself. He wouldn’t stop.

CYF .. that is another story

There is no protocol to prevent violence, just to treat it once it has occurred.Placing victims in the hands of their pertpetrators, to “see what happens”. Sorry neither I nor my daughter are not going to be a part of some social experiment.

Do what you have to do, I will try to do what I can right now without compromising my case.

Take Care,
GM

Hello GM,

I had a chance to review my notes made immediately after my interview with Dr. Bruce E. Mapes. To my surprise (not really) I can only account for 20 (twenty) original questions he asked. The rest of the questions were in follow up to the original question or corrections to his original guestion. That number was in the neighborhood of 25 give of take. So in 50 or so questions spanning 52 mins Mapes is able to determine the best interest of my children.

Much of his questioning was just stupid rephrasing of the same closed ended questions.

Here is an example:

Have there been any changes in her routine? Answered NO
His very next question:

Is (child) getting up at about the same time?
Answered YES

Seems impossible that you can determining the best interest of two children with approximately 50 questions. My interview was eactly 52 mins long. On average that about 1 question (and response) per min.

With the rapid fire questioning is it any wonder her gets things all goofed up? During my interview he made many errors in his questions that lead me to beleive that he did not spend much time reviewing his records and causes me to question if he even could find the records.

When I told him the answer to one of his question was in the documents I submitted prior to the interview, He started paging through is records for a min ot two and then concluded: …well you know you can’t find anything when you need it…

He referred to my employer as that of my former spouse – Again phrased in a closed question format.

You work for the XYZ Group?
Answered NO. This again prompted him to tear through his records.

Your youngest goes to ABC School?
Answered NO. Again he had to tear through the record to get the correct information.

Way back in my very first undergraduate interviewing course we learned that you need to prepare for an interview. We also learned that if you ask closed ended questions you only going to get simple responses. Bruce Mapes clinical interviewing skills leaves a lot to be desired.

What Mapes does is worse than looking the other way (to follow your airport security guard anology). What he does is punch in to work and then professionally falls asleep.

http://cdca29×7jdbmoc13wiw8qs707y.hop.clickbank.net/?tid=1WD6RBT3

Great Info From what we are heaing! Powerful!

GM, Here is a great article about domestic violence. It is the current state of the art in understanding family violence from a psychology point of view. There are many, many references. Bruce Mapes should have een aware of some of these articles and studies since family violence is a major issue in child custody related matters. ut they again if he’s on coast he’d not other to keep up with current research.

Good luck on your case.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 46 No. 3, July 2008 476 –499
© 2008 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
1FBOX©Ma57ClrX amaA34iRglcX14dsiikEl-sney12wona 46cCel, 14ilAUoal57 turPSitrouAitcn bRl leoiesfvh Fiieanwmg iIlnyc and Conciliation Courts, 2008
FKAelMlyI eLtY a lC. /O DUIRFFTE RREEVNITEIWATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE: RESEARCH UPDATE AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS
Joan B. Kelly
Michael P. Johnson
A growing body of empirical research has demonstrated that intimate partner violence is not a unitary phenomenon
and that types of domestic violence can be differentiated with respect to partner dynamics, context, and consequences.
Four patterns of violence are described: Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance, Situational
Couple Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence. The controversial matter of gender symmetry and
asymmetry in intimate partner violence is discussed in terms of sampling differences and methodological
limitations. Implications of differentiation among types of domestic violence include the need for improved
screening measures and procedures in civil, family, and criminal court and the possibility of better decision making,
appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to the characteristics of different types of
partner violence. In family court, reliable differentiation should provide the basis for determining what safeguards
are necessary and what types of parenting plans are appropriate to ensure healthy outcomes for children and
parent–child relationships.
Keywords:
domestic violence
;
differentiation among types of intimate partner violence
;
coercive controlling
violence
;
situational couple violence
;
gender and violence
;
implications for interventions and
family court
INTRODUCTION
When violence between intimate partners emerged as a recognizable issue in our society
in the mid-1970s (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1981; Walker, 1979), empirical knowledge
of this social, psychological, and legal phenomenon was very limited. As advocates for
women organized shelters across the nation to provide safety and assistance for abused
women, clinical information emerged that described patterns of severe physical and
emotional abuse. The victims were most notably described by Walker (1979) and others as
“battered women,” and the male perpetrators were labeled “batterers.” This early and
important recognition and conceptualization of intimate partner violence has guided policy,
law, education, and interventions to date. The term “domestic violence” was adopted by
women’s advocates to emphasize the risk to women within their own family and household,
and over time the term became synonymous with battering. Family sociologists also studied
violence in families and between intimate partners in the 1970s and 1980s, typically in
large nationally representative samples, and this information diverged significantly from
shelter, hospital, and police data with respect to incidence, perpetrators, severity, and
Correspondence: jbkellyphd@mindspring.com; mpj@psu.edu
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 477
context. In particular, large-scale studies seemed to indicate that women were as violent as
men in intimate relationships (Archer, 2000). Domestic violence advocates and service
providers largely ignored or strongly rejected these studies because they were so at odds
with their experiences in the shelters, hospitals, and courts. Advocates also feared that what
they viewed as misinformation (that women were as violent as men) would dilute society’s
focus on and funding of services and education for battered women (Pleck, Pleck, Grossman,
& Bart, 1978). Thus, until recently, the two groups most concerned with intimate partner
violence, feminist activists/practitioners and family sociologists, have rarely intersected,
and misunderstanding and acrimonious debate have interfered with a more constructive and
unified approach to what remains a serious societal problem for intimate partners and
their children.
Over the past decade, a growing body of empirical research has convincingly demonstrated
the existence of different types or patterns of intimate partner violence (Graham-Kevan &
Archer, 2003; Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron, Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Johnson, 1995,
2006; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Leone, Johnson, Cohan, Lloyd,
2004). This information has far-reaching implications for court processes, treatment,
educational programs for professionals, and for social and legal policy. Among some social
scientists, it is no longer considered scientifically or ethically acceptable to speak of domestic
violence without specifying the type of partner violence to which one refers (Johnson,
2005a). Among women’s advocates, as well, there are those who recognize that longterm
adherence to the conviction that all domestic violence is battering has hindered the
development of more sophisticated assessment protocols and treatment programs that may
identify and address problems of violence for both men and women more effectively (Pence
& Dasgupta, 2006).
This article first discusses the value of differentiation among types of intimate partner
violence, concerns raised by advocates about such differentiation, and the various
terminologies used under the canopy of domestic violence. It then describes the underlying
reasons for the confusion and heated controversy regarding gender and violence and
focuses on empirical research that supports differentiation among four types of intimate
partner violence (Coercive Controlling Violence, Violent Resistance, Situational Couple
Violence, and Separation-Instigated Violence). The ongoing controversy regarding the
prevalence of female violence will be considered in these contexts. A fifth type of violence,
Mutual Violent Control (between two coercive controlling violent partners), has been
described by Johnson (2006), but little is known about its frequency, features, and consequences,
and it will not be described here. Implications of the overall body of knowledge
are discussed, in particular the need to rethink current one-size-fits-all policies, and the
need for more sophisticated assessment and treatment interventions utilized by criminal,
civil, and family courts. There is consideration as well of the meaning of violence differentiation
research for custody and access disputes, parenting plans, and parent–child
relationships, and whether violence is likely to continue or cease after parents separate
and divorce.
POTENTIAL VALUE OF DIFFERENTIATION
The value of differentiating among types of domestic violence is that appropriate screening
instruments and processes can be developed that more accurately describe the central
dynamics of the partner violence, the context, and the consequences. This can lead to better
478 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
decision making, appropriate sanctions, and more effective treatment programs tailored to
the different characteristics of partner violence. In family court, reliable differentiation of
intimate partner violence is expected to provide a firmer foundation for determining
whether parent–child contact is appropriate, what safeguards are necessary, and what
type of parenting plans are likely to promote healthy outcomes for children and parent–
child relationships (Jaffe, Johnston, Crookes, & Bala, 2008). It is possible, as well, that
increased understanding and acceptance of differentiation among types of domestic
violence by the broad spectrum of service providers, evaluators, academics, and policy
makers will diminish the current turf and gender wars and lead to more effective partnerships
and policies that share the common goal of reducing violence and its destructive effects
on families.
Although social scientists understand that humans and their circumstances are inherently
messy and that there will always be individuals, couples, and situations that do not fit into
major identified patterns, this fundamental understanding can sometimes be lost in the
translation to practice. Thus, a central concern of women’s advocates is that research
differentiating among types of intimate partner violence will lead to the reification or
misapplication of typologies and that battering will, as a result, be missed—with
potentially lethal results. Advocates also fear that typical information available to the court
for decision making is too limited to make effective distinctions and that effective screening
processes and appropriate assessment tools are not available or in place.
TYPES AND TERMINOLOGIES: SEARCHING FOR
ACCURATE DESCRIPTORS
When practitioners, researchers, and policy makers gather together, the term domestic
violence has been observed to mean different things to different participants. On the one
hand, gender-neutral laws have been enacted that identify any act of violence by one partner
against another as domestic violence and, for many social scientists as well, the term refers
to any violence between intimate partners. On the other hand, for many in the field, domestic
violence describes a coercive pattern of men’s physical violence, intimidation, and control
of their female partners (i.e., battering). The terms domestic violence and battering have
been used interchangeably by women’s advocates, domestic violence educators, and service
providers for three decades, based on their belief that all incidents of domestic violence
involve male battering.
We will use the term Coercive Controlling Violence for such a pattern of emotionally
abusive intimidation, coercion, and control coupled with physical violence against partners.
This pattern is familiar to many readers through the Power and Control Wheel (Pence &
Paymar, 1993) (see Figure 1), a model that is used extensively in women’s shelters and
support groups. Many women’s advocates use the term domestic violence for this pattern.
For example, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (USA) defines domestic violence as
follows: “Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship
that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner” (http://
http://www.ndvh.org/educate/what_is_dv.html). This is probably the pattern that comes to mind
for most people when they hear terms such as wife beating, battering, spousal abuse, or
domestic violence. In one of the early typologies of intimate partner violence, Johnson
(1995) used the term Patriarchal Terrorism for this pattern. This label was later changed to
“Intimate Terrorism” in recognition that not all coercive control was rooted in patriarchal
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 479
structures and attitudes, nor perpetrated exclusively by men (see Johnson, 2006, p. 1015,
note 2, for larger discussion). In a discussion of domestic violence terminology at the
Wingspread Conference (2007)
1
, some participants expressed reluctance to adopt or use the
term Intimate Terrorism in courts, and in this and a companion article, the term Coercive
Controlling Violence has been adopted (Jaffe et al., 2008).
Violent Resistance (to a violent, coercively controlling partner) has been described
elsewhere as Female Resistance, Resistive/Reactive Violence, and, of course, Self-Defense
(Pence & Dasgupta, 2006). Until recently, many women’s advocates and clinical researchers
have characterized all violence perpetrated by women in intimate relationships as female
resistance (e.g., Walker, 1984; Yllö & Bograd, 1988). They have been reluctant to acknowledge
that some women’s violence occurs in the context of nonviolent partners or in mutual
violence that does not have coercive control as a central dynamic. The term Violent Resistance
posits the reality that both women and men may, in attempts to get the violence to stop or
to stand up for themselves, react violently to their partners who have a pattern of Coercive
Controlling Violence.
Johnson’s term, Situational Couple Violence, is used here to identify the type of partner
violence that does not have its basis in the dynamic of power and control (Johnson &
Leone, 2005). Johnson (1995) originally used the term Common Couple Violence, but
abandoned it because many readers reacted to it as minimizing the dangers of such
violence. This violence is similar to Male-Controlling Interactive Violence (described by
Johnston & Campbell, 1993) and Conflict Motivated Violence (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996;
Ellis, Stuckless, & Wight, 2006).
To describe violence that first occurs in the relationship at separation, the term Separation-
Instigated Violence is used. Johnston and Campbell (1993) called it Separation-Engendered
Violence, but some participants in the Wingspread Conference felt that “engendered” might
Figure 1 The Power and Control Wheel.
480 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
be confusing in an area in which the role of gender is central to some explanations of
intimate partner violence. It is important to differentiate this type of violence from
continuing
violence that occurs in the context of a separation. It is often the case that Situational
Couple Violence continues through the separation process and that Coercive Controlling
Violence may continue or even escalate to homicidal levels when the perpetrator feels his
control is threatened by separation.
Until recently, regardless of the label used, the majority of research on domestic violence
has focused on male violence and the women victims of this violence. The results of large
survey studies were used to point to the prevalence and consequences of intimate partner
violence. However, research methodologies have not, by and large, asked the questions that
might distinguish among types of intimate partner violence. The original and revised
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus, 1979; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman,
1996) have been the most common research measures of domestic violence, and the 1996
version includes separate measures of psychological dimensions (cursing, demeaning,
isolating, coercion, threats, stalking, etc.), physical violence (slapping, shoving, kicking,
biting, choking, mutilation, etc.), sexual violence (raped, forced unwanted sexual behaviors),
and financial control (controlling purchases, withholding funds, etc.). The most common
use of these scales, however, has been to identify specific violent acts rather than more
general patterns of behavior, and the physical violence items of the CTS are still the most
widely used approach to assessing levels of domestic violence.
CONTROVERSIES REGARDING VIOLENCE AND GENDER
For over two decades, considerable controversy has centered on whether it is primarily
men who are violent in intimate relationships or whether there is gender symmetry in
perpetrating violence. Proponents of both viewpoints cite multiple empirical studies to
support their views and argue from different perspectives (e.g., see Archer, 2000; Dutton,
2005; Holtzworth-Munroe, 2005; Johnson, 2001, 2005a, 2006; Kline, 2003; Straus, 1999).
More recently, efforts have been made to build bridges between the research and interpretations
of the feminist sociologists and the family violence researchers, including family
sociologists (e.g., Anderson, 1997). These two viewpoints can be reconciled largely by an
examination of the samples and measures used to collect the contradictory data and the
recognition that different types of intimate partner violence exist in our society and are
represented in these different samples. Johnston and Campbell (1993) and Johnson (1995)
argued that domestic violence was not a unitary phenomenon and that different types of
partner violence were apparent in different contexts, samples, and methodologies. This
observation was also made by Straus (1993, 1999), who asserted that researchers were
studying different populations and that most likely these different forms of violence had
different etiologies and gender patterns. Other researchers (e.g., Holtzworth-Munroe &
Stuart, 1994; Babcock, Green, Webb, & Yerington, 2005) have come to a similar conclusion.
Based on hundreds of studies, it is quite apparent that both men and women are violent
in intimate partner relationships. There is gender symmetry in some types of intimate
partner violence, and in some relationships women are more frequently the aggressors than
their partners, including with their nonviolent partners. It is also the case that men and
women are injured and experience fear in situations where the violence is frequent and
severe, although the extent of symmetry in severity of injuries and fear is disputed based
on different studies.
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 481
Data in samples obtained primarily from women’s shelters, court-mandated treatment
programs, police reports, and emergency rooms are more likely to report the type of physical
and emotional violence that we are calling Coercive Controlling Violence. It is characterized
by power and control and more often results in injuries to women. In these samples, the
violence is asymmetric and perpetrated largely by men against their partners, although
critics argue that coercively controlling violent women are either ignored, not recognized,
infrequently arrested, or not ordered to treatment programs (Dutton, 2005).
In contrast, large-scale survey research, using community or national samples, reports
gender symmetry in the initiation and participation of men and women in partner violence.
This violence is not based on a relationship dynamic of coercion and control, is less severe,
and mostly arises from conflicts and arguments between the partners (Johnson, 2006).
These partners are most likely involved in Situational Couple Violence; are less likely to
need the services of hospitals, police, and shelters; and therefore are a relatively small
minority of individuals in studies using shelter and agency samples. However, Situational
Couple Violence is generally more common than Coercive Controlling Violence and
therefore dominates the violence in large survey samples. Incidence of Coercive Controlling
Violence may be further lowered in surveys due to a high refusal rate among such partners,
because both perpetrator and victim are reluctant to admit the violence for fear of discovery
or retribution (for a larger discussion of this sampling issue, see Johnson, 2006).
Using a 1970s data set and a control tactics scale to distinguish controlling violence
from noncontrolling violence, Johnson (2006) found that 89% of the violence in a survey
sample was Situational Couple Violence and 11% was Coercive Controlling Violence. The
Situational Couple Violence was roughly gender symmetric. In contrast, in the court
sample, only 29% of the violence was Situational Couple Violence, and 68% was Coercive
Controlling Violence which was largely male perpetrated. Similarly, in the shelter sample,
19% of the violence was Situational Couple Violence and 79% was Coercive Controlling
Violence, which again was largely male perpetrated.
Thus, when family sociologists and/or advocates for men claim that domestic violence
is perpetrated equally by men and women, referring to the data from large survey studies,
they are describing Situational Couple Violence, not Coercive Controlling Violence. As will
be discussed, these two types of violence differ in significant ways, including causes,
participation, consequences to participants, and forms of intervention required.
COERCIVE CONTROLLING VIOLENCE
Researchers identify Coercive Controlling Violence by the pattern of power and control
in which it is embedded (Johnson, 2008; Graham-Kevan & Archer, 2003). The Power and
Control Wheel (see Figure 1) provides a useful graphical representation of the major forms
of control that constitute Coercive Controlling Violence: intimidation; emotional abuse;
isolation; minimizing, denying, and blaming; use of children; asserting male privilege;
economic abuse; and coercion and threats (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Abusers do not
necessarily use all of these tactics, but they do use a combination of the ones that they feel
are most likely to work for them. Because these nonviolent control tactics may be effective
without the use of violence (especially if there has been a history of violence in the past),
Coercive Controlling Violence does not necessarily manifest itself in high levels of
violence. In fact, Johnson (2008) has recently argued for the recognition of “incipient”
Coercive Controlling Violence (cases in which there is a clear pattern of power and control
482 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
but not yet any physical violence), and Stark (2007) has argued, even more dramatically,
that the focus in the law should shift from the violence itself to the coercive control as
a “liberty crime.”
Coercive Controlling Violence is the type of intimate partner violence encountered most
frequently in agency settings, such as law enforcement, the courts (criminal, civil, and
family), shelters, and hospitals. Johnson, using Frieze’s Pittsburgh data, found that 68% of
women who filed for Protection from Abuse orders and 79% of women who contacted
shelters were experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence (Frieze & Browne, 1989; Johnson,
2006). This predominance of Coercive Controlling Violence in agencies probably accounts
for the tendency of agency-based women’s advocates to see all domestic violence as
Coercive Controlling Violence, but it is important to note that a great many cases even in
these agency contexts involve Situational Couple Violence (29% and 19% in the courts and
shelters, respectively, for the Pittsburgh data).
In heterosexual relationships, Coercive Controlling Violence is perpetrated primarily by
men. For example, Johnson (2006) found that 97% of the Coercive Controlling Violence in
the Pittsburgh sample was male-perpetrated. Graham-Kevan and Archer (2003) report that
87% of the Coercive Controlling Violence in their British sample was male-perpetrated.
The combination of this gender pattern in Coercive Controlling Violence with the predominance
of Coercive Controlling Violence in agency settings accounts for the consistent
finding in law enforcement, shelter, and hospital data that intimate partner violence is
primarily male-perpetrated (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly, 1992). However, it is important
not to ignore female-perpetrated Coercive Controlling Violence. Although it may represent
only one-seventh or so of such violence (if you accept Graham-Kevan and Archer’s
numbers, or 3% if you accept Johnson’s numbers), it is necessary that we recognize it for
what it is when we make decisions about interventions.
While there is very little systematic research on women’s Coercive Controlling Violence,
there are a few qualitative studies that clearly identify it in both same-sex (Renzetti, 1992)
and heterosexual relationships (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007; Migliaccio, 2002). For
example, Hines et al. (2007) found that 95% of the men calling the Domestic Abuse
Helpline for Men reported that their partners tried to control them. And the tactics used by
these women included all of the tactics identified in the Power and Control Wheel (with
“use of the system” substituted for “assertion of male privilege”). Renzetti’s (1992) findings
for lesbian relationships are similar, with the addition of some control tactics that are
unique to same-sex relationships, such as threats of outing. Because of the paucity of
research on women’s Coercive Controlling Violence, the quantitative data reviewed next
will focus on men.
Although Coercive Controlling Violence does not
always
involve frequent and/or severe
violence, on average its violence is more frequent and severe than other types of intimate
partner violence. For example, for the male perpetrators in the Pittsburgh data, the median
number of violent incidents was 18. In 76% of the cases of Coercive Controlling Violence the
violence had escalated over time, and 76% of the cases involved severe violence (Johnson,
2006). The combination of these higher levels of violence with the pattern of coercive control
that defines Coercive Controlling Violence produces a highly negative impact on victims.
A number of recent studies considering injuries resulting from different types of partner
violence show a high likelihood that a victim will be injured or even severely injured by
men’s Coercive Controlling Violence (Johnson, 2008; Johnson & Leone, 2000; Leone,
Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd, 2004). For example, Johnson (2008) reports that 88% of women
experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence in the Pittsburgh study had been injured in the
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 483
most violent incident and 67% had been severely injured. Using data on only one incident
(the most recent), Johnson and Leone (2000) found that 32% of women experiencing Coercive
Controlling Violence in the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) had
been injured, 5% severely. Campbell and Soeken (1999) report in their literature review that
nearly half of physically abused women also report forced sex and others report abusive
sex. In addition to the injuries produced directly by abusive and violent sex, there is
increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and abused women who have
been sexually assaulted report higher incidence of gynecological problems (Campbell &
Soeken, 1999).
It is well established that homicide rates are higher for women who have separated from
their partners than for women in intact relationships (Hotton, 2001; Wilson & Daly, 1993),
and this heightened risk of homicide following a separation is not found for men (Johnson
& Hotton, 2003). Thus, in the family courts, one major concern is the potential for further
injury—or death.
Research on dangerousness and lethality has established that for violent male partners
control issues are an important predictor of continued or increased violence. The question
addressed in this research is: Given the fact that a woman has already been attacked by her
intimate partner, what predicts the likelihood that she will be attacked again or even killed?
One of the major predictors of continued violence is the presence of the controlling
behaviors that define Coercive Controlling Violence. For example, one study comparing
victims of intimate partner femicide with a control group of nonlethally abused women
found that 66% of the femicide victims had high scores on a scale of partner’s controlling
behaviors, compared with 24% of the abused control group (Campbell et al., 2003). A
qualitative study of 30 women who had survived an attempted intimate femicide found
that 83% “described examples of their partners using stalking, extreme jealousy, social
isolation, physical limitations, or threats of violence” as a means of controlling them
(Nicolaidis et al., 2003, p. 790). It is also important to note that, although 10 of these
women had no history of repeated physical abuse by their partners, 8 of those 10 did have
partners who
had
been controlling. It is clear that coercive control must be considered a
major risk factor for continued or increased violence.
It is not unusual for victims of Coercive Controlling Violence to report that the psychological
impact of their experience is worse than the physical effects. The major psychological
effects of Coercive Controlling Violence are fear and anxiety, loss of self-esteem, depression,
and posttraumatic stress. The fear and anxiety are well documented in many qualitative
studies of Coercive Controlling Violence (e.g., Kirkwood, 1993; Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
Ferraro, 2006), and quantitative studies confirm that fear and anxiety are frequent
consequences of intimate partner violence (Sackett & Saunders, 1999; Sutherland, Bybee,
& Sullivan, 1998).
There is considerable evidence establishing the effects of Coercive Controlling Violence
on self-esteem, much of it derived from the qualitative data collected from women using
the services of shelters. Kirkwood devotes large parts of her research report to issues of
self-esteem, reporting that “all of the women expressed the view that their self-esteem
was eroded as a result of the continual physical and emotional abuse by their partners”
(Kirkwood, 1993, p. 68). Chang (1996) saw this loss of self-esteem as so central to the
experience of psychological abuse that she used a quote from one of her respondents as the
title of her book,
I Just Lost Myself
.
Depression is considered by many to be the most prevalent psychological effect of
Coercive Controlling Violence. Golding’s (1999) analysis of the results from 18 studies of
484 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
battering and depression found that the average prevalence of depression among battered
women was 48%. However, because none of these studies distinguished between Coercive
Controlling Violence and other types of partner violence, this number most certainly
understates the effects of Coercive Controlling Violence. When Golding separated out
studies done with shelter samples (likely to be dominated by Coercive Controlling Violence),
the average prevalence of depression was 61%.
Nightmares, flashbacks, avoidance of reminders of the event, and hyperarousal (i.e., the
major symptoms of posttraumatic stress syndrome) have more recently been recognized as
consequences of domestic violence. In a study of survivors of domestic violence who were
receiving services from shelters or other agencies, 60% of the women met criteria for a
diagnosis of posttraumatic stress syndrome (Saunders, 1994). Johnson and Leone (2000),
using the NVAWS data, found that victims of Coercive Controlling Violence were twice as
likely as victims of Situational Couple Violence to score above the median on a scale of
posttraumatic stress symptoms.
VIOLENT RESISTANCE
The research on intimate partner violence has clearly indicated that many women resist
Coercive Controlling Violence with violence of their own. For example, Pagelow’s (1981)
early study of women who had sought help in shelters in Florida and California found that
71% had responded to abuse with violence of their own. Although in the early literature
such violence was generally referred to as “self-defense,” we prefer the term Violent
Resistance because self-defense is a legal concept that has very specific meanings that are
subject to change as the law changes and because there are varieties of violent resistance
that have little to do with these legal meanings of self-defense (Johnson, 2008).
Nevertheless, much Violent Resistance does meet at least the common-sense definition
of self-defense: violence that takes place as an immediate reaction to an assault and that is
intended primarily to protect oneself or others from injury. This was the largest category of
violence identified by Miller (2005) in a qualitative study of 95 women who had been court
mandated into a female offenders program after arrest for domestic violence. Miller
classified an incident as “defensive behavior,” which constituted 65% of her cases, if the
woman had been responding to an initial harm or a threat to her or her children.
Much of women’s Violent Resistance does not lead to encounters with law enforcement
because it is so short-lived. For many violent resistors, the resort to self-protective violence
may be almost automatic and surfaces almost as soon as the coercively controlling and
violent partner begins to use physical violence himself. But in heterosexual relationships,
most women find out quickly that responding with violence is ineffective and may even
make matters worse (Pagelow, 1981, p. 67). National Crime Victimization Survey data
indicate that women who defend themselves against attacks from their intimate partners are
twice as likely to sustain injury as those who do not (Bachman & Carmody, 1994).
Although there is little data on men’s Violent Resistance, one study substantiated its possible
existence. In that study of men calling an abuse hotline, the following comment was reported:
“I tried to fight her off, but she was too strong” (Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007, p. 66).
The Violent Resistance that gets the most media attention is that of women who murder
their abusive partners. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that, in 2004, 385 women
murdered their intimate partners (Fox & Zawitz, 2006). Although some of these murders
may have involved Situational Couple Violence that escalated to a homicide, most are
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 485
committed by women who feel trapped in a relationship with a coercively controlling and
violent partner. In comparing women who killed their partners with a sample of other
women who were in abusive relationships, Browne (1987) found that there was little
about
the women
that distinguished them from those who had not murdered their partners. What
distinguished the two groups was found in the behavior of the abuser. Women who killed
their abusers were more likely to have experienced frequent attacks, severe injuries, sexual
abuse, and death threats against themselves or others. They were caught in a web of abuse
that seemed to be out of control. Seventy-six percent of Browne’s homicide group reported
having been raped, 40% often. Sixty-two percent reported being forced or urged to engage
in other sexual acts that they found abusive or unnatural, one-fifth saying this was a frequent
occurrence. For many of these women, the most severe incidents took place when they
threatened or tried to leave their partner. Another major factor that distinguished the
homicide group from women who had not killed their abusive partners is that many of them
had either attempted or seriously considered suicide. These women felt that they could
no longer survive in this relationship and that leaving safely was also impossible. These
findings are confirmed in a recent study of women on trial for, or convicted of, attacking
their intimate partners (Ferraro, 2006).
The dominant image of women who kill their partners presented by the media is one in
which a desperate woman plans the murder of a brutal husband in his sleep or at some other
time when she can catch him unawares. In reality, most of these homicides take place while
a violent or threatening incident is occurring (Browne, Williams, & Dutton, 1999, p. 158).
Although a few of Browne’s (1987) cases involve a plot to murder the abuser, or a wait
following an assault for an opportunity to attack safely, the vast majority took place in the
midst of yet another brutal attack (see also Ferraro, 2006). A few were women using lethal
violence in reaction to a direct threat to their child.
SITUATIONAL COUPLE VIOLENCE
Situational Couple Violence is the most common type of physical aggression in the
general population of married spouses and cohabiting partners, and is perpetrated by both
men and women. It is not a more minor version of Coercive Controlling Violence; rather,
it is a different type of intimate partner violence with different causes and consequences.
Situational Couple Violence is not embedded in a relationship-wide pattern of power,
coercion, and control (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Generally, Situational Couple Violence
results from situations or arguments between partners that escalate on occasion into physical
violence. One or both partners appear to have poor ability to manage their conflicts and/or
poor control of anger (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnson, 1995, 2006; Johnston & Campbell,
1993). Most often, Situational Couple Violence has a lower per-couple frequency of occurrence
(Johnson & Leone, 2005) and more often involves minor forms of violence (pushing,
shoving, grabbing, etc.) when compared to Coercive Controlling Violence. Fear of the
partner is not characteristic of women or men in Situational Couple Violence, whether
perpetrator, mutual combatant, or victim. Unlike the misogynistic attitudes toward women
characteristic of men who use Coercive Controlling Violence, men who are involved in
Situational Couple Violence do not differ from nonviolent men on measures of misogyny
(Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000).
Some verbally aggressive behaviors (cursing, yelling, and name calling) reported in
Situational Couple Violence are similar to the emotional abuse of Coercive Controlling
486 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Violence, and jealousy may also exist as a recurrent theme in Situational Couple Violence,
with accusations of infidelity expressed in conflicts. However, the violence and emotional
abuse of Situational Couple Violence are not accompanied by a chronic pattern of controlling,
intimidating, or stalking behaviors (Leone et al., 2004). Babcock et al. (2004) identified one
group of men in batterer treatment groups and a community sample that appears to be men
involved in Situational Couple Violence (the “family-only” group). These men had low
scores on a scale that assessed violence to control, violence out of jealousy, and violence
following verbal abuse compared to two other groups that appeared to be involved in
Coercive Controlling Violence. Their reported violence was less severe and less frequent
compared to the other two groups. Significantly, the men engaged in Situational Couple
Violence did not differ from the nonviolent control group on measures of borderline and
antisocial personalities or general violence outside of the family.
Situational Couple Violence is initiated at similar rates by men and women, as measured
by large survey studies and community samples. Using the Conflict Tactics Scales, Straus
and Gelles (1992) found male rates of violence toward a partner of 12.2% and female rates
of 12.4%. In a Canadian survey of cohabiting and married respondents, males reported
1-year rates of husband-to-wife violence of 12.9% and female respondents reported wifeto-
husband violence of 12.5% (Kwong, Bartholomew, & Dutton, 1999).
In the Canadian survey, men’s and women’s rates for each of nine specific types of
violence were similar except for “slapping” and “kicked/bit/hit,” where significantly more
women than men reported perpetrating these acts. More than half of those reporting any
violence in the past year reported violence perpetrated by both partners (62% men, 52%
women). Eighteen percent of men and 35% of women reported female-only violence, and
20% of men and 13% of women reported male-only violence. The majority of violence
reported did not result in injury to either men or women. The incidence of severe husbandto-
wife violence reported by males and females was 2.2% and 2.8%, and wife-to-husband
severe violence was 4.8% as reported by males and 4.5% as reported by females. Injuries
were reported by a small number of both men and women (Kwong et al., 1999).
In samples of teenagers and young adults (dating, cohabiting, married), rates of physical
violence toward partners are considerably higher than in general survey populations, and
several studies find females more frequently violent than males. Magdol et al. (1997)
reported that women perpetrated violence 37.2% of the time toward their partners and men
21.8% in a community-representative sample of young adults. In a sample of antisocial
aggressive teenagers and young adults, women acknowledged higher rates of perpetration
of violence than men (43% vs. 34%) (Capaldi & Owen, 2001). Douglas and Straus (2006)
found that, among dating couples in 17 countries, females assaulted their partners more
often than did males (30.0% vs. 24.2%).
Situational Couple Violence is less likely to escalate over time than Coercive Controlling
Violence, sometimes stops altogether, and is more likely to stop after separation (Babcock
et al., 2004; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Johnson & Leone, 2005; Johnston & Campbell,
1993). It may involve one isolated incident, be sporadic, or be regularly occurring. The time
frame can involve the past only, throughout the relationship, or only currently (e.g., in the
several months prior to separation). Using the NVAWS data, 99% of the women experiencing
Situational Couple Violence reported no violence in the past 12 months (vs. 78% of the
Coercive Controlling Violence group) (Johnson & Leone (2005). While more minor forms
of violence are typical of Situational Couple Violence, it can escalate into more severe
assaults with serious injuries. Thirty-two percent of perpetrators (men in the NVAWS data
set) had committed at least one act of severe violence (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Comparable
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 487
data were not available for women. Severe violence in Situational Couple Violence is
particularly likely when violence occurs more frequently (daily or weekly). With a community
sample of at-risk teenagers or young adults, frequent and bidirectional physical
aggression was associated with higher scores on antisocial behavior by both men and
women, and women were at much greater risk for injuries than the men (Capaldi & Owen,
2001). When violence was frequent and injuries were sustained, both men and women were
more likely to be fearful of each other. However, this study lacked dyadic measures
of power and control, so it is not possible to determine if this was Situational or Coercive
Controlling Violence, or a combination of both.
Situational Couple Violence results for women in fewer health problems, physician
visits, and psychological symptoms, less missed work, and less use of painkillers, compared
to women who are victims of Coercive Controlling Violence (Johnson & Leone, 2005). A
large representative study in New Zealand found that depression and suicidal ideation were
related to higher levels of partner violence victimization in both men and women. Thus one
would expect to see more severe health and psychological symptoms in Situational Couple
Violence that is very frequent (Magdol et al., 1997).
Overall, these and other survey data support claims that women both initiate violence
and participate in mutual violence and that, particularly in teenage and young adult
samples, women perpetrate violence against their partners more frequently than do the
men. Based on knowledge available, this gender symmetry is associated primarily with
Situational Couple Violence and not Coercive Controlling Violence. It is hoped that future
research will enable clearer distinctions between violence that arises primarily from partner
conflicts in contrast to violence that is embedded in patterns of coercion and control.
SEPARATION-INSTIGATED VIOLENCE
Of special relevance to those working with separating and divorcing families is violence
instigated by the separation where there was no prior history of violence in the intimate
partner relationship or in other settings (Johnston & Campbell, 1993; Kelly, 1982; Wallerstein
& Kelly, 1980). Seen symmetrically in both men and women, these are unexpected and
uncharacteristic acts of violence perpetrated by a partner with a history of civilized and
contained behavior. Therefore, this is not Coercive Controlling Violence as neither partner
reported being intimidated, fearful, or controlled by the other during the marriage.
Separation-Instigated Violence is triggered by experiences such as a traumatic separation
(e.g., the home emptied and the children taken when the parent is at work), public
humiliation of a prominent professional or political figure by a process server, allegations
of child or sexual abuse, or the discovery of a lover in the partner’s bed. The violence
represents an atypical and serious loss of psychological control (sometimes described as
“just going nuts”), is typically limited to one or two episodes at the beginning of or during
the separation period, and ranges from mild to more severe forms of violence.
Separation-Instigated Violence is more likely to be perpetrated by the partner who is
being left and is shocked by the divorce action. Incidents include sudden lashing out,
throwing objects at the partner, destroying property (cherished pictures/heirlooms, throwing
clothes into the street), brandishing a weapon, and sideswiping or ramming the partner’s car
or that of his/her lover. Separation-Instigated Violence is unlikely to occur again and
protection orders result in compliance. In Johnston and Campbell’s (1993) sample of 140
high-conflict custody-disputing parents, 21% of the parents reported Separation-Instigated
488 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
Violence. Another study (not restricted to custody-disputing families) indicated that
14% of violence reported began only after separation, although there was no assessment
of whether violence with coercion and control had characterized the prior intimate partner
relationship (Statistics Canada, 2001).
For professionals in family court or the private sector, it is critical to use assessment
instruments that ask discerning questions to distinguish Separation-Instigated Violence
from the chronic patterns of emotional abuse and intimidation of Coercive Controlling
Violence. A partner’s decision to leave may unleash potentially lethal rage, harassment, and
stalking in borderline/dysphoric men with a history of Coercive Controlling Violence,
where jealousy, impulsivity, and high dependence on the partner are central (Babcock et al.,
2004; Dutton, 2007; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2000; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998). Unlike
perpetrators of Coercive Controlling Violence, men and women perpetrating Separation-
Instigated Violence are more likely to acknowledge their violence rather than use denial
and are often embarrassed and ashamed of their behaviors. Some have been caring,
involved parents during the marital relationship, with good parent–child relationships. Their
partners (and often the children) are stunned and frightened by the unaccustomed violence,
which sometimes leads to a new image of the former partner as scary or dangerous. Trust
and cooperation regarding the children become very difficult, at least in the shorter term
(Johnston & Campbell, 1993).
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN CUSTODY AND ACCESS DISPUTES
The research discussed above has not focused specifically on intimate partner violence
reported by parents with custody and access disputes. Because there is little research
regarding this population, it is not known if the frequency, severity, context, or type of
violence observed in custody-disputing parents is more similar to that seen in large-scale
surveys (i.e., Situational Couple Violence) or the Coercive Controlling Violence more
characteristic of shelter and police samples. However, the number of family law cases in
which domestic violence allegations are made is quite high, and multiple and mutual
allegations (e.g., substance abuse, child abuse, neglect) are common. In a California Family
Court study of cases with custody and access disputes entering mandated (and early)
custody mediation, intimate partner violence was reported by at least one parent in 76% of
the 2,500 cases (Center for Families, Children, and Courts, 2002). Most of the violence did
not occur in the prior 6 months. In 47% of the cases, neither parent had raised the issue of
violence before or during mediation (either in separate screening interviews or separate sessions),
suggesting that Situation Couple Violence was characteristic of some partners, may
have occurred only in the past or episodically during the relationships, may have been
mutual, and was not deemed important enough to be an issue in their mediated discussions
about the children. It is also possible that victims of Coercive Controlling Violence were
fearful of raising the history of violence, even in a separate session (it should be noted that
parents are mandated to attend one session, and those unable to reach agreement then move
into litigated and judicial processes). Further research will be needed to clarify what types
of violence are characteristic or predominant in child custody disputes.
In two Australian samples of parents with custody or access disputes, 48–55% of
cases (general litigants sample) and 63–79% (judicial determination sample) contained
allegations of partner violence. Approximately half of the allegations in the general litigants
sample and 60% of the judicially determined sample were of a particularly serious nature.
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 489
Allegations of child abuse were less than half that number, but allegations of child abuse
were almost always accompanied by allegations of spousal violence (Moloney, Smyth,
Weston, Richardson, Ou, & Gray, 2007). In a California sample of parents disputing
custody or access who were undergoing child custody evaluations, domestic violence was
substantiated for 74% of the mothers’ allegations against fathers and 50% of fathers’
allegations against mothers. More child abuse allegations by fathers against mothers were
substantiated (46%) than allegations by mothers substantiated against fathers (26%), and in
24% of cases, child abuse allegations were substantiated for both mother and father within
the same family (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005). Interpretation of research
findings to date is confounded by different samples, measures, and legal definitions of
domestic violence and child abuse, but it is clear that the percentage of parents reporting
intimate partner violence and child abuse is higher among separating and divorcing parents
than in the general population.
Only one study (comprising two samples) to date has differentiated among types of
intimate partner violence in custody and access disputes (Johnston & Campbell, 1993). In
this extremely high-conflict group of parents who were chronically relitigating parenting
and access disputes, three fourths of the separating/divorcing couples had a history of
violence. Twenty-six percent were not violent, 10% involved minor violence, 23% moderate,
and 41% severe violence. Men and women were mostly in agreement about who perpetrated
minor acts of violence and women’s moderate acts of violence, but substantial
gender disagreement existed about severe violence perpetrated by men, with women
reporting substantially more severe violence from their partners than the men reported.
Except for cuts sustained by both genders, women’s injuries were more frequent and severe
than men’s. Johnston and Campbell (1993) identified five categories of intimate partner
violence: male battering (what we are calling Coercive Controlling Violence), female
initiated violence, male-controlling interactive violence (similar to Situational Couple
Violence), separation-engendered violence, and violence that arises from mental illness, in
particular, the disordered thinking of psychotic and paranoid disorders. In this small group
(5%) are individuals who often do not repeat their violence if they are treated with
medication. Situational Couple Violence (20% of all couples) and Separation-Instigated
Violence with no prior history of violence (21% of all couples) were most common and
generally involved less serious violence. Johnston notes that these findings should not be
generalized to the larger divorcing population of parents or even parents disputing custody
because of the chronic history of repeated litigation and continuing high conflict between
these parents and the size of the sample.
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN’S ADJUSTMENT
The effects of intimate partner violence on children’s adjustment have also been
well documented (Bancroft & Silverman, 2004; Graham-Bermann & Edleson, 2001;
Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Jaffe, Baker, &
Cunningham, 2004; Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998). Violence has an independent effect on
children’s adjustment and is significantly more potent than high levels of marital conflict
(McNeal & Amato, 1998). Much of this research has not differentiated among types of
partner violence when describing the outcomes for children and has been conducted in
samples of children whose mothers were in shelters where Coercive Controlling Violence
was more likely to predominate. Behavioral, cognitive, and emotional problems include
490 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
aggression, conduct disorders, delinquency, truancy, school failure, anger, depression,
anxiety, and low self-esteem. Interpersonal problems include poor social skills, peer rejection,
problems with authority figures and parents, and an inability to empathize with others.
Preschool children traumatized by the earlier battering of their mothers had pervasive
negative effects on their development, including significant delays and insecure or
disorganized attachments (Lieberman & Van Horn, 1998). School-age children repeatedly
exposed to violence are more likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorders, particularly
when combined with other risk factors of child abuse, poverty, and the psychiatric illness
of one or both parents (Ayoub, Deutsch, & Maraganore, 1999; Kilpatrick & Williams,
1997). Threats to use or use of guns and knives is associated with more behavioral
symptoms in 8–12-year-olds, when compared to youngsters where there was intimate
partner violence without knives and guns (Jouriles et al., 1998). There are also higher rates
of both child abuse and sibling violence in violent, compared to nonviolent, high-conflict
marriages.
Further research that differentiates among types of violence is likely to demonstrate that
children’s exposure to Coercive Controlling Violence, as compared to Situational Couple
Violence or Separation-Instigated Violence, is associated with the most severe and extensive
adjustment problems in children. Early support for this was provided by Johnston (1995)
who reported that boys experiencing Coercive Controlling Violence were significantly more
symptomatic than boys in families with Situational Couple Violence, and boys in families
with Separation-Instigated Violence, or no violence, were least symptomatic.
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS
BATTERER INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Batterer programs come in many forms but the general experience with them is that
they have minimal success. For example, one recent review of experimental and quasiexperimental
studies of the effectiveness of such programs estimates that with treatment
40% of participants are successfully nonviolent; without treatment 35% are nonviolent
(Babcock et al., 2004). Unfortunately, studies of program effectiveness do not, in general,
make any distinctions among types of violence or types of so-called batterers. It is possible
that treatment programs are generally effective with some participants (such as those
involved in Situational Couple Violence), but not with others (such as those involved in
Coercive Controlling Violence). Another possibility is that different types of intervention
work for different types of violent men or women. Although very little research has been
done on this issue to date, there is already some evidence for differential effectiveness. For
example, one recent study of almost 200 men court mandated to an intervention program
found that men involved in Situational Couple Violence were the most likely (77%) to
complete the program, with two groups involving Coercive Controlling Violence falling far
behind them at 38% and 9% completion (Eckhardt, Holtzworth-Munroe, Norlander, Sibley,
& Cahill, in press). Another study found that, in a 15-month follow-up, only 21% of men
involved in Situational Couple Violence were reported by their partners to have committed
further abuse, compared with 42% and 44% of the two groups of Coercive Controlling
Violence (Clements et al., 2002).
This research suggests that tailoring interventions to the type of violence in which the
participants are engaged may greatly improve the effectiveness of interventions. In fact,
Kelly and Johnson/DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE 491
existing versions of so-called batterer intervention programs are already well-suited to
differentiating among types of intimate partner violence. The feminist psycho-educational
model that is the most common approach is quite clearly based on an understanding of
intimate partner violence as Coercive Controlling Violence (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The
approach involves group sessions in which facilitators conduct consciousness-raising
exercises that explicate the Power and Control Wheel, explore the destructiveness of such
authoritarian relationships, and challenge men’s assumptions that they have the right to
control their partners. Participants are then encouraged to approach their relationships in a
more egalitarian frame of mind.
Some men report that they are insulted by these feminist programs that assume that they
are determined to completely control their partner’s life (Raab, 2000). If, in fact, they are
involved in Situational Couple Violence and not Coercive Controlling Violence, then the
second major type of batterer program, cognitive behavioral groups, may be what they
need. Cognitive behavioral groups focus on interpersonal skills needed to prevent
arguments from escalating to verbal aggression and ultimately to violence. These groups
teach anger management techniques, some of which are interpersonal (such as timeouts),
others cognitive (such as avoiding negative attributions about their partner’s behavior). They
also do exercises designed to develop their members’ communication skills and ability to
assert themselves without becoming aggressive. Although these are techniques that are also
used by marriage counselors in the context of couples counseling, couple approaches are
almost never recommended for batterer programs because of the threat they might pose to
victims of Coercive Controlling Violence. Thus, these techniques are typically used with
groups composed only of violent men or women, without their partners.
One relatively new development in intervention is a consequence of dramatic increases
in the number of arrests of women for intimate partner violence in jurisdictions that have
implemented mandated arrest policies. Although on the surface many of these groups
appear to function much like the groups for men, research into how they actually function
suggests that at least some of them assume that many of their participants are involved in
Violent Resistance (Miller, 2005). They function much like the support groups for victims
of Coercive Controlling Violence that are found in shelters, encouraging the development
of safety plans and providing skills for coping with their partners’ violence within the
relationship. This focus does not address those women who have perpetrated Situational
Couple Violence, where cognitive behavioral approaches might be more effective.
Given that these different approaches appear to be targeted to the major types of intimate
partner violence, it seems reasonable to develop an effective triage system by which different
types of violent men and women would be provided different types of interventions. It may
be useful to differentiate even more finely. For example, for some men and women involved
in Situational Couple Violence, the problem is poor communication skills, impulsivity, and
high levels of anger, while for others it may be alcohol abuse. Similarly, for some involved
in Coercive Controlling Violence the problem is rooted in severe personality disorders or
mental illness and may call for the inclusion of a more psychodynamic approach to
treatment. For others the problem is one of a deeply ingrained antisocial or misogynistic
attitude that would be more responsive to a feminist psycho-educational approach. In all
cases, of course, holding violent men and women accountable for their violent behavior in
the criminal justice system and family courts provides essential motivation for change.
Many perpetrators and victims would benefit if all courts mandated and implemented
reporting requirements regarding attendance and completion of violence and substance
abuse treatment programs.
492 FAMILY COURT REVIEW
IMPLICATIONS FOR MEDIATION
Advocates for abused women have long been opposed to the use of custody and divorce
mediation, whether voluntary or mandated. Their criticism is based on the view that power
imbalances created by violence cannot be remedied regardless of the skill of the mediator
and that abused women will not be able to speak to their own or their children’s interests
out of fear, intimidation, and low self-esteem (Grillo, 1991; Schulman & Woods, 1983).
Despite this opposition, many jurisdictions in the United States have implemented custody
mediation programs and mandates. In contrast, others have passed legislation automatically
excluding mediation for custody disputes where domestic violence occurred at any point
in the marriage or separation.
Court-based mediation programs have become increasingly responsive to the legitimate
challenges and questions raised by women’s advocates and incorporated a variety of new
screening and service procedures to protect the victims of partner violence, including
separate sessions, different arrival and departure times, metal detectors, referrals to
appropriate treatment agencies, presence of support persons, and monitoring of no-contact
orders. Empirical research indicates that mediation has certain advantages for women when
compared to the adversarial process (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996), and women report high
levels of satisfaction with mediation where there was physical or emotional abuse during
marriage or separation (Davies, Ralph, Hawton, & Craig, 1995; Depner, Cannata, & Ricci,
1994). It has been noted that the adversarial system often fails to protect victims of
Coercive Controlling Violence and that, when mediation is provided in safe settings, victims
of intimate partner violence may have more opportunities to be heard and feel empowered
with respect to addressing the needs of their children (see Newmark, Harrell, & Salem, 1995).
The research that supports differentiation among types of domestic violence provides
valuable indicators for the use of mediation in custody and access disputes. In order to
benefit from the identification of different patterns of partner violence, it is imperative that
screening instruments have questions that identify not only intensity of conflict, frequency,
recency, severity, and perpetrator(s) of violence, but also patterns of control, emotional
abuse and intimidation, context of violence, extent of injuries, criminal records, and assessment
of fear. Screening instruments should be focused on risk assessment (e.g., DOVE scale;
Ellis, Stuckless, & Wight, 2006), be gender neutral in choice of language, and include
questions about both partners’ violence to be answered by both partners.
Based on the research descriptions of different types of partner violence (and the
reported experiences of many mediators in family courts), it is likely that the majority of
parents who have a history of Situational Couple Violence are not only capable of
mediating, but can do so safely and productively with appropriate safeguards. These
men and women appear to be quite willing to express their opinions, differences, and
entitlements, often vigorously (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996; Johnston & Campbell, 1993). It is
also likely that parents with Separation-Instigated Violence will benefit from mediation,
again, with appropriate safeguards and referrals to counseling for the violent partner to help
restabilize psychological equilibrium. What is needed, in addition to appropriate screening,
are mediators whose domestic violence training has included attention to differentiation

Mapes is an ass.

I think the entire system is shattered.
The courts make money off of people’s inability to make rational choices.

When you factor in the criminal conduct of some people ( which is unbelievably kept separate from family court) it can get WAY out of hand.

You have the “Court Whores”
making life and death decisions about children.

Normally, the best interest of the child would be two loving parents. BUT when one of these parents has in fact,INJURED a child during these court ordered supervised visits there is a BIG HUGE problem with this system as a whole.

Does anyone want to talk about Immersion Therapy? It is when a person has an irrational fear of something that CAN”T harm them. Like butterflies.. they are immersed in a room full of butterflies, until their fear subsides.

Do you know what they are proposing to do to my daughter? Place her in the hands of her perpetrator (her father) for one entire month. He has HURT her THREATENED her and yet this is what they are proposing to do to MY child..

She is NOT an EXPERIMENT!!!!

If ANYTHING happens to MY DAUGHTER I will personally hold the courts of CHESTER COUNTY responsible, including MAPES, HESS, LOMBARDI and whichever judge presides over the hearing.

She is all I have…I cannot have anymore children.. On the other hand her father can have as many more children as he wants. He has an adult daughter that he neglected as a child and tried to connect with for 3 months but now she wants NOTHING to do with him and she is afraid of him. Does anyone see a pattern here?

Immersion Therapy??

GM are you kidding me. No self respecting behavioral health professional would recommend immersion therapy in a situation where it is known that a person could in fact be harmed – i.e., physical harm or there is some basis in reality that this person is at risk of harm.

Ask yourself and any professional who recommends Immersion Theray if there is any research that demonstrates that this therapy works in stuations where there is a clear and present danger of REAL harm.

Ask if there is any peer reviewed research that shows that immersion therapy works in abuse situations with children/adults in abuse situations.

As parents we would be hauled in to court if we knowingly put our kids in harms way or exposing them to un-necessary risk.

Sounds like a BS plan, GM.

We will see what happens when it goes to trial in March 2010.

I agree that NO Psychologist will condone this type of “Pseudo-therapy”.

GM

Gm if you think I can lend support to case by impuning the integrity of mapes let me know. He has zero creditability and needs to be caught lying on the stand. MOE

dr mapes screwed over as well. gave me the same test in that downstairs room and said he would be back and he went to wawa. He to told me to leave the test booklet down there.Needless to say he gave me a bad report .He also asked me a seris of jepordey qustions to determine my memory. Ex like what temp does water boil, who wrote hamlet. This guy is a ….ing wacko

Hello AA, Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with Bruce E. Mapes, but most people do. He is a very crafty and sneaky manipulator of the truth whose only interest is getting more cases.

I am less concerned about the qustions he asked than the testing in the little room and leaving the completed test booklet in an unsecure room.

The questions he asked are not really about memory, but rather, your general fund of knowledge. These sort of questions comprise a SUBTEST on the Verbal IQ measure called Information. It is similar to “Trivial Pursuit,” this subtest measures fund of factual information. It is strongly influenced by culture. An American education and intact long-term memory will contribute to a higher score. Questions like: “Who discovered the NorthPole; What is the population of the United States. While this is a sub-test on a larger test it gives a general feel for the persons fund of knowledge. Should it be reported as a single item and used to make a case that some one is either smart or no so smart? If it was the only test used and reported as a test that determined general knowledge then this is what the professionals call a MISUSE or ABUSE of the testing and should be report to the state board of psychology. Their address is listed in elsewhere in this post.

The administration of the MMPI-2 in a copy room and instructions to leave your test score sheet in an unsecure location is considered to be poor practice but is also a potential ethical violation of test security, qnd will contibute to a violation of test protocal. This is a very serios matter when the test resuts are used in a court matter. Again if you think that Mapes violated his ethical obligations by way of licience or professional ethics, consider reporting him to the Commonwealth of PA Office of Professional Compliance or the American Psychological Association, Ethics Office. Issues related to how to file these complaints are listed in eariler posts.

By the way, check the date that your check was cashed. You’ll find it was cashed on the day of the evaluation and if your bank time stamps the check you’ll find it to be during the time he had to “run out” Is he interested in test security or getting his money?

The guy needs to be stopped. If you know of other that have been harmed by this so called “professional” please encourage them to make a post and also encourage them to file complaints. The more people that file complaints with the State Office of Professional Compliance the better chance someone will listen.

Ethical conduct is a very serious matter in these sort of evaluations since your under a court order. If Mapes can not carry out these evaluation in an ethical and unbiased way he should and must be held accountable by the Court that ordered his involvement. It is that simple – it is the LAW in this Commonwealth.

You may also consider filing a complaint against Mapes with the President Judge in Chester County. That person is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the court appointed experts in Chester County Court of Common Pleas. The more legimate concerns that are presented to the President Judge the better our chances of getting Mapes removed from the “expert” list.

If I can be of further assistance let me know.

Here is another area that any parent undergoing a child custory evaluation MUST be aware of.

A few years ago there were some changes made to the domestic relations rules that make it impossible for you to bring a complaint against a licienced psychologist (or other mental health professional) to the attention of of the Office of Professional Compliance during a child custody evaluation or 90 days following the pending matter.

If you feel that the evaluator is playing games, failing to keep up his ethical and professional responsibilities then the matter must be taken to the Court for intervention. You are unable to make a licience complaint against the professional until 90 days after the matter has been resolved.

You are in effect being denied access to the system that the State set up to protect you from unethical and unprofessional licienced professionals. This is an OUTRAGE. Is it any wonder the psychologists in this state supported this measure?

Do Judges know that they MUST step up and be the first line of defense when parents are suject to unethical or unprofessional conduct during a child custody matter. Do they want to get involved, do they even care?

These are important matters. If you have been harmed by a child custody evaluator, if what you said during the evaluation was twisted and turned beyond recognition, if you feel thay the evaluator has not complied with the exsting ethical and professional standards you MUST let the Judge know.

Its your right and it is their responsibilty to take action. Don’t wait until its too late – take action NOW.

Yes you are completely right in that regards. I had filed a complaint against an attorney who was spreading lies about me, saying that I was a drug addict to my daughter’s school secretary. Also that I did not supply them the correct PFA order that allows my daughter’s biological father access to her during school hours( which is a blatant lie) and could have given a violent man access to my daughter. Meanwhile he had violated the order 4 times in a three month period and they extended it another year. There was NOTHING unethical according to the Supreme Court of PA Disciplinary Board. these people oversee the conduct of lawyers in the entire state of Pennsylvania.

I am outraged, It’s time we get the media involved.

There is no other legal way to get the justice that all of these children deserve.

PLEASE LET’S DO SOMETHING SOON

GM, I am ready when you are. Use the MOE hotline.

We need as many people as possible to join in. ALL PARENTS should be outraged. It could easily happen to you, your sister, brother, son or daughter. This is a community issue that must be addressed.

Wow..I have heard many rumors about Dr.Mapes also. I have just decided to go with him because I trust the Judges and Rose Anderson, they have been fair . Rose Anderson has been a Master for years, she should never leave that position, the kids in chester county need her, she truly cares about the child. You as the parent should be your childs advocate, Rose listens, to Mom and to Dad. She is very thorough, sharp and wise. She knows how to pull the truth out, she is very good at it. This is a gift as anyone can be a lawyer, not everyone is gifted at it. She hears both parents and tries to problem solve. I feel she should do all custody matters. Judge Reiley, Griffin and MacElree are very caring Judges about the children. I dont know who you are having problems with but get with one of these Judges and see how much they care for our childen, I trust them completly Remember,itis hard to accept that it is better for a child to see both parents no matter what. The courts know what they are doing.Im hopeful Dr.Mapes will make a good recomendation for my son,Ican only really trust God for the outcome.

Here is my advise, if you have a father or mother who is difficult, get with a counseling agency like Southeastern Pa, Counseling Services or Family Services. Co-Parenting I think the courts should make mandatory in every case where there is high levels of conflict and make the inflicter attend until every problem is corrected. Then if they will not correct the problems the court should enter a very detailed order. The person being difficult wilol learn or go broke doing so.

“Im hopeful Dr.Mapes will make a good recomendation for my son.”

After reading all of this your still hopeful that this “professional” will come up with a good recommendation? Good luck – this might be wishful thinking.

Ask that your attorney be present during the interview or seek a court reporter to transcribe the interview so that you can assure that what you say is accurately reported (and in the correct context).

Be on your toes, be alert, this professional can not be trusted. He sees things as he calls ‘em. Confabulation on his part will fill in the blanks and he’ll never correct any mis-infomation and will swear on the stand that thats how he sees things. That is if you get that far.

Being a trustworth communicator of information is not a strong suite.

Dr. Mapes is a hack, he charges $1800 to do an evaluation then meets with people for an hour and a half, also he on Chester County payroll and turns out a report full of errors and even misspelled several words including having my child’s name wrong at least 3 times. Say my ex spouse “Tends to present herself in a more positive light” also says that she seemed to have more of a plan, sounds like a contradiction. When most people do a report and it has errors you tend not to put much weight into it. My advice: from the parent that was “open and candid”, devise a story to paint the other parent as unfit, make false allegations, get people to lie for you and lie (don’t worry even if you are caught under oath doesn’t matter it’s family court in Chester County PA). These masters are a joke one master recommended a co-parenting counselor who after I brought up many issues about my ex-spouses parenting short comings made ridiculous comments including the following; My ex-spouse told my then 5 year old to lie to me “That’s okay because we had not discuss travel plans” so have a 5 year old lie for the parent? Also my ex-spouse was “Allowed” to take my 5 year old around her 45 year old pot head brother in law, “why would you have a problem with that pot heads are non violent; it’s illegal but they are non-violent”

I am confused and scared…It is in my court order that I use Dr. Mapes…my family therapist said it may be rumors unfortunatly for the doctor, I simply cannot take the chance…this person could make a decision that would be detrimental to my sons whole life. Does anyone know of any other evaluators that have a good reputation?

You should have a discussion with your attorney about your concerns. Tell your therapist to do more homework on Mapes.

Its not just rumor…facts are facts. If your therapist is a psychologist ask about admistration on the MMPI in unsupervised settings, ask if it is an ok thing to leave testimg materials (with your name on it) in an open and un secure area within 3 steps from an open door? Ask your therapist if its an okay thing to release medical information to the other side without your ok. Ask your therapist if its ok to make recommendations to terminate a parents rights based entirely on a review of records. Ask you therapist if its ok to suggest that a telephone conversation is sufficient to determine if a person has a mental illness, and then suggest that to the court that neither part has a mental health problem. Ask your therapist if its ok to engage in converations with the other sides attorney and deny it when confronted. Ask your therapist if its ok to use other professionals records as the entire basis of your clinical decision making.

This “professional” is a hack that has no ethics.

I’d be fearful too.

Afetr I had psychologist who has custody evaluation experience read his report, the psychologist called him a hack.

Hey Bruce Smith,

Did he give you the MMPI? Did he leave you in the copy room to finish the test? Did he give you the instructions to leave the completeted test materials in the copy room? Did he tell you he had to step out? Did he state in his report that a “valid MMPI profile was obtained” by the MMPI?

I refused to leave my confidential MMPI answer sheet unattended while he “stepped out”. I took the MMPI answer sheet home with me. Funny thing – he made a report of the MMPI with pure BS.

You can’t report something you never had, now can you? Hack, I think its worse than that.

Anonymous,

He included the MMPI even though you never gave it to him? He did leave me in the downstairs copy room and stepped out, someone else posted their check was deposited at the same time he stepped out. I’m not sure but I think the MMPI is the only thing that is impartial during this evaluation process. His testimony included a satement that was not included in his report. If the guy has been feeding off family court for years, maybe it’s time for new blood. I read another post that said a custody evaluation should take 26 hours, I doubt he spent a totoal of 10 including preparing this report. Taking emotion out of the situation which is impossiable I have several questions for him. If I write him a letter does he have to respond. I read 1 post that said he has done 700 to 800 custody evaluations, in court he said 200. The lawyers, judges and Dr. Mapes get their money reguardless of outcome. The children suffer.

Sounds like a turn bull shi* story to me. On the record he informed the court that he has completed about 700 to 800 of these evaluations. Its very clearly noted in the trial transcript that he has done 700 to 800 of these child custody evaluations. Guess telling the truth between cases does not really matter.

Clearly looks like a problem to me but then again I don’t make the determination whats truth verses just plain BS…thats up to our judges and DA to determine…

Is the MMPI impartial? Does it really have anything to do with you capacity to parent, to form a bond with your child. Not at all. Was a valid profile obtained? This is a very vital part of the test – if a valid profile was not obtained – one has to question why the results would be reported.

Are there specific norms in the MMPI-2 that address the specific parental capacity of say white males between the ages of 30 -45. The answer is a resounding NO. The MMPI was not designed or normed to assess parental capacity or ones ability to form a bond with their child. Thats what these evaluations are to look at and thats what Mapes says in his introductory letter.

Seems to me that it would be much more important to have a look see at the home the child will live in, what the conditions are in that home, mqke some specific observations of parent and child doing homework together or engaging in some form of activity. To this point one needs to ask Can someone with a “personality” be a fine parent. You bet they can – so the point here is what does the MMPI really report as related to parental capacity? NOT MUCH.

Anonymous ,

I still can’t get over the fact that his reasons for me not getting 50/50 custody or more visitation cantained in the report did not match his testimony. Then sying My ex had more of a plan after he questioned her honesty? Is this a contradiction or what. He did not at all question the bonds I have with my children. My ex wife paid his fees, unbiased?

More than likely this happens all the time. So Bruce Smith what are you going to do? Do you have the trial transcript – if he lied on the stand and it is reflected in the trial transcript that he lied under oath discuss your concerns with the DA or your attorney.

You can file a complaint with the Office of Professional Compliance around his compliance with his professional standards. Its a freeby to file. IF you are going to file a complaint it takes lots of time to work through the process. The PA Department of State web site is a good place to start. If the sort of claims you are making are violations of the professional standards it can cost him lots of $ to defend and perhaps his ability to practice.

This fellow need to retire or the County needs to remove him from the list of approved providers.