Background: I recently read and synthesized seven (7) Family Court Review articles, published between 2016-2023, on the topics of domestic violence and coercive control.[1] Here’s what I learned. I have not attempted to footnote and reference each and every citation, as all this information is specifically cited in the individual articles. This post covers the first three research articles I reviewed. These summaries are not intended to be complete, full summaries of each and every article; I only covered the high points, and if any article strikes your interest, you’re encouraged to read it in its entirety.
The article covered in this post is Coparenting and intimate partner violence, by Hardesty, Jennifer L., Brian G. Ogolsky, and Tanitoluwa D. Akinbode (2023)
As this article uses the term Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) rather than Domestic Violence (DV), I use the term IPV in this summary.
The article’s focus is understanding coparenting when IPV is involved.
This article includes a broad discussion on available IPV literature. A differentiation of IPV between two categories is used: coercive controlling violence and situational couple violence. I found this two-category discussion interesting but too limiting, and this was a major problem I had with the article. I’ve thought of IPV as covering at least three (probably four) major categories: (1) coercive control; (2) situational (minor severity) violence (no pattern, usually no repetition); and at least a couple of categories of “major” domestic violence based on severity: (3) a category for lethality (choking, use of weapons), as well as (4) major DV that is not usually lethal (punching, kicking, slapping). I’ve also always recognized that violence against personal property (destroying clothing, furniture, a phone) is DV, but in my mind, that could fall either under coercive control (if done repeatedly/ regularly) or situational (if done once).
I have a bit of a problem with the use of only two categories, especially if this means that a single incident of choking or use of a knife or gun is considered “situational” in the same category as one incident of backing someone into a wall or slapping a phone out of someone’s hand.[1]
The risks and dangers of coercive control – the pattern of violence — are underestimated when the court focuses on discrete incidents of domestic violence without considering context and frequency. This results in an underestimation of the risks associated with the daily and repetitive nature of coercive control. The focus, when it comes to coercive control, needs to be on patterns and repetition.
Empirically, there seems to be little dispute that coercive control is predominately male against female and situational violence tends to be more gender neutral. This is a major reason these two categories need to be well-distinguished in court cases discussing incidents vs. patterns. A long-term pattern of coercive control should not be considered “equivalent” or offsetting to a one-time situational, heat-of-the-moment, non-lethal act.
Separation and divorce do not always end IPV, especially when children are involved. Separation of partners can be a long and nonlinear (reconciliations, return to cohabitation, etc.) process that varies by type of IPV.
Children provide abusers with an ongoing link to victims. When joint parenting arrangements are imposed, this link is reinforced, to the increased risk of the victim and children.
Mistakes are made. Translating empirical evidence about different types of IPV and concluding that situational violence is not of much concern because it’s less severe or less likely to be repeated once the heat and stress of the initial separation have passed is not supported by the evidence. The article notes that at present there is no valid IPV screening tool that makes distinctions in types of IPV, distinctions that are critical for appropriate responses.
Definitions of coercive control are helpful and welcome as Arizona learns to navigate the new statute. This article defines coercive control as “a persistent pattern of goal oriented, intentional tactics used to dominate, manipulate, and maintain authority over a current or former partner”.[2] Examples of coercive control include isolation, intimidation, restriction of resources, humiliation, subordination, and the environments for coercive control are broad and can include the home, work, transportation and access to travel, sexuality, and extended family. Coercive control can entirely nonviolent and be based on fear of retribution rather than on actual physical harm.
Effect on Parenting
Research is discussed that supports negative effects on children as a result of “IPV exposure and direct abuse”. This research is helpful but not directly applicable to Arizona’s new statute which provides that the court must ignore whether or not a child was present or aware of the DV, as the court determines whether parenting time will be eliminated for a finding of DV. It remains unclear whether research exists showing and describing adverse effects on a child where a child was not present for the abuse and was unaware of it. Arizona’s statute does not distinguish between a child’s indirect exposure to DV by way of overheard comments or observing injuries sustained by someone else.
The article acknowledges that the long-term effects on children of coercive control, as opposed to physical violence, are not well known and largely are not well-established in the research, although the article does take note of a 2022 book “Coercive Control in Children’s and Mother’s Lives” by Emma Katz. Even without empirical evidence of what the effects of coercive control is on a child, it’s hard to imagine (or argue) that the horrific effects on the parent have no negative effect on the child. It’s also noted that children can in some cases be the direct targets of coercive control, including their isolation and limitation of resources.
Effect on Post-Separation Coparenting
Coparenting is a continuum and can involve minimal interaction to high levels of interaction. It can involve agreements or constant disputes. It is well-understood in the literature that cooperative and parallel coparenting have positive child results, and high conflict coparenting has negative child outcomes.
The parent victim of IPV is placed at risk with every link to the former abuser, and coparenting is a major link. Patterns of coercive control don’t disappear upon entry of parenting orders, so protections and rigid boundaries are necessary. Protections are built into Arizona’s statute (403.03 Subsection H “Precautions” are some) and boundaries can be created by courts with specific parenting plans, restrictions on parent communication, supervisors, parenting coordinators, and ongoing court oversight.
Up next: Two more articles are summarized.
[1] Later in the article (page 139), the article does acknowledge that severity and frequency distinctions in “situational” violence must be made.
[2] Note that for purposes of Arizona’s 403.03 statute, the partners must also be co-parents.