DV CASES REQUIRE DV EXPERTS: DUH!

By Barry Goldstein

I can understand why the court system did not immediately seek to learn from and rely on domestic violence experts when domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s. There was no research available and few domestic violence advocates. A popular assumption and misconception was that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. This led some people, including court professionals to treat mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence.

I do not understand how courts still do not require the use of domestic violence experts in cases involving allegations or evidence of domestic violence. We now have a substantial body of specialized domestic violence research that establishes the courts are getting a very high percentage of domestic violence custody cases wrong and often spectacularly wrong because of the standard use of flawed practices. These mistaken practices cause even good judges to regularly make bad decisions. Although mothers involved in contested custody cases make deliberately false allegations only one or two percent of the time, fathers receive custody between 70 and 83% of the time. In other words a large majority of abusers who seek custody are successful.

The highest priority in deciding custody has to be the child’s safety as without safety nothing else matters. In a domestic violence case, this should require a safety or risk assessment. Instead, custody courts regularly order evaluations. Not only do these evaluations fail to conduct risk assessments but few evaluators even know what behaviors are associated with higher levels of lethality. We virtually never see an evaluation report in which these vital issues are even discussed and when evaluators are asked about abusive behaviors they are rarely aware of the risks demonstrated. Ignorant of fundamental safety issues, evaluators instead focus on less important issues.

Evaluators are generally trained in psychology of psychiatry, but not domestic violence. Even if they have received a few hours of training in domestic violence and have been willing to listen (many evaluators are hostile to this training), at most it gives them some general awareness of the subject, but not expertise. That is why evaluators rarely provide the courts with information about lethality assessments, domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research. It is why they don’t know what to look for to recognize domestic violence and often mistakenly assume the danger is diminished with the end of the relationship. Especially important is their failure to understand and explain to the courts the harm of domestic violence to children.

Caseworkers at child protective agencies are often social workers and usually have more special training about domestic violence than the psychologists who serve as evaluators. Many communities have developed practices in which child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence cases. They cross-train each other’s staffs and when a possible domestic violence case needs to be investigated the caseworkers will consult domestic violence advocates and sometimes take them to the home. This practice has been shown to benefit children because it gives caseworkers a better chance to recognize when the father has engaged in domestic violence tactics and therefore create arrangements that work best for children. This should be considered best practices.

Ethical practices for psychologists and psychiatrists require these professionals to consult with experts in areas they don’t have expertise in that impact cases they are working on. Unfortunately these ethical considerations are aspirational so the routine failure of evaluators to use these ethical practices does not result in disciplinary proceedings. They instead result in ruining children’s lives when evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and protect children from very real dangers. THE BATTERER AS PARENT, which is one of the leading authorities on domestic violence and custody, makes a similar recommendation. Clearly a practice that works so well for caseworkers who generally have more training is even more important for evaluators to use.

Expertise in Safety Issues 

Fundamental to the work of domestic violence advocates is the ability to engage in safety planning with their clients. In order to do this, they need to be able to assess the level of danger presented by the client’s abuser. We can never know that an abuser will not kill or seriously injure his partner. This is particularly true when she has left him because75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. There are, however, many behaviors domestic violence experts look closely at because they have been shown to demonstrate a significantly higher level of danger. Among the factors experts look for in assessing lethality are choking, strangling or grabbing her throat, hitting a woman while pregnant, rape or attempted rape, hurting pets, threatening suicide, homicide or kidnapping, substance abuse, mental illness, refusal to obey laws or court orders, availability of guns and a belief she has no right to leave.

With rare exceptions, evaluators and other court professionals do not have this fundamental information and do not apply it to the cases they are working on. When we review cases in which courts disbelieved the mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and gave custody to alleged abusers, the evaluators never discussed safety and lethality issues. It is possible, although rare, that a mother could make false claims that some of these safety factors apply to the case. In such cases the evaluator could explain the potential risk if the allegations were true and why the evaluator does not believe the accusation. Instead the evaluator and the court never discuss these vital issues because no one making the decision or helping the court make the decision have the knowledge or training to recognize these safety factors. In other words the unqualified professionals routinely make recommendations affecting the safety of children without ever understanding or considering the risk. Malpractice is the most, generous term I can think of to describe this dereliction of duty. Only a broken system can continue to rely on evaluators and other court professionals in domestic violence cases who have virtually no training or understanding of safety and lethality issues just because there is a long history of making this mistake.

Recognizing Domestic Violence 

Domestic violence abusers present many unacceptable risks to children, but the courts cannot protect children if they are unable to recognize the abuser’s pattern of domestic violence tactics. Every year 58,000 children are forced into custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. Judges make these dangerous mistakes because they are relying on court professionals who do not know how to recognize domestic violence or minimize its significance. They often compound the harm to children by denying them normal access to their mothers by punishing mothers for making abuse allegations the courts assume are false because court professionals failed to understand the significance of the available evidence.

When we seek help with a medical problem, doctors often seek to rule out various possible causes in order to make a diagnosis. Domestic violence experts understand that context is important in recognizing domestic violence, but the psychologists and psychiatrists relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and routinely seek to rule out allegations of domestic violence based upon out of context information that often is not probative.

We have often seen inadequately trained court professionals dismiss valid domestic violence allegations because the mother returned to her abuser, sought a protective order, but failed to follow-through, did not have medical or police records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other valid reasons. Another common mistake is for court professionals to observe children interact with their father and when the children do not show fear the professional assumes the father cannot possibly be abusive. The children understand that the father would never hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. In fact they could be punished later if they showed fear. These are all very common situations so if evaluators or other unqualified court professionals discredit allegations based on non-probative information like this, many valid domestic violence complaints will be denied. This is exactly what is happening in our custody courts.

At the same time court professionals are mistakenly discrediting abuse allegations for the wrong reasons, they are missing important evidence that supports the complaints. Often this is because the professionals are only looking for evidence of physical abuse. When judges lament the difficulty of deciding a he-said-she-said case, they are really referencing their failure to recognize the significance of many pieces of evidence that would have made the case easy to understand. The failure of most court professionals to understand domestic violence dynamics is an important contributor to their inability to recognize valid allegations of abuse.

Domestic violence are tactics men use to maintain power and control over their partners. With a few exceptions, the abusers don’t abuse her in order to gain pleasure from her suffering. They also don’t abuse because they are out of control or she “pushed his buttons.” In many custody cases he “only” hit her once or twice because that was sufficient for his purpose. He can then use the same tone of voice, body language or other reference to his assault and she will be coerced to do what he wants. Unqualified professionals often take the fact he has not hit her in a long time to mean he is now safe. Most abuser tactics are neither physical nor illegal. They are behaviors designed to coerce, intimidate and control their victims. These include tactics to isolate her from friends and family, monitor her behavior, control the finances, and intimidate her such as by threats to go after custody if she leaves him. Emotional and psychological abuse are also part of his pattern of controlling behaviors.

Many court professionals have been misled to believe contested custody cases are “high conflict” cases. They understand this to mean the parties are angry with each other and act out in ways that hurt the children. The actual research demonstrates a large majority of contested cases are actually domestic violence cases. They can’t be settled because the father is willing to hurt the children in order to regain control. Mothers are unwilling to agree to arrangements that harm their children, but are often blamed for not cooperating. We repeatedly see fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seeking custody when she leaves him as a tactic to force her to return or punish her for leaving. The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave. This is why 75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. These are the fathers we see in contested custody cases. This is why over the last few years we have documented at least two hundred children murdered by fathers involved in contested custody cases often with the unwitting assistance of the courts. Too often court professionals are so delighted that a father wants to be involved with his children that the court professionals never look at his motivation. In the notorious Shockome case, the father openly admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she has no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. He told the court his motivation for seeking to take the children from their mother, but the judge and evaluator never considered this crucial evidence because they failed to understand its significance. Repeatedly we see cases in which the court removes children from their safe mothers who have been the children’s primary attachment figures and give custody to the fathers in the belief the father would be more likely to promote the mother’s relationship with the children. As soon as the father gains control he destroys that relationship. These mistakes are completely avoidable if court professionals consider the fathers’ motivation.

The Mistake of Minimizing Domestic Violence 

While evaluators and other court professionals are generally aware that domestic violence is harmful to children, many place less importance on this issue than it deserves because they are unfamiliar with the research that demonstrates the extent of the harm to children. The problem is compounded because most of these professionals have repeatedly heard only the first half of an important sentence. They have heard children do better with both parents in their lives, but missed the rest of the sentence which is unless one of the parents is abusive.

Fathers who commit domestic violence are significantly more likely to also directly abuse the children. Even if he doesn’t, witnessing domestic violence interferes with children’s ability to reach their developmental milestones and makes them more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behaviors that make it less likely for children to reach their potential. We often see court professionals pay more attention to the anger and emotion of the mother, “friendly parent” issues, superior income and resources and other similar issues that have not been shown to have long-term effects on children instead of the father’s history of abuse. This mistake is made because of the lack of domestic violence understanding on the part of many of the evaluators and other court professionals relied on by judges.

The Most Common “Mythtake” Custody Courts Make 

The new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan found that evaluators and other court professionals with inadequate domestic violence training were more likely to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse and as a result make recommendations that work poorly for children. Deliberate false allegations by mothers occurs only one or two percent of the time, but the myth which is encouraged by abuser rights groups and the professionals they support contribute to frequent mistakes by custody courts that dismiss valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse. Many of the deeply flawed practices such as parental alienation, “friendly parent” and pathologizing mothers are based on this myth. The myth also encourages gender bias and confirmation bias. This is why experts who know the truth and have the training they need are able to make decisions that work best for children.

The Justice Department study also determined that recommendations by social workers and lawyers work better for children than ones by psychologists and psychiatrists. This conclusion goes against conventional wisdom and standard custody court assumptions that professionals with more formal education would be more qualified. The problem is that psychologists and psychiatrists were less likely to use a holistic approach (thus missing the context of domestic violence issues) and more often rely on psychological tests that were not made for the population usually seen in custody cases. These tests encourage the professionals to focus on issues far less important than domestic violence while contributing nothing towards recognizing domestic violence.

The study also found that evaluators tended to pay much too much attention to mothers’ anger and emotions in comparison to how this impacts their parenting ability. This tended to support the use of gender stereotypes and biases. Numerous court sponsored gender bias committees have found widespread gender bias including the frequent practice of blaming mothers for the actions of their abusers. This is exactly what happens when court professionals blame mothers for their anger and emotion instead of fathers for their continuing abuse that causes this anger and emotion.

Especially significant is the DOJ finding that evaluators working for the court or the county make recommendations that work better for children than those of evaluators in private practice. Protective mothers have long complained about a cottage industry of evaluators and GALs that favor abusive fathers. This research confirms the mothers’ complaints and undermines the common court assumption that evaluators and GALs are neutral. The study demonstrates those professionals paid for each case separately do an inferior job. Most contested custody cases are really domestic violence cases and abusive fathers use economic abuse and control as part of their pattern of abuse. This means they control the family finances so court professionals, like Richard Gardner have figured out the best way to make a large income is to support approaches that favor abusers. Thus we often see attorneys representing abusive fathers and GALs who tend to support fathers recommending “fathers’ rights” evaluators. This gives even good judges little chance to recognize the domestic violence in the case.

Ignorance Is Not Neutral: It Favors Abusers 

We sometimes hear about a judge refusing to participate in domestic violence training or read current research on the grounds that such information would interfere with his neutrality. More frequently judges refuse to listen to testimony from a domestic violence expert because the judge has been on the bench for many years and so doesn’t need to learn more about domestic violence. Even more commonly we see judges and other court professionals treat domestic violence advocates as biased partisans because “they are always against domestic violence.”

This lack of critical thinking contributes to the widespread mishandling of domestic violence custody cases. Abuser rights groups often argue that when they come to court mothers and fathers should be treated the same. Judges often accept and support such statements because they superficially sound reasonable and never consider the unstated part of the statement “regardless of past parenting.” If courts are working for the best interests of the children, they need to consider that children usually need one parent more than the other. Their primary attachment figure, whether mother or father is far more important to their well- being than the other parent. A non-abusive parent is far more valuable to a child than an abusive one. And yet we often hear judges uncritically repeating the belief that the child needs both parents equally.

Many judges wrongly assume that the mental health professionals working in custody cases have the needed domestic violence expertise or that the couple of hours of required training often obtained by court professionals is sufficient. Many professionals and others do not look at domestic violence as a subject for which specialized training and knowledge is needed. Most people have had some experience with domestic violence as a victim, offender or knowing or working with someone who is. This does not tell them if their experience was typical or unusual and fails to provide context or an understanding of domestic violence dynamics or current scientific research.

The custody court system has been extremely defensive in refusing to adopt needed reforms in the face of multiple confirmations from many varied sources that the present practices are working poorly for the children overseen by custody courts. The Department of Justice study demonstrates the courts frequently use experts without adequate training in domestic violence and this results in the use of myths instead of current scientific research and outcomes that hurt children. In comparision, communities in which child protective agencies consult with domestic violence advocates the resulting arrangements benefit children.

The evaluators who testify in court cannot tell us how their practices and approaches to domestic violence have worked out for the children they have seen because they are making recommendations based on their personal beliefs and biases instead of current scientific research that they are often unfamiliar with. When the evaluators are challenged for their ignorance about this research, courts rarely use this to disqualify or discredit their recommendations.

The research that establishes that 98% of mothers’ domestic violence allegations are honest, but 70-83% of the time the alleged abuser wins custody does not tell us a specific case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate a large majority of these cases are wrongly decided. Even worse are the sexual abuse cases in which 85% of the cases result in custody for the alleged offender. These cases are more difficult because the mothers usually did not witness the alleged sexual abuse. Some of the concerns could be caused by a child’s sexualized behavior or complaints that might be caused by boundary violations rather than molestation. Nevertheless, the outcomes establish that the courts often send children to live with sexual abusers and punish mothers for good faith reports. In many of these cases the mother was the primary attachment figure so should have received custody even if no sexual abuse occurred.

In many cases in which the custody court decided the father was safe he is later convicted of domestic violence, sexual abuse or kills the mother and/or children. We also see alleged abusers destroy the relationships between mothers and children once they gain control of the children which confirms their purpose in seeking custody was to punish the mother for leaving. The reports of the Courageous Kids who were children sent by custody courts to live with alleged abusers and now describing their experiences after aging out of the court order further confirms the frequency of courts giving custody to abusers.

A chapter written by sociologists Sharon Araji and Rebecca Bosek in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY provides multiple additional confirmations of the frequent mistakes in domestic violence custody cases. They interviewed protective mothers in Alaska and then compared the responses to similar studies in four other states. They found substantial complaints by the mothers of mistreatment by the courts and failure to protect their children. The complaints were supported by the results in the five studies and in a later study by Voices of Women that reviewed reports from mothers in New York City Family Court. These were not random samples and courts might argue the mothers were not objective. Drs. Araji and Bosek covered this potential concern by comparing the mothers’ complaints with other scientific research. The research confirmed what the mothers were saying. This is significant because it confirms the research that demonstrates mothers’ complaints are reliable and confirms the problems cited concerning the courts’ response to domestic violence cases are valid.

Domestic violence advocates constitute the only profession that works full time on domestic violence issues. The widespread mistake by many court professionals to treat them as if they are biased or partisan is based upon a lack of critical thinking. If courts needed to respond to a rash of arson fires, they would seek help from the experts which would be the firefighting community. The firefighters would be treated as the experts they are even if they had no advanced degrees or even a college degree. Through training and experience firefighters know best how to recognize arson, prevent and respond to arson. There are three important differences between arson and domestic violence crimes. One is that arson has always been a crime so there is no history of society tolerating or encouraging arson. If a landlord were particularly cruel or dishonest no one would say the arsonist was justified in burning down his building. The second is that most firefighters are men and in our still sexist society people pay more attention to what men say and treat it as having more value. Finally there are no arsonist’s rights groups that can lobby to minimize or justify their crimes.

There was a time when society had not reached a consensus about domestic violence, but those days are past. Every state has made a variety of domestic violence acts crimes and every state has ordered courts to take domestic violence seriously in custody cases based on research that establishes the harm to children. Domestic violence advocates understand the dynamics of intimate partner abuse and how to recognize the pattern of abuse. This is an area that the court professionals repeatedly miss because they don’t have the training and often don’t even realize they are missing crucial information. Advocates have no desire or reason to want false allegations to succeed and in fact this would make their job more difficult. Their goal is to keep victims safe and prevent domestic violence. This coincides with the laws and policies in every state. Statements and practices that minimize the role of domestic violence advocates or treat them as if they were partisan should be viewed not just as wrong, but a demonstration of gender bias.

Stare decisis is a fundamental legal principle created to prevent the need to relitigate the same issues over and over. We have every reason to respect this principle, but it has been misused in domestic violence cases. The assumption is that once a court makes a decision (after any appeals), we must assume the decision is correct. Unfortunately the assumption that the decisions were correct has discouraged court officials from investigating how their decisions have worked out. Judge Sol Gothard wrote, “If the court system had commissioned research to determine how the present practices are working, the result would be the information contained in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. The research findings demonstrate court practices are outdated and their confidence misplaced.” In reality, these decisions are predictions that children would do better living with one parent than the other. It is appropriate for courts to study how these predictions have worked out just as it is proper to reconsider past decisions based on new research and information.

When allegations or evidence of domestic violence are part of a custody case, a court must consider current scientific research about domestic violence and learn from the knowledge and experience of domestic violence advocates or other experts. Hopefully it won’t be long until we are shaking our heads and wondering how it could have taken so long to appreciate what should be obvious. A custody court that refuses to listen to a domestic violence expert is demonstrating its bias and committing malpractice. The failure to consider domestic violence research and expertise should be grounds for reversal. The flawed and outdated practices that have ruined too many children’s lives have already been tolerated for far too long.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

You Are Not a Victim ! A ticked-off Advocate Speaks Her Mind About Victimization

 By Pamela Chapman

While in the past few weeks I have decided to no longer do business as I have in the past, I have also told myself that I would no longer mince my words or pussyfoot around with people’s lives. This is not to say that I have in the past; however, when you blog, have a website or comment on Facebook, when you are in the limelight, you feel obligated to be sensitive, polite and politically correct. You believe you shouldn’t offend your audience.

However, if anyone reading this piece were to interview some of my ex-clients (I am so humbly proud to say ex) they would say at some time or another I pissed them off.

They’d probably easily remember me getting under their skin. They’d recall how we yelled back and forth at one another and talked over each other. Some would tell you they phoned my boss at the OCRM to report me for not giving them all the tools, gifts or entitlements they believed they needed. Or, as one of my favorite clients, who is now a friend, did—called my boss because the case manager whom I replaced promised to take care of her and her family and I said, “bull!”

I personally didn’t give a rat’s you-know-what about the promises made to her. I was looking at an intelligent, beautiful young woman who had everything going for her; but, instead she was perfectly comfortable going from one program to another believing that was all she was worthy of having and doing.

It wasn’t the only time that I made her angry. I also made her angry when she told me she was intentionally choosing to make the same stupid decision, over and over again. That was seeking out abusive mates. Well, she didn’t exactly put it that way. After me telling her I was going to pray and declare that she would no longer have any desire for the loser guys she was picking, she kind of said, (paraphrased) “I don’t want you to pray for me because I enjoy my [irrational, absurd, stupid] behavior.”  Adjectives added by yours truly. She stomped off and refused to connect with me for her weekly accountability sessions. I, honestly, saw through her pain and her hurt and knew her words were just that— words. But also honestly, I had far too many cases to manage and didn’t feel it my personal responsibility to track her down. But, this I knew. I had prayed and either she’d get mad and drop off my case load or she’d get mad and move her life forward.

Several weeks later, I received a call. “Can we meet?” She had come to the crazy conclusion that she was good enough, worthy enough (even though these weren’t her words) and believed my prayers for her had helped her lose desire to pursue or be pursued by the losers of her past. “What the $%@! did you do?” she questioned as soon as I was seated across from her.

I laughed. I had messed up her world.

You see, I believe as long as we coddle clients, patients and loved ones—as long as we allow them to be victims of abuse and life, we not only permit but perpetuate their behavior and enable them to be poor, weak, disempowered individuals (whether women or men) believing they are unworthy of anything better, living their pathetic lives as such.

It has been said that people like me, people with my belief “mess other people up.” Well, you know something. Good! If messing them up will cause them to get up of their glorious asses and do something different—Good! My success record, my rate of recidivism speaks for itself.

I do not believe a woman or a man has to cycle six, seven or ten times and/or get their brains beat out before they can find the power to leave. I do not believe they have to have money to leave. I do not even believe they have to enter an agency shelter. However, I believe they do have to first believe in themselves: that they are WORTHY and they are FEARFULLY and WONDERFULLY made by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God.

I do believe they must find a strong and powerful support system—someone who has been through it to help them walk though it and out of it. Not someone who talks about it, has studied it or read about it; but, someone who has lived their hell. They have to find someone like a Susan Murphy Milano, Anny Jacoby, or I—someone who has not only survived but has over-come and beat all odds and is willing to walk with them, strengthen their soul, and feed their spirit. Someone who can show them how while they work and fight with everything in their own personal God power to get the hell out of their degrading, humiliating and pitiful situation.

Victim? No you are not! Your situations and/or experiences do not make you. The same as your occupation, career or where you live does not make you. If you are in an undesirable situation, you are simply an individual, male or female, who is going through a challenging life transition—possibly horrendously challenging. You may have forgotten who and what you are. Life has possibly dealt you a hard blow or two; maybe even several probably starting with childhood, and you have come to believe these illusions and shadows are you and what you are. Not so!

I won’t pat your little head or rub your bended back. I’m not going to let you feel sorry for yourself. Nor am I going to let you believe you’re entitled to anything. I’m not going to blame you either and say it’s your fault. Whose fault it is doesn’t matter. But this is what I am going to do. I’m going to teach you that you are somebody. You are someone very, very special. I am going to help you understand you are here for a very powerful and specific purpose. I will prove to you that you are worthy and go on to show you there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

If you wait for someone to empower you, you will be waiting until your hell freezes over. And, it won’t freeze! It won’t stand still. The only way for the abuse, humiliation and dread to end is to make an empowered decision to do something for you. And, when you’re tired and weary, know that you can do all things and every thing through Christ Jesus who is your strength. Listen, He will never leave you or forsake you. You know why? You are in Him and He is in You so you can’t leave one another.

And when someone tells you, you have to be a victim or it’s okay to be a victim or there is nothing you can do or, or, or, or…..you stand with your shoulders back and say, “I AM More than a Conquer—I AM an Over-comer. I AM a VICTOR.”

Empowering yourself requires action. Learn to protect yourself. Learn to take care of yourself. Learn to depend on no one but yourself. (I personally would include God in the equation I don’t care what agencies say.) Want to know why and how I can be so adamant and arrogant, so bold and audacious with my words?

Here’s three reasons why:

• This 5’3, 105 pound (back in the day) black girl who grew up in the South Bronx, who got pregnant at 20 and then found herself lonely, poor and disempowered one day went down to social services and they, the government, told me to go home and get pregnant. I made too much money. Six-hundred dollars a month was too much money. That’s when I got ticked and waged a war.

• When I was thirty-something and my five-foot obnoxious boss in L.A. told me I’d never be anything or get anywhere because I wasn’t political, that’s when I got ticked, again, and waged a war.

• And, when my alcoholic, emotionally abusive husband of seventeen years (the man I had washed dirty underwear, cooked, cleaned and shopped for while working 10 hours a day) told me he’d choose his bottle over me any day that’s when I really got pissed and waged a war.

This is what makes me an expert. I’ve lived it and have come through it miraculously and triumphantly. These are only a few of my personal battles. You see every time, a person, a situation, or a challenge attempted to destroy me, I’d resurrect twice as tall and strong and overcome it. When someone told me I couldn’t or shouldn’t, I said, “Bet your ass I will,” and I did.

I have made a well-thought, educated decision to not pursue my purpose the same way I have in the past years as I said in opening. But, I promise you I am not a victim and neither are you.  I will continue to speak out, and continue to speak life into what has been pronounced dead. I will continue to encourage and motivate women to empower themselves. I will continue to speak against disingenuous, disempowering, disabling systems that continue to perpetuate weakness and victimization. I will continue to expose the shams and the imposters. I’ll do it, and I will do it in the strength and in the might of Jesus and our Almighty God. I won’t do it in anger, but I’ll do it in love because love conquers all!  

I dare to say that the women and families that I’ve assisted would add this: that when they decided to love themselves, I loved them more. When they decided to take a step for themselves, I took two. When they decided they were sick and tired and weren’t going to take it any more, I was right there beside them just as pissed and ticked as they were—ready to fight as an advocate, a voice, a partner, a friend. Most of these same women and families, I am proud to say, continue to make great strides and accomplishments today.

You are not a victim! You are Victorious.

I hope I’ve pissed you off. And if I have, just like I heard in my own heart one afternoon while on my knees crying, belly aching and vomiting all over God, “Get up and do something! I gave you the power” Make a declaration, make a phone call, set an intention, make a plan, pack your bags…but crying out loud DO something!

In love, light and healing

Pamela Chapman, CTACC, CDVS

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?

By Barry Goldstein

Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders. It is not like cancer or heart disease which would require some fundamental changes in human behavior to achieve massive reductions. We could easily put together a change in laws, policies and practices and quickly end the danger of domestic violence for most women and children. If we could as readily prevent most of the deaths from earthquakes, tornados, cancer or terror attacks, we would not hesitate to do so. Why should we continue to tolerate the enormous harm caused by abusers? Many of our leaders have spoken of and dreamed of a world without domestic violence. This is a worthy goal, but I am not naïve enough to believe we can end all domestic violence in our lifetimes. We can, however create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes. I say let’s do it.

Background

Our publisher asked Mo Hannah and I to prepare a second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. I decided to write a chapter for the book of a modern tale of two cities comparing Quincy, Massachusetts with Poughkeepsie, New York. I selected Quincy, Massachusetts because they had developed the Quincy Model which had resulted in a drastic reduction of domestic violence homicide. I selected Poughkeepsie, New York because they had been severely criticized for using approaches in custody court that strongly favored abusive fathers. The court system and particularly the judges reacted to the criticism in a defensive and retaliatory manner. Dutchess County has now had a series of domestic violence homicides including the last crime in which the abusive father also killed a police officer. The County Legislature created a committee to study and respond to the series of domestic violence homicides and I am interested to see if they make a connection between the murders and the pattern of mistreatment of protective mothers in the custody court system.

In the late 1970s around the start of the modern movement to end domestic violence, approximately three thousand domestic violence homicides were committed each year in the United States. The frequency of domestic violence homicides did not change significantly until society adopted policies and practices to hold abusers accountable, particularly with pro-arrest policies. The timing of the increased accountability with the reduction in domestic violence homicide supported the belief that these policies led to the reduction, but perhaps what was most convincing was the results in communities that were especially strict in enforcing domestic violence laws. Communities like Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California saw even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide as a result of strong programs to prevent domestic violence. Quincy, Massachusetts adopted its model in response to a series of domestic violence homicides and for many years they had no domestic violence homicides in Quincy.

Achieving a Massive Reduction in Domestic Violence Crime

As part of the research for my chapter I have had the opportunity to read about the practices that were so successful in Quincy and elsewhere. I have also read some of the ideas for improving the conditions in Poughkeepsie. We also have the research to establish improved practices in the custody courts. This is particularly important for reducing domestic violence crimes because abuser rights groups have been particularly successful in using common mistakes and flawed practices in the custody courts to undermine the progress society had made elsewhere in reducing domestic violence. The result of the failures in the custody courts has been that more battered mothers are staying with their abusers because they are afraid of being separated from their children and some of them do not survive this decision. Although some have attributed the recent rise in domestic violence homicide after many years of reduction to the bad economy, I believe the problems we see in the custody courts is the more likely explanation. Based upon the research and experience, I believe it would be easy for a group of domestic violence experts to create a best practices model that would result in a drastic reduction in domestic violence crimes.

The basic reforms that would create a massive reduction in domestic violence crime should not be in dispute. Experts may differ about some of the specifics around the edges, but the decisions on those issues would not affect the positive outcome if we included the practices that have been shown to work. We are working on a more complete and detailed agenda for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, but we already know the basics of what is needed. Here is what any reform agenda would include:

1. Coordinated Community Response: The communities that were most successful in reducing domestic violence homicide developed a coordinated community response in which all parts of the community came together to do their part in ending domestic violence. The professionals worked together to coordinate their response and included the domestic violence community as a key resource in the response to domestic violence. The communities had regular meetings to monitor how the campaign to end domestic violence was going and to make adjustments as needed.

2. Make it Easier for Victims to Obtain Protective Orders: Some people disparage protective orders as not worth the paper they are printed on and sometimes it is true, but women with protective orders are safer than those without. Society needs to make it less of a burden on battered women to obtain needed protection by having specified times when the court handles only protective orders so women can get in and out of court quickly. At other times judges should take protective orders before other cases because of the safety concerns. This is important because women may have work or family obligations that make it difficult to wait around the court in order to see a judge. Many judges get frustrated when women seek a protective order and then don’t return for the next court date. Reducing the burdens on victims will encourage them to follow through. At the same time there should be special clerks that help women fill out the forms and prosecutors’ offices should brief victims on the procedures they can expect. Finally judges should take domestic violence allegations more seriously, receive better training and make sure women who need protection can obtain the orders.

3. Strict Enforcement of Criminal Laws and Violations of Protective Orders: The heart of the programs that created a substantial reduction in domestic violence homicide was taking domestic violence seriously. This requires strict enforcement of domestic violence crimes and protective orders. Research demonstrates that abusive men tend to use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners. That is why accountability and monitoring are the best ways to prevent domestic violence. The strict enforcement not only sends a message to the men held accountable, and their children, it sends a message to the entire community. The programs are often launched with important media coverage and those involved in the coordinated community response also help spread the message.

4. Lethality Assessment: The most important purpose of the laws, programs and practices designed to prevent domestic violence is the safety of victims and their children. One of the first things domestic violence advocates learn is safety planning and how to assess the danger. There are several common behaviors of abusers that have been shown to be related to an increased level of danger that domestic violence experts look at in making lethality assessments. These behaviors include choking, strangling or putting his hands around his partner’s throat, assaulting her while pregnant, raping or attempting to rape his partner, killing or hurting family pets, availability of guns, threats of suicide, homicide or kidnapping and a belief she has no right to leave. Incredibly, court professionals rarely use risk assessments or even understand the significance of these behaviors in making judgments about alleged abusers. Criminal courts should be using risk assessments to inform decisions about bail, protective orders and sentencing. Custody courts should use this information in determining custody and visitation arrangements that are safe for the victim and children.

5. Give Domestic Violence Cases the First Priority: Communities that reduced domestic violence crimes gave these cases the first priority. As discussed earlier this means making sure victims can get access to judges quickly so they don’t lose jobs or have to spend a lot of money on child care in order to protect themselves. It means local judges coming to arraignments after hours rather than releasing alleged offenders with an appearance ticket, but no protective order. It also means that custody courts must recognize most contested custody cases involve domestic violence and place a priority on the safety of the children and alleged victims.

6. Best Interests of the Child Should Mean Safety is the First Priority: The most important issue in deciding custody should be the safety of the children, but states usually have a list of factors to be considered and shockingly courts often focus on other less important issues. The second priority should be arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential.

7. Use of Current Scientific Research: When domestic violence first became a public issue there was no research to inform professionals about the best way to respond. When professionals modified their practices based on new research it has helped protect victims. Police departments went from practices of separating the parties and having the abuser walk around the block to cool off to a pro-arrest policy. Communities that created more accountability for abusers saw domestic violence crimes reduced. Child protective agencies that have partnered with domestic violence agencies and consulted with their advocates on potential domestic violence cases have been better able to recognize domestic violence and forge arrangements that protect children better. Police and prosecutors need to be aware of the frequency in which abusers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations and avoid wasting their resources persecuting their victims before fully investigating the allegations and speaking with the real victims. Custody courts have been particularly slow to modify practices based on current scientific research. They need to recognize most contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to maintain their control. They need to limit the role of mental health professionals to their area of expertise which is mental health and not domestic violence. They need to avoid inadequately trained professionals who continue to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations particularly in sexual abuse cases. The court must also stop permitting unscientific theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome.

8. Retraining Court Professionals: A lot of unfortunate events have combined to create widespread beliefs in a wide range of misinformation about domestic violence. Domestic violence is often counterintuitive which leads to misinformation. The lack of research when court professionals started responding also contributes to the problem. The widespread use of unqualified professionals has encouraged an undeserved confidence in false notions that make them harder to challenge and correct. The media has done a lousy job of covering domestic violence and often fails to understand who the experts are. Accordingly we need to retrain court professionals both to prevent the use of misinformation and to help the professionals learn about current scientific research, domestic violence dynamics and best practices. The training must have the active participation of genuine domestic violence experts such as dv advocates. Professionals working in criminal court must learn the importance of taking domestic violence seriously, prioritizing domestic violence cases and holding offenders strictly accountable. They should particularly learn how communities have dramatically reduced domestic violence homicide. Criminal court professionals must learn that accountability and monitoring are the only approaches shown to reduce domestic violence. Domestic violence is not caused by substance abuse, mental illness or anger management issues. Some offenders may have mental illness or substance abuse and domestic violence issues and each problem should be responded to separately. Custody court professionals must unlearn the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. They need to look at the motivation of alleged abusers and understand the harm to children. They must learn that allegations of child sexual abuse have been totally mishandled and learn best practices to respond to these painful allegations. They also must learn that the way to include both parents in children’s lives that most benefits children is to require abusers to stop their harmful tactics instead of asking their victims to get over their fear and concern.

9. Use of Domestic Violence Experts: We now have a substantial body of specialized knowledge about domestic violence. Courts must stop relying on “experts” unfamiliar with this research and ignorant of domestic violence dynamics and instead listen to genuine domestic violence experts. Courts must stop refusing to listen to these genuine experts and especially until this information is better known to court professionals allow these experts to testify in order to educate the judge and other professionals.

10. Early Domestic Violence Hearings in Custody Cases: A large majority of contested custody cases are actually domestic violence cases. The research is very clear that unless the victim is unsafe, she should have custody and the abuser supervised visitation because that is what works best for children. Accordingly, custody courts can schedule an evidentiary hearing at the start of the case on the domestic violence issue. There is no need for evaluators or GALs as it is a factual issue. This will permit courts to resolve cases in a few hours or less that otherwise would take months or years and provide a huge savings in money and court time. Children also benefit because they don’t have to spend years worried about where they will live. This also avoids less important and distracting issues that only make it more difficult for the judge to understand the issues. This practice is likely to help courts make better decisions as well as quicker ones.

11. Use of Victim’s Advocate: The advocates are used by law enforcement to help and support the victim and provide information and training for law enforcement personnel. They are used in the prosecutor’s office for similar purposes and to acquaint the victim with the procedures. These practices should make survivors more comfortable and thus more likely to cooperate and press charges. In the court clerk’s office the advocate can help victims fill out forms and documents and explain the procedures. These procedures will help provide law enforcement and the courts with needed evidence while encouraging the complainant to continue to participate.

12. New Approach to Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Cases: Although most allegations of child sexual abuse made by mothers are true and deliberately false allegations are rare, 85% of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases result in custody for the alleged abuser and frequently little or no contact with the mother who sought to protect her child. This is a result of the difficulty in proving abuse of very young children and deeply flawed practices. Based especially on the new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders, we should start by eliminating court professionals who believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Professionals should be trained in best practices that would include understanding why a child might be reluctant to reveal sexual abuse or recant truthful allegations, use of play therapy for young children, avoid giving abusers additional opportunities to silence children and give children a chance to develop trusting relationships with therapists or other investigators before expecting them to discuss the abuse. We particularly need to abandon approaches that retaliate against mothers for good faith allegations.

13. Limit Role of Mental Health Professionals to their Area of Expertise: Mental health professionals are routinely used for evaluations and other services in domestic violence custody cases despite limited and often distorted information about domestic violence. This has contributed to the frequency in which courts place children in jeopardy. Mental health professionals have a role to play when a parent has a serious mental disorder that interferes with the ability to care for the children or other issues related to their field of study and practice. They should be limited to roles they are qualified for and at the very least consult with domestic violence experts on cases involving possible domestic violence.

14. Gender Bias: Over forty states and many districts have conducted court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias. Other scientific research supports these findings. Women who kill their partner receive seventy percent longer sentences under similar circumstances as men who kill their partner. Women are given less credibility, higher standards of proof and are blamed for the actions of their abusers. Courts cannot do an effective job of responding to domestic violence as long as it continues to unconsciously favor male litigants. Court professionals must be trained about gender bias, attorneys and litigants must be protected and encouraged to raise concerns about gender bias, judges and other court professionals should be transferred, retrained or otherwise disciplined for continued gender biased practices and appellate courts must reverse cases based on gender bias.

15. Improved Police Role in Ending Domestic Violence: Police should make domestic violence cases a high priority and conduct an evidence based investigation instead of just relying on the victim’s testimony. Police must be trained to understand fathers involved in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. This means they should take complaints from mothers seriously despite ongoing litigation, but have some skepticism of father’s allegations. They should always speak with the mother to understand the context before making a decision to make an arrest or bring charges. The police must also be aware that abusers tend to be very manipulative, but sometimes the police can use abusers’ sense of entitlement to encourage them to make statements that are actually admissions. Police departments must take precautions to respond to male officers who abuse their partners and particularly use their influence and relationship with other officers to undermine any investigation. There should be no tolerance for domestic violence or covering up domestic violence complaints. Departments should have a procedure for women to have someone in the department they can safely complain to about their partner’s abuse and any assistance other officers provide him.

Can Society Afford to Continue to Tolerate Domestic Violence? 

Politicians sometimes justify their failure to do more to stop domestic violence by citing the costs, but the reality is the costs are much greater by tolerating domestic violence. In reviewing a report about the response to domestic violence in Dutchess County, New York, I noticed how often they undermined substantial parts of the plan to prevent domestic violence in order to save small sums of money. The problem is when they are budgeting; they fail to consider the extra money that will be expended as a result of the increase in domestic violence encouraged by the cutbacks.

Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful and costly behaviors including crime. Large majorities of the prison population were directly abused as children or witnessed domestic violence. This creates huge added expenses in police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys and prisons. It also creates more expenses in substance abuse treatment. This is in addition to the extra similar expenses in directly responding to domestic violence crimes and custody cases based on domestic violence.

An increase in domestic violence crimes also increases health care costs. Not only is the health care system used to heal the immediate physical wounds, but it leads to other medical problems based on the stress of living with domestic violence as well as emotional and psychological difficulties. If the woman has medical insurance his abuse is paid by all of the policy holders through higher premiums. If she does not have insurance she may not be able to pay for the care so that the rest of the public and the government ultimately pays. Many of the health costs are borne directly by various governmental entities.

When victims miss work it harms the economy thus reducing tax revenues. The same is true when women lose jobs because of injuries or repeated court dates. Government programs like unemployment insurance and crime victim compensation may also be triggered. Significantly domestic violence interferes with the ability to reach their potential. It is hard for women to reach their potential when dealing with domestic violence even if the injuries do not prove fatal. Men who commit domestic violence crimes can’t reach their potential if they are in jail and even if they are not jailed the time they waste abusing and harassing their partners can interfere with the ability to reach their potential. Children who witness domestic violence are significantly less likely to reach their potential and if the children grow up to hurt others these third parties also lose the ability to reach their potential. We don’t know if society will miss out on someone who would have discovered a medical cure, developed a patent, created a major new business or is just a productive member of society. All of this represents a massive loss of economic activity that translates into a huge loss of tax revenue.

While the proposal described above would include some additional expenses, it also includes plans that would save substantial tax dollars. Conducting early evidentiary hearings on domestic violence would help courts make better decisions, but also save substantial sums of money and judicial time. A large majority of contested custody cases which are the cases that take most of the court’s time are domestic violence cases. Since mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse, a hearing for an hour or two will avoid cases that often take many months or years. There will be no need to spend money on evaluators, GALs or other professionals who provide no help in recognizing or responding to domestic violence. Furthermore, as the practices outlined in this article become better known, abusive men will be less likely to commit domestic violence crimes and children will be sent an important message that domestic violence will not be tolerated. This will save significant sums initially and much greater amounts over time as the message resonates.

We don’t have figures on the full cost of domestic violence or the amount of money this proposal would save, but it has to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In that context attempting to save thousands of dollars by cutting local programs or a few million on programs nationally is counterproductive based on the financial costs and insane based on the human costs.

How to get Started Ending Domestic Violence

It is common rhetoric to say we should end domestic violence. We may not be able to prevent all domestic violence tactics or even all domestic violence crimes, but we know how to quickly create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes and especially domestic violence homicide. How do we get from here to there?

Just as people in Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California came together to make ending domestic violence the leading priority other communities can do the same and it is easier because they have the successes of those communities to look at and a lot of additional research. Individual states can take the lead by adopting the needed law changes and provide funding to implement a program like the one discussed in this article.

This can also be done on a national basis. The President can announce that we will no longer tolerate domestic violence and create a program to encourage communities to implement the practices that work. Grants and other support can be provided to set up pilot projects around the country to demonstrate that these practices will work. Eventually the federal government can make implementation of these practices a requirement if states wish to receive any federal funding for law enforcement and the judicial system. This should be done on a non-partisan basis. Democrats claim to be supporters of women so they should certainly wish to free women from the fear and risk of domestic violence. Republicans regularly propose spending millions of dollars to promote abstinence for children. If they don’t want children having sex with their peers they certainly will wish to protect them from sex with adults. The bills to end domestic violence should be House 1 and Senate 1 to make them the first priority.

Several years ago I gave a presentation with Mo Therese Hannah at the NCADV Conference in Atlanta. I spoke about the success of Quincy, Nashville and San Diego in implementing these practices. After the workshop, a woman came up to me and told me what I said was no longer true. It seems a new administration took over in Nashville, dismantled the successful program and the domestic violence homicide rate went back up. This was disappointing news, but it also confirmed that it was these practices that are the difference between a substantial reduction in domestic violence crime and requiring women’s lives to be impacted by men’s abuse of their intimate partners.

Domestic violence is not inevitable. It can be prevented. Our daughters and granddaughters can grow up in a world in which domestic violence crimes are rare. The worst crime would be if we take the knowledge, research and ability we have to substantially reduce domestic violence crimes and instead find some excuse to force women and children to continue to suffer.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Self Care and Healing for Advocates...

By Anny Jacoby

Everyday advocates at rape crisis centers, domestic violence agencies and independents in the field see and hear the effects of victimization. When a community is shaken by a high profile case with media attention coming out of the woodwork an advocates work can be or is even more overwhelming. Advocates respond in person or by phone to many victims as they reach out for support, guidance, a safe place to begin their journey and the process of healing. As advocates we see and hear first-hand traumatic experiences of sexual assault and abuse against women, children and men daily. Advocates carry these experiences with them and even perhaps if an advocate is a survivor may experience "flashbacks". The constant exposure to any type of trauma can take a toll on an advocate's well-being. The evil of the world becomes more evident and something as simple as listening to a song or watching a movie, can fill us with anxiety, sadness, anger, and other negative feelings.

Positive impacts of advocacy are many...to witness a victim or survivor's courage, her/his strength and their commitment to healing themselves and families are beyond words.

What is Advocacy?

The definition of an advocate as a noun is:

1. One that pleads the cause of another

2. One that defends or maintains a cause or proposal

3. One that supports or promotes the interests of another

The definition of an advocate as a verb is:

To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

1. One that argues for a cause, a supporter or defender

2. One that pleads in another's behalf

Noun Synonyms: supporter, spokesperson, promoter, upholder

Verb Synonyms: advise, build up, campaign for, defend, encourage, go bat for, justify, promote, recommend, speak for, spread around, support, urge, protect, shield, support

When the definitions and roles of an advocate are put forth and we understand exactly what our mission is there is nothing that will stop us. Or at the least, we will find a way around the obstacle in order to assist and extend our hand to those in need. I think one can agree with me that any advocate who pours her/his heart and soul into their mission or cause with positivity and deep emotions will be touched in some way or another. It's inevitable.

Marishka Hargitay plays Detective Olivia Benson on Law and Order; Special Victim's Unit and President and Founder of the Joyful Heart Foundation, stated:

"When people are abused and assaulted,
it is like the doors to their souls slam shut."

Just as souls of victims shut down, souls of advocates can shut down as well. If our souls shut down, how can we continue to assist and help victims to heal and transition into survivors and assist in lighting their souls once again? Where do advocates find support? How does "second-hand trauma" affect advocates? One of the most important things that I have learned throughout the years of advocacy was the absolute need and must to take care of ourselves. It is imperative to advocate "self-care".

Often when an advocate does not advocate "self-care" we see extreme levels of burnout and loss of passion for our mission and work. An advocate must take care of herself/himself while caring for others. Advocates owe themselves, their families and victims to take care of themselves because you cannot help others until you help yourself first. It is equally important that while you are being supportive of others it is just as important to be supportive and to take care of yourself.

So, how can an advocate focus on "self-care"?

General Prevention:
*Become aware of symptoms of stress before they become severe
*Establish clear, realistic stress management goals
*Incorporate all of the support and planning necessary to make it work
*The challenge is to find the satisfactory level of stress each of us requires in order to thrive.

Personal Strategies of Self-Care:
*Physical - Eat, exercise, dance, swim, walk, run, take vacations, sleep, get medical care when needed...
*Emotional - Love yourself, cry, laugh, express outrage, play with children, praise yourself, stay in contact with important people...
*Psychological - self reflect, journal, read, decrease stress, be curious...
*Spiritual - reflect, spend time outdoors, be inspired, pray, sing, meditate, identify what is meaningful, experience awe and cherish your hope...
*Workplace & professional - take a break, chat with other volunteers and staff members, set limits, balance your time, make your workspace comfortable and soothing...
*Balance between work life, volunteerism, family, play and relationships...


As Mother Teresa wrote, "To keep the lamp burning, we have to keep putting oil in it."


When it comes to stress relief, we need all of the help that we can get. When you are centered, those reaching out to you benefit as well.

Take a moment out of your busy schedule daily to relax (about 7 minutes). Read the following relaxation guide and then listen to the video/music below - you deserve it.

Close your office door, turn the lights off or dim them. Sit back in your chair, prop your feet up if able or lie on the floor, become comfortable, close your eyes and relax. As you settle, relax the weight of your body into the support of your chair or the floor. Notice how the body makes contact with the support of the chair or the floor. Relax the back of your legs...the back of your hips...your lower back, middle back and upper back. Relax the back of your shoulders...the back of your arms...the back of your neck...and the back of your head. Make any adjustments you need to, to relax the body into the chair/floor more fully. Relax into the support of the chair/floor completely.

Relax the muscles of your face. Relax your eyes and your forehead. Relax your temples and cheeks. Relax you mouth and jaw. Relax your whole face. Place your hands on your belly. Feel the rise and fall of your belly as you breathe. Notice each inhalation as it enters the body, and each exhalation as it exits the body. Let your breathing be soft, full and easy. No effort. Let the body be breathed. As you inhale, say silently in your mind, ‘Let.’ As you exhale, silently say ‘Go.’ Inhale, ‘Let.’ Exhale, ‘Go.’

Continue to observe the breath, letting the body sink deeper and deeper into relaxation. Let your arms rest by your side. As you exhale, make a soft fist with each hand. As you inhale, relax the fist, and let your hands remain softly curled and relaxed. Let the body sink deeper and deeper into the support of the floor.

Now, bring your awareness to your feet. Feel the soles of your feet, and all 10 toes. Imagine that you could inhale and exhale through the soles of your feet. Imagine the breath entering the body through the soles of the feet, and exiting the body through the soles of the feet. Inhale. Exhale.

Now, bring your awareness to your hands. Feel the backs of the hands, the palms of the hands and all 10 fingers. Imagine that you could inhale and exhale through the palms of your hands. Imagine the breath entering the body through the palms of your hands, and exiting the body through the palms of your hands. Inhale. Exhale.

Now, bring your awareness to your belly. Feel the belly rise and fall as you breathe. Imagine that you could inhale and exhale through the navel. Imagine the breath entering the body through the navel and filling the belly. Imagine the breath exiting the body through the navel. Inhale. Exhale.

Now, let your mind relax deeper, below awareness of the breath. Let the mind relax below the level of concentration on anything, including the breath. Let the body and mind let go. Let go, completely.

Notice your breathing. Notice each inhalation as it enters the body and each exhalation as it exits the body. Bring your hands back to the belly, and feel the belly rise and fall. Let your breathing be soft, full and easy. Notice the whole body. Notice the whole body supported by the floor. Notice how easy it is to be in your body, in this moment. Feeling fully supported, in this pose, and in all areas of your life.

When you’re ready to begin moving out of relaxation, gently move the fingers and toes. Let some sensation spread into the hands and feet. Stretch or move in any way that feels good. If on the floor, roll onto your right side, and rest there. If sitting, remain relaxed. Breathe easily. Take the best feeling of this relaxation with you.

InnerIDEA

Take care and STAY SAFE!

Survivors of Crime Are Victims, Too

By Tad DiBiase

When I first began prosecuting homicides many years ago, I was never comfortable with the victim’s families.  I never knew what to say or how to act.  While many prosecutors rightly consider themselves advocates for the victims, victims aren’t “clients” and prosecutors don’t technically represent the victims.

 Sometimes I would handle cases where the homicide victim had no family who cared enough to ever come to court or follow the proceedings in any fashion. I admit that sometimes those cases were easier to deal with because there was no victim and no victim’s family.  (As an aside, I used to tell everyone that as a federal prosecutor for the United States I represented 380 million people which in reality meant I didn’t represent any of them!  I did enjoy coming home and telling my family that the “United States” was hungry or that the “United States” wanted a beer.) 

My discomfort with dealing with victims caused me to rely on the talented victim advocates in our office.  One advocate in particular, Marcy Rinker, became my “go to” advocate in all cases.  Marcy, who became a good friend of mine, was compassionate, listened well and had a can do spirit that always seemed to give the victim’s family the reassurance that we would win the case and that it was in good hands.  She was also an extremely skilled investigator in her own right to the extent that I dubbed her Detective Rinker.   I managed to ensure that Marcy became the advocate in all of my cases even when the system tried to thwart me.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office had a system where victim advocates rotated each day so that when a new case came in, the advocate on duty that day would handle the case.  By cleverly holding off on declaring when a new case came in, I was able to “bring in” a new case only on the days when Marcy was on duty. 

Over the years as I watched Marcy, I learned more about how to deal with the victim’s families: listen, offer support and advice if asked, and don’t overpromise.  As the years went on I became more comfortable dealing with the families myself and realized there are no magic words that can lessen their pain.  Ironically, in my role today as a consultant to the police, prosecutors and families, I almost never meet my families face to face.  I still feel their pain through their emails and telephone calls.  But I also feel their relief when their loved ones body is found and the suspect arrested.  Relief tinged with sorrow though at the realization that their loved on is never coming back.  Being a victim or the loved one of a victim is a horrible state to be in and we all need to learn better how to deal with victims and their families.