Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar

Domestic and Family Violence
Death Review and Advisory Board
2016–17 Annual Report
We honour the voices of those who have lost their lives to
domestic
and family violence, and extend our sympathies to the loved
ones
who are left behind, their lives forever changed by their loss.
Our efforts remain with ensuring that domestic and family
violence
deaths do not go unnoticed, unexamined or forgotten.
A report of the Domestic and Family Violence Death Review
and Advisory Board pursuant to section 91Z of the Coroners Act
2003.
Published in Brisbane, Queensland by the Domestic and Family
Violence Death Review and Advisory Board.
All enquiries regarding this document should be directed in the
first instance to the Secretariat, PO Box 1649, Brisbane, QLD,
4000, or by
email: [email protected]
©Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory

Board, Brisbane, 2017.
Copyright permissions
This publication may be copied, distributed, displayed,
downloaded and otherwise freely dealt with for any personal or
non-commercial
purpose, on the condition that proper acknowledgement is
included on all uses.
1
7
/5
9
1
9
“A mother’s nurturing is important to make family and
community resilient. When mums are protected and
supported, they will produce strong community leaders, our
future and our hope.”
Betty Williams (nee Yarrak) May
A Mother’s Nurturing
Death Review and Advisory Board | Annual Report 2016–174

About this report
The Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory
Board (the Board) is established by the Coroners Act 2003 (the
Act) to
undertake systemic reviews of domestic and family violence
deaths in Queensland. The Board is required to identify common
systemic
failures, gaps or issues and make recommendations to improve
systems, practices and procedures that aim to prevent future
domestic and
family violence deaths.
This report has been prepared by the Board in accordance with
section 91ZB of the Act, which outlines that the Board must,
within three
months after the end of the financial year, provide a report in
relation to the performance of the Board’s functions during that
financial
year, to the Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, and Minister
for Training and Skills (the Attorney-General).
The Annual Report must include information about the progress
made during the financial year to implement recommendations
made by
the Board during that year, or previous financial years.
The Attorney-General must also table a copy of this report in
the Queensland Parliament, within one month of receiving it.
The views expressed in this report are reflective of the
consensus decision-making model of the Board, and therefore
do not necessarily
reflect the private or professional views of a member of the
Board, or their individual organisations.
It is acknowledged at the outset that many of these deaths

occurred prior to, or during the early implementation of
significant reforms
associated with the Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family
Violence (2015), and the Child Protection Commission of
Inquiry (2013).
A significant number of learnings remained identifiable through
consideration of the circumstances leading up to these deaths.
Although some of these reforms may need time to achieve their
intended or desired outcomes, it is clear that we can, and
should, do more
to protect victims and their children.
Death Review and Advisory Board | Annual Report 2016–17 5
Seek help
If you, or someone you know, need help, then the following
services are available to assist.
» Lifeline is a 24 hour telephone counselling and referral
service, and can be contacted on 13 11 14 or
www.lifeline.org.au
» Kids Helpline is a 24 hour free counselling service for young
people aged between 5 and 25, and can be contacted on 1800 55
1800
or www.kidshelponline.com.au
» Mensline Australia is a 24 hour counselling service for men,
and can be contacted on 1300 78 99 78 or
www.menslineaus.org.au
» DV Connect is a 24 hour Crisis Support line for anyone
affected by domestic or family violence, and can be contacted

on 1800 811
811 or www.dvconnect.org.
» Suicide Call Back Service can be contacted on 1300 659 467
or www.suicidecallbackservice.org.au
» Beyondblue can be contacted on 1300 22 4636 or
www.beyondblue.org.au
Guidelines for safe reporting in relation to suicide and mental
illness for journalists are available here:
http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/media-resources
Chair’s message
This Annual Report outlines the work of the Board during the
2016–17 financial year in our first year of operation.
Sadly, during this period of time, 17 homicides have occurred
within an intimate partner or family relationship, as well as an
additional five
‘collateral’ homicides.
A significant prior history of domestic and family violence was
also identifiable in 35 cases of apparent or suspected suicide,
during this
time period.
While coronial investigations are ongoing into many of these
deaths, these numbers reflect the significant, and at times, fatal

impact of
domestic and family violence.
The reviews of these deaths can be both challenging and
rewarding, and I would like to take this opportunity to
acknowledge the
commitment and dedication of Board members in the
performance of their duties.
In particular, our special thanks go to former Queensland
Corrective Services Commissioner, Dr Mark Rallings who
brought to the Board a
wealth of knowledge and insight into how we might work
towards enhancing our responses to perpetrators of violence.
In building upon activities undertaken during this reporting
period, members have identified a number of priorities moving
into
the future, including:
» conducting reviews of the domestic and family violence
related deaths of people from a culturally and linguistically
diverse
background; the suicides of young people who identify as
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; and homicides within a
family
relationship
» further consideration of sexual abuse as a form of intimate
partner violence noting it was identified in six cases reviewed
by the
Board,1 and in 13.1% of the intimate partner homicides that
have occurred in Queensland between 2011 and 2015
» greater exploration of some of the statistical findings
outlined within Chapter 3 of this report including the patterns of

risk identified
within different priority populations; deaths that occurred
during relationship separation; and more detailed analysis of
those cases
where there was contact with the criminal justice system i n
relation to domestic and family violence (both within current,
and former
relationships)
» focused attention on perpetrator interventions, including
consideration of the current work being undertaken to review
and update
the Professional Practice Standards: Working with men who
perpetrate domestic and family violence2 and accompanying
principles
that govern the delivery of these programs
» close monitoring of recent reform initiatives including the
impact and implementation of legislative and policy reform
regarding non-
lethal strangulation, high risk teams, and the trial of the
Common Risk Assessment Framework.
While this Annual Report outlines the activities of the Board
undertaken during this reporting period, including the key
themes and issues
identified throughout the review process, and makes a number
of recommendations that aim to prevent future deaths, one thing
is clear -
we must all stand together to achieve change.
It is only through our collective efforts that we can break the
cycle of violence. Together we can learn from these tragedies
and work towards
ensuring that the system protects victims of domestic and family
violence and their children, while holding perpetrators to

account.
We can, and must, commit to finding ways to prevent these
deaths occurring in the future.
1 In two cases this was proximate to the death, in the other
three assaults this occurred within former relationships for the
deceased and/or offender. In the sixth there was indications that
the
deceased infant may have been sexually assaulted, and
disclosures indicative of sexual abuse by an older sibling in
relation to the perpetrator. Given the hidden nature of this type
of violence it is
likely that this is an under-reporting.
2 As per Recommendation 82; Special Taskforce on Domestic
and Family Violence in Queensland. (2015). Not Now, Not
Ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in
Queensland. Brisbane:
Author.
Mr Terry Ryan
State Coroner of Queensland, Chairperson
Dr Kathleen Baird
Deputy Chairperson
Senior Lecturer in Midwifery at Griffith University
Director of Midwifery and Nursing Education at the Gold Coast
University Hospital

Dr Jeanette Young PSM
Chief Health Officer
Deputy Director General, Prevention Division, Queensland
Health
Adjunct Professor, Queensland University of Technology
Adjunct Professor, Griffith University
Ms Barbara Shaw
Executive Director
Office for Women and Domestic Violence Reform, Department
of
Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
Dr Maurice Carless APM
Assistant Commissioner
State Crime Command
Queensland Police Service
Dr Mark Rallings
Commissioner
Queensland Corrective Services
Ms Tammy Williams
Deputy Director General
Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Partnerships
Ms Natalie Parker
Director
Domestic and Family Violence Court Reform, Department of

Justice
and Attorney General
Dr Silke Meyer
Lecturer in Postgraduate Programs (Certificate and Diploma in
Domestic and Family Violence), Centre for Domestic and
Family
Violence Research, Central Queensland University
Ms Betty Taylor
Director, Betty Taylor Training and Consultancy
Director, Red Rose Foundation
Mr Mark Walters
Manager
DV Connect (Mensline)
Ms Angela Lynch
Chief Executive Officer
Women’s Legal Service Queensland
Secretariat
Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Unit,
Coroners Court of Queensland
Board Members

Acknowledgements
The Queensland Domestic and Family Violence Death Review
Process is informed by the collective knowledge and experience
of the many
domestic and family violence, and child death, review processes
that operate for the purposes of reducing the prevalence and
incidence of
these types of deaths.
During this reporting period, the Board has had the privilege of
speaking with a range of experts, Elders and community
members
regarding key issues identified throughout the review process.
In particular the Board would like to acknowledge the
contribution of:
» Aunty Peggy Tidyman, Chairperson and Sheri Merenda,
Manager, Murrigunyah Family and Cultural Healing Centre
» Sandy Gillies, A/Chief Operating Officer, Queensland
Aboriginal and Islander Health Council
» Uncle Charles Passi, Passi Enterprises
» Shirley Slann, Manager, Boorndawan Willam Aboriginal
Healing Service
» Dr Heather Nancarrow, Chief Executive Officer, Australia’s
National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety
» Professor Heather Douglas, T. C. Bierne School of Law,
University of Queensland

» Anna Jones, Program Manager and Dave Burck, Child and
Family Counsellor, Carinity Talera
» Dr Brian Sullivan, YFS Domestic Violence Program (Logan)
» Detective Inspector Marc Hogan, Gold Coast Domestic and
Family Violence Taskforce, Queensland Police Service
Contents
Executive Summary
...............................................................................................
................................................10
Recommendations
...............................................................................................
................................................13
Chapter 1: Overview
...............................................................................................
................................................16
Chapter 2: Honouring the stories, and sharing the journey
........................................................................................18
Chapter 3: Enhancing our knowledge
...............................................................................................
.........................34
Chapter 4: Unravelling patterns of abuse, risk, and harm
..........................................................................................51

Coercive controlling violence
...............................................................................................
.....................51
Extreme proprietariness, possessiveness and morbid jealousy
................................................................52
Post-separation violence, and ‘contact abuse’
..........................................................................................53
Non-lethal strangulation
...............................................................................................
...........................57
Technology facilitated abuse
...............................................................................................
.....................57
Systems abuse
...............................................................................................
.........................................58
Chapter 5: Strengthening our systems
...............................................................................................
.......................60
Service engagement and response
...............................................................................................
............60
Health service system contact
...............................................................................................
...................61
Maternity and ante-natal care
...............................................................................................

...62
Mental health, alcohol and other drug services
.......................................................................64
Private practitioners
...............................................................................................
.................66
Relationship counsellors
...............................................................................................
..........67
Criminal justice system contact
...............................................................................................
.................67
Police................................................................................... ..
.................................................68
Courts
...............................................................................................
......................................73
Child Safety Services
...............................................................................................
.................................75
Chapter 6: Earlier detection, and targeted intervention and
support ..........................................................................79
Early intervention and prevention
...............................................................................................
.............79

Information sharing to support earlier response
.......................................................................................80
Interventions with victims who may use violence
......................................................................................82
Perpetrator interventions
...............................................................................................
..........................84
Ongoing monitoring for earlier intervention
.............................................................................86
Community and bystander interventions
...............................................................................................
...88
Family and friends
...............................................................................................
....................88
Workplace responses
...............................................................................................
...............89
Chapter 7: A call for change - responding to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander family violence ...............................90
Overview
...............................................................................................
................................................90
Key issues and themes
...............................................................................................
..............................93

System responses to family violence
...............................................................................................
.........99
Appendix A – Intimate Partner Homicide Lethality Risk Factor
Form .........................................................................107
Appendix B – Case
characteristics.........................................................................
..................................................113
Homicide-Suicides and Perpetrator Suicides
..........................................................................................11
3
Intimate Partner Homicides
...............................................................................................
.....................114
Victim Suicides
...............................................................................................
.......................................115
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander intimate partner homicides
............................................................117
Filicides
...............................................................................................
..............................................118
Appendix C – Glossary of
terms......................................................................................
.........................................119

Death Review and Advisory Board | Annual Report 2016–
1710
Executive Summary
First and foremost, we honour the voices of those who have lost
their lives to domestic and family violence.
In Queensland, since 2006, 263 women, children and men have
been killed by a family member or someone who they were, or
had been, in an intimate partner relationship. For every death,
the ramifications are immense and widespread; affecting not
only
loved ones left behind, but also the service providers required
to
respond to these situations.
This annual report is based on a statistical analysis of these
deaths, and in-depth reviews conducted by the Board of twenty
nine deaths which occurred between 2011 and 2016.3
By harnessing these collective learnings and our understanding
of standards of contemporary practice, we can reinforce and
strengthen our collective effort to say, ‘Not Now, Not Ever’ to
domestic and family violence in Queensland.
Our foundation
The first step in driving change is to assess and understand the
situation and through the Domestic and Family Violence Death
Review Unit, we are able to collate a wealth of quantitative data
about domestic and family violence deaths in Queensland for
the
period between 2006 and 30 June 2017.

The datasets outlined in this report help to illustrate the breadth
and scope of the problem; the events leading up to the deaths;
the presence of any risk indicators; and prior service system
contact.
This chapter outlines a number of key findings, including that:
» Of the 263 homicides in this period, an identifiable history
of domestic and family violence was established in 165
cases (61.6%). A history of violence was identified in
greater proportions of intimate partner homicides (70.7%)
and collateral4 homicides (77.8%), in comparison to family
homicides (47.3%).
» Females were significantly over-represented as victims
in intimate partner homicides, with 81.8% of victims
being female. In contrast, there was little variation by
gender with respect to family homicide victims.
Collateral homicide victims were almost exclusively
male with the majority of these deaths involving the
former partner of a woman murdering her new partner.
» For intimate partner homicides, the vast majority of female
deceased had a prior history of being a victim of domestic
and family violence (97.6%); whereas the majority of males
were identified as being a perpetrator of domestic and family
violence prior to the death (89.5%).
» Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were
overrepresented among domestic and family
homicide victims. Almost one-fifth (18.1%) of homicide
victims identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait
Islander, compared with approximately 3.6% of the non-
Indigenous Queenslanders.

3 This included one death from 2011, five deaths from 2012,
eight deaths from 2013, six deaths from 2014, seven deaths
from 2015 and two deaths from 2016.
4 These include the deaths of bystanders who died intervening
within a domestic dispute or acts of associated domestic and
family violence, such as when a new partner was killed by a
former partner.
5 Cross protection orders relate to both parties being listed as
the respondent and aggrieved on separate orders.
6 None of the Aboriginal family violence homicide cases
occurred during a known period of separation.
» A domestic violence protection order was in place at the
time of death in 41.6% of intimate partner homicides where
a history of domestic and family violence was established.
The deceased was recorded as the aggrieved party on
three-quarters (78.6%) of these orders, with cross orders5 in
place in 11.9% of cases. The deceased was recorded as the
respondent on protection orders in only 9.5% of intimate
partner homicides.
As well as homicides, this report also provides insight into
apparent suicides occurring in the context of domestic and
family violence.
Preliminary data is also provided as to the types of risk factors
that were commonly identified in these cases. This may provide
the most benefit in helping to prevent these types of deaths from
occurring in the future through enhancing our understanding of
the
underlying dynamics of these types of relationships.
Unravelling patterns of abuse, risk and harm
One of the significant benefits of death review processes is the

ability to identify trends and patterns from qualitative revie w of
the
circumstances surrounding each of the deaths.
In many of the cases reviewed by the Board this year, where
they
were reported, the significance of a number of risk indicators
were
sometimes not recognised by services or other informal
supports,
and therefore not responded to.
To that end, this section of the report provides invaluable
insight
into these risk indicators and characteristics and calls for better
recognition and understanding of these patterns of risk and
harm.
Key findings include:
» Coercive controlling violence was evident in almost all cases
however, this was unlikely to be responded to unless reports
of physical violence were concurrently made. Covert and
nonphysical forms of coercion, such as social isolation,
harassing or threatening behaviour, possessiveness or
verbal abuse were less likely to be recognised by services as
potential indicators of abuse or reported by victims.
» Obsessive possessive behaviours, which presented as sexual
or morbid jealousy, were noted in almost all of the intimate
partner homicides and was particularly prevalent in the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cases subject to review.
Episodes of domestic and family violence that were reported
were at times recorded as ‘arguments about infidelity’ and
subsequently minimised or considered in isolation of other
indicators of harm.

» Five of the intimate partner homicides,6 both of the homicide
suicides and four of the perpetrator suicides considered by
the Board in this reporting period occurred in the context of
actual or pending separation, indicating the need to better
understand the heightened risk of harm that is evident during
this period.
» Where children were present in the relationship, and the
parents were or had separated, there was evidence that the
11
» perpetrator used the children as further means of controlling
or abusing the victim in over two thirds of cases (69.2%).
» Non-lethal strangulation was identified in seven homicide
cases and three victim suicide cases considered by the Board
however, this was not generally recognised as a significant
indicator of future lethality risk.
» Technology facilitated abuse and harassment via text, email
or social media was identified as an emerging trend across
the cases.
» Systems abuse (the abuse of processes in the course of
domestic and family violence related proceedings) by
perpetrators to gain advantage or continue abuse of victims
was evident in a number of cases. It was most prevalent in
the filicide cases where the perpetrator would use threats of
child removal against their female intimate partner.
Strengthening our systems

In all but one case considered by the Board, the victims and
perpetrators had contact with a variety of general and specialist
services prior to the deaths. This included contact with:
» health services in relation to presentations for assault-
related injuries; mental health or alcohol and other
drug treatment; maternity and ante-natal care;
and/or suicidal or self-harming behaviour
» police and/or the criminal justice system in relation to
domestic and family violence in either the current or
previous relationships, or other related calls for service
» specialist domestic and family violence services including
women’s refuges or perpetrator intervention programs.
In their review of this service system contact the Board
recognises
the significant reforms currently underway across Queensland
and that improving outcomes is not the responsibility of any
one sector. This will require collaboration, integration and
proactive engagement, often with victims or perpetrators who
are reluctant to engage with services and have multiple
support needs.
The complex nature of domestic and family violence
undoubtedly
poses significant barriers to service engagement nevertheless,
agencies must be equipped to respond in a nuanced and
sensitive
way to ensure the safety of victims experiencing domestic and
family violence. Upon their review of the service system
contact
leading up to the death, the Board identified gaps or
opportunities

to strengthen screening and risk assessment processes;
information sharing and collaboration between services;
follow-up and continuity of care; as well as standards and
accreditation for practitioners and services working with both
victims and perpetrators. They also identified the need for
further
training to improve service responses and enhance
understanding
of the more nuanced indicators of harm that characterise this
type
of abuse.
Early detection and targeted interventions
As well as considering the service response, the Board gave
consideration to opportunities to intervene, and potentially
prevent, these deaths.
Although services must be equipped to provide crisis-based
responses to victims in need, cases reviewed in this reporting
period highlighted missed opportunities for intervention when
the
risk was low or medium level, and where interventions may
have
been more effective at reducing the risk of future harm or
lethality.
The scope of this chapter reflects the diversity of issues
identified
in the cases and considers:
» early intervention and prevention responses when
perpetrators or victims present in relation to low or medium
levels of violence
» the need for information sharing to support earlier detection

of issues and a swifter, more coordinated service response
» working with victims who may use violence and the need to
understand how to better respond to the different underlying
motivators that may precipitate these behaviours
» perpetrator interventions and their effectiveness, and
the need to better tailor these programs to a person’s
individual needs
» the need for ongoing monitoring of high-risk perpetrators to
ensure earlier detection and intervention across both familial
or intimate partner relationships
» the significant impact of domestic and family violence
on families and friends, who are often the main point of
disclosure, and opportunities to improve supports and
referral pathways to assist this cohort
» workplace responses to domestic and family violence, and
opportunities to extend existing initiatives in this area.
A call for change in responding to family
violence
Finally, this report outlines the complex nature of family
violence
experienced …
Chapter 10
Why Sex and Gender Matter
in Domestic Violence Research

and Advocacy
Molly Dragiewicz
Support for efforts to assist battered women increased and
spread
alongside the growth of the battered women’s movement in the
1970s.
Institutionalization of this support culminated in the United
States with
the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in
1994.
Although awareness of domestic violence as a social problem
has
increased exponentially over the last 30 years, there continues
to be
confusion about some of the key terms and concepts related to
the
problem. The lack of clarity in the language and definitions
used in
discussions about domestic violence can sometimes make it
difficult for
people to understand the research on the issue. In this chapter, I
describe the difference between sex and gender and explain why
this
distinction is important to understanding domestic violence.
I use the term ‘‘domestic violence’’ to refer to what Evan Stark
has
called coercive control, ‘‘a course of calculated malevolent
conduct
employed almost exclusively by men to dominate individual
women
by interweaving repeated physical abuse with three equally
important

tactics: intimidation, isolation, and control.’’1 This is the
specific kind
of violence and abuse that led to the passage of VAWA and the
estab-
lishment of an array of services tailored to battered women. The
initial
provision of emergency shelter services for battered women was
informed by women’s disproportionate risk of death and injury
at the
hands of abusive male partners, even after separation. These
services
also reflect pervasive cultural norms and economic realities that
Violence Against Women in Families and Relationships :
Victimization and the Community Response, edited by
Evan Stark, et al., ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2009. ProQuest
Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/qut/detail.action?docID=78
3324.
Created from qut on 2018-07-31 03:20:34.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A

B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
present barriers to women when they try to leave an abusive
relation-
ship. In order to fully understand the nature of domestic
violence and
identify the factors that contribute to it, prevent it, and enable
survi-
vors to leave safely, it is necessary to consider the multiple
social and

structural factors that influence women and men’s experiences
of
domestic violence.
While many scholars recognize the contribution of gender to
human
violence, others would like to frame domestic violence as
‘‘gender neu-
tral.’’ Questions frequently raised by these people include
‘‘How can
domestic violence be a gender issue if women and men are both
some-
times violent?’’ and ‘‘How can domestic violence be a gender
issue if it
happens in same-sex couples?’’ These questions are based on
the incor-
rect conflation of the concepts of sex and gender. This is not
simply a
semantic concern.
Proponents of a ‘‘gender-neutral’’ approach assert that the
omission
of gender is a panacea that will make domestic violence
discourse and
services gender inclusive, and therefore welcoming and
appropriate for
male victims and lesbian victims of partner abuse. Proponents
of this
approach suggest that, by eliminating the discussion and
consideration
of gender, barriers to seeking services are eliminated for these
groups.
However, the failure to consider gender does not address the
social
realities that shape violence against intimate partners or the
barriers to

help-seeking that these groups report. The omission of gender
makes
discussions of domestic violence more imprecise and less
accurate, but
not more inclusive. Domestic violence discourses and services
that
acknowledge the pervasive influence of gender norms on human
expe-
rience, rather than seeking to avoid consideration of these
factors,
would more accurately be termed ‘‘gender inclusive’’—they
include gen-
der. Widespread confusion about what we mean when we talk
about vio-
lence and gender results from a lack of clarity about the terms
sex and
gender in scholarly and popular discussions of domestic
violence.
SEX AND GENDER
An elementary discussion of sex and gender might seem
unneces-
sary in a book on domestic violence. However, many scholars
and
others continue to use the terms interchangeably, often
conflating the
concepts. This contributes to confusion about the content of the
research on domestic violence. Even some experienced scholars
con-
tinue to make claims about violence and gender based on
research that
only includes sex variables. For example, John Archer’s 2000
meta-anal-
ysis of research on sex differences in partner aggression did not
include studies on gender (or much of the research on sex

differences),
but Archer contends that his findings support ‘‘gender-free
explana-
tions emphasizing individual differences and relationship
problems’’
202 Criminal Justice and the Law
Ebook Central,
3324.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI

O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
for aggression rather than social and cultural factors.2 Some
people rely
on this kind of slippage to advance their argument that domestic
vio-
lence is not a gender issue.
So what are sex and gender? ‘‘Sex’’ refers to the biologically
based
categories ‘‘female’’ and ‘‘male.’’ Although a significant
minority of
babies are born intersex, babies are typically placed in the
category
female or male at birth based on biological differences like

chromo-
somes and genitalia. The sex categories female and male are
consistent
over time and across cultures. Researchers in the social sciences
often
use the categories female and male as variables in their studies.
This
allows scholars to compare and contrast the experiences of
women and
men. When scholars use the variables male or female, they can
com-
ment on sex differences, or differences between women and
men. This
does not mean these differences are biologically determined,
only that
participants in a given study identify as one sex or the other. In
order
to make comments about the role of gender in human
experience, you
need to ask about more than just sex.
Although the terms are often used interchangeably, ‘‘gender’’ is
a
distinct concept from sex. Gender includes the categories
‘‘feminine’’
and ‘‘masculine.’’ Femininity describes the traits
stereotypically associ-
ated with women, like being caring or emotional. Masculinity
refers to
the characteristics typically associated with men, such as being
tough
or stoic. Unlike sex differences, which are stable across cultures
and
historical periods, gender differs according to time and context.
For
example, women are currently much more likely than men to

wear
makeup and high heels. This is not a permanent or universal
state of
affairs. At other times in history and in other countries, men
have also
worn high heels or makeup without being considered
effeminate.
The distinction between sex and gender is widely recognized in
the
social sciences, where it has been taught in introductory courses
for
more than 40 years. However, awareness of the distinction does
not
always translate into clear and accurate use of the terms in
research or
writing. The sex-gender distinction was explicitly articulated in
1972 by
Ann Oakley, who distinguished sex, the biological categories
female
and male, from gender, the socially imposed characteristics
associated
with the sexes and labeled femininity and masculinity. More
recent for-
mulations of gender reflect a growing awareness of the ways
that gen-
der is context specific, changes over time, and is created in the
performance of everyday actions from what we wear to how we
walk.
Contemporary understandings of gender also make the
connection
between cultural pressures around gender and sexuality, noting
that
social pressure to conform to gender norms is often tied to
heterosex-

uality. In other words, women who are not considered feminine
enough are taunted with homophobic slurs like ‘‘dyke.’’ Men
who are
not considered to be masculine enough are mocked with anti-
gay slurs
203Why Sex and Gender Matter in Domestic Violence Research
Ebook Central,
3324.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI

O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
like ‘‘fag.’’ Both of these examples show how women and men
who
are judged by others to be inadequately enthusiastic or
successful at
conforming to dominant gender norms have their sexuality
called into
question. This brings with it the threat of more than just verbal
abuse and
insults. Hate crimes show how violence is used to enforce
gender and sex-
ual norms. Matthew Shepard was killed because he was gay.
Brandon
Teena (whose story was the subject of the film Boys Don’t Cry)

was killed
because he lived life as a man despite being biologically female.
The sex-gender distinction is conceptually important because it
chal-
lenges the biological determinism that pervades popular notions
about
human violence. If differences in rates of violence between the
sexes
are significantly rooted in culture and socialization rather than
biology,
they are changeable. Prevention and intervention would target
those
changeable factors contributing to the etiology and persistence
of vio-
lence. If the causes of violence are ‘‘essential,’’ or biologically
deter-
mined, on the other hand, cultural and structural changes are ill
advised as useless or even harmful. Individual treatment or
avoidance
strategies would be more helpful. The sex-gender distinction is
there-
fore at the crux of debates about how (and whether) to prevent
and
respond to domestic violence.
PATRIARCHY
It is impossible to have an adequate discussion of sex, gender,
and
violence without also talking about patriarchy. Gender is not
only
socially constructed but also imbued with hierarchical power
relations
that are relevant at the individual, interpersonal, and cultural
levels.

Allan Johnson describes societies as patriarchal to the extent
that they
constitute male privilege ‘‘by being male dominated, male
identified,
and male centered.’’3 Johnson argues that, although maleness is
the
‘‘taken-for-granted’’ normative category against which women
are
judged, white men ‘‘are often made invisible when their
behavior is
socially undesirable and might raise questions about the
appropriate-
ness of male privilege.’’4 Sylvia Walby writes, ‘‘Patriarchy is
not a his-
torical constant.’’5 It changes form over time, and different
components
of it become more or less important in different contexts. As
explana-
tions of patriarchal peer support for violence assert, the
unevenness of
patriarchal values and realities across time and context
contributes to
variation in violent behavior among men.6
Contemporary understandings of patriarchy do not suggest that
ev-
ery man has power over every woman in every context, or that
all
women and all men share the same status. However, they do
imply
that being biologically male conveys historically specific
advantages
(i.e., different advantages in different societies) to men relative
to
women. Although these advantages are independent of race and
class,

Ebook Central,
3324.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC

. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
they interact with race and class systems as well as other
sources of
social advantage that may reinforce or diminish privileges based
on
‘‘simply being men.’’ Patriarchy is explicitly not a single
factor,
although that is sometimes claimed by those antagonistic to
feminism.
It is instead the intersection of numerous factors relevant at
multiple
levels of the social ecology.
The authorization, in policy and practice, of putatively
‘‘gender-spe-
cific’’ approaches to violence that recognize the experiences of
women
versus ostensibly gender-neutral perspectives implicitly based
on the

experiences and authority of men poses a multivalent threat to
existing
gendered, patriarchal power relations. Anti-feminist men’s
reactions to
perceptions of the institutionalization of women’s authority (as
when a
judge believes a woman’s report of violence and issues a
restraining
order, or police believe a woman’s account of her injuries and
arrest
her male partner) indicate that this threat may be heightened
where
the state is called upon to enforce the ‘‘female’’ perspective, as
in the
following example.
Men risk jail, legal bills, and the loss of family, house, and job
if they so
much as argue with a woman. This is the result of the
widespread ‘‘zero
tolerance’’ policy which defines domestic assault as any
physical contact,
no matter how innocuous. The charge is laid by the state even if
no harm
has been done. Ostensibly this policy protects women but its
real pur-
pose is to emasculate men and persecute heterosexuals. It’s
another front
in the Rockefeller-based elite’s campaign to degrade society,
destroy fam-
ily, and decrease population by making heterosexuality
unworkable.
7
This kind of overwrought response to the enforcement of assault

laws
despite the relationship of the abuser to the victim points to the
symbolic
importance of men’s jurisdiction over the definition of violence
in hetero-
sexual relationships. This particular example also links the male
preroga-
tive to violence against women with heterosexuality. Like this
objection to
the enforcement of domestic violence laws, calls for gender
neutrality are
not really neutral. They seek to reassert patriarchal gender
relations by
returning things to the way they were before women’s reports of
domes-
tic violence were taken seriously. While the loss of the
prerogative to
define what counts as violence in heterosexual relationships
certainly
constitutes a loss of privilege for men, this does not mean men
are being
discriminated against. The objection here is to women’s
authority, not
men’s subordination.
THE CONTEXT AND COST OF GENDER BLINDNESS
The demand for formal equality is one tactic that has been
appropri-
ated by those who oppose feminism and other movements for
social

Ebook Central,
3324.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig

ht
s
re
se
rv
ed
.
justice. Formal equality is a legal concept that says all people
should be
treated the same, according to the same laws and rules. In the
past,
some feminists used calls for formal equality to attack laws that
explic-
itly discriminated against women. The idea was that by
removing legal
barriers to women’s participation in the workplace, for example,
women would be able to attain equal status to men. While this
approach may sound appealing on the surface, formal equality
has
been criticized as exacerbating inequality in practice. While
laws may
ignore sex or gender, they are applied in a world where these
catego-
ries continue to be important organizi ng principles of social
life. In
other words, rules that ignore gender can have very different
outcomes
for women and men because of the context in which they are
applied.

The best way to understand the problem with demands for
formal
equality is to look at an example. Contemporary laws against
assault
ostensibly apply equally to women and men. However, prior to
VAWA
and state laws targeting domestic violence, police officers
routinely
declined to enforce laws against assault when the perpetrator
was a
husband and the victim was his wife. Most police precincts had
explicit
or implicit policies favoring nonintervention in these cases. The
law
was blind to the sex of the perpetrator and victim. However,
dominant
ways of thinking about the family defined it as a private sphere
beyond the reach of the law, with men as head of household.
Because
men are most often assaulted by male acquaintances, and
women are
most often assaulted by their male partners, this pattern of
noninter-
vention disproportionately affected female victims. This
example shows
how laws and policies that ignore sex and gender can still have
highly
gendered outcomes in the real world.
Efforts to oppose the acknowledgment of gender have perhaps
focused on violence because this is one of the areas where
women’s
perspectives have arguably had the largest impact on law and
policy,
with significant implications for both women and men.
Although anti-

feminism is alive and well, opposition to men’s violence against
women has expanded, and many popular approaches to the
problem
carry the implicit threat of validating feminism’s complaints
about
ongoing and institutionalized patriarchy and sexism. As a result,
anti-
feminist commentators regard VAWA and other efforts to
address vio-
lence against women as key targets in the battle against
feminism.
Demands for gender neutrality in scholarly and popular
commen-
tary on domestic violence run counter to the competing trend
toward
the recognition of the difference between sex and gender, the
socially
constructed and context-specific nature of gender, and their
significant
implications for scholarship on public health and social justice.
For
example, medical research is moving toward a distinction
between sex
and gender and recognition of the gendered aspects of human
experi-
ence that contribute to differences in women’s and men’s
health. A
Ebook Central,

3324.
C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s

re
se
rv
ed
.
Canadian report on health research argues, ‘‘The inclusion of
sex and
gender as variables in health research is now recognized as
good sci-
ence, and the omission of these variables leads to problems of
validity
and generalizability, weaker clinical practice and less
appropriate
health care delivery.’’8 Another article observes,
Unfortunately, the language of difference in the biomedical
literature is
often imprecise, conflating the two terms [sex and gender] and
treating
them as virtual synonyms. This imprecise use is not only
linguistically
problematic but has serious implications for future research,
clinical prac-
tice and treatment, as well as our very understanding of the
nature of
the health outcomes and status differences that we are studying.
Without
a strong conceptual and theoretical understanding of the
distinction orig-
inally intended by those who clarified the difference between
sex and

gender, confusions are replicated.
9
The medical writing on the sex-gender distinction makes clear
that
human behavior is gendered in significant ways that have
serious
implications for health and well-being. Rather than improving
medical
practice and research, ignoring the distinction between sex and
gender
has resulted in the production of flawed data that impai r our
under-
standing of the factors contributing to health and disease.
Medical
examples can perhaps help those interested in violence to
understand
why it is important to include gender in order to improve health
and
well-being.
Gender has an impact on health in a variety of ways.
Powerlessness
and lack of control underlie much of the exposure to HIV/AIDS
amongst women in Africa. Disproportionate barriers (that is,
relative to
men) in access to resources such as food, education, and
medical care
disadvantage women throughout the developing world. Risk-
taking
behavior is the norm amongst males throughout the world.
Socially
defined traits often stereotype men and women as having fixed
and
opposite characteristics such as active (male) and passive

(female),
and rational (male) and emotional (female). The language of
medicine
and its underlying philosophy have equated, and may still
equate,
male with normal, leaving female to be considered as ‘‘other’’
or, per-
haps, abnormal. Both women’s and men’s occupational and
behavioral
roles, constrained by social norms, can result in hazardous,
though dif-
ferent, exposures to dangers and illness. Any of these aspects of
gender
may intercede in the pathway from an individual to his or her
health.10
In other words, leaving gender out has not made health research
more inclusive or more effective. Instead, it has hindered our
ability to
understand the nature of health problems and what is required
for pre-
vention. Medical researchers seeking a fuller understanding of
health
have not set out to limit the factors considered in order to
develop a
more generic understanding; they have moved toward
specificity in
Ebook Central,
3324.

C
op
yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re

se
rv
ed
.
the interest of improving the accuracy of their research and its
effec-
tiveness in real-life applications. Scholars of violence would be
well
advised to take a similar tack, seeking to understand and
address the
contributing factors specific to violence in different contexts in
order to
increase, not decrease, our focus and capacity for
understanding.
Antifeminists appear to be particularly opposed to the
recognition of
gender as a relevant factor in domestic violence. Antifeminists
display
a range of inaccurate interpretations of the word gender in their
objec-
tions to it. One activist criticizes a book for ‘‘misusing gender
as if the
term were a polite reference to sex,’’ suggesting that the term
was cre-
ated by feminists because they are antisex: ‘‘Having reduced it
to [sic]
a dirty biological act, feminists dare not speak of sex, so they
pervert
grammar, which is only the beginning of their assault against
our civi-

lization.’’11 Regardless of the reasons for the inaccurate use of
the terms
sex and gender, the point is that it creates problems for
understanding
domestic violence.
WHY IS GENDER ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?
Gender matters because domestic violence, like other forms of
human violence, exhibits both sex and gender differences. These
differ-
ences are important because they help to tell us how and why
domes-
tic violence happens. Sex and gender differences are relevant to
decisions about where and how to expend scarce resources for
domes-
tic violence prevention, intervention, and treatment.
Despite frequently repeated claims to the contrary, the research
con-
tinues to document significant sex differences in domestic
violence.
Men are far more likely to kill their intimate partners than
women are.
Men are also more likely than women to injure their partners
and to
assault them frequently. They are many times more likely than
women
to sexually assault their partners. Men are more likely than
women to
continue abusing their partner after they leave the relationship,
for
example by stalking, raping, or killing them after separation.
These sex

differences are not questioned by the vast majority of those who
assert
that domestic violence is ‘‘sex symmetrical.’’ Rather,
proponents of sex
symmetry tend to dismiss these forms of violence, claiming that
women
are just as violent to their spouses as men, or reducing these sex
differen-
ces to asides such as ‘‘Men are just as likely as women to be
victims of
domestic violence (though women are more likely to be
injured).’’ I argue
that the omission and marginalization of these forms and
consequences of
violence, all of which are integral to domestic violence, render
claims of
sex symmetry profoundly inaccurate and misleading.
A small number of commentators do explicitly dispute the
research
on sex differences in domestic violence. Some antifeminists
even
Ebook Central,
3324.
C
op

yr
ig
ht
©
2
00
9.
A
B
C
-C
LI
O
, L
LC
. A
ll
rig
ht
s
re
se
rv
ed

.
dispute the homicide statistics, attributing unsolved homicides
to angry
wives: ‘‘[N]o one knows for sure which sex kills the other
more. In a
second, we’ll see why it’s likely that more wives kill husbands,
but
until the government is willing to collect data about the three
female
methods of killing, we can only do an educated guess.’’12
Others claim
that evidence of women’s greater injury is suspect because they
believe
that women’s injuries are self-inflicted and arrests of men are
based on
false allegations.
Sex differences in homicide and injury rates relate in fairly
obvious
ways to the prioritization of emergency services for female
victims of
domestic violence. Male victims are at much less risk of harm
or death
during and after domestic violence and on average have greater
resources with which to avoid entrapment in an abusive
relationship.
Many additional factors also point to the sex asymmetry of
domestic
homicide. Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, and Daly argue,
Studies of actual cases lend no support to the facile claim that
homicidal
husbands and wives ‘‘initiate similar acts of violence.’’ Men

often kill
wives after lengthy periods of prolonged physical violence
accompanied
by other forms of abuse and coercion; the roles in such cases
are seldom
if ever reversed. Men perpetrate familicidal massacres, killing
spouse and
children together; women do not. Men commonly hunt down and
kill
wives who have left them; women hardly ever behave similarly.
Men kill
wives as part of planned murder-suicides; analogous acts by
women are
almost unheard of. Men kill in response to revelations of wifely
infidel-
ity; women almost never respond similarly, though their mates
are more
often adulterous. The evidence is overwhelming that a large
proportion
of the spouse-killings perpetrated by wives, but almost none of
those
perpetrated by husbands, are acts of self-defense. Unlike men,
women
kill male partners after years of suffering physical violence,
after they
have exhausted all available sources of assistance, when they
feel
trapped, and because they fear for their own lives.
13
(Internal citations
omitted)
This passage illustrates the extent to which the meaning of
‘‘symmetry’’

must be distorted in order to suggest that women’s and men’s
violence
against partners is similar in its etiology or dynamics, or that
sex and gen-
der are irrelevant to it. Symmetry means that the sides of
something are
reciprocal, proportionate, and balanced. As a whole, the body of
research
on domestic violence does not indicate that it fits that
definition.
Although the above quotation refers to consistently documented
sex
differences in domestic homicide, virtually all of these sex
differences
are likely contributed to by dominant gender norms. For
example, there
is a special word for men whose wives are unfaithful,
‘‘cuckold,’’ and
no parallel term for a woman whose husband has been
unfaithful. Men
whose wives cheat on them find their masculinity challenged,
while
Evan Stark, et al., ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2009. ProQuest …
ph
ysi
cal

VIOLENCE sexual
POWER AND CONTROL WHEELPOWER AND CONTROL
WHEEL
POWER
AND
CONTROL
COERCION
AND THREATS:
Making and/or carry-
ing out threats to do
something to hurt her.
Threatening to leave her,
commit suicide, or report
her to welfare. Making
her drop charges.
Making her do illegal
things.
INTIMIDATION:
Making her afraid by
using looks, actions,
and gestures. Smashing

things. Destroying her
property. Abusing pets.
Displaying weapons.
MALE PRIVILEGE:
Treating her like a servant: making
all the big decisions, acting like the
“master of the castle,” being the
one to define men’s and women’s
roles.
ECONOMIC ABUSE:
Preventing her from getting
or keeping a job. Making her
ask for money. Giving her an
allowance. Taking her money.
Not letting her know about or
have access to family income.
USING CHILDREN:
Making her feel guilty
about the children. Using
the children to relay
messages. Using
visitation to harass her.
Threatening to take the
children away.
MINIMIZING, DENYING,
AND BLAMING:
Making light of the abuse
and not taking her concerns
about it seriously. Saying
the abuse didn’t happen.
Shifting responsibility for
abusive behavior. Saying

she caused it.
ISOLATION:
Controlling what she does,
who she sees and talks to,
what she reads, and where
she goes. Limiting her
outside involvement.
Using jealousy to justify
actions.
EMOTIONAL ABUSE:
Putting her down. Making her
feel bad about herself.
Calling her names. Making her
think she’s crazy. Playing mind
games. Humiliating her.
Making her feel guilty.
Produced and distributed by: 4 6 1 2 S h o a l C r e e k B l v d
. • A u s t i n , Te x a s 7 8 7 5 6512.407.9020 (phone and
fax) • www.ncdsv.org
physical VIOLENCE
se
xu
al
Physical and sexual assaults, or threats to commit them, are the
most apparent forms of domestic violence and are usually the
actions that allow others to become aware of the problem.
However, regular use of other abusive behaviors by the
batterer, when reinforced by one or more acts of physical

violence, make up a larger system of abuse. Although physical
as-
saults may occur only once or occasionally, they instill threat of
future violent attacks and allow the abuser to take control of
the woman’s life and circumstances.
The Power & Control diagram is a particularly helpful tool in
understanding the overall pattern of abusive and violent be-
haviors, which are used by a batterer to establish and maintain
control over his partner. Very often, one or more violent
incidents are accompanied by an array of these other types of
abuse. They are less easily identified, yet firmly establish a
pat-
tern of intimidation and control in the relationship.
Developed by:
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project
202 East Superior Street
Duluth, MN 55802
218.722.4134
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / May 2002Hardesty /
SEPARATION ASSAULT
Separation Assault in the Context
of Postdivorce Parenting
An Integrative Review of the Literature
JENNIFER L. HARDESTY
Johns Hopkins University
Although citing violence as a factor in divorce, most

researchers do not analyze woman
abuse in the postdivorce context. In particular, little research
exists on how separation
assault influences postdivorce parenting. The purpose of this
article is to discuss separa-
tion assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. First, the
literature on separation
assault in general and then on separation assault in the context
of postdivorce parenting
is reviewed. Second, the theoretical explanations for separation
assault in general and in
the context of postdivorce parenting is reviewed. Finally, the
theoretical explanations and
literature are critiqued and research and practice implications
are discussed.
Over the past two decades, researchers have become
increasingly
aware of the seriousness of violence against women (M. P.
John-
son & Ferraro, 2000; Klein & Orloff, 1993; Kurz, 1998).
Despite this
progress, many aspects of woman abuse remain invisible and
unrecognized. Failure to recognize the pervasiveness of woman
abuse results in part from compartmentalized research efforts.
Researchers often do not examine the role woman abuse plays in
their particular area of study. For example, researchers
investigate
the family or violence, women’s health or violence, or divorce
or
violence, rather than weave experiences with violence through-
out the study of women’s lives (Kurz, 1998). This lack of
integra-
tion contributes to the invisibility of violence against women
and
prevents a comprehensive understanding of woman abuse.

597
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author wishes to thank Lawrence
Ganong, Marilyn Coleman,
Mark Fine, Teresa Cooney, and Linda Bullock for their helpful
feedback provided on ear-
lier versions of this article. Appreciation is also expressed to
Jacquelyn Campbell for guid-
ance on final preparation of this article.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 8 No. 5, May 2002 597-
625
© 2002 Sage Publications
One area of research that typically fails to consider the integral
role of woman abuse is divorce. Violence is a significant factor
for
many women when ending their marriages and in parenting
postdivorce (Kurz, 1996). Although citing violence as a factor
in
why marriages end, most researchers do not analyze woman
exists on how separation assault, or abuse that continues during
and after separation, influences postdivorce parenting. Given
recent legal and social trends toward coparenting after
separation
and divorce (Maccoby, 1999), researchers must integrate the
expe-
riences of abused women into the postdivorce parenting litera-
ture, thereby unveiling this invisible aspect of violence against
women.
Toward this end, the purpose of this article is to discuss separa -

tion assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. To achieve
this purpose, I will first review the literature on separation
assault
in general. Second, I will review the literature on separation
assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. Then I will
review
the theoretical explanations for separation assault, both in
general
and in the context of postdivorce parenting. Finally, I will
critique
the theoretical explanations and literature and discuss implica -
tions for future research and practice. Throughout this
discussion,
I will focus solely on abuse against women because they are
more
than 10 times more likely than men to be the victim of intimate
abuse (Zawitz, 1994), especially when abuse occurs during or
after separation (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996).
CLARIFICATION OF TERMINOLOGY
According to feminist theorists, naming women’s experiences
is a crucial step toward social and legal change. With this in
mind,
Mahoney (1991) coined the term separation assault to describe
the
particular type of attack “on a woman’s body and volition that
seeks to block her from leaving, retaliate for her departure, or
forc-
ibly end the separation” (p. 6). Separation assault includes
physi-
cal violence as well as other abusive acts (e.g., threats of
physical
violence, controlling behaviors, psychological abuse) used to
make a woman reconcile or punish her for leaving. Prior to its
naming, separation assault was often lumped with other types of

598 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / May 2002
abuse under the rubric of family violence or intimate violence,
dis-
guising its unique characteristics and motives. Some researchers
used the term postseparation abuse (Ellis, 1990; Ellis &
Stuckless,
1996), which ignores abusive acts during separation. For these
reasons and for consistency, separation assault is used
throughout
this discussion.
SEPARATION ASSAULT
The question “Why doesn’t she leave?” persists in academic
and social discourse on woman abuse. Embedded in this
question
are two assumptions: Women do not leave abusive partners, and
separation ends abuse. In reality, most abused women
eventually
leave their abusive partners (Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1997;
Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, Bates, & Sandin, 1997).
Although
separated and divorced women constitute only 10% of women in
the United States, they account for 75% of all abused women
(Harlow, 1991). Separation, however, does not always end vio-
lence (Hotton, 2001; Kurz, 1996). Recognizing this, some
scholars
have moved beyond asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?” to “What
happens when she leaves?” Empirical research indicates that for
some women, leaving is potentially more dangerous than
staying
(Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999).

LITERATURE ON SUBLETHAL SEPARATION ASSAULT
Studies consistently find that abuse continues during and after
separation for some women. For example, in the nationally
repre-
sentative Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS) in Canada,
29% of the 12,300 women interviewed reported abuse by an
inti-
mate partner. Of that 29%, 19% reported continued abuse after
separation (Statistics Canada, 1993). Following similar methods
of the VAWS, Statistics Canada’s 1999 General Social Survey
(GSS) on Victimization found that 39% of the 437,000 women
with
previous violent relationships reported violence after separation
(Hotton, 2001). Other smaller scale, nonrepresentative samples
of
abused women in mediation and domestic violence shelters
report
similar findings; separation does not end abuse (Berk, Newton,
&
Berk, 1986; Ellis & Stuckless, 1992; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee,
2000;
Hardesty / SEPARATION ASSAULT 599
Giles-Sims, 1983). Moreover, in a study of 75 divorced men,
40%
reported threatening or using physical violence against their
for-
mer spouses after separation (Arendell, 1995).
Research suggests that the potential for separation assault is
related to the severity and frequency of abuse prior to

separation.
In the VAWS, women who were severely abused (e.g., beaten
up,
choked, threatened with a weapon) during marriage were 3
times
as likely to report separation assault as women abused in less
severe ways (e.g., pushed, slapped) (H. Johnson, 1995;
Statistics
Canada, 1993). Nonetheless, for some women, violence begins
after the relationship ends. Close to 15% of the women who
reported abuse in the 1999 GSS indicated that they were first
assaulted after separation, with more than half reporting that the
abuse was severe (Hotton, 2001). Ongoing and repeated abuse
in
marriage, however, may be more likely to continue during and
after separation than abuse erupting as the relationship
dissolves
(Johnston & Campbell, 1993). Hence, the abuser ’s quest for
power
and control, typical of ongoing abuse, is not likely to subside at
separation (Garrity & Baris, 1995; Reihing, 1999).
Although related to preseparation abuse, separation assault
can be comparatively more frequent and more severe (Wilson &
Daly, 1993b). Despite less access, some women report an
increase
in the frequency of violence after leaving their abusers (Giles -
Sims, 1983). Furthermore, 35% of abused women in the VAWS
(H.
Johnson & Sacco, 1995) and 22% of women in the 1999 GSS
(Hotton, 2001) reported more severe violence after separation.
Violence escalated for women reporting both severe and less
severe abuse during marriage but was more likely to increase
for
the former (H. Johnson, 1995; Statistics Canada, 1993). In one
study, nearly 75% of the 49 women assaulted by a former

partner
were the victims of severe or potentially lethal violence. Such
attacks were not isolated events; 1 in 4 women were assaulted
more
than once a month (Fleury et al., 2000). Other studies report
simi-
lar increases in the severity of abuse after separation (Ellis,
1987;
Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1989), with the risk of abuse peaking in
the
first 2 months after separation and again when women take steps
toward permanent separation (e.g., begin the process of legal
sep-
aration, buy a house, secure employment) (Ellis, 1992).
LITERATURE ON LETHAL SEPARATION ASSAULT
Some men, unable to control their wives with sublethal abuse,
escalate violence to lethal levels. According to homicide data in
Canada and the United States, separation is a significant risk
fac-
tor of intimate partner femicide (i.e., the killing of women by
their
current or former partner) (Campbell, Sharps, & Glass, 2001;
DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997; Hotton, 2001). In fact, a
woman’s
risk of intimate femicide increases sixfold when she leaves an
abu-
sive partner (Wilson & Daly, 1994). Data from Canada, New
South
Wales, and Chicago confirm that intimate femicide is systemati-
cally related to residency status, with separated women

incurring
greater risk than their coresiding counterparts (Barnard, Vera,
Vera, & Newman, 1982; Wilson & Daly, 1992b). African
American
women are at particular risk for being killed during or after
sepa-
ration, followed by White women, then Latina women (Block &
Christakos, 1995). Homicide is the leading cause of death for
Afri-
can American women aged 15 to 34. A majority of these
homicides
are committed by husbands, lovers, or estranged intimate part-
ners (Campbell, 1995).
Analyses of case records further substantiate the relationship
between separation and intimate femicide. For instance,
intimate
femicides are often precipitated by female-initiated separations
(Wilson & Daly, 1995) and typically occur when victims are
living
apart from their assailants (Barnard et al., 1982; Crawford &
Gart-
ner, 1992). With few exceptions, the victims initiated separation
to
escape violence (Wilson & Daly, 1993b, 1995), and police
records
confirm that many assailants have a documented history of
abus-
ing their victims prior to killing them (Campbell, 1992;
Crawford
& Gartner, 1995; Hotton, 2001).
Many stalking cases involve men who are unable to accept per -
ceived rejection by their victims and unwilling to stop pursuing
them. Although some women secure protective orders after
leav-

ing, abusers often ignore the orders. Many women are beaten
and
killed while protective orders are in place (Hotton, 2001;
Pagelow,
1993). Murder-suicides, stalking-murders, and murders of
women
and their children are frequently perpetrated by men retaliating
against women who left them (Pagelow, 1993). During 1994, 33
out of 47 cases of male-perpetrated multiple domestic killings
in
Florida included a female victim who was estranged or in the
pro-
cess of separating from the perpetrator (Websdale, 1999).
Perpe-
trators of intimate femicide are more likely to commit suicide
when their victim is an estranged rather than a current partner.
This reflects their inability to conceive of themselves as
separate
from their victim (Easteal, 1993). Friends and family members
are
also at risk when women leave abusive partners. Indeed,
intimate
femicide with victims in addition to the estranged partner often
includes the victim’s new partner (Hotton, 2001) or those who
help
her leave (Block & Christakos, 1995).
Homicide studies using limited data on separation duration
further indicate that the risk of intimate femicide changes over
time. For example, in New South Wales, 47% of 32 intimate
femicide victims were killed within 2 months, and 91% were

killed within a year of separation. Similarly, in Chicago, 50% of
20
victims were killed within 2 months and 85% within a year of
sep-
aration (Wilson & Daly, 1993b, 1995). An analysis of 73
femicide
cases in Canada from 1991 to 1999 revealed that 49% were
killed in
the first 2 months after separation, another 32% from 2 to 12
months,
and the remaining 19% more than a year after separation
(Hotton,
2001). Thus, the 2-month period immediately following separa-
tion is particularly dangerous for abused women (Wilson &
Daly,
1994), especially when physical separation and initiation of
legal
separation procedures occur simultaneously (Wilson & Daly,
1993b; Wilson, Johnson, & Daly, 1995). Risk appears to
decrease
over time (Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1997); however, the risk of
intimate
femicide continues for some, as abusers have killed their former
spouses years after separation (Wilson & Daly, 1993b, 1995).
Although men are also murdered by their partners, data in
most countries indicate that women are more often the victims
of
intimate homicide than are men. The United States is an excep-
tion, with almost equal numbers of men and women who kill
their
intimate partners (Wilson & Daly, 1992b). Evidence indicates,
however, that men and women kill under qualitatively different
circumstances. In short, “men frequently pursue, threaten,
assault,
and kill [intimate partners] who leave them” (Wilson & Daly,

1992b, p. 199), whereas women rarely do the same. Women are
more likely to kill in self-defense (Campbell, 1992; Crawford &
Gartner, 1992; Wilson & Daly, 1992b, 1995) and report a
history of
abuse (Barnard et al., 1982; Browne, 1987; Campbell, Harris, &
Lee, 1995) as well as violence used against them immediately
pre-
ceding the murder (Campbell, 1992).
The heightened risk of abuse during and after separation has
serious implications for women, particularly those who share
children with their abusers (Liss & Stahly, 1993). Separation is
a
critical time when many divorcing parents negotiate post-
divorce parenting plans. At the most dangerous juncture in their
relationship, abused women enter the legal system to make deci -
sions about their children (Pagelow, 1993). Current custody
laws,
emphasizing gender equity, private dispute resolution, and the
“best interests of the child” standard, not only fail to protect
women but also may provide men with a forum for separation
assault.
SEPARATION ASSAULT IN THE CONTEXT
OF POSTDIVORCE PARENTING
In the past few decades, changing gender roles, pressure from
fathers’ rights activists, and research on children of divorce
have
transformed custody laws (Dalton, 1999; Maccoby & Mnookin,
1992). At present, courts in nearly every state can no longer use

presumptions based on gender (e.g., maternal preference for
young children) in custody determinations. Instead, to reflect
changing gender roles, mothers and fathers are granted equal
rights to maintain their parental relationships with their
children.
In addition, the trend toward private dispute resolution affords
parents the opportunity to negotiate their own postdivorce
parenting plans. A parenting plan
goes beyond the customary order which gives “custody” to one
parent and “reasonable visitation” to the other; it specifies the
child’s residential arrangements in some detail, including the
days
of each parent’s responsibility or a method for choosing those
days, as well as provisions for day care, the child’s education,
health care, and other matters significant to the parents and to
the
child. (Bartlett, 2000, p. 90)
Laws require courts to review parenting plans proposed by
divorcing parents before ratifying them to determine if agree-
ments are in the children’s best interests (Maccoby & Mnookin,
1992). Courts settle disputes only when divorcing parents are
unable to reach agreement (Maccoby, 1999; Maccoby &
Mnookin,
1992).
Custody laws based on gender equity and private dispute reso-
lution are further shaped by the standard of the “best interests
of
the child.” According to empirical findings, children fare better

when both parents are actively involved in raising their children
after divorce (Lamb, 1999; Simons, Whitbeck, Beaman, &
Conger,
1994). This is not the case, however, when parents are unable to
cooperate and thus continue exposing their children to high con-
flict (Ayoub, Deutsch, & Maraganore, 1999; Lamb, 1999). In
light
of these findings, custody decisions are made on a case-by-case
determination in the best interests of the child (Maccoby, 1999),
with a preference toward coparenting and generous visitation
for
the noncustodial parent (Dalton, 1999).
To ensure cooperation and father involvement, joint custody
and divorce mediation are encouraged (Family Violence Project,
1995). In theory, mediation encourages cooperation by
emphasiz-
ing the parents’ shared interest in their children (Family
Violence
Project, 1995). Parents have the option of joint legal custody, in
which they have equal rights to make decisions about their chil -
dren, and joint physical custody, which allows both parents to
reside at times with their children and assumes that both parents
have responsibility for their care and support. Rather than
gender
neutral, joint custody favors the rights of both parents
(Maccoby
& Mnookin, 1992).
Laws in nearly every state permit joint custody, and approxi -
mately 13 states have some form of statutory presumption in
favor of joint custody (Bartlett, 2000). Some even mandate joint
custody, excluding only cases with child abuse (Pagelow, 1993).
About 9 states require parenting plans, and most do so as a
condi-
tion of a joint custody order. Additionally, about 15 states may

require classes to educate parents about the effects of divorce
on
children, which may include instruction about the benefits of
alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms (e.g., mediation)
(Bartlett, 2000).
When divorcing parents cannot reach a custody agreement,
some courts have imposed an order of joint custody, with
prefer-
ence for physical custody given to the “friendly parent” (i.e.,
the
parent more willing to accept and facilitate ongoing parental
involvement with the other parent). Indeed, courts have assumed
that by ordering joint custody, which presumes cooperation,
par-
ents will be forced to cooperate in the best interests of their
chil-
dren (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Walker & Edwall, 1987).
Some
fathers’ rights activists, who have been active and vocal in the
trend toward joint legal custody, advocate for joint legal
custody
in every case without exception (Arendell, 1995).
Vital issues are at stake for abused women who negotiate
postdivorce parenting plans within the current legal framework.
In recent years, many states have enacted presumption statutes
to
protect women from continuing and escalating violence in the
context of postdivorce parenting (Family Violence Project,
1995).

Most states and the District of Columbia have statutes with
provi-
sions for considering woman abuse in custody disputes (Cahn,
1991). About 70% of the states mandate the consideration of
woman abuse when determining the best interests of the child
(Family Violence Project, 1995). Furthermore, at least 16 states
have enacted presumption statutes against granting sole
custody,
joint custody, or both to spousal abusers, and many states make
exceptions to other rules (e.g., mandatory mediation) when
abuse
has occurred (Bartlett, 2000).
Despite legal reform, many courts remain uninformed and
unresponsive to woman abuse (Family Violence Project, 1995).
Indeed, legal professionals rarely recognize that woman abuse
continues after separation (Reihing, 1999) and are not cognizant
of the complexities and subtleties of separation assault in the
con-
text of postdivorce parenting. Furthermore, the current legal
framework assumes that women (and men) are able to make
autonomous decisions about postdivorce parenting. Evidence
indicates, however, that many abused women experience contin-
ued assaults on their independence, during and after custody
pro-
ceedings, that interfere with their ability to make autonomous
decisions.
Thus, the current legal framework may provide a forum for
separation assault by necessitating ongoing contact between
women and their abusers (Dalton, 1999; Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson,
1990). For example, many women are forced to have person-to-
person contact with their abusers for the purpose of private
reso-
lution of their postdivorce parenting plans. Contact often
contin-

ues when abused women are expected to facilitate coparenting
after divorce (Pagelow, 1993; Stalans & Lurigio, 1995). Conse-
quently, custody proceedings and parenting during and after
divorce are common areas in which men continue to abuse their
victims (Reihing, 1999; Walker & Edwall, 1987).
LITERATURE ON SEPARATION ASSAULT IN
THE CONTEXT OF CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS
Many abused women negotiate for their rights and for their
children in a “climate of fear” (Kurz, 1996, p. 7) characterized
by
verbal threats and physical and psychological abuse. In their
quest for control, abusers threaten to injure or kill their victims
if
they proceed with divorce or fight for custody and child support
(Arendell, 1995; Shalansky, Ericksen, & Henderson, 1999).
Many
abusers also threaten to financially drain their victims, fight for
custody, or abduct their children (Hegar & Greif, 1991; Liss &
Stahly, 1993). Abusers make such threats to force women to
recon-
cile or forfeit rights to custody and support (Zorza, 1995).
Studies show that women’s fears during custody proceedings
are grounded in their past experiences (Kurz, 1996). A study of
129 divorced mothers found a statistically significant
relationship
between women’s fears during negotiations and their actual
experience with violence during marriage and after separation.
The more frequent and severe the violence during marriage, the

more fearful they were during negotiations (Kurz, 1995). In
many
cases, abusers have threatened to seriously injure or kill women
numerous times during marriage if they ever tried to leave
(Browne, 1987). Grounded in experience, these threats are
credi-
ble and thus effective in coercing women’s decisions (Kurz,
1995).
Research indicates that a climate of fear during custody pro-
ceedings leads a substantial number of women to compromise
their rights (Kurz, 1996). In fact, a significant inverse
relationship
exists between fear during child support negotiations and
awards
of child support. Through in-depth interviews, divorced women
reported lowering or waiving their requests for child support
because they feared further physical violence. In doing so, they
exchanged their children’s long-term needs (e.g., financial secu-
rity) in favor of temporary safety (Pagelow, 1993; Walker &
Edwall, 1987). Other women reported exchanging child support
for custody. Indeed, fear of losing custody was significantly
inversely associated with awards of child support (Kurz, 1996).
Many women report leaving their abusers for the safety and
well-being of their children (Henderson, 1990; Kurz, 1998); in
court, they are willing to fight to maintain their children’s
safety at
any cost. Abusers can play out their need for control in long and
painful custody disputes (Jaffe et al., 1990). Abusive men are
highly litigious and significantly more likely to contest custody
than are nonabusive men, as they continue to exert dominance

over their victims (Cahn, 1991; Liss & Stahly, 1993). According
to
Mahoney (1991),
Separation assault provides a link between past violence and
cur-
rent legal disputes by illuminating the custody action as part of
an
ongoing attempt, through physical violence and legal manipula-
tion, to force the woman to make concessions or return to the
vio-
lent partner. (p. 78)
In Arendell’s (1995) study, more than three fourths of the 75
divorced men acknowledged threatening to fight for custody
because they were unable to accept the loss of control over their
wives. Fighting for custody was an attempt to “balance” the
power.
Fear and continued abuse during negotiations intersect with
class and race to present particular challenges for low -income,
racial and/or ethnic minority women (Kurz, 1999). Poor women
report more frequent and serious violence after separation than
working- or middle-class women (Kurz, 1995). Receiving child
support assistance may be crucial for them (as well as for
women
of all socioeconomic levels) to make the transition out of a
violent
relationship (Roberts, 1999). Continued abuse and fear may
result
in abused women not securing adequate child support and thus
entering or remaining on public assistance to support their chil -
dren. It is not surprising that women who leave abusive
relation-
ships face the risk of becoming homeless (Davis, 1999).

Moreover, abusers may harass women at work, not follow
through with their child care commitments, or otherwise sabo-
tage women’s efforts to maintain employment as a way to force
reconciliation out of financial need (Raphael, 1996, 1999,
2000). A
woman who wishes to escape from her abuser may risk losing
public assistance if she fails to provide information about the
father to child support enforcement (Brandwein, 1999). African
American and Hispanic women, who have higher rates of public
assistance than White women, face additional barriers in the
form
of educational and employment discrimination that may prevent
them from moving out of poverty (Kurz, 1999; Raphael, 2000).
Evidence suggests that some men use custody blackmail, or
threaten to fight for custody even though they do not want it, to
force their victims to waive rights to child support. Custody
blackmail may be more common now, with both parents sharing
equal rights to custody (Kurz, 1995). Research on the frequency
with which men use custody blackmail is mixed, with some
stud-
ies showing no evidence of men bargaining with custody black-
mail (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). However, according to Kurz
(1995), whether custody blackmail occurs is less important than
the climate of fear within which women negotiate and that may
compromise their ability to make autonomous decisions
(Pagelow,
1993).
For many abused women, autonomous decision making is fur-
ther hampered by the negative effects of abuse on their physical

and psychological health. For example, between one and two
thirds
of abused women are formally diagnosed with post-traumatic
s t re s s d i s o rd e r ( P T S D ) ( H a t t e n d o r f & To l l e r
u d , 1 9 9 7 ;
Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997). Symptoms of PTSD include
avoidance responses, numbing of general responsiveness, inabil -
ity to anticipate the future, and fear of further abuse. The
severity
and recentness of abuse as well as additional stressors (e.g.,
fear of
losing custody) are positively related to experiencing PTSD
symp-
toms (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1997; Saunders, 1994). These
symptoms interfere with abused women’s ability to problem-
solve and make decisions on their own and their children’s
behalf.
Sufferers of PTSD may also appear unfit to legal professionals
who are uninformed about woman abuse, giving their abusers an
unfair advantage in custody bargaining (Jaffe & Geffner, 1998;
Liss & Stahly, 1993).
Thus, the current legal framework may provide a forum for
separation assault by allowing abusers to fight for custody and
visitation and requiring women to negotiate postdivorce
parenting plans with their abusers. As with separation assault in
general, abusers rely on threats and psychological abuse to
main-
tain dominance during custody proceedings. Separation assault
in this context is unique, however, in that abusers use their chil -
dren as pawns to retaliate against their victims.

LITERATURE ON SEPARATION ASSAULT IN
THE CONTEXT OF POSTDIVORCE PARENTING
Abused women with children are particularly vulnerable to
separation assault after divorce because “their children make it
difficult to sever all contacts” (Stalans & Lurigio, 1995, p.
388).
Oftentimes, children remain the last link abusers have to their
vic-
tims through arrangements that guarantee continued access via
postdivorce parenting obligations. Indeed, the greatest risks
women face may be associated with custody arrangements (e.g.,
joint custody, generous visitation) (Dalton, 1999), as many
women
are expected to facilitate these arrangements. Ongoing exposure
to abusive former partners through visitation and postdivorce
parenting obligations creates barriers that prevent women from
healing and moving on.
One such barrier is continued abuse and harassment
(Ford-Gilboe, Wuest, Merritt-Gray, & Berman, 2001;
Henderson,
1990). The more contact abusers have with their children, the
more vulnerable abused women are to continued …
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / May 2002Hardesty /
SEPARATION ASSAULT
Separation Assault in the Context
of Postdivorce Parenting
An Integrative Review of the Literature
JENNIFER L. HARDESTY

Johns Hopkins University
Although citing violence as a factor in divorce, most
researchers do not analyze woman
exists on how separation
assault influences postdivorce parenting. The purpose of this
article is to discuss separa-
tion assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. First, the
literature on separation
assault in general and then on separation assault in the context
of postdivorce parenting
is reviewed. Second, the theoretical explanations for separation
assault in general and in
the context of postdivorce parenting is reviewed. Finally, the
theoretical explanations and
literature are critiqued and research and practice implications
are discussed.
Over the past two decades, researchers have become
increasingly
aware of the seriousness of violence against women (M. P.
John-
son & Ferraro, 2000; Klein & Orloff, 1993; Kurz, 1998).
Despite this
progress, many aspects of woman abuse remain invisible and
unrecognized. Failure to recognize the pervasiveness of woman
abuse results in part from compartmentalized research efforts.
Researchers often do not examine the role woman abuse plays in
their particular area of study. For example, researchers
investigate
the family or violence, women’s health or violence, or divorce
or
violence, rather than weave experiences with violence through-
out the study of women’s lives (Kurz, 1998). This lack of
integra-

tion contributes to the invisibility of violence against women
and
prevents a comprehensive understanding of woman abuse.
597
AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author wishes to thank Lawrence
Ganong, Marilyn Coleman,
Mark Fine, Teresa Cooney, and Linda Bullock for their helpful
feedback provided on ear-
lier versions of this article. Appreciation is also expressed to
Jacquelyn Campbell for guid-
ance on final preparation of this article.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 8 No. 5, May 2002 597-
625
© 2002 Sage Publications
One area of research that typically fails to consider the integral
role of woman abuse is divorce. Violence is a significant factor
for
many women when ending their marriages and in parenting
postdivorce (Kurz, 1996). Although citing violence as a factor
in
why marriages end, most researchers do not analyze woman
exists on how separation assault, or abuse that continues during
and after separation, influences postdivorce parenting. Given
recent legal and social trends toward coparenting after
separation
and divorce (Maccoby, 1999), researchers must integrate the
expe-
riences of abused women into the postdivorce parenting litera-
ture, thereby unveiling this invisible aspect of violence against

women.
Toward this end, the purpose of this article is to discuss separa -
tion assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. To achieve
this purpose, I will first review the literature on separation
assault
in general. Second, I will review the literature on separation
assault in the context of postdivorce parenting. Then I will
review
the theoretical explanations for separation assault, both in
general
and in the context of postdivorce parenting. Finally, I will
critique
the theoretical explanations and literature and discuss implica -
tions for future research and practice. Throughout this
discussion,
I will focus solely on abuse against women because they are
more
than 10 times more likely than men to be the victim of intimate
abuse (Zawitz, 1994), especially when abuse occurs during or
after separation (Ellis & Stuckless, 1996).
CLARIFICATION OF TERMINOLOGY
According to feminist theorists, naming women’s experiences
is a crucial step toward social and legal change. With this in
mind,
Mahoney (1991) coined the term separation assault to describe
the
particular type of attack “on a woman’s body and volition that
seeks to block her from leaving, retaliate for her departure, or
forc-
ibly end the separation” (p. 6). Separation assault includes
physi-
cal violence as well as other abusive acts (e.g., threats of
physical

violence, controlling behaviors, psychological abuse) used to
make a woman reconcile or punish her for leaving. Prior to its
naming, separation assault was often lumped with other types of
abuse under the rubric of family violence or intimate violence,
dis-
guising its unique characteristics and motives. Some researchers
used the term postseparation abuse (Ellis, 1990; Ellis &
Stuckless,
1996), which ignores abusive acts during separation. For these
reasons and for consistency, separation assault is used
throughout
this discussion.
SEPARATION ASSAULT
The question “Why doesn’t she leave?” persists in academic
and social discourse on woman abuse. Embedded in this
question
are two assumptions: Women do not leave abusive partners, and
separation ends abuse. In reality, most abused women
eventually
leave their abusive partners (Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1997;
Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, Bates, & Sandin, 1997).
Although
separated and divorced women constitute only 10% of women in
the United States, they account for 75% of all abused women
(Harlow, 1991). Separation, however, does not always end vio-
lence (Hotton, 2001; Kurz, 1996). Recognizing this, some
scholars
have moved beyond asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?” to “What
happens when she leaves?” Empirical research indicates that for

some women, leaving is potentially more dangerous than
staying
(Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999).
LITERATURE ON SUBLETHAL SEPARATION ASSAULT
Studies consistently find that abuse continues during and after
separation for some women. For example, in the nationally
repre-
sentative Violence Against Women Survey (VAWS) in Canada,
29% of the 12,300 women interviewed reported abuse by an
inti-
mate partner. Of that 29%, 19% reported continued abuse after
separation (Statistics Canada, 1993). Following similar methods
of the VAWS, Statistics Canada’s 1999 General Social Survey
(GSS) on Victimization found that 39% of the 437,000 women
with
previous violent relationships reported violence after separation
(Hotton, 2001). Other smaller scale, nonrepresentative samples
of
abused women in mediation and domestic violence shelters
report
similar findings; separation does not end abuse (Berk, Newton,
&
Berk, 1986; Ellis & Stuckless, 1992; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee,
2000;
Giles-Sims, 1983). Moreover, in a study of 75 divorced men,
40%
reported threatening or using physical violence against their
for-
mer spouses after separation (Arendell, 1995).

Research suggests that the potential for separation assault is
related to the severity and frequency of abuse prior to
separation.
In the VAWS, women who were severely abused (e.g., beaten
up,
choked, threatened with a weapon) during marriage were 3
times
as likely to report separation assault as women abused in less
severe ways (e.g., pushed, slapped) (H. Johnson, 1995;
Statistics
Canada, 1993). Nonetheless, for some women, violence begins
after the relationship ends. Close to 15% of the women who
reported abuse in the 1999 GSS indicated that they were first
assaulted after separation, with more than half reporting that the
abuse was severe (Hotton, 2001). Ongoing and repeated abuse
in
marriage, however, may be more likely to continue during and
after separation than abuse erupting as the relationship
dissolves
(Johnston & Campbell, 1993). Hence, the abuser’s quest for
power
and control, typical of ongoing abuse, is not likely to subside at
separation (Garrity & Baris, 1995; Reihing, 1999).
Although related to preseparation abuse, separation assault
can be comparatively more frequent and more severe (Wilson &
Daly, 1993b). Despite less access, some women report an
increase
in the frequency of violence after leaving their abusers (Giles -
Sims, 1983). Furthermore, 35% of abused women in the VAWS
(H.
Johnson & Sacco, 1995) and 22% of women in the 1999 GSS
(Hotton, 2001) reported more severe violence after separation.
Violence escalated for women reporting both severe and less
severe abuse during marriage but was more likely to increase

Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar

Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar

Similar to Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar (20)

More from lea6nklmattu

More from lea6nklmattu (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Domestic and Family Violence Death Review and Advisory Boar