UNDERSTANDING THE BATTERER IN CUSTODY AND VISITATION DISPUTES
by R. Lundy Bancroft
c 1998
A sophisticated understanding of the mind of the abuser, his style as a parent, and of the
tactics that he most commonly employs during separation and divorce, are essential to anyone
making custody recommendations or working to design visitation plans that are safe for the
children and their mother. Contrary to popular belief, children of batterers can be at just as much
risk psychologically, sexually, and even physically after the couple splits up as they were when
the family was still together. In fact, many children experience the most damaging victimization
from the abuser at this point. A genuine batterer can be difficult to distinguish from one who is
unfairly accused, and batterers who will be a grave risk to their children during unsupervised
visitation can be hard to separate from those who can visit safely.
The insights and expertise of
those service providers who have extensive experience working directly with abusers needs to be
drawn from, and the level of contribution from victims themselves to policy design also needs to
be greatly increased. Custody and visitation battles amidst allegations of domestic violence
require policies and interveners (judges, mediators, and Guardians Ad Litem) based in the most
detailed knowledge, experience, sensitivity, and integrity. The stakes for children are very high.
This article is drawn largely from the author's ten years of experience working as a
counselor and supervisor in programs for abusive men, involving contact with some 1500
abusers, and hundreds of their victims, over that period.
During the first few years of this period I
worked almost exclusively with voluntary clients, and during the latter period worked primarily
with court-mandated ones. The characteristics of the clients changed remarkably little during that
shift. In the late 1980's, professionals in batterer programs began paying particular attention to
the behavior of clients with respect to probate processes, and we began asking victims more
questions about the man's conduct with respect to visitation and custody. Since leaving direct
work with batterers, I have served with increasing frequency as a custody evaluator (both as
Guardian ad Litem and as Care and Protection Investigator), and have worked closely with child
protective services.
I also have drawn from numerous published studies, several of which are listed in the
back of this article. [I have chosen for reasons of ease to refer to the abuser as "he" and the victim
as "she," but I am aware that there is a small percentage of cases of domestic violence to which
this language does not apply.]
PROFILE OF THE BATTERER
2
Generalizations about batterers have to be made with caution. Batterers come from all
socioeconomic backgrounds and levels of education. They have the full range of personality
types, from mild and mousy to loud and aggressive. They are difficult to profile psychologically;
they frequently fare well in psychological testing, often better than their victims do. People
outside of a batterer's immediate family do not generally perceive him as an abusive person, or
even as an especially angry one. They are as likely to be very popular as they are to be "losers,"
and they may be visible in their communities for their professional success and for their civic
involvement. Most friends, family, and associates in a batterer's life find it jarring when they hear
what he has done, and may deny that he is capable of those acts.
The partner and children of a batterer will, however, experience generalizable
characteristics, though he may conceal these aspects of his attitude and behavior when other
people are present:
The batterer is controlling; he insists on having the last word in arguments and decisionmaking,
he may control how the family's money is spent, and he may make rules for the victim
about her movements and personal contacts, such as forbidding her to use the telephone or to see
certain friends.
He is manipulative; he misleads people inside and outside of the family about his
abusiveness, he twists arguments around to make other people feel at fault, and he turns into a
sweet, sensitive person for extended periods of time when he feels that it is in his best interest to
do so. His public image usually contrasts sharply with the private reality.
He is entitled; he considers himself to have special rights and privileges not applicable to
other family members. He believes that his needs should be at the center of the family's agenda,
and that everyone should focus on keeping him happy. He typically believes that it is his sole
prerogative to determine when and how sexual relations will take place, and denies his partner
the right to refuse (or to initiate) sex. He usually believes that housework and childcare should be
done for him, and that any contributions he makes to those efforts should earn him special
appreciation and deference. He is highly demanding.
He is disrespectful; he considers his partner less competent, sensitive, and intelligent than
he is, often treating her as though she were an inanimate object. He communicates his sense of
superiority around the house in various ways.
The unifying principle is his attitude of ownership. The batterer believes that once you are
in a committed relationship with him, you belong to him. This possessiveness in batterers is the
reason why killings of battered women so commonly happen when victims are attempting to
leave the relationship; a batterer does not believe that his partner has the right to end a
relationship until he is ready to end it.
3
Most abusers do not express these beliefs explicitly; they are more likely to deny having
them, or even to claim to have opposite convictions that are humane and egalitarian. An experienced
batterers' counselor may have to spend several hours with the abuser before the underlying
attitudes begin to show. These attitudes are generally evident to victims, however, who often feel
frustrated at the batterer's ability to present a markedly different face to the outside world. This
dual aspect to his personality also helps to keep the victim confused about what he is really like,
and can contribute to her blaming herself for his abusive behaviors.
The level of physical violence used by batterers is on a wide spectrum. Some use violence
as much as a few times per month, while others do so once or twice a year or less. A significant
proportion of batterers required to attend counseling because of a criminal conviction have been
violent only one to five times in the history of their relationship, even by the victim's account.
Nonetheless, the victims in these cases report that the violence has had serious effects on them
and on their children, and that the accompanying pattern of controlling and disrespectful
behaviors are serving to deny the rights of family members and are causing trauma.
Thus the nature of the pattern of cruelty, intimidation, and manipulation is the crucial
factor in evaluating the level of abuse, not just the intensity and frequency of physical violence.
In my decade of working with abusers, involving over a thousand cases, I have almost never
encountered a client whose violence was not accompanied by a pattern of psychological
abusiveness.
Because of the distorted perceptions that the abuser has of rights and responsibilities in
relationships, he considers himself to be the victim. Acts of self-defense on the part of the
battered woman or the children, or efforts they make to stand up for their rights, he defines as
aggression against him. He is often highly skilled at twisting his descriptions of events to create
the convincing impression that he has been victimized. He thus accumulates grievances over the
course of the relationship to the same extent that the victim does, which can lead professionals to
decide that the members of the couple "abuse each other" and that the relationship has been
"mutually hurtful."
Although a percentage of batterers have psychological problems, the majority do not.
They are often thought to have low self-esteem, high insecurity, dependent personalities, or other
results from childhood wounds, but in fact batterers are a cross-section of the population with
respect to their emotional make-up. Certain labels such as "control freak" or "self-centered" have
the appearance of accuracy, but even these overlook the fact that the battering problem is very
context-specific; in other words, most batterers do not have an inordinate need for control, but
rather feel an inordinate right to control under family and partnership circumstances. Thus unlike
other problems with violence, battering behavior is mostly driven by culture rather than by
individual psychology. Many batterers are "in touch with" their feelings and skilled in the
language of therapy and recovery, which throws evaluators off the track. They may use their
childhoods and emotions as an excuse, to divert attention from their entitled and possessive
attitudes.
Battering is a learned behavior, with its roots in attitudes and belief-systems that are
reinforced by the batterer's social world. The problem is specifically linked to how the abuser
formulates the concepts of relationship and family; in other words, within those realms he
believes in his right to have his needs come first, and to be in control of the conduct (and often
even of the feelings) of others. A recent research study showed that two factors, the belief that
battering is justified and the presence of peers who support abusiveness, are the single greatest
predictors of which men will batter; these two had a considerably greater impact than whether or
not the man was exposed to domestic violence as a child (Silverman and Williamson).
Each batterer has his own mix of controlling and entitlement. Some monitor every move
their partners make like a prison guard, but at the same time are somewhat lower in entitlement,
contributing more to housework and childcare than other batterers (though still less than nonbatterers).
Other batterers don't control their partners freedom as severely, but become irate or
violent when they are not fully catered to, or when victims remind them of responsibilities that
they are shirking. The levels of manipulativeness and overt disrespect also vary, so that each
batterer has a particular style.
Because batterers are typically charming and persuasive, and are often kind and attentive
early in relationships, he does not necessarily need to seek out a special kind of woman to
victimize. Efforts to find common ground among battered women from the point of view of
background or personality type have been largely unsuccessful (Hotaling and Sugarman), just as
they have been with batterers. Service providers who assume that the victim must have had preexisting
problems of her own can make counterproductive interventions, as pathologizing of the
victim can lead to re-injury.
BATTERERS' STYLE DURING SEPARATION AND DIVORCE
An abuser's desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping away from
him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing
independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate "fear
of abandonment.") He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this
point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim,
including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping.
Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their
victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to
punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more
likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.
The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends
to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for
example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing
to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with "his" children; this theme is a common
one in batterer groups. He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations
that the new partner is abusing the children, cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in
order to protect his sole province over his children. A batterer who does file for custody will
frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation.
These
include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting
that he has no money with which to pay child support), 2) his marked advantage over his victim
in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his
ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate
and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator. There is also
evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer's advantage. (Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his
attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim's perspective, and can
lead to financial ruin for her and her children.
After a break-up, the abuser sometimes becomes quickly involved with a new partner
whom he treats relatively well. Abusers are not out of control, and therefore can be on "good"
behavior for extended periods of time - even a year or two - if they consider it in their best
interest to do so. The new partner may insist, based on her experience with him, that the man is
wonderful to her, and that any problems reported from the previous relationship must have been
fabricated, or must result from bad relationship dynamics for which the two parents are mutually
responsible. The abuser can thus use his new partner to create the impression that he is not a risk.
An abuser focuses on being charming and persuasive during a custody dispute, with an
effect that can be highly misleading to Guardians ad Litem, court mediators, judges, police
officers, therapists, family members, and friends.
He can be skilled at discussing his hurt feelings
and at characterizing the relationship as mutually destructive. He will often admit to some milder
acts of violence, such as shoving or throwing things, in order to increase his own credibility and
create the impression that the victim is exaggerating. He may discuss errors he has made in the
past and emphasize the efforts he is making to change, in order to make his partner seem vindictive
and unwilling to let go of the past.
Where manipulation and charm do not work, the abuser may switch to intimidation,
threatening or attacking those whom he perceives as being supportive to his partner. In the most
extreme cases the abuser may attempt to kill the woman, her lawyer, or the children, and
sometimes will succeed. In some cases custody evaluators have been afraid to release their
recommendations because of their fear of the batterer's retaliation.
Batterers may continue their harassment of the victim for years, through legal channels
and other means, causing periodic re-traumatizing of the victim and children and destroying the
family's financial position. Motions by abusers for custody or for increases in visitation are
common forms of retaliation for things that he is angry about. (They are also used to confuse the
court; for example, lawyers who represent abusers encourage clients who are accused of sexual
abuse to file for custody immediately; this move will cause the court to treat the allegation as
"occurring in the context of a custody dispute.") If the abuser meets with periodic success in
court, he may continue his pattern of abuse through the legal system until the children reach
majority
.
BATTERERS' STYLE IN MEDIATION OR CUSTODY EVALUATION
Batterers naturally strive to turn mediation and GAL processes to their advantage, through
the use of various tactics. Perhaps the most common is to adopt the role of a hurt, sensitive man
who doesn't understand how things got so bad and just wants to work it all out "for the good of
the children." He may cry in front of the mediator or GAL and use language that demonstrates
considerable insight into his own feelings. He is likely to be skilled at explaining how other
people have turned the victim against him, and how she is denying him access to the children as a
form of revenge, "even though she knows full well that I would never do anything to hurt them."
He commonly accuses her of having mental health problems, and may state that her family and
friends agree with him. The two most common negative characterizations he will use are that she
is hysterical and that she is promiscuous. The abuser tends to be comfortable lying, having years
of practice, and so can sound believable when making baseless statements. The abuser benefits to
the detriment of his children if the court representative fails to look closely at the evidence - or
ignores it - because of his charm. He also benefits when professionals believe that they can "just
tell" who is lying and who is telling the truth, and so fail to adequately investigate.
Because of the effects of trauma, the victim of battering will often seem hostile,
disjointed, and agitated, while the abuser appears friendly, articulate, and calm. Evaluators are
thus tempted to conclude that the victim is the source of the problems in the relationship.
Abusers increasingly use a tactic I call "preemptive strike," where he accuses the victim
of doing all the things that he has done. He will say that she was violent towards him and the
children, that she was extremely "controlling" (adopting the language of domestic violence
experts), and that she was unfaithful. If he has been denying her phone access to the children
during their weekend visits with him, he will likely complain to the court that she is preventing
him from calling the children during the week. If he has been highly inflexible about the
visitation schedule, he will accuse her of inflexibility. These tactics can succeed in distracting
attention from his pattern of abusiveness; in the midst of a cross-fire of accusations, court
representatives are tempted to throw up their hands and declare the couple equally abusive and
unreasonable.
Mediators and GAL's tend to have a bias in favor of communication, believing that the
more the two parents speak to each other, the better things will go for the children. In domestic
violence cases the truth is often the opposite, as the abuser uses communication to intimidate or
psychologically abuse, and to keep pressuring the victim for a reunion. Victims who refuse to
have any contact with their abusers may be doing the best thing both for themselves and for their
children, but the evaluator may then characterize her as being the one who won't let go of the past
or who can't focus on what is good for the children. This superficial analysis works to the
batterers advantage.
