BCIFV home > Newsletter > 1994 Archives > Spring 1994 articles

Assessing Men Who Abuse Women for Custody and Access

I have been giving considerable thought to the question of how to assess fathers who have been abusive towards mothers for custody and access decisions. This question has been of concern to me both as a family therapist working with cases of violence against women, and as a member of a small community working group advocating for systems change in this area.

It has been my experience that abusive men are considered for access largely in terms of the idea that it is best for children that fathers be involved with them in some way, and that this idea has prevailed frequently in the face of conflicting evidence. Attendance at counselling related to abusiveness has often been relied upon as a measure of a father's suitability as a parent. So eager have we been to engage fathers in parenting that even minimal "progress" and the most inconsequential acts (especially relative to what mothers routinely do) have been inflated to sometimes amazing degrees. For example, a father taking his kids on one outing is seen as evidence of being a fit parent to the exclusion of many more examples of abuse, and is weighed against the mother's ongoing practical care of the children. The risk has been that women continue to be abused and children who fear their fathers are further traumatized in the service of custody and access arrangements.

"...the safety of women and children is both primary and preferable to ideas we may have about the importance of fatherhood."

What is this fascination with fathers' magic about, and at what point do an abusive father's actions demonstrate real day-to-day evidence to counter his abuses? Most of the arguments, stories, and explanations that abusive men offer in their defense have been heard many times over by battered women, and sometimes their children. So what would a strong and compelling argument for custody and/or access consist of in the context of a man's abusiveness towards his partner, and what ideas would it be based on?

I have attempted to generate some evaluative questions which I think have application in custody and access decision-making. They are derived from the clinical practice of the Family Violence Intervention Project with abusive men, and reflect the view that the safety of women and children is both primary and preferable to ideas we may have about the importance of fatherhood. These questions also reflect the view that, as abusive fathers are responsible for their behavior, they have a primary responsibility for establishing safety and for providing solid evidence of change and trustworthiness. These are surmountable tasks for men who place the safety of their spouse and children above their sense of entitlement to fatherhood.

What follows, first of all, are some broad questions, and some ideas for answers that are born out of practical experience:

What would a man who is continuing to be abusive do in a custody/access context?

In our working group discussions we have considered this, and our experience is that men who practice abuse opt for a position of defense rather than a position of understanding. This means that I would expect to hear stories that begin with "she" rather than "I," and that I would expect to hear such a man advancing arguments for his entitlements re his children (i.e. fathers' right), rather than advancing compelling arguments for his wife and children's safety, and how he is culpable in this regard. I might also expect him to find ways of initiating and/or continuing proceedings as a way of extending influence and control over his partner and children.

How would a father who has been abusive and who is now striving to be non-abusive behave in a custody/access context?

In this case, I would expect such a father to put safety first, and to reconsider his entitlements in this light. I would expect him to have some understanding (not just remorse) about the impact of his abusiveness on his wife and children, and to be able to tolerate and to some extent anticipate confusion, anger, and reticence on their part.

"How does focusing on the man's "rights" affect his sense of responsibility for his abusiveness?"

What is good evidence of change?

Aside from an absence of overt abuse, I would want to hear some articulateness about safety - that the man understands this means more than "I don't hit her," and that he understands that decisions about family life are being made in a context of abuse which he has established. Therefore, he realizes that it is up to him more than his wife and children to take care of safety, and this may mean giving them time away from contact with him, rather than insisting on having contact.

Another way of considering these issues is to look at major themes and ideas, and attempt to deconstruct them. This is useful both in getting at real evidence of change, and in beginning to challenge the core ideas that influence both an abusive man's positioning regarding his violence, and perhaps some custody and access decision-making.

Responsibility

With a man who has been abusive, how does the position he takes in custody/access proceedings reflect what he does with his ex-partner? How does the way a man accounts for events in his family life reflect a position of responsibility and "safety first?" How does the way he tells it reflect the continuing practice of abuse? What are the elements of a "responsibility story" vs. a "still abusive story?"

Rights

How does the idea that the man is a victim too, perhaps as much of a victim as his wife and children, affect his taking responsibility for his abusiveness? How does focusing on the man's "rights" affect his sense of responsibility for his abusiveness? How do "rights" change in the context of abuse? What "rights" has a man given up by being abusive?

Evidence

If a man were taking active steps in assuming responsibility for stopping abuse and providing safety, what would these steps be? How would these steps show up in a custody and access proceeding? How does the position a man takes in such a proceeding reflect responsibility?

Safety

What does it say about a man who's been abusive, that he seeks to understand his partner and children? That he puts understanding ahead of his own sense of entitlement? What does this say about his commitment to responsibility and safety? About his fitness to parent? What are the elements of safety beyond behaviour, beyond not hitting and not getting angry, beyond going to counselling? In what ways is the man accountable for the confusion and distrust of his wife and children?

Accountability

To what extent can a man monitor his own behaviour, without needing his wife or children to do it, and without needing a professional to tell him when he's doing a good job?

Nick Phillips, Family Therapist
Family Services of Greater Vancouver