Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence - Coursework Example

Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence Introduction Domestic or intimate violence is a vice that continues to pervade the society in numerous forms. However, in most reported incidents, the women and children suffer the most because of domestic or intimate partner violence. This is mainly contributed by the culture and traditions that subject women to submissiveness regardless of the violence inflicted on them by the abuser. In some cultures, reporting such incidents is unacceptable and as such, most victims and in particular, women, often remain quiet about IPV. There are a number of risk factors that are associated with IPV, which include drug and alcohol abuse, early childhood experiences and displacement of anger as a result of external pressures (Caetano, Vaeth, & Ramisetty-Milker, 2008).This is because an IPV victim only accepts violence as the best means of how to deal with the pressures that exist in the relationship. This is considering that such a person probably witnessed his or her parents fight on a regular basis or was subjected to violence while growing up (Caetano, Vaeth, & Ramisetty-Milker, 2008). Without proper counseling to deal with such experience in early life, a victim may exhibit violent tendencies in adult life. On the other hand, alcohol and drug abuse causes disinhibition that lead people to violent tendencies and most of their victims tend to be women and children (Sonis & Laner, 2008). However, while the prevalence of domestic violence victims is high among women and children, men are also subjected to domestic violence, and manifest in the form of psychological abuse (Harris, Ramisetty-Milker, & Caetano, 2008). This paper explores how domestic or intimate partner violence in the family can be prevented using clinical interventions. Historical Context Domestic violence is among the vices that exist in the society since time in memorial; this is mainly contributed by most societies advancing patriarchy. As such, men have developed a belief system whereby they can do what they want with their female partners since their sole role in the society is to take care of the home while the men acts as the breadwinners. This situation has left women over dependent on their husbands and as such, they cannot go against any action taken by their husbands, and this includes being subjected to constant physical abuse by their husbands (Forgey, Allen, & Hansen, 2014). Because of a male dominated society that undermines the female gender, reporting such an incident is seen as meaningless, since the society regard abuse against women as normal. However, in the modern society, women are encouraged to take affirmative action in fighting for their rights, and this includes speaking out against the violence subjected to them by their male counterparts. Laws have also been enacted that protects against domestic violence regardless of gender; as result, more victims are coming out to speak about their predicament and thus; help authorities to combat domestic violence that has become a problem in most societies (Forgey, Allen, & Hansen, 2014). Current Prevalence, Demographics of Affected Populations and Contributing Factors According to statistics by the National Violence Against Women Survey, averagely 22% of women are subjected to physical assault by their male spouses in their life time (Schafer, Caetano, Raul, & Catherine, 2008). In addition, approximately 5.3 million cases of spouse abuse occur in the United States and most victims are women aged 18 years and above, and this victimization is associated with over 2million injuries and fatalities, leading to over 1,000 deaths annually (Schafer et al., 2008). In the same survey, 25% of the reported cases involve rape or physical assault by an intimate partner (Schafer et al., 2008). In the United States, there are challenges that impede on the battle against domestic violence and in particular, rural communities. Victims are often subjected to isolation, and confidentiality in such communities with regard to reporting domestic violence cases often prevails, and this leaves the victims to suffer alone without any external help to escape the violence. These communities also lack the necessary resources to combat domestic violence, such as emergency shelter or transitional housing (Dudgeon & Evanson, 2014). In the United States, the risk factors contributing to the high prevalence of domestic or intimate partner violence include age, socioeconomic status, race, pregnancy, terminating a relationship and repeat victimization. The group considered susceptible to domestic violence is female aged between 16 and 25 years since their dating partners often subject this age group to physical abuse; on the other hand, socioeconomic status is a key contributing factor of domestic violence (Schafer et al., 2008). Despite the domestic violence taking place across the board and regardless of income bracket, the prevalence is higher among the poor in the society (Xie, Heimer, & Lauritsen, 2012). With regard to race, the number of domestic violence incident is higher among the African Americans compared to the Whites or other racial groups in the United States. Terminating a relationship is also a contributing factor to domestic violence because studies show that violence tends to increase when there is separation between intimate partners. Pregnancy is also a contributing factor to domestic violence and especially for young and poor women. Unintended pregnancy may also worsen the situation for intimate partners where one partner is not ready to accept responsibility for the pregnancy. The other risk factors include living with a verbally abusive partner where there exist threats of bodily harm, which if not resolved can lead to bodily injury (Xie, Heimer, & Lauritsen, 2012). Family Dynamics Common in Families Facing Domestic or Intimate Violence Most families experiencing domestic or intimate partner violence tend to look normal in the public domain, but what goes inside the house is another issue because the abuser normally threatens other family members against disclosing incidents of abuse in the home. While the children may pretend to be quiet about the abuse at home, the experience tends to affect their social life and academic performance. Some of the children end up developing anti-social behaviors as a way of rebelling against the abuse going on in their homes; or instance, children coming from abusive homes are often on the offensive because they see this as the only way to protect themselves. In addition, it is common to notice that, in families experiencing domestic violence, either one or both intimate partners are drug addicts (Forgey, Allen, & Hansen, 2014). Theories Explaining Domestic or Intimate Violence Patriarchal theory This theory can be used to explain why IPV is a normal occurrence in societies that tends to advance male dominance over women and children. Patriarchy in most societies is viewed as a way in which men preserve their dominance and control in the family, and this means that physical abuse inflicted on the female partner and children serves as a way of asserting control in the family. This situation has led to most women and children, keeping silence against the abuse that goes on in the home for fear of reprisal from the male spouse (McCarthy et al., Rabenhorst, Milner, Travis, & Collins, 2014). In such a setting where the male spouse is seen as the ultimate authority in the home, every action he takes is decisive and other family members have to respect such actions taken by the male spouse who is regarded as the pillar of the house (McGill, 2013). In a patriarchal relationship, the female spouse or children do not have a voice; for instance, in a family embracing patriarchy, the woman is submissive to her husband and incidents of physical abuse is viewed as a form of punishment and not a crime. This is the main reason why most violence in homes goes unreported and women continue to suffer in silence (McCarthy et al., 2014). Social learning theory According to this theory, domestic violence that occurs in most families is as a result of a learned behavior. Factors considered to contribute to domestic violence with respect to this theory include stress, alcohol and drug abuse, economic status and dynamics associated with relationships. Stress can lead to displacement of anger inflicted on the weaker spouse; for instance, where the male partner experiences external pressure that may be contributed by problems at work place, there is often displacement of anger on intimate partner and children (McGill, 2013). On the other hand, intimate partners use alcohol and other drugs for various reasons that include hiding from the problems back home. However, intoxication interferes with the consciousness of intimate partners and often leads to violent tendencies in trying to resolve existing problems in the home. This often leads to disagreements that can turn into verbal abuse and in extreme cases, physical abuse between the intimate partners, and this behavior often progresses gradually until physical abuse becomes the norm for solving problems in the home. Conversely, economic status also exposes intimate partners to violent tendencies because of pressures in managing a marriage life. This includes pressure to afford shelter, food, education, clothing and health for the family; however, low-income partners often find themselves in a situation where they keep arguing about who should provide for the family. Disagreements over finances in the home in the long term can lead to violent tendencies between the intimate partners (Ross & Babcock, 2010). With regard to relationships, there are individuals who tend to be insecure and constantly keep a check on each other’s movements. This often leads to frequent allegations and counter accusations among intimate partners and in extreme situations, this insecurity can precipitate domestic or intimate partner violence (Ross & Babcock, 2010). Family Intervention Models Applicable To Domestic or Intimate Partner Violence Boss’s Contextual Model of Family Stress This model is an improvement of Hill’s (1958) ABC-X model and focuses on factors contributing to intimate partner violence. As a postmodernist, Boss (2002) introduces contextual elements to improve Hill’s Model; moreover, he highlights on the factors leading to the formation of the stressor event. She mainly emphasizes the context in which the stressor event occurs, and this is important in terms of viewing events in connection rather than in isolation. As such, this model helps to broaden the perspective areas associated with the intervention process and also improves the effectiveness of the overall treatment. In addition, this model leads to a cohesive integration of the various parts (Boss, 2002). Further, this model also identifies three interacting factors in determining the stress produced. The stress produced in this sense is labeled as X while, the three factors A, B, C includes the stressor event, resources available to the family and the perception of the individual or family. This model also introduces the external context considered to be outside the family’s control; further, Boss (2002) also introduces internal context that includes the factors that the family can control. Additionally, Boss’s model provides multiple avenues for intervention as a result of recognizing cumulative effects of stress, resources, contextual factors and perspective (Boss, 2002). A: Stress event It is often difficult for women experiencing intimate partner violence to leave the abusive relationship this is because a number of stressful situations that includes financial difficulties and manipulation by the abuser often follow quitting the relationship. When these stressor events begin to pile up, victims and in particular, women, tend to devote their time and resources dealing with the prevailing issues or become overwhelmed and immobilized by the problem situation. These stressor events have the potential of creating a crisis in the family if not dealt with in an appropriate manner (Boss, 2002). B: Resources Resources in this sense include support systems that are important in managing the stress caused by intimate partner violence; for instance, material support is important for women quitting a relationship that has turned violent. This is because leaving their home means they need money to pay rent, transportation, and in some cases, for child support. Where these resources lack, this can be disabling for the victim in terms of their decision making process. In addition, legal resources are also important for the victims because they protect the victims from violation of the proximity agreement (Boss, 2002). C: Perception The perception of an individual regarding IPV is important in understanding the decision or action taken by victims of IPV. Perceptions are often formed because of a set of beliefs or experiences and this tend to affect how a person views the stressor events or the resources at their disposal. For instance, a woman who has experienced an abusive past may perceive abuse in a different way compared to another woman who has never experienced previous exposure to abuse. In this respect, perception acts as a lens that enables individuals to develop different worldviews on how to deal with problem situations. Further, perception plays an important role in understanding and working with clients of IPV (Boss, 2002). Contextual factors Contextual factors are both external and internal, which tend to affect the components of this model. In this sense, external factors denote the environment in which a family finds itself and particular components in an external context include culture, heredity or history. For instance, a cultural context may involve societal rules or expectations that may exacerbate IPV such as patriarchy. On the other hand, internal context are those influences that can be controlled by the family. As such, internal context plays an important role in the intervention process because it can be altered or changed. Three elements are evident in internal context that include psychological (how the family understands stressor events), structural (family rules) and philosophical (family values and beliefs). Both external and internal components are important when establishing a framework for assessment and treatment of IPV victims (Boss, 2002). Evaluation of the Model The strength of this model is that it highlights various dimensions that are involved in domestic or intimate partner violence. This model also encourages the therapist to consider the complexity of the problem situation, and contrary to offering a simplistic intervention guide to treatment, this model can be used as a lens through which practitioners can focus on the different needs presented by the client. However, this model has a weakness in the sense that where the client is not cooperative, it is difficult for the therapist to choose a point of intervention associated with the stressor event. Further, the external context is considered to be outside an individual’s control, thus; it is not an ideal point of intervention in the therapy process. However, the therapist is still in a position to validate and normalize feelings that are associated with different situations of the external context. This model is ideal when working with victims of domestic or intimate partner violence and in particular, the women (Boss, 2002). Cognitive behavioral therapy This model has been found to be effective when working with domestic or intimate violence offenders. The model views violence as a learned or formed behavior that individuals can unlearn, and as such, the intention is to change the offender’s behavior (Jayasekara, 2008). This model is helpful in identifying the belief systems or thought processes that contribute to violent tendencies among intimate partners. In essence, it identifies the contributing factors to violent tendencies and justification for such anti-social behavior (Jayasekara, 2008). In the helping process, the offender is encouraged to explore their violent behavior and change their understanding of the same behavior. The role of the therapist using this model involves encouraging the perpetrator to change his or her thinking regarding violence. CBT model essentially involves at least six core treatment components used in most IPV programs. The core treatment components involve skill-based training that focuses on how to manage anger, conflict and related situations. CBT, further focuses on restructuring distorted cognitions that lead individuals to negative emotions and such negative emotions include anger that can lead to IPV. The third core treatment component involves a focus on the gender role re-socialization. Gender role re-socialization plays a role in challenging the beliefs that advance male dominance and violence against women (Jayasekara, 2008). The fourth component involves engaging interventions geared at themes related to power and control in an intimate relationship. The fifth core treatment component in CBT involves an emphasis on family systems interventions and focuses on a number of family dynamics and communication patterns that can create IPV. This includes repeated patterns of rift between partners that can lead to violence. CBT also uses trauma-related intervention strategies that target post trauma symptoms that may arise from childhood maltreatment or having witnessed violence in childhood life (Jayasekara, 2008). Conversely, while this model is ideal in bringing about behavior change among offenders of domestic or intimate partner violence, it has a limitation in the sense that it might not achieve results with an uncooperative client or a client with deeply rooted psychological disturbances that emanate from early childhood experiences with violence. In addition, CBT is criticized for not dealing with motivation issues within the treatment protocols (Jayasekara, 2008). Case Study: Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence The first step into Mr. and Mrs. Canon case as a social worker would involve carrying out an assessment of the risk factors in the family that can lead to domestic or intimate partner violence. Among the risk factors evident in the relationship, and include suspicion of infidelity by Mrs. Cannon. Other than Mrs. Cannon suspecting Ben’s infidelity, the other noticeable risk factor include Mrs. Cannon suffering from PTSD, ADD and depression. These psychological disturbances can also contribute to domestic or intimate partner violence in the family if not checked. In addition, Ben has issues with childhood experiences that include his parent’s divorce when he was only 9 years, this may have made Ben feel vulnerable, and violent tendencies may be a form of defense mechanism. The claim that Ben is cruel towards his children could be because of the cruelty he experienced while still growing up in the hands of his father, stepmother and grandparents from the father’s side. The anger exhibited by both couples could be because of the pressure of cutting links with their family members who are against their association with Jehovah’s Witness Temple. Other than the aforementioned issues, it is also important to assess Ben’s patriarchal tendencies. It could be possible that Ben inherited the dominance in the home from his father and grandfather from the father’s side. This can explain why he is comfortable as the sole provider in the home while April takes care of the family as a homemaker. However, in this present day and time, such arrangement may lead to strained relationship especially where Mrs. Cannon does not want to be entirely dependent on her husband. In most homes today, conflict of interest may arise where one partner is uncomfortable with the shift of roles in the home environment. This is common in homes where the male spouse wants to maintain dominance over the female partner, and may lead to intimate partner violence. The assessment of Mr. and Mrs. Cannon’s case is important in determining the intervention model to use with the family. While Boss’s Contextual Model of Family Stress is important in helping Mrs. Cannon deal with the stresses in her life that are a risk factor for violent tendencies, the ideal model to work with the couple is CBT (cognitive behavior therapy) since the violence is an isolated case and there has never been a previously reported incident. What Ben and April need to do is change their behaviors by learning new strategies to cope with the pressures in their life. For instance, the allegation of infidelity may be untrue, but because of Ben’s behaviors, April may feel that Ben is no longer interested in her because he sees someone else. There seems to be a communication breakdown between Ben and April in the home, this is evident in Ben’s preoccupation with video games while at home. As a result of cutting links with her parents, April may be feeling lonely and as a couple, she may feel it is Ben’s responsibility to fill that void. Her anger may be stemming from the need for companionship that Ben is failing to offer at the moment. Judging from their children’s claim that Ben and April have bigger fights, it is also important as a social worker to refer their children to Trauma - Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF - CBT). This is because if the fights are true as their five-year-old son insists; these fights may have a long-term effect on the children if early intervention is not sought. Application of cognitive behavioral therapy in Ben and April Case During the beginning phase, it is important to develop a working alliance with the couples since both or one of the couple may be uncomfortable attending counseling session. Enhancing rapport is essential in making the couple feel at ease with the counseling environment. As part of building rapport with the couple, it is also important to communicate to them issues related to confidentiality and informed consent. Further, as a social worker, it is important to pay attention to a client’s communication as a gauge to move to the next level of the helping process. The signs to look for involve the communication between the couples; however, where there is tension, then individual counseling is advisable rather than a conjoint counselling (La Taillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006). Where the clients are comfortable with the process, then the next phase should engage the exploration of the problem situation. In this phase, it is important to use counselling skills such as open-ended questions and nonverbal communication to encourage the clients to open up more to their problem situation. Attentiveness from the therapist’s part is an important indicator to the clients that the therapist is interested in listening to their problem situation. Any form of distraction may discourage the clients from opening up to their problem situation (La Taillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006). Since this therapeutic process utilizes CBT, the next phase should involve brainstorming with the client about the problem situation. The social worker can ask questions such as what do you think is the main reason for your quarrels at home. This helps the clients to open up to a number of reasons that they think is causing tension between them. Brainstorming allows the therapist to identify the problems that need intervention. In the same phase of brainstorming with clients, it is also important to reflect on feelings and meaning. This is important in assessing how the past and present experiences affect both Ben and April. It allows the therapist to come up with intervention strategies suitable for dealing with negative or self-defeating thoughts (Jayasekara, 2008). As a result of conducting a conjoint counselling, it is also important for the therapist to identify incongruity in the couple’s communication during the counselling process and confront such incongruity for clarity of the problem situation. During the phase of brainstorming, it is also important for the therapist to employ other skills such as disclosure. This is important in providing the clients with an insight on how they can manage their problem situation. In the assessment phase, it is clear that Ben and April’s case require improving communication between them and managing anger that at some point has turned physical. Having identified the problems affecting Ben and April that are mostly behavioral, the therapist should assist the couples in coming up with intervention strategies geared at realizing behavior change. Such strategies include role-play that can help the couple deal with their anger, and nonviolent assertive training. This is important in helping the couple avoid displacing their anger on other objects that can cause injury to those around them as evident when Ben throws the phone that accidentally hits his 8-year-old daughter. The role play should come as a form of homework for the couple and provide feedback to the therapist regarding how they are coping with the role play assigned in managing anger (La Taillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006).). Where the therapist is convinced that the intervention strategies suggested for anger management are working, then terminating the therapy is advisable. However, as a social worker it is important to carry out follow-up after termination to ensure that the clients do not relapse to their previous state of dealing with problem situations in their home. CBT is ideal when working with both offenders and victims of domestic or intimate partner violence because it helps to effect behavior change. Most of the violence taking place in the home environment is behavioral and this can be unlearnt using intervention strategies provided by the CBT model. For instance, through CBT couples can learn to manage their anger or deal with negative thoughts from early childhood experiences (La Taillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006). Compared to other helping professional, working as a social worker enables an individual to understand the dynamics of the problems affecting homes and means of how they can resolve them. Working as a social worker provides the first line in helping homes overcome family problems that include domestic violence before it becomes uncontrollable and turns into a legal tussle. In essence, social workers help to establish support structures that enable homes to deal with problems associated with violence at home. My values as a social worker involve an emphasis on a family that works as a unit by solving their problems as a family and avoid individuality that may create conflict of interest between partners. Since most homes in my culture have different family problems that are mostly as a result learnt behaviors, CBT model plays an important role in helping couples and homes change their behaviors, to better their relationship and that of their families. CBT model has an impact in the case of Ben and April in the sense that it would assist them to develop coping mechanism when faced with compromising situations that could turn violent. Conclusion Domestic or intimate partner violence is a problem that impacts negatively on the marriage institution and structures need to be put in place to stop this violence. This involves coming up with effective family intervention methods that can help homes to overcome incidents of domestic violence. As such, the social worker plays an important role in ensuring that these strategies are applied when dealing with cases related to domestic or intimate partner violence. Helping both the offender and the victim require a therapeutic process that assist for instance, the offender to understand the root cause of the problem and develop coping strategies against violent tendencies. On the other hand, the same process helps victims to overcome negative feelings and self-defeating thoughts (Spivak, Jenkins, VanAudenhove, Kelly, & Lee, 2014). References Boss, P. (2002). Family stress management: A contextual approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Caetano, R., Vaeth, P., & Ramisetty-Milker, S. (2008).Intimate partner violence victim and perpetrator characteristics among couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, Vol.23(6), 507-518. Dudgeon, A., & Evanson, T.A. (2014).Intimate partner violence in rural U.S. areas: What every nurse should know. American Journal of Nursing, Vol.114(5), 26-36. Forgey, M.A., Allen, M., & Hansen, J. (2014). An exploration of the knowledge base used by Irish and U.S. child protection social workers in the assessment of intimate partner violence. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, Vol.11(1), 58-72. Harris, T., Ramisetty-Milker, S., & Caetano, R. (2008).Drinking, alcohol problems and intimate partner violence among White and Hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Family Violence, Vol.23(1), 37-45. Hill, R. (1958). Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, Vol.39, 139–150. Jayasekara, R. (2008).Cognitive behavioral therapy for men who physically abuse their female partner. Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol.64(92), 129-130. McCarthy, R.J., Rabenhorst, M., Milner, J.S., Travis, W.J., & Collins, P.S. (2014).What difference does a day make? examining temporal variations in partner maltreatment. Journal of Family Psychology, Vol.28(3), 421-428. McGill, N. (2013).Partner violence: know the signs of a harmful relationship. Nations Health, Vol.43(2), 20. La Taillade, J.J., Epstein, N.B., & Werlinich, C.A. (2006).Conjoint treatment of intimate partner violence: a cognitive behavioral approach. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, Vol.20(4), 393-410. Ross, J., & Babcock, J. (2010).Gender and intimate partner violence in the United States: Confronting the controversies. Sex Roles, Vol.62(3), 194-200. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., Raul, C., & Catherine, L. (2008).Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, Vol.88(11), 1702-1704. Sonis, J., & Laner, M. (2008).Risk and protective factors for recurrent intimate partner violence in a cohort of low-income inner-city women. Journal of Family Violence, Vol.23(7), 529-538. Spivak, H.R., Jenkins, E.L.,VanAudenhove, K., Kelly, M., Lee, D., & Iskander, J. (2014). CDC grand rounds: A public health approach to prevention of intimate partner violence. MMWR Recommendations & Reports, Vol.63(2), 38-41. Xie, M., Heimer, K., & Lauritsen, J.L. (2012).Violence against women in U.S. metropolitan areas: changes in womens status and risk, 1980-2004. Criminology, Vol.50(1), 105-143. Read More