The Utility of a Function-Based Approach to Intimate Partner Violence and Gender Bias in Family Courts

Abstract

The prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) is alarmingly high. Leaving an abusive relationship is only part of the solution, especially for survivors who share children with a violent partner. The IPV survivor has to navigate the family court system in order to obtain protection orders and custody arrangements. The decisions made by judges in family courts are influenced by gender-biased theories that rely on myths about women, intimate domestic violence, and the effects of violence and abuse on children. This paper will describe current issues in family court and possible contributions that behavior analysts can provide.

It is estimated that 20 people experience intimate partner violence (IPV) every minute in the United States, resulting in over 10 million victims each year (Black et al., 2011):

1 in 4 women and 1 in 9 men report being victims of intimate contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner with a negative impact such as injury, fear, concern for safety, needing services. Intimate contact sexual violence includes rape, being forced to penetrate, sexual coercion, and/or unwanted sexual contact. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016)

The World Health Organization conducted a multicountry study that included more than 24,000 women in 10 countries. In this study, 13%–61% of women reported experiencing violence by a partner (World Health Organization, 2012). Although IPV is a worldwide issue that needs attention, the current paper will primarily be limited to issues found in the United States.

Despite the known deleterious effects of IPV, the family court system is repeatedly failing to protect survivors and their children. Perpetrators of IPV can be both mothers and fathers. Protective fathers share some of the experiences discussed in this paper; however, there are some poignantly different cultural influences and contingencies preventing fathers from being able to adequately protect their children from abusive mothers that would require a separate analysis. For the purposes of this paper, the focus will remain on protective mothers.

Family Courts

The struggle and danger for survivors of IPV do not stop at leaving the relationship. Leaving an abusive relationship is one of the most dangerous times for a survivor of IPV. Approximately 25%–35% of survivors who have left a violent relationship experience homicidal threats, stalking, and harassment (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). The situation is complicated further when children are involved. Violent ex-partners may use their children as a way to further psychologically abuse and control the survivor. As many as 25% of women survivors reported that their violent ex-partner threatened to hurt or kidnap their children (Liss & Stahly, 1993). Violent ex-partners will also use the family court system to continue to harass and control their victims (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002). The family court system has been criticized for not adequately protecting survivors, particularly mothers and their children, from further harm (Goodmark, 2011; Hannah & Goldstein, 2010; Saunders, Faller, & Tolman, 2012).

The specific process of filing for custody orders and protective orders varies across states, but the general process is similar enough to describe here. Typically, the first recommendation to survivors is to file a temporary restraining order (TRO) that protects the mother and children. This is an order that will prevent the violent ex-partner from having any contact with the survivor, and possibly their children. The TRO will also likely include a temporary custody arrangement. A hearing will be scheduled at a later date to determine if the TRO arrangement will remain in place or be modified. If the restraining order is maintained, it typically provides protection for around 2–3 years, at which time the survivor will have to return to court to provide evidence that the restraining order should remain in place. The custody orders are considered temporary until the parents file for a mutually agreed-upon custody arrangement or a judge orders the custody arrangement.

There are several barriers that survivors face when attempting to get a protective order and custody arrangement that will protect both the parent and children. Upon filing the TRO, the parent is restricted from leaving the jurisdiction in which the order was placed. This presents a barrier for survivors if they do not have local support from family and friends. Choosing to take this route prevents them from relocating to an area in which they can receive financial and emotional support from family and friends. Additionally, any attempt to leave the area with the children is often interpreted negatively by the family court system (see Saunders, 2007, and Saunders, Faller, & Tolman, 2012, for reviews).

The protective parent also faces obstacles with providing evidence for IPV. Most occurrences of IPV happen in the privacy of homes, preventing evidence beyond the testimony of the protective parent. Additionally, many survivors of IPV have spent years hiding the abuse and making excuses for the abuse, making it particularly difficult to provide evidence to the courts. Despite evidence of the damaging effects to children after being exposed to IPV (Edleson, 1999; Graham-Bermann & Edleson, 2002; Kitzman, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Wolfe, Crooks, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2004), the protection order will only likely cover the parent, unless she also has evidence that the ex-partner was also physically violent toward the children. Protection is still not guaranteed even when evidence is provided to the court. In fact, cases that involve IPV toward the mother and/or toward the children, especially cases that involve sexual abuse or assault, rarely result in both the mother and children being protected and more often results in the accused offender obtaining primary or unsupervised shared custody (Hannah & Goldstein, 2010; Meier, 2013; Meier & Dickson, 2017; Saunders, Faller, & Tolman, 2012).

To complicate matters further, the violent ex-partner might also file for a restraining order against the mother with reverse allegations that the mother is actually the violent offender or with claims that the mother is attempting to alienate the child or children from the father. This defense strategy has been coined “deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender” (DARVO; Freyd, 1997). Unfortunately, it is often successful because it creates a situation in which the judge has to decide if either parent’s allegations are credible. In the majority of cases, the mother is perceived as lying as an attempt to gain custody, despite research indicating that fathers are 15 times more likely than mothers to make deliberately false claims of abuse in the context of custody disputes (Trocme & Bala, 2005). The DARVO defense successfully exploits the gender bias already present against mothers and the lack of training in IPV in the family court system (Faller & Tollmen, 2012; Hannah & Goldstein, 2010; Meier, 2013; Meier & Dickson, 2017).

Many federal, state, and local commissions have demonstrated that mothers are more likely to face negative child custody orders amid allegations of abuse (e.g., Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Danforth & Welling, 1996; Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2013; Meier & Dickson, 2017; Zorza, 1996). A lack of proper training in IPV and misogynist views of women influence judges to disbelieve women’s allegations of abuse, minimize the impact of violence on mothers and children, and blame mothers for the abuse (Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Danforth & Welling, 1996; Hannah & Goldstein, 2010; Saunders, Faller, & Tolman, 2012; Zorza, 1996).

The term high conflict is used to describe cases in which neither party can agree on custody arrangements and continual conflicts are brought to the court to decide. Most cases labeled as high conflict involve IPV (for a review, see Jaffe & Crooks, 2007). Using this term can be problematic and dangerous for the protective parent and children because it suggests that both parents are responsible for the conflict and neglects the potential danger of unsupervised encounters with the abusive ex-partner. A parent who is attempting to gain full legal and physical custody to protect herself and her children is viewed negatively when she does not agree to custody arrangements recommended by family court mediators, court-appointed guardians ad litem, custody evaluators, or judges. It is not uncommon to hear phrases in and outside of the courtroom such as “You two need to get along for the sake of the children.” This line of thinking suggests that the protective parent is harming the children by not agreeing to the violent partner having unsupervised access to the children. Instead of focusing on protection for the mother and children, the focus is turned toward which parent is providing an environment that fosters a relationship with both parents. In fact, there is legislation in most states that require family courts to “favor” the parent who appears to encourage a joint custody arrangement (Gonzalez & Reichman, 2005). The “friendly parent” statutes require a court to consider, as a factor for custody, which parent is more likely to allow “frequent and continuing contact” with the child and the other parent or which parent is more likely to promote the child’s contact or relationship with the other parent (Dore, 2004). Judges often rely on the friendly parent provision even when the statute is not present in their respective states (Zorza, 1992).

Similar issues arise with the terms parental alienation (PA) and parental alienation syndrome (PAS). PAS is a term coined by psychiatrist Richard Gardner based on his clinical work with divorcing families and working as a paid expert witness, primarily for fathers who were accused of sexual abuse (Dallam, 1999). PAS is characterized as a disorder in which one parent, primarily the mother, “brainwashes” the child into believing that the father is abusive and enlists the child into her “campaign of denigration” of the other parent, the father. The child is believed to fabricate his or her own stories of abuse about the father (Gardner, 1992a, 1992b). Gardner proclaimed that PAS was prevalent in 90% of custody cases (Gardner, 1987). The recommendation for treatment for PAS is elimination of all contact between the mother and child and the use of coercive tactics (e.g., threats made to the child if he or she speaks to the protective parent to be placed in detention center, to be isolated from friends and family, to be forced to reunite with the abusive parent, or to be placed in a camp for “deprogramming”) to change the child’s beliefs about the father (Bruch, 2001; Dallam & Silber, 2016; Gardner, 1992a).

PAS has been heavily criticized for its misogynist underpinnings, sympathetic position toward pedophilia and incest (Dallam & Silber, 2016; Fink, 2010; Meier, 2013; Milchman, 2017), and complete lack of scientific evidence (Bond, 2007; Dallam & Silber, 2016; Emery, Otto, & O’Donohue, 2005; Fink, 2010; Meier, 2013; Milchman, 2017; O’Donohue, Benuto, & Bennet, 2016; Rotgers & Barrett, 1996; Walker & Shapiro, 2010). Gardner’s theory of PAS has also been criticized for being unfalsifiable because it is tautological (Dallam & Silberg, 2016). That is, all attempts to provide evidence of the abuse are used by proponents of PAS as evidence of the mother’s attempts to alienate the child from the father (Bruch, 2001) and “are punished by court orders prohibiting continued reporting of abuse” (Meier, 2013, p. 3).

Unfortunately, PA and PAS have maintained credence within the family court system, despite the overwhelming rejections to their use and their biased premise. PA is so prevalent in family courts that the Journal of Child Custody had a special issue dedicated to the topic in October 2016. An Internet search of the term “parental alienation” results in several attorneys advertising to represent parents who have been victims of PA.

A major court decision was recently made by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on August 13, 2018, that held that substantial interference with a parent-child relationship constitutes endangerment to the child. The father who was seeking custody in this case pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following a domestic incident with the mother in 2011. Subsequently, the father was restrained from having contact with the mother, and the couple separated. The father claimed the mother was alienating the children from him and sought a modification of custody. The local court denied his motion for a modification of custody on the grounds that it did not meet the requirement of “endangerment.” The father appealed the decision, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals document states,

Interference with a parent-child relationship, or parental alienation, is sometimes referred to as “psychological kidnapping,” and means “any constellation of behaviors by a parent, whether conscious or unconscious, that could evoke a disturbance in the relationship between a child and the targeted parent.” Sandi S. Varnado, Inappropriate Parental Influence: A New App for Tort Law and Upgraded Relief for Alienated Parents, 61 DePaul L. Rev. 113, 120–21 (Fall 2011) (quotation omitted) (listing parental alienation techniques, including “cutting off the other parent’s access to information about the child[ren], . . . denying him information about the children’s activities, or access to the child’s medical or school records,” and limiting “the other parent’s contact with the child by refusing to allow telephone conversations or visits” (quotation omitted)).

Abusive fathers take advantage of the flaws in the family court system by promoting unscientific and gender-biased views, such as PA and PAS and continually using the DARVO defense. The result is often long and arduous court battles that further the abuse experienced by protective mothers and their children.

The problems occurring in family court present an opportunity for behavior analysts to offer function-based solutions in the following ways: (a) providing a functional account of IPV, (b) providing a functional account of parent behaviors during custody disputes, (c) creating and implementing educational programs for court personnel and custody evaluators, (d) incorporating acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) into parent consultation services to promote values-based parenting behaviors, (e) coaching parents to develop behavior-change plans that are trauma informed, and (f) teaching parents how to collect and graph data.

Contributing to the Literature With a Functional Approach to IPV

The vast majority of research and theories on IPV rely on mainstream psychological and sociological orientations. Despite the clear social impact of IPV, relatively few examples offer a behavior-analytic perspective (see Bonem, Stanley-Kime, & Corbin, 2008; Kellum, Hayes, & Ghezzi, 2000; Landaburu & Ghezzi, 2003; Myers, 1995). The behavior analysis community can contribute to the literature on IPV by providing analyses from a functional perspective.

IPV shares some similarities with private events in the sense that it often occurs in the privacy of the couple’s home, prohibiting an analysis based on direct observation. The current literature on IPV is primarily based on self-report data. As is the case with private events, it can also be assumed that the behaviors occurring in the context of IPV also follow the same principles as any other overt behavior. Behavior analysis is in a unique position to provide a function-based perspective based on our literature, including, but not limited to, punishment and escape/avoidance procedures. The analysis can also be extended further based on our understanding of derived relational responding.

Aversive Control

Kellum et al. (2000) provided a preliminary analysis of the victim’s response based on some of the basic literature on escape/avoidance. Landaburu and Ghezzi (2003) extended this analysis with a comprehensive review of the escape/avoidance literature and its potential application to commonly reported behaviors of victims of IPV. The authors examined the conditions under which behaviors effectively altered an aversive stimulus by delaying, postponing, or terminating it and the conditions under which behaviors do not effectively alter the aversive stimulus.

For example, the escape/avoidance literature has demonstrated that responding is acquired faster when the R-S interval is considerably longer than the S-S interval (Hogan, Baron, & Kaufman, 1968; Leaf, 1965; Sidman, 1966). Brown (1987) reports that abusive episodes occur an average of three to four times per week. If, for example, the abuse is occurring on average every other day (S-S interval) and the recipient of abuse successfully delays the abuse for a few hours (R-S interval), the likelihood of acquiring effective escape/avoidance responses is relatively low. In order for effective avoidance responding to be acquired, the R-S interval would need to be significantly longer than 2 days (S-S interval).

The authors suggest that research in the area of warning signals may also provide useful information. For example, Abbot and Badia (1984) demonstrated that signaled avoidance is preferred over unsignaled avoidance schedules. Despite the preference for signaled avoidance, the literature has also demonstrated that participants will choose to terminate the warning signal and receive shock over prolonging the warning signal and postponing shock (Sidman & Boren, 1957). In the case of IPV, warning signals may take the form of coming home smelling of alcohol, complaining, slamming doors, breaking things, and so on. Based on the escape/avoidance literature, it would be likely that the recipient of abuse would choose to engage in behavior that terminates the warning signal and results in abuse. From a naive perspective, this may appear that the individual was “intentionally” trying to provoke the abuser or “wanted” the abuse to occur, but what in fact is happening is she is choosing the option that reduces the overall length of exposure to aversive stimuli.

Holz and Azrin (1961) demonstrated an increase in responding when a relatively intense shock immediately preceded reinforcement. The authors suggest that this may be useful to explain parts of the abuse cycle, developed by Walker (1979), in which abusive episodes are said to be followed by a “honeymoon phase” consisting of potential reinforcers, such as apologies and gifts. The occurrence of abuse may serve as a discriminative stimulus for positive reinforcement.

One of the primary criticisms of aversive control is the rigid and stereotyped response pattern it produces (Sidman, 2000). Landaburu and Ghezzi (2003) point out that the ongoing exposure to aversive control is likely to decrease the behavioral repertoire of the recipients of abuse, making it difficult to effectively respond in ways that alter the aversive stimuli. In particular, it decreases the likelihood of engaging in the variety of responses required to safely leave the abusive relationship (e.g., creating a safety plan, securing living arrangements, creating a source of income).

Both of these papers focused on an analysis of the effects of aversive control on the victim’s behavior; however, a similar approach may be used to analyze aggressive behavior displayed by the abuser. For example, the literature on schedule-induced aggression suggests that aggressive behavior is most likely to occur during the postreinforcement pause (Cherek & Pickens, 1970; Hutchinson, Azrin, & Hunt, 1968) and when relatively large response-to-reinforcer ratios are used (Knutson, 1970). These findings suggest that it may be the case that abusers are more likely to attack their partners under conditions of ratio strain or following the removal of a reinforcer.

Aggressive responses have been demonstrated to increase following exposure to avoidance conditioning preparations (Powell, Francis, Francis, & Schneiderman, 1972). As previously mentioned, aversive conditioning produces rigid and stereotyped responding. A limited behavioral repertoire is likely to produce situations in which responses are ineffective and do not result in high rates of reinforcement. It may be that these conditions are similar to those observed with ratio strain, thereby increasing the probability of aggression.

Differential reinforcement has been demonstrated to reduce conditioned aggression but is not effective with unconditioned aggression (i.e., shock-induced aggression, schedule-induced aggression; Flory, Smith, & Ellis, 1977; Reynolds, Catania, & Skinner, 1963). Unconditioned aggression has been reduced by giving subjects the opportunity to escape, avoid, or shorten aversive stimulation (Azrin, Hutchinson, & Hake, 1967; Ulrich, Stachnik, Brierton, & Mabry, 1966). It may be important to determine if the aggressive behavior displayed by abusers is conditioned or unconditioned in order to develop effective interventions to reduce aggression.

Functional Assessment

Bonem et al. (2008) developed the Battering Assessment Tool (BAT) that looked at 54 antecedents and 57 reinforcing or nonreinforcing consequences to identify the context in which IPV is likely to occur. The authors proposed that a functional assessment of the batterer’s behavior could be used to create individualized, function-based treatment plans that might be more effective than current treatments that are based on theories of personality disorders or traits. The assessment data were based on self-report data, so the results should be interpreted with caution. The authors reported that many of the available consequences were left unmarked, suggesting that the participants might not be able to correctly identify the consequences. This was a preliminary analysis of the BAT. Further work in this area could potentially involve the empirical evaluation of alternative assessment strategies. One possibility suggested by the authors was to include responses from the partner. Future participants might also increase their accuracy of reporting with training, or the assessor could assist with identifying consequences with follow-up questions.

It should be noted that analyses of this sort are limited to respondent conditioning and contingency-shaped behavior. A comprehensive analysis of IPV would also need to include an analysis of rule-governed behavior. For example, perpetrators of IPV display characteristics correlated with three Cluster B personality disorders: (a) antisocial personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others and a lack of empathy; (b) borderline personality disorder, characterized by a pattern of instability in relationships, self-image, identity, behavior, and affect often leading to self-harm and impulsivity; and (c) narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy (Dutton & Bodnarchuk, 2005). A functional analysis of rule-governed behavior may include an analysis of the role of experiential avoidance, fusion with problematic thoughts or rules, or fusion with the conceptualized self on IPV. There may also be an overreliance on rules that are followed due to a history of reinforcement for following rules (pliance) and deficits in the area of following rules based on the effect on the environment (tracking) that may be identified and appropriate targets for behavior-change interventions.

Functional Analysis of Parent Behavior in Custody Disputes

The assessment of parent behavior during custody disputes is currently based on topographical or formal analyses. This can and does lead to biased decision-making on the part of judges. For example, both parents might engage in outbursts during a court hearing. From the judge’s perspective, both parents might be equally observed as individuals who have self-control or anger management issues. From a classical conditioning perspective, the protective parent might be responding in the context of fear of losing her child to a dangerous parent, whereas the offending parent is responding in the context of fear of losing control of his ex-spouse or as a way to intimidate the ex-spouse. Both parents might provide accusations of abuse and present themselves as victims. From an operant perspective, the protective parent could be attempting to escape and avoid further abuse due to a history of such behavior resulting in the termination of aversive conditions. The offending parent could be attempting to have continued access to his victims to extend control and the abuse cycle, due to a similar history of being believed by others upon showing emotion.

Evidence might be provided in which both parents demonstrated lying about a situation. The function of the protective parent’s lie might be to escape/avoid punishment from the violent spouse, whereas the offender’s behavior might be maintained by access to social reinforcement or tangible reinforcement.

Another issue involves violations of the court’s custody order. The protective parent’s behavior might be maintained by escape/avoidance of the child being exposed to abuse, whereas the offending parent’s behavior could be maintained by signs of damage to the protective parent. A functional analysis can contribute to a better understanding of the offender’s behavior and the protective mother’s behavior by identifying potential setting factors, motivational operations, discriminative stimuli, and maintaining consequences. Future work in this area should involve the empirical evaluation of functional assessment procedures for parent behaviors during custody disputes. Although well-controlled experiments will be difficult to construct, this should be a priority.

Education

Behavior analysts can get involved by developing effective training programs for judges, mediators, guardians at litem, custody evaluators, and attorneys that use evidenced-based instructional design and teaching principles, such as online training programs that use a personalized system of instruction and programmed instruction.

In-person trainings and workshops can be developed to teach basic principles of behavior and functional assessment techniques using behavioral skills training. For example, court personnel should be trained to observe the antecedents and consequences of emotional displays within the courtroom. They should be trained to ask questions such as, “When you’ve cried this way in the past, what did your partner do?” “What did your friends do in the past when you became emotional about your wife’s behavior?” and “Did anyone suggest to you that it would be useful if you were to show your emotion here in this courtroom?”

Training programs should include

1. General characteristics of IPV, including physical, emotional, sexual, and financial abuse;

2. The short-term and long-term effects of IPV;

3. The effects of exposure to IPV on children;

4. The dangers associated with exposure to and contact with the violent offender for protective mothers and their children;

5. Basic behavioral principles governing human behavior—in particular, the focus should be on identifying antecedents and consequences for behaviors commonly observed during custody disputes;

6. Tactics the violent offender uses during custody disputes to harass and control the mother and children;

7. The importance of following through with consequences of violating parenting agreements; and

8. Common myths about IPV that place children at risk during custody disputes such as those outlined by Dallam and Silberg (2006): (a) Allegations of sexual abuse are common during custody disputes, and the majority of allegations are false, unfounded, or unsubstantiated; (b) a history of battering has nothing to do with child abuse; (c) custody transfers to abusive parents are rare; (d) fit mothers do not lose custody; (e) PAS is a common, well-documented phenomenon; and (f) children are more likely to be abused in the care of women than in the care of men.

Values-Based Parenting

Behavior analysts are well equipped to design and implement parenting programs for mothers affected by IPV. Training programs should focus on the importance of consistency and reinforcement-based strategies. Training programs might also benefit protective parents by including values-based goal setting and incorporating exercises and strategies used with ACT. These procedures have been successful with other vulnerable parents (Gould, Tarbox, & Coyne, 2018) and are likely to also be successful with parents who have experienced IPV and have become victims of biased and dangerous court decisions.

Values are verbally constructed rules about potent delayed reinforcers. Identifying values can be beneficial in circumstances under which adaptive behavior is less likely to occur and maladaptive behavior is more likely to occur. For example, in some situations, adaptive behavior (e.g., teaching children to say no to inappropriate advances by an otherwise loved family member) might be likely to result in immediate aversive stimuli (e.g., feeling uncomfortable, feeling shame or guilt) yet have larger delayed reinforcers (e.g., the child having access to healthy relationships and avoiding harmful stimuli). In contrast, maladaptive behavior (e.g., giving in to charming behavior initiated by an ex-partner who has been abusive in the past) might result in immediate reinforcement (e.g., attention, feeling safe) with delayed harmful stimuli (e.g., exposure to abuse). There might also be circumstances in which maladaptive behavior results in the termination or avoidance of an aversive stimulus but also in the loss of larger delayed reinforcement (e.g., yelling at a tantrumming child, consuming alcohol or drugs). These circumstances are relevant in many everyday experiences but are likely to be particularly relevant for a protective mother who has left an abusive relationship and is exposed to ongoing family court custody disputes.

The family court system creates a context in which both parents are attempting to demonstrate they are the “better” parent and the other parent is “unfit.” This is likely to be a barrier to effective parenting for a protective parent who experienced abuse from the other parent. That is, the protective parent is likely to already doubt her parenting skills after being heavily criticized by the abusive partner throughout the relationship. Now, the protective parent is exposed to continued public criticism, particularly focused on parenting skills, in the courtroom setting. Special care should be taken to use small shaping steps and dense schedules of reinforcement to help the protective parent regain confidence in her parenting skills.

The protective parent is likely to be placed in very difficult situations throughout the custody dispute. For example, the children may disclose inappropriate or abusive behavior that is occurring while they are in the other parent’s care. The protective parent will need to decide when to report the information to child protective services and whether a motion to modify custody should be filed. These decisions are incredibly difficult and convoluted when made in the context of a custody dispute. Most importantly, the protective parent may risk losing custody of her children if she reports the abuse. Furthermore, if she decides to move forward with reporting, it results in a series of aversive events for both the protective parent and the children. For example, the children will be interviewed by professionals (i.e., strangers), the children and protective parent may be exposed to retaliation from the other parent, the protective parent’s parenting skills and home environment will be scrutinized by professionals, the protective parent will need to pay large sums of money for attorney and court fees, and the protective parent will need to go to court and again be exposed to criticism by the other parent. As behavior analysts, it is outside our scope of practice to provide a recommendation in these circumstances. The protective parent should consult legal and IPV experts when making her decision. Behavior analysts can participate by helping the parent identify values and reinforce values-based parenting behaviors (e.g., setting a goal to call an attorney, setting goals to document all disclosures thoroughly). Behavior analysts will, of course, need to report any disclosures of abuse as mandated by their respective state statutes.

If the protective parent is unsuccessful in gaining a custody plan that protects her children, she will be expected to follow the plan as written. This may include unsupervised visits, facilitating phone contact between the children and the other parent, and ongoing discussions with the other parent regarding the children’s schooling, extracurricular activities, and medical care. These activities may be traumatizing for the protective parent and her children. The protective parent is expected to repeatedly expose the children to an abusive parent, the children are repeatedly exposed to the abusive parent, and the protective parent is expected to have ongoing communication with the abusive ex-partner.

Although treating trauma is outside the scope of practice for behavior analysts, it should be their priority to understand the effects of repeated trauma and develop behavior plans accordingly. For example, individuals who experience trauma are more likely to experience (a) feeling a loss of control, (b) guilt or shame, (c) difficulties with perspective taking, and (d) impulsivity (McEnteggart, Barnes-Holmes, Dillon, Egger, & Oliver, 2017). It may be useful to take a client-centered approach when working with all parents, but it may be especially important to use this approach with parents who have experienced trauma. A client-centered approach is defined as arranging a nonpunitive, nonconfrontational environment that is intended to reduce counterpliance (Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999). This is accomplished by treating the parent as an expert in her own behavior and by developing a mutual relationship rather than an uneven expert/client relationship. As the listener, the therapist differentially reinforces accurate tracks (i.e., accurate rules about behavior/environment relationships) and statements indicating a willingness to experience aversive stimuli (e.g., shame, fear, anxiety, loss of immediate reinforcement) and commit to engaging in values-based behavior. A key component is creating a context in which the parent correctly identifies antecedents and consequences for target behaviors and develops behavior-change strategies with little assistance from the therapist. This is a departure from the typical parent consultation model in which behavior analysts provide recommendations based on assessment results and clinical expertise. Taking a client-centered approach is more likely to gain buy-in from the parent and subsequently lead to better compliance with behavior-change strategies.

Children who experience repeated trauma are more likely to experience (a) issues with managing their emotions, (b) difficulty concentrating, (c), a negative self-image, (d) impulsivity, (e) aggressive behaviors, and (f) risk-taking behaviors (Spinazzola et al., 2005). The function of these behaviors is likely to be more complex and may not be aligned with the typical consequences (e.g., attention, automatic, escape from demand) used in current functional assessment and analysis methodology. For example, a child’s tantrum may be an attempt to escape a reoccurring image or thought about past trauma. This could easily be misinterpreted as being maintained by attention if the mother is observed to consistently comfort the child during tantrums. The recommendation to remove attention could actually result in an increase in tantrums and further traumatize the child (i.e., the protective parent is ignoring the child’s need for comfort and safety). Future research should focus on identifying possible functions of behaviors observed with children who have experienced trauma so that appropriate function-based interventions can be developed.

Treatment for children who have experienced trauma should be heavily focused on antecedent-based interventions. Dense schedules of reinforcement should be used for appropriate behaviors. The use of punishment and extinction should be avoided when possible to avoid causing further trauma to the child. Depending on the history of trauma, it may also be best to avoid the use of physical prompting procedures, as these may elicit or evoke traumatic memories or experiences. Physical and mechanical restraints should not be used unless the safety of the child or others supersedes the potentially damaging effects of using these procedures. Further work in this area should explore effective behavioral interventions for children who have experienced trauma.

Data Collection

Protective parents are challenged with providing the courts with evidence that the offending parent’s behaviors are harmful to the children. Behavior analysts can teach parents how to collect data on important behaviors to demonstrate a functional relationship between behavioral excesses or deficits and the other parent’s behaviors. For example, a relationship between increases in aggression displayed by the child and phone contact with the other parent may be demonstrated with proper data collection. It should be noted that time-series data and graphs have not historically been used in custody cases, but they have been submitted to courts for other areas (e.g., education, autism services). The graphical representation of time-series data is easy to understand and may lend itself nicely to providing objective data to court personnel and custody evaluators to assist in their decision-making.

Protective parents may also be able to collect data on high-conflict behavior displayed by the other parent to demonstrate consistent patterns of behavior. For example, protective parents often report consistent patterns of abusive ex-partners engaging in behaviors to disrupt important events (e.g., the first day of school, holidays, birthdays). Behavior analysts could teach parents how to operationally define disruptive behaviors and to collect data in order to demonstrate a relationship between increases in disruptive behavior and important events.

Scope of Practice

Behavior analysts who work with families who have experienced IPV and are going through custody disputes should take steps to ensure that they remain within the scope of their competence and refer to other professionals when appropriate and necessary. It is recommended they become familiar with family court procedures and have a basic understanding of factors considered by judges when making custody decisions, especially when allegations of abuse are involved. Behavior analysts are not considered child custody experts and are not allowed to make recommendations regarding custody nor any legal matters; however, it will be useful to understand the variables experts use to make decisions in order to assist the families with making good parenting decisions. Any legal decisions should be referred to legal counsel. If a behavior analyst is subpoenaed to testify on behalf of a parent, it is recommended he or she receives a legal consultation before the hearing.

Behavior analysts are not qualified to treat psychological disorders, trauma, or IPV victims or offenders. It is recommended behavior analysts work closely with qualified mental health experts in these areas when working with families who have experienced IPV. Behavior analysts’ role in these interactions is to provide parent education, parenting goals, and assist the parents with developing appropriate behavior-change procedures for behavioral excesses and deficits observed with the children. It is likely that individuals who have been exposed to IPV will have narrow and restrictive behavioral repertoires, so it may be beneficial to incorporate some ACT exercises and metaphors to increase behavioral flexibility and values-based behaviors. The focus should remain on changing overt behaviors when incorporating ACT into behavior-analytic services. The focus should not be on treating psychological distress. That is, the behaviors targeted for change should not be different when using ACT. It is recommended behavior analysts use the term acceptance and commitment training rather than the term acceptance and commitment therapy when incorporating ACT into services to make the distinction between ACT as therapy and ACT as a training procedure clear.

It is not recommended behavior analysts provide parent education to the offending parent unless they are working closely with a licensed therapist who specializes in personality disorders and IPV. It is recommended behavior analysts use extreme caution to ensure that the offending parent is participating with therapy and is genuine in his desire to improve parenting skills. If the offending parent is not genuinely ready and willing to change his behavior, he may be manipulating the behavior analyst to obtain parenting information. The information may be used to ostensibly play the part of an effective parent in the presence of court personnel and custody experts, rather than use it to improve his parenting skills. Although it may seem harmless to provide a parent with information, it may actually aid the offending parent in manipulating court personnel and custody experts into thinking he is a fit parent.

Conclusion

The current literature on IPV and family court demonstrates a clear bias against women who are attempting to protect themselves and their children. Many of the factors used by judges to make decisions are based on gender-biased theories (e.g., PAS) or presumptions that ignore the dangers and serious effects of exposure to IPV (e.g., friendly parent provision). Judgments are based on topographical features of behavior (e.g., both parents making accusations, both parents engaged in conflict), rather than a functional perspective. A functional approach to IPV and family court would provide unbiased and individualized accounts of each parent’s behavior.

Behavior analysts are in a unique position to contribute to the literature and theories of IPV and family court decisions by providing function-based assessments and recommendations. Additionally, behavior analysts already have powerful, evidence-based teaching techniques and interventions that could be applied to improve the education of professionals and parents and to create individualized, function-based treatment plans for parents and their children.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies done with human participants performed by the author.