Judge speaks up on Family Court criticisms
Saturday June 10, 2006
By Chris Barton
Graeme MacCormick retired as Family Court judge in December after serving 15 years on the bench. Here are his views on men's groups' protests.
Will judges be intimidated by the men's groups' protests?
I do not perceive the judges of the court will be in the least influenced in their decision-making by any protest outside their homes. They have a job to do on behalf of the community. The children whose lives are affected are the children of their birth parents and also children of the community.
What often seems to get overlooked in criticisms of the Family Court is that the originating problems brought to it are not of the court's making. There are frequently power and control issues between the birth parents or between them and subsequent caregivers.
Many in the men's groups vent a lot of anger. What's behind this?
Anger is a natural emotion which shows other people our boundaries. It is precisely where our boundaries lie and the way we deal with our anger that counts. Anger that is not properly dealt with too often leads to physical outbursts and assaults and is, quite frequently, a feature of the more difficult Family Court cases.
Where I think men - as a broad generalisation - find themselves disadvantaged is when women have been the primary caregivers before separation and men have been the primary providers.
When the relationship breaks down and the woman tries to hold on to her role to the substantial exclusion of her former husband or partner, then the father is left with resort to the Family Court, which is not always resourced to be able to respond as quickly as the father - or indeed the court - would like. Nor might the outcome be exactly what either partner wants, depending on the circumstances and the perceived welfare and best interests - and views - of the child or children. Those are the determining factors with the law as it stands.
The protesters want equal parenting as the default position of the court in decisions about the care of children. What's your view of that?
I question whether they are going about that in the right way. They need to convince a majority of members of parliament of the need for a law change and that it will be best for children. Men's groups would need good research to back their position.
In the meantime, the judges of the court will try to apply the law, as it stands. It seems to me there is little point in attacking judges as a body for doing that.
I doubt that you are likely to achieve change by targeting the wrong people. Good, positive time with both birth parents, subject to issues of physical and emotional safety, is clearly the ideal. In an increasing number of cases that is equal time.
But sometimes extreme, ongoing conflict between birth parents, both locked in a battle over their children that they become ever more determined to win, makes this impossible to achieve.
Sometimes children have had so much conflict in their lives, without being able to see an end to it, that very occasionally and as a last resort a choice may need to be made for care by one birth parent to the exclusion of the other, hopefully temporary.
Men's groups say the court grants protection orders against men too easily.
There have also been complaints, on behalf of women, that "without notice" applications for protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act were not being granted readily enough and that too many were being placed "on notice", with significant physical risk to women and children. This demonstrates the difficulty of satisfying everybody. When temporary protection orders are made without notice, in perceived situations of a threat to safety, and when children are involved, the court is increasingly scheduling a review of the temporary order within one or two weeks.
Men's groups also complain about mothers making false testimony to the court.
For "false testimony" one can often substitute "a different perspective or perception". If there is genuinely false testimony before the court and it is not acknowledged or corrected and it is material provided with intent to deceive the court, this can clearly ground a prosecution for perjury. On occasion, the Family Court will refer a matter of perceived perjury to the police for consideration of prosecution. Anything in the nature of deliberately false evidence or misleading testimony will almost inevitably be counter-productive to the position of the person on whose behalf it is provided.
The protesters say they are targeting lawyers because they lie to the court. Why would they make such claims?
This probably refers to the lawyer for the children, with whom dissatisfied litigants of both genders will frequently take issue. Their job is to represent the child or children independently of the parents or caregivers.
Their client is the child. But they are not meant to give evidence to the court - as opposed to making submissions based on the evidence.
It is, however, normal for the lawyer for the child to advise a child's views and the child's instructions, if the child is able to provide them. That may not be exactly what the child has said to his or her parents.
What do you think of the men's groups' tactics?
Men's groups can frequently be helpful in providing a "McKenzie friend" or support person for a father acting on his own behalf. Likewise they fulfil a useful purpose in keeping before the public the importance of birth parents to children.
But Family Court judges are well aware of this and need no reminding. Men's groups need to be carefully focused if they are not to be counter-productive.
I suspect that the protests may, in their targeting, say more about the protesters than about the operation of the court. If their intention is to embarrass, harass or intimidate might not similar traits and tactics have been factors in the breakdown of their marriage or relationship?
Author
•
More by Chris Barton
•
Email Chris Barton
Monday, June 19, 2006
New era for child law
New era for child law
16 June 2006
By Andrea MilnerContent supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis
Principal Family Court Judge Boshier has signalled major changes ahead for the dispute resolution process used in children's cases, including the possible adoption of the non-adversarial process to be used in Australia.
Speaking at a child law conference in Auckland recently, Judge Boshier unveiled his vision for refining Family Court processes regarding resolution of childcare proceedings, which represent over a third of the work of the Family Court. He described the Court as "the final step" if all else fails, or where there is an urgent situation requiring decisive intervention.
The conciliation services of counselling and mediation should be expanded and made available to more people, he said. "Mediation should be separate and clearly defined as a final means of resolution between the parties, without needing to involve the Court." The Family Court has been running a mediation pilot which takes mediation sessions away from Judges and into the hands of specialist mediators.
Australia has been trialing a non-adversarial process which Judge Boshier advocated could be successfully adapted to New Zealand. Its Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, which comes into force on 1 July, moves the initial counselling phase outside of the Court's management and into the community.
Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) will be established throughout Australia. They will be separate from the Family Court, and offer a community-based disputes resolution service. FRCs will be contracted out to existing providers, and offer a variety of services, including free mediation sessions, some legal advice, and referrals to specialist services. Parties will be required to attend an FRC before being granted access to the Family Court, unless the case involves sexual abuse, violence, or contravention of a Court order.
Judge Boshier also referred to a programme trialled in the Sydney and Paramatta Family Courts aimed at reducing the adversarial nature of proceedings, and implementing a more child-focused dispute resolution forum. One objective of this Children's Cases Programme (CCP) is to reduce the amount of delay and harm caused by "the filing of vast amounts of irrelevant evidence," Judge Boshier said.
"Parents are parents for life. They separate from each other, not from their children. It is for the Court to encourage an ongoing relationship, as required by the Care of Children Act, by creating processes that are conducive to agreement, rather than the process itself becoming a hindrance to cooperation."
He said this can partly be achieved by Judges playing a more active role in steering the course of proceedings; deciding what the key issues are, and what evidence is required to prove them, rather than this being determined by the parties' perception of those issues, and their selective evidence.
"If the Judge can take a proactive role from the start, the irrelevant evidence can be eliminated, and the evidence that the Court truly requires can be drawn out," he said.
An evaluation report of the CCP recently delivered to the Australian Family Court compared the outcomes for families that had entered the programme with those who had gone through the traditional Court system. It suggests many parents received benefits from the Judge taking a more active role in resolving the dispute, while the parent's relationship with their child was seen to have suffered as a result of the mainstream process.
The Australian Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act makes it possible to roll out a less adversarial dispute resolution process over the entire country. The changes make it possible for the Court to dispense with certain rules of evidence without the consent of the parties, as is currently required for involvement in the CCP.
Judge Boshier said New Zealand needs to "seriously consider" implementing a system along the same lines.
16 June 2006
By Andrea MilnerContent supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis
Principal Family Court Judge Boshier has signalled major changes ahead for the dispute resolution process used in children's cases, including the possible adoption of the non-adversarial process to be used in Australia.
Speaking at a child law conference in Auckland recently, Judge Boshier unveiled his vision for refining Family Court processes regarding resolution of childcare proceedings, which represent over a third of the work of the Family Court. He described the Court as "the final step" if all else fails, or where there is an urgent situation requiring decisive intervention.
The conciliation services of counselling and mediation should be expanded and made available to more people, he said. "Mediation should be separate and clearly defined as a final means of resolution between the parties, without needing to involve the Court." The Family Court has been running a mediation pilot which takes mediation sessions away from Judges and into the hands of specialist mediators.
Australia has been trialing a non-adversarial process which Judge Boshier advocated could be successfully adapted to New Zealand. Its Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006, which comes into force on 1 July, moves the initial counselling phase outside of the Court's management and into the community.
Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) will be established throughout Australia. They will be separate from the Family Court, and offer a community-based disputes resolution service. FRCs will be contracted out to existing providers, and offer a variety of services, including free mediation sessions, some legal advice, and referrals to specialist services. Parties will be required to attend an FRC before being granted access to the Family Court, unless the case involves sexual abuse, violence, or contravention of a Court order.
Judge Boshier also referred to a programme trialled in the Sydney and Paramatta Family Courts aimed at reducing the adversarial nature of proceedings, and implementing a more child-focused dispute resolution forum. One objective of this Children's Cases Programme (CCP) is to reduce the amount of delay and harm caused by "the filing of vast amounts of irrelevant evidence," Judge Boshier said.
"Parents are parents for life. They separate from each other, not from their children. It is for the Court to encourage an ongoing relationship, as required by the Care of Children Act, by creating processes that are conducive to agreement, rather than the process itself becoming a hindrance to cooperation."
He said this can partly be achieved by Judges playing a more active role in steering the course of proceedings; deciding what the key issues are, and what evidence is required to prove them, rather than this being determined by the parties' perception of those issues, and their selective evidence.
"If the Judge can take a proactive role from the start, the irrelevant evidence can be eliminated, and the evidence that the Court truly requires can be drawn out," he said.
An evaluation report of the CCP recently delivered to the Australian Family Court compared the outcomes for families that had entered the programme with those who had gone through the traditional Court system. It suggests many parents received benefits from the Judge taking a more active role in resolving the dispute, while the parent's relationship with their child was seen to have suffered as a result of the mainstream process.
The Australian Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act makes it possible to roll out a less adversarial dispute resolution process over the entire country. The changes make it possible for the Court to dispense with certain rules of evidence without the consent of the parties, as is currently required for involvement in the CCP.
Judge Boshier said New Zealand needs to "seriously consider" implementing a system along the same lines.
Cultural diversity and context
Cultural diversity and context
16 June 2006
Content supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis
The "browning of New Zealand" and the extent to which our society is becoming ethnically and culturally diverse were brought into sharp focus at the 5th Annual Child Law conference held in Auckland recently.
Kate Woodd reports.
Among the defining principles that must be considered in an assessment of what is in the best interests and welfare of a child under the Care of Children Act 2004, is the principle that a "child's identity as part of their family, family group, whanau, hapu or iwi and including, without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice, should be preserved and strengthened".
Section 133 of the Act now gives the Family Court jurisdiction to request a cultural report from someone it considers qualified for the purpose, the substance of which "may address any aspect or aspects of that child's cultural background".
Considering a child's cultural background in decisions regarding their welfare and care is not an entirely new concept. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 similarly compelled the state child welfare agencies to consider issues of culture, particularly in the context of their "whanau, hapu and iwi". That legislation, enacted 17 years ago, was one of the first steps in overhauling the laws affecting children's welfare and care since the Guardianship Act 1968. It also sought to recognise the cultural importance of whanau to Maori and to ensure the Crown discharged its Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Maori.
However political rhetoric that New Zealand is a bicultural society with Pakeha and Maori as the predominant cultural groups is fast losing its persuasiveness. Presenting her paper, "Cultural Diversity and Context: Responding to the Needs of 'This Child' in 'This Family'", senior researcher at the Centre for Asian and Migrant Health Research at the Auckland University of Technology, Ruth DeSouza, together with barrister Fazilat Shah and Families Commissioner and barrister Sandra Alofivae, spoke of the significant challenges facing professionals in their efforts to effectively work with clients from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds to their own.
De Souza believes that "biculturalism is a good beginning and we should be looking at how we implement principles such as partnership, participation and protection in our professional practice and then expand this to other groups".
DeSouza's paper presented some staggering statistics on the multi-cultural make up of New Zealand's society today, projections for the future and the implications for family law professionals working with families.
Describing herself as a Tanzanian born Goan-Indian raised in East Africa, who has variously been mistaken for being Maori herself, DeSouza's own ethnic identity and background graphically demonstrates how easy it is to make incorrect assumptions as to a person's cultural identity or race.
According to DeSouza's references, "The world's migrant stock increased by 75 million between 1980 and 2000, with Europe's migrant numbers rising from 11 million to 33 million between 1980 and 2000. The US foreign born population grew from 14 million to 35 million between 1980 and 2000. Now, one in every 15 people in Europe and one in every eight in the US was born overseas (La Guardia, 2005). In the developed world, migration accounts for a greater share of population increase than natural growth".
In New Zealand, "almost one in five New Zealanders was born overseas. This rises to one in three in Auckland, where half of the migrant population resides. The highest proportion of Pacific and Asian migrants live in Auckland."
"Between 1991 and 2001 the number of people identifying as Asians more than doubled to almost 6.4 per cent of the population exceeding Pacific peoples. Chinese are the largest ethnic group within the Asian population, followed by Indian and Korean. In the Auckland region, 1 in 8 people are Asian, 1 in 8 Pacific and 1 in 10 Maori. It doesn't end there though, the fastest growing ethnic groups were Korean, Arab, Croat, Iraqi, South African and Russian, while the greatest increase in counts of overseas birthplaces between 1996-2001 were China, South Africa, India, Fiji and Korea. Linguistic and religious diversity were also a hallmark of the 2001 Census, which noted a 20 per cent increase in the number of multilingual people and an increase in people whose religion was non-Christian, including Hindu 56%, Buddhist 48 per cent and Islam 74 per cent".
With children the picture is somewhat different. "The 2001 Census found ...First, that New Zealand children were more ethnically diverse than adults, and secondly that they were less likely to have been born overseas than adults. A significant number of children in New Zealand were born here rather than overseas, compared to adults. Nine per cent of children were born overseas, compared with 23 per cent of adults. Of the children born overseas, 34 per cent were born in Oceania (Australia and the Pacific), 27 per cent were born in Asia and 21 per cent were born in Europe. The trend towards a growing diversity is expected to continue with projections for 2021 showing that, relatively speaking, there will be fewer Europeans (1 per cent increase), more Maori (28 per cent increase), more Pacific people (58 per cent increase) and more Asians (122 per cent increase)."
Despite this growing multiculturalism in our society, DeSouza notes that "New Zealand has yet to encompass multiculturalism as a social policy framework". She reasons that this is possibly due to our early links with the UK and Ireland, and that "when the time did come to explore issues regarding nation and nationality, this coincided with a rise in indigenous concerns and the Treaty". By comparison to the multicultural policies developed in Australia and Canada in the 1970s, New Zealand was instead "debating issues of indigeneity and the relationship with tangata whenua".
In the Family Court context, however, one might argue that it should be relatively simple to recognise when and from whom a cultural assessment is required to assist the court in its decision as to what is in the best interests of a child. The reality for many family law professionals is, however, quite the contrary. As Alofivae notes, significant challenges and questions now exist for the Court and lawyers in identifying whether a cultural report is needed and secondly, "who is qualified to give it and on what basis are they qualified for the purpose?" Difficulties exist in obtaining interpreters and identifying those 'qualified' in their particular cultural, ethnic or religious communities to assist.
Before even getting to that point, however, DeSouza's challenge for all family law professionals is the ability to appropriately recognise the importance of, and subtleties that can exist from a cultural perspective when working with family law clients.
DeSouza suggests that "legal services, family lawyers, judges, specialists and professional advisers in the area of child law need to delicately balance between the universal (treating people equally) and particular (responding to people's different needs differently) in order to be equitable. Provision of universal services can result in stereotyping, as the importance of culture is minimised and differences put down as individual. Equally universalism as a guiding ideology can be a means of indirect discrimination which is when service provision is the same for everyone but people from various ethnic groups cannot access or gain maximum benefit because of language, religious or cultural reasons".
In the health sector, "cultural safety" and "cultural competence" have become well established concepts, and it is the embrace of cultural competence by the individual professionals at one level and the framework of the court system at another that is critical if more than mere tokenism is paid to considering the cultural issues involved.
Cultural competence in the health context has been defined as "the ability of systems to provide care to patients with diverse values, beliefs and behaviours, including tailoring delivery to meet patients' social, cultural and linguistic needs".
DeSouza notes that "cultural competence is becoming an increasingly relevant concept in health care, and The New Zealand Medical Council recently consulted its members on cultural competence as a response to the introduction of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, and in line with its responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of medical practitioners. The consultation document includes a proposed framework and says that cross-cultural doctor-patient interactions are common, and doctors need to be competent in dealing with patients whose cultures differ from their own".
While there is an increasing awareness and acknowledgement of the diversity of families before the Court, DeSouza suggests "a number of strategies will need to be considered at different levels to ensure the application of cultural safety and cultural competence. Professionals in the Family Court arena need to enhance their knowledge, skill and understanding of how to relate to the different families they deal with. Part of this process is an openness to reflect on one's own attitudes and beliefs".
The full version of Ruth DeSouza's paper and other speaker's papers are available for purchase from LexisNexis Professional Development.
Please phone 09 486 9572 or email seminars@lexisnexis.co.nz.
16 June 2006
Content supplied by NZ Lawyer Issue 42NZ Lawyer is published by LexisNexis
The "browning of New Zealand" and the extent to which our society is becoming ethnically and culturally diverse were brought into sharp focus at the 5th Annual Child Law conference held in Auckland recently.
Kate Woodd reports.
Among the defining principles that must be considered in an assessment of what is in the best interests and welfare of a child under the Care of Children Act 2004, is the principle that a "child's identity as part of their family, family group, whanau, hapu or iwi and including, without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice, should be preserved and strengthened".
Section 133 of the Act now gives the Family Court jurisdiction to request a cultural report from someone it considers qualified for the purpose, the substance of which "may address any aspect or aspects of that child's cultural background".
Considering a child's cultural background in decisions regarding their welfare and care is not an entirely new concept. The Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 similarly compelled the state child welfare agencies to consider issues of culture, particularly in the context of their "whanau, hapu and iwi". That legislation, enacted 17 years ago, was one of the first steps in overhauling the laws affecting children's welfare and care since the Guardianship Act 1968. It also sought to recognise the cultural importance of whanau to Maori and to ensure the Crown discharged its Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Maori.
However political rhetoric that New Zealand is a bicultural society with Pakeha and Maori as the predominant cultural groups is fast losing its persuasiveness. Presenting her paper, "Cultural Diversity and Context: Responding to the Needs of 'This Child' in 'This Family'", senior researcher at the Centre for Asian and Migrant Health Research at the Auckland University of Technology, Ruth DeSouza, together with barrister Fazilat Shah and Families Commissioner and barrister Sandra Alofivae, spoke of the significant challenges facing professionals in their efforts to effectively work with clients from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds to their own.
De Souza believes that "biculturalism is a good beginning and we should be looking at how we implement principles such as partnership, participation and protection in our professional practice and then expand this to other groups".
DeSouza's paper presented some staggering statistics on the multi-cultural make up of New Zealand's society today, projections for the future and the implications for family law professionals working with families.
Describing herself as a Tanzanian born Goan-Indian raised in East Africa, who has variously been mistaken for being Maori herself, DeSouza's own ethnic identity and background graphically demonstrates how easy it is to make incorrect assumptions as to a person's cultural identity or race.
According to DeSouza's references, "The world's migrant stock increased by 75 million between 1980 and 2000, with Europe's migrant numbers rising from 11 million to 33 million between 1980 and 2000. The US foreign born population grew from 14 million to 35 million between 1980 and 2000. Now, one in every 15 people in Europe and one in every eight in the US was born overseas (La Guardia, 2005). In the developed world, migration accounts for a greater share of population increase than natural growth".
In New Zealand, "almost one in five New Zealanders was born overseas. This rises to one in three in Auckland, where half of the migrant population resides. The highest proportion of Pacific and Asian migrants live in Auckland."
"Between 1991 and 2001 the number of people identifying as Asians more than doubled to almost 6.4 per cent of the population exceeding Pacific peoples. Chinese are the largest ethnic group within the Asian population, followed by Indian and Korean. In the Auckland region, 1 in 8 people are Asian, 1 in 8 Pacific and 1 in 10 Maori. It doesn't end there though, the fastest growing ethnic groups were Korean, Arab, Croat, Iraqi, South African and Russian, while the greatest increase in counts of overseas birthplaces between 1996-2001 were China, South Africa, India, Fiji and Korea. Linguistic and religious diversity were also a hallmark of the 2001 Census, which noted a 20 per cent increase in the number of multilingual people and an increase in people whose religion was non-Christian, including Hindu 56%, Buddhist 48 per cent and Islam 74 per cent".
With children the picture is somewhat different. "The 2001 Census found ...First, that New Zealand children were more ethnically diverse than adults, and secondly that they were less likely to have been born overseas than adults. A significant number of children in New Zealand were born here rather than overseas, compared to adults. Nine per cent of children were born overseas, compared with 23 per cent of adults. Of the children born overseas, 34 per cent were born in Oceania (Australia and the Pacific), 27 per cent were born in Asia and 21 per cent were born in Europe. The trend towards a growing diversity is expected to continue with projections for 2021 showing that, relatively speaking, there will be fewer Europeans (1 per cent increase), more Maori (28 per cent increase), more Pacific people (58 per cent increase) and more Asians (122 per cent increase)."
Despite this growing multiculturalism in our society, DeSouza notes that "New Zealand has yet to encompass multiculturalism as a social policy framework". She reasons that this is possibly due to our early links with the UK and Ireland, and that "when the time did come to explore issues regarding nation and nationality, this coincided with a rise in indigenous concerns and the Treaty". By comparison to the multicultural policies developed in Australia and Canada in the 1970s, New Zealand was instead "debating issues of indigeneity and the relationship with tangata whenua".
In the Family Court context, however, one might argue that it should be relatively simple to recognise when and from whom a cultural assessment is required to assist the court in its decision as to what is in the best interests of a child. The reality for many family law professionals is, however, quite the contrary. As Alofivae notes, significant challenges and questions now exist for the Court and lawyers in identifying whether a cultural report is needed and secondly, "who is qualified to give it and on what basis are they qualified for the purpose?" Difficulties exist in obtaining interpreters and identifying those 'qualified' in their particular cultural, ethnic or religious communities to assist.
Before even getting to that point, however, DeSouza's challenge for all family law professionals is the ability to appropriately recognise the importance of, and subtleties that can exist from a cultural perspective when working with family law clients.
DeSouza suggests that "legal services, family lawyers, judges, specialists and professional advisers in the area of child law need to delicately balance between the universal (treating people equally) and particular (responding to people's different needs differently) in order to be equitable. Provision of universal services can result in stereotyping, as the importance of culture is minimised and differences put down as individual. Equally universalism as a guiding ideology can be a means of indirect discrimination which is when service provision is the same for everyone but people from various ethnic groups cannot access or gain maximum benefit because of language, religious or cultural reasons".
In the health sector, "cultural safety" and "cultural competence" have become well established concepts, and it is the embrace of cultural competence by the individual professionals at one level and the framework of the court system at another that is critical if more than mere tokenism is paid to considering the cultural issues involved.
Cultural competence in the health context has been defined as "the ability of systems to provide care to patients with diverse values, beliefs and behaviours, including tailoring delivery to meet patients' social, cultural and linguistic needs".
DeSouza notes that "cultural competence is becoming an increasingly relevant concept in health care, and The New Zealand Medical Council recently consulted its members on cultural competence as a response to the introduction of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, and in line with its responsibility to ensure the cultural competence of medical practitioners. The consultation document includes a proposed framework and says that cross-cultural doctor-patient interactions are common, and doctors need to be competent in dealing with patients whose cultures differ from their own".
While there is an increasing awareness and acknowledgement of the diversity of families before the Court, DeSouza suggests "a number of strategies will need to be considered at different levels to ensure the application of cultural safety and cultural competence. Professionals in the Family Court arena need to enhance their knowledge, skill and understanding of how to relate to the different families they deal with. Part of this process is an openness to reflect on one's own attitudes and beliefs".
The full version of Ruth DeSouza's paper and other speaker's papers are available for purchase from LexisNexis Professional Development.
Please phone 09 486 9572 or email seminars@lexisnexis.co.nz.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Duluth model
The Duluth model was created in Duluth Minnesota as a result of a group of activists gathering after a particularly gruesome murder of a woman by her husband. They put their heads together and came up with a group of ideas about how to keep that sort of incident from ever happening again. They developed a model that saw the world of violence in a socio-political context where, as the initial tragedy had shown, men wielded power over women in a violent fashion. Since that time the Duluth Model has become the theoretical framework of choice in the domestic violence industry. In some situations I am sure it is a very good fit, however, in many I am sure it is not. As we shall see the Duluth Model has no connection to any reputable theory of behavioral change and exhibits a major failing in its inability to differentiate any potential clients who might be better served by a different type of treatment. It is a truly "One size fits all" approach to the complex world of domestic violence. It's primary focus (resulting from it’s original precipitating incident) is on the power and control of men over women. Recent research however has proven that domestic violence is not a male-only endeavor. Women have been shown to initiate violence in relationships at a rate higher than that of males and research also indicates that women incur about 62% of the domestic violence injuries while men incur 38%. These studies have confirmed that domestic violence is surely not a simple male on female problem. They have shown that 25% of domestic violence is initiated without provocation by women, 25% by men, and 50% simply a brawl between the two parties. With numbers like these it is patently clear that a model that is based solely on a man’s violence towards women sees only half the problem and leaves its proponents with a spurious picture of the real world of domestic violence. The Duluth model is profoundly outdated, inappropriate and inadequate to help victims of domestic violence.
Let’s have a quick look at the assumptions that underlie the rhetoric of the Duluth Model.
The Duluth model makes some serious assumptions about men. The first assumption is that all men are trained by our culture to dominate women. Here's a quote from Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model by Pence and Paymar: "Men in particular are taught these tactics in both their families of origin and through their experiences in a culture that teaches men to dominate" This quote is not directed at some men, it is directed at all men. It reveals the Duluth’s profound bias against men. It literally assumes that all men are taught both in their families and in their culture to be dominant towards women. While this is undoubtedly true in the original murder that brought forth the Duluth model and in some instances of domestic violence today it is surely not true of all men. It also leaves no explanation or understanding for instances when women are the perpetrators. I think that most men would tell you that they were not taught to dominate women in their families of origin. They would likely tell you that they were taught just the opposite: not to batter women but to respect, care for, and protect them. My estimation is that most men were taught one of the worst things you can do is to hit a girl. Most men have probably never hit a girl or a woman though most men have probably been hit more than once by a woman. I would bet that this is the experience of millions of men in this culture but the Duluth Model frames all men as dominators and abusers in waiting.
This model believes that men have set things up from the beginning to be in their favor. That men across the board have stacked the deck to put themselves on top and women on the bottom. Here is a quote: "The historic oppression and continued subjugation of women in most cultures occurs because men have defined almost every facet of their societies, thereby perpetuating a sexist belief system and institutionalizing male privilege." This model believes that men have intentionally created a system that favors themselves and is intentionally hurtful to women. They go on to assume that domestic violence is a logical extension of this by having men use violence to enforce this advantage. This may be true for a handful of men but it is certainly not true of all men. The implication is that all men are consciously seeking advantage over the women in their lives. I question the veracity of this and also would like to point out that a presumption such as this can only be antagonistic towards the very group that they seek to help.
The next assumption is that battering of women by men is commonplace. This book claims that 50% of men batter their wives at some time in their marriage. In a nutshell that means that if you are a male either you or your next door neighbor are wife beaters. Is it you or your next door neighbor? They go on to say that one out of four men use some type of physical violence against their spouse during the course of a given year. These are obvious exaggerations and distortions of the truth. Domestic violence is bad enough without having to exaggerate the statistics. A common ploy to inflate statistics is to water down the definition of abuse to such extremes that the statistic simply doesn’t mean a thing. There is a factoid that is popular on the internet and in domestic violence literature that states that every 15 seconds a woman is battered. What you are not told is that using these same overblown definitions of abuse that a man would be battered every 14 seconds! The Duluth model exposes its inherent sexism and once again gives us only one side of things. Statistics like this are not useful in helping people understand the truth of domestic violence. There is no reason to exaggerate something so horrid, but that is what the Duluth model proponents do.
It is disturbing to me that the Duluth model discourages therapy and makes the assumption that a man's violence is not related to drugs, psychopathology, previous abuse, impulse control, communications, alcoholism, or other difficulties. The Duluth Model book states: "These factors are contributors or modifiers of a mans' behavior but they do not cause (emphasis mine) his violence." The cause according to them is the socio-political elements inherent in a man's socially constructed "dominance." This is what they see as the enemy and what needs to be eliminated. They see psychopathology, drugs, previous childhood abuse, and other problems as distractions and urge their group leaders to not allow the participants in their programs to focus on any of these "distractions". While they know that the majority of these men have been abused as children they urge the group leaders "To keep the group focused on the issues of violence, abuse, control, and change." This might be likened to a patient coming to the emergency room with profuse bleeding, a broken leg, and a bloody lip and receiving treatment for only the profuse bleeding and having all other symptoms ignored as "distractions." Present day psychotherapy is in agreement over very few things, but one is that when you treat a person with difficulties you must treat the whole person, not just one part. Duluth intentionally treats only one part.
The Duluth model seems to take a very archaic approach to healing: force the client to order his reality in the way you want and hope that change may occur. The energy is put into keeping the client “on topic”, that is, the topic of their own dominating behaviors. Then there seems to be a magical jump from this into the “hoped for” behavior change. It’s as if the model is saying “If we can keep this man focused on his dominant behaviors sooner or later he will change.” There doesn’t seem to be any explanation for this hoped for transformation nor any way to measure the outcome of the expected change. The Duluth model seems to be more a way of thinking into which the clients must become indoctrinated rather than a theoretical healing framework. The clients are forced to puppet back in the groups the words that harmonize with the group leaders ideas. If they can do this it seems to be taken as a confirmation that change is taking place. This of course is a dangerous assumption.
We have noted that the Duluth model fails to see the man as a whole, it assumes that the status quo of masculine behavior is to intentionally keep his woman down, and assumes that he is trained by his family and his culture to be dominant and violent. These are all indicators of a profound anti-male bias in this model The underlying and unspoken message is clear: Men bad, women good. Men perpetrators, women victims. How can we expect a system to help people through a crisis if it carries such judgement and bias? The vilification of one gender and the passive glorification of the other is blatantly sexist. I know of no other psychological model that pre-judges its potential clients prior to treatment. That’s preposterous. Perhaps this is a result of the Duluth model being originally linked to a heinous crime and therefore is naturally linked more to punishment than to healing. It reads more like an indictment than a path toward healing. Sexist theories have no place in government funded programs.
It seems clear to me that this model is inadequate and needs to be replaced. It maintains a profound and consistent bias against men, lacks a connection with any accepted form of behavioral change, leaves no explanation or treatment for female violence, and lacks any capacity to adjust treatment based on individual difference. It seems to be more a biased and sexist way of thinking that is masquerading as a change agent. The time has come to find more functional and balanced alternatives.
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183
Let’s have a quick look at the assumptions that underlie the rhetoric of the Duluth Model.
The Duluth model makes some serious assumptions about men. The first assumption is that all men are trained by our culture to dominate women. Here's a quote from Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model by Pence and Paymar: "Men in particular are taught these tactics in both their families of origin and through their experiences in a culture that teaches men to dominate" This quote is not directed at some men, it is directed at all men. It reveals the Duluth’s profound bias against men. It literally assumes that all men are taught both in their families and in their culture to be dominant towards women. While this is undoubtedly true in the original murder that brought forth the Duluth model and in some instances of domestic violence today it is surely not true of all men. It also leaves no explanation or understanding for instances when women are the perpetrators. I think that most men would tell you that they were not taught to dominate women in their families of origin. They would likely tell you that they were taught just the opposite: not to batter women but to respect, care for, and protect them. My estimation is that most men were taught one of the worst things you can do is to hit a girl. Most men have probably never hit a girl or a woman though most men have probably been hit more than once by a woman. I would bet that this is the experience of millions of men in this culture but the Duluth Model frames all men as dominators and abusers in waiting.
This model believes that men have set things up from the beginning to be in their favor. That men across the board have stacked the deck to put themselves on top and women on the bottom. Here is a quote: "The historic oppression and continued subjugation of women in most cultures occurs because men have defined almost every facet of their societies, thereby perpetuating a sexist belief system and institutionalizing male privilege." This model believes that men have intentionally created a system that favors themselves and is intentionally hurtful to women. They go on to assume that domestic violence is a logical extension of this by having men use violence to enforce this advantage. This may be true for a handful of men but it is certainly not true of all men. The implication is that all men are consciously seeking advantage over the women in their lives. I question the veracity of this and also would like to point out that a presumption such as this can only be antagonistic towards the very group that they seek to help.
The next assumption is that battering of women by men is commonplace. This book claims that 50% of men batter their wives at some time in their marriage. In a nutshell that means that if you are a male either you or your next door neighbor are wife beaters. Is it you or your next door neighbor? They go on to say that one out of four men use some type of physical violence against their spouse during the course of a given year. These are obvious exaggerations and distortions of the truth. Domestic violence is bad enough without having to exaggerate the statistics. A common ploy to inflate statistics is to water down the definition of abuse to such extremes that the statistic simply doesn’t mean a thing. There is a factoid that is popular on the internet and in domestic violence literature that states that every 15 seconds a woman is battered. What you are not told is that using these same overblown definitions of abuse that a man would be battered every 14 seconds! The Duluth model exposes its inherent sexism and once again gives us only one side of things. Statistics like this are not useful in helping people understand the truth of domestic violence. There is no reason to exaggerate something so horrid, but that is what the Duluth model proponents do.
It is disturbing to me that the Duluth model discourages therapy and makes the assumption that a man's violence is not related to drugs, psychopathology, previous abuse, impulse control, communications, alcoholism, or other difficulties. The Duluth Model book states: "These factors are contributors or modifiers of a mans' behavior but they do not cause (emphasis mine) his violence." The cause according to them is the socio-political elements inherent in a man's socially constructed "dominance." This is what they see as the enemy and what needs to be eliminated. They see psychopathology, drugs, previous childhood abuse, and other problems as distractions and urge their group leaders to not allow the participants in their programs to focus on any of these "distractions". While they know that the majority of these men have been abused as children they urge the group leaders "To keep the group focused on the issues of violence, abuse, control, and change." This might be likened to a patient coming to the emergency room with profuse bleeding, a broken leg, and a bloody lip and receiving treatment for only the profuse bleeding and having all other symptoms ignored as "distractions." Present day psychotherapy is in agreement over very few things, but one is that when you treat a person with difficulties you must treat the whole person, not just one part. Duluth intentionally treats only one part.
The Duluth model seems to take a very archaic approach to healing: force the client to order his reality in the way you want and hope that change may occur. The energy is put into keeping the client “on topic”, that is, the topic of their own dominating behaviors. Then there seems to be a magical jump from this into the “hoped for” behavior change. It’s as if the model is saying “If we can keep this man focused on his dominant behaviors sooner or later he will change.” There doesn’t seem to be any explanation for this hoped for transformation nor any way to measure the outcome of the expected change. The Duluth model seems to be more a way of thinking into which the clients must become indoctrinated rather than a theoretical healing framework. The clients are forced to puppet back in the groups the words that harmonize with the group leaders ideas. If they can do this it seems to be taken as a confirmation that change is taking place. This of course is a dangerous assumption.
We have noted that the Duluth model fails to see the man as a whole, it assumes that the status quo of masculine behavior is to intentionally keep his woman down, and assumes that he is trained by his family and his culture to be dominant and violent. These are all indicators of a profound anti-male bias in this model The underlying and unspoken message is clear: Men bad, women good. Men perpetrators, women victims. How can we expect a system to help people through a crisis if it carries such judgement and bias? The vilification of one gender and the passive glorification of the other is blatantly sexist. I know of no other psychological model that pre-judges its potential clients prior to treatment. That’s preposterous. Perhaps this is a result of the Duluth model being originally linked to a heinous crime and therefore is naturally linked more to punishment than to healing. It reads more like an indictment than a path toward healing. Sexist theories have no place in government funded programs.
It seems clear to me that this model is inadequate and needs to be replaced. It maintains a profound and consistent bias against men, lacks a connection with any accepted form of behavioral change, leaves no explanation or treatment for female violence, and lacks any capacity to adjust treatment based on individual difference. It seems to be more a biased and sexist way of thinking that is masquerading as a change agent. The time has come to find more functional and balanced alternatives.
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)