For unsupervised visits, or to overcome the custodial presumption, the PSFVRA requires that a parent with a history of perpetrating domestic violence successfully complete a court-monitored domestic abuse intervention program as defined in R.S. 9:362. The program must have been completed since the last incident of abuse.1

A qualifying program and provider must meet the following standards:

• The program must be comprised of at least twenty-six in-person sessions.
• The program must follow a model designed specifically for perpetrators of domestic abuse, and must be monitored by the court.2
• The provider must have experience working directly with perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse.
• The provider must have experience facilitating batterer intervention groups.
• The provider must have training in the causes and dynamics of domestic violence, characteristics of batterers, victim safety, and sensitivity of victims.3

If a client’s abusive former partner seeks a visitation modification under this provision, the modification may be contested on multiple grounds: whether the treatment program satisfies the statutory definition, whether the facilitator/provider possesses the requisite experience and expertise, and whether there is reason to believe the treatment was successful.

• 1La. R.S. 9:364(B)(1).
• 2La. R.S. 9:362.
• 3La. R.S. 9:362(3).

Louisiana’s statute adopts standards associated with what is known as the “Duluth” model of batterer intervention.1  While the Duluth model is the most universally accepted among a variety of potential models for batterer intervention, studies show that it is imperfect and often ineffective.2  Research on the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs is controversial and sometimes conflicting.3  In recent years, many alternative models have emerged, including models that seem to have successfully incorporated principles of restorative justice.4  But the research on these emerging models is similarly controversial. For these reasons, lawyers should be prepared to address the unrealistic expectations clients sometimes have about the effectiveness of the batterer intervention their former partners are ordered to participate in. Clients are often overly optimistic about the prospects of behavioral change.

Before changes to the law in 2014, treatment program requirements were more ambiguous, and some courts accepted “anger management” classes as a substitute for batterer intervention. Lawyers should still be prepared to aggressively challenge whether a treatment program meets the statutory requirements. Many abusive former partners or their attorneys still attempt to obtain unsupervised visits by producing documents showing participation in “anger management” counseling or printable “certificates” showing completion of an on-line course. These documents should be excluded as unauthenticated hearsay. Even if admissible, they fail to satisfy the statutory requirements.5

As explained by the dissenting opinion in DOH v. TLH, which was decided before the 2014 changes, anger management programs do not provide meaningful rehabilitation for batterers.6  Anger management is not a course of therapy specifically designed for perpetrators of domestic violence, and it is not recognized as such by experts in domestic violence. If a therapist conflates the two types of therapies, that fact alone suggests that he or she is untrained in domestic violence. Moreover, many experts believe that anger management programs increase danger to victims. The United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, which funds domestic violence programs nationwide, asserts that the practice of substituting anger management for batterer intervention compromises victim safety and allows perpetrators to escape responsibility.7

• 1What is the Duluth Model?, Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs.
• 2Amie Zarling & Dan Russel, A Randomized Clinical Trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and the Duluth Model Classes for Men Court-Mandated to a Domestic Violence Program, 90 J. Consulting & Clinical Psychology 326, 327 (2022); L.G. Mills, et al., The Next Generation of Court-Mandated Domestic Violence Treatment: A Comparison Study of Batterer Intervention and Restorative Justice Programs, 9 J. Experimental Criminology 65, 68 (2013).
• 3Shih-Ying Cheng, et al. Compared to What? A Meta-Analysis of Batterer Intervention Studies Using Nontreated Controls or Comparison, 22 Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 427, 497, 505 (2021).
• 4Mills, et al., Next Generation, supra, at 69.
• 5On the statutory requirements for these programs, see Section 8.7.
• 6D.O.H. v. T.L.H., 01-174 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 714, 722–32 (Woodard, J., dissenting).
• 7See Off. of Violence Against Women, U.S. Dep’t of Just., FY 2023 Solicitation Companion Guide: OWW Grant Programs & Post-Award Information.

In addition to challenging the program itself, lawyers should carefully examine the training and qualifications of the program’s facilitator(s). Very few mental health professionals possess the training required by this statute.1  In the past, trial courts have primarily examined only the program itself, but this statutory provision also puts the burden on the defendant to prove the credentials of the specific program therapist or facilitator with whom they worked during their 26 weeks of therapy. The provider should be subpoenaed to court and subject to cross-examination. It is unclear how the parent with a history of abuse could meet his burden without testimony from the provider.2

• 1La. R.S. 9:362(3).
• 2See D.O.H. v. T.L.H., 01-174 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So. 2d 714, 722–32 (Woodard, J., dissenting).

As described above,1  some studies suggest that burgeoning court reliance on batterer intervention programs is problematic because they largely fail to prevent or even reduce future violence.2  Based on the research available, it is more likely than not that the parent with a history of committing family violence will not meaningfully change his behavior because of the 26-week program he is ordered to participate in. This means that lawyers should be prepared to assert that the abusive parent’s completion of batterer’s intervention has not been “successful” as required under the PSFRVA.

“Successful” completion clearly requires more than mere attendance. Any statutory interpretation that imposes only the formal requirement of attendance belies the clear legislative purpose of the Act, the clear language of the statute, and renders the word “successful” meaningless.  A certificate of completion showing attendance at batterer intervention is not indicative of “successful completion” as a matter of fact or law.

Presumably, “successful” completion requires that a party not only meet the formal requirements of attendance and cooperation, but also show that he accepts responsibility for his abusive behavior and has gained insight into its impact on his former partner, his children, and his parenting behavior; these are key elements of the batterer intervention curriculum. So, if the abusive party “completes” a course by means of attendance but continues to blame the victim and deny the harm of his abusive behavior, the “success” of his therapy should be challenged.

An expert in batterer intervention can testify that the continuing denial of abuse is evidence that treatment has not been successful. He or she should also be able to provide examples of behavior that would reflect meaningful reform. When testifying on cross-examination, the parent with a history of violence is rarely willing to admit to their past violence or acknowledge its impact on those harmed by it. Instead, they will continue to minimize, deny, and blame, a tactic associated with unreformed domestic violence perpetrators. A lawyer who specializes in representing survivors can conduct a much more effective cross-examination of an abusive party if he or she has taken the time to learn about the goals and curriculum associated with batterer intervention programs.

• 1See Section 8.7.2.
• 2Michael Rempel, Batterer Programs and Beyond, in 1 Violence Against Women in Families and Relationships 180 (Evan Stark & Eve Buzawa. eds., 2009). Given the discouraging evidence on program efficacy, some experts suggest that batterer intervention programs should be used to promote a more achievable goal of accountability, rather than rehabilitation. Id. at 188.