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.