Couples Counseling and Domestic Violence

Considerations of Conjoint Couples Therapy in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence

“…It is strongly recommended that couples counselors conduct thorough IPV assessments using psychometrically sound measures in multiple formats such as interviews and self-report surveys (Schacht et al, 2009). Furthermore, it is recommended that clinician educators should increase in IPV-specific training and coursework for graduate students intending to work with couples (Schacht et al, 2009; Tomsich, Tunstall, & Gover, 2016). Given the high prevalence of IPV, counselors need to improve their awareness and training in this area.…”

“…To date, there have been few randomized clinical trials devoted to couples counseling for IPV, most likely because of the proliferation of the gender-separated Duluth model which discourages courts from requiring conjoint treatment to protect victims. Indeed, recommending conjoint counseling in the context of IPV can have potentially fatal consequences in some cases, which some report as the main barrier to the prevalence and research on conjoint treatment modalities (Tomsich et al, 2016). Certainly, thorough core screening is necessary before couples counseling for IPV is recommended or initiated.…”

“…From a systems perspective, this type of violence is treated as a relational problem, rather than an individual problem; violence is perpetrated through relationship patterns that both partners engage in, and cannot be attributed to a single perpetrator (Stith, McCollum, Amanor-Boadu, & Smith, 2012). Contrastingly, feminist theory is concerned that a systems approach implies the victim is equally responsible for violent behavior and has an equal responsibility in ending it (Tomsich, Tunstall, & Gover, 2016). However, as noted above, a significant portion of violent relationships involves bidirectional violence in which both partners are perpetrators and victims and are equally responsible for the continuation and cessation of violent behaviors.…”

Assessing States’ Intimate Partner Violence Offender Treatment Standards using a Principles of Effective Intervention Framework

“…In terms of responsivity, although research suggests that group-based, cognitive-behavioral treatment is the favored treatment modality for IPV treatment (Babcock et al, 2016), only 26% of standards specified that programs use cognitive-behavioral treatment modalities. Consistent with prior research demonstrating that couples counseling may be detrimental in cases of IPV (Tomsich et al, 2015) and that anger is not the impetus for IPV (Mcmurran & Gilchrist, 2008), the majority of standards prohibited the use of couples counseling and anger management therapy. Further, consistent with Maiuro and Eberle (2008), standards did not specify a curriculum or model that must be used by treatment providers; the lone exception was Iowa which mandates the use of ACTV.…”

“…About one-quarter (26%) of standards specified the use of cognitivebehavioral treatment modalities in IPV offender treatment, while 77% prohibited the use of couples counseling and 74% prohibited anger management as the sole or primary focus of treatment. The prohibition of couples counseling stems from a desire to hold the perpetrator accountable and maximize the safety of victims and avoid blaming or punishing victims by requiring their participation in their abuser's treatment (Tomsich et al, 2015). Likewise, as seen in New Hampshire's standards (2002) the use of anger management is disallowed because "Anger management programs assume the abuser has no control over his or her behavior, whereas batterer intervention programs assume the defendant chooses when and whom to abuse" (p. 89).…”