Marital Separation and Lethal Male Partner Violence

Abstract

Findings reported by many researchers indicate that the association between marital separation and intimate partner femicide has achieved the status of a sociological empirical generalization. The primary objective of this article is to contribute toward the cumulative development of a conflict theoretic explanation of separation- associated femicide by creating and testing a deductive conflict resolution theory that explains the empirical generalization. The causal mechanism identified in the theory is the intensity of conflict that increases with participation in adversarial and separation and divorce proceedings. Interventions logically derived from the theory are presented in the penultimate segment. Limitations are identified in the concluding segment.

El feminicidio. Diferencias entre el homicida antisocial y el normalizado

“…Sobre esta cuestión, a partir de una serie de entrevistas con víctimas que habían sobrevivido a un intento de asesinato, se reveló que, en el 73% de los ataques, la agresión ocurrió cuando la mujer estaba intentando salir de la relación (Nicolaidis et al, 2003). Reafirmando lo dicho, los resultados reportados por muchos investigadores indican que el nexo entre la separación y el feminicidio ha logrado ya una empírica generalización (Ellis, 2016). Por otra parte, la tasa de denuncias es baja (17.5%), resultados muy similares a los documentados en España (22.7%) mediante la revisión de sentencias judiciales por feminicidios consumados durante casi una década (ICRS, 2010).…”

Effects of Historical Coercive Control, Historical Violence, and Lawyer Representation on Post-Separation Male Partner Violence Against Mother Litigants Who Participated in Adversarial Family Court Proceedings

“…Separating from a violent intimate male partner can end the violence under certain conditions (e.g., the decision to separate is consensual, perpetrator commits suicide or is incarcerated for life). However, for mothers who unilaterally decide to end the relationship by separating from their violent male partners, separation can markedly increase the risk of male partner violence, resulting in serious injury or femicide (Ellis, 2017;Ellis et al, 2015;Richards, 2009). Findings reported by a number of researchers indicate that historical (pre-separation) male partner violence is a reliable predictor of female partner initiated marital and nonmarital separation and divorce Browne & Williams, 1993;Ehrensaft et al, 2004;Ellis et al, 2015;Laroche, 2005;Rogge & Bradbury, 1999;Tark et al, 2008;Walker et al, 2004).…”

“…Separating from a violent intimate male partner can end the violence under certain conditions (e.g., the decision to separate is consensual, perpetrator commits suicide or is incarcerated for life). However, for mothers who unilaterally decide to end the relationship by separating from their violent male partners, separation can markedly increase the risk of male partner violence, resulting in serious injury or femicide (Ellis, 2017; Ellis et al, 2015; Richards, 2009).…”

“…For one or more of these reasons, historical violence is included as a predictor of future violence in all the field-tested/validated domestic violence risk assessment instruments reviewed by Ellis et al (2015). One of them— The Danger Assessment (Campbell et al, 2009)—is specifically designed to predict lethal post-separation violence because separation markedly increases the risk of violence against separated female partners that results in serious injuries or femicides (Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, 1993; Ellis, 2017; Ellis et al, 2015; Humphreys & Thiara, 2002; Wilson & Daly, 1994).…”

Relationship (A)Symmetries and Violence: Comparing Intimates and NonPartners

“…Instead, some violence between intimates, such as that occurring at the dissolution of the relationship, involves controlling behavior legitimately characterized as a substantive issue of contention. One of the periods of greatest risk for IPV is precisely when one party attempts to unilaterally end the relationship (Campbell et al, 2003; Ellis, 2016; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000; Johnson & Hotton, 2003); and “sexual jealousy is estimated to spark IPV between 7% and 41% of the time, depending on the data source” (Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005, p. 346). These and related control-based motivations for violence expose meaningful and consequential conflicts for opponents, rather than minor issues or arguments.…”