40.23 !Balanza Comercial 1 166.64 I 167.12

During the interviews, different orientations towards IPVT’s have been observed, overall none of the professionals expressed that categorizations in different types of partner violence are used in their daily practise. It is also not considered as a desired development to use these categorizations in the near future, it might endanger their objectivity and does not

comprehend to their objectives. The first and the final interview have been conducted with professionals who focus on the improvement of methods and instruments for domestic violence professionals in practice and cannot be considered as first-line social aid provider. In these two interviews the distinctions between the two most important typologies of partner violence, Coercive Couple Violence (CCV) and Situational Couple Violence (SCV) (Johnson, 2008), were discussed in more detail in comparison to the other interviews. CCV is the most severe type of physical and psychological abuse and SCV is the most common form of violence occurring among partners (Ibid). As previously discussed, this last type of violence mainly arises from particular situations and there is no motivation to gain control over the other partner. Even though these two typologies of domestic violence have different dynamics and intensities of violence, they are difficult to distinguish at first sight (Johnson, 2008: 24). Milder and infrequent forms of violence can easily be mistaken for situational couple violence or a domestic twist and signs of CCV can be missed. The first interviewee acknowledged that because of her current job at Movisie ‘I tend to assume that everyone working in this field is familiar with these distinctions between these two types, but this is of course not the case, not everyone knows that there are certain degrees and what these differences look like’ (Movisie employee). She predicted according to her experiences with professionals in the field of domestic violence, that no strict distinctions between different types of IPV are made by professionals. It was thereby mentioned that this does depend on the group of professionals one is looking at. Employees of most social neighborhood team are generalists: this implies that all the team members should be able to respond to various issues which means that employees with less experience and knowledge on this subject are also confronted with such cases (Movisie employee). ‘It could be that in these teams no distinctions between different types of partner violence are made’(Ibid). In the shelters, the term intimate terrorism would be used more often because in these shelters there are victims who deal with death threats and other factors that characterize CCV (Movisie employee). In the final interview, it was confirmed that the lighter IPV cases are usually in the ambulatory social workers field which includes neighbourhood teams. In the shelters, there are mostly women who have been dealing with chronical violence and most of the time also violence in the previous generations with both victim and perpetrator (Blijfgroep advisor). This does not take away the fact intimate terrorism can appear in the cases of social workers in the neighbourhood teams. What can be observed here is that the context and setting in which cases of IPV are treated matters when looking to what extent IPVT’s are used.

The Blijfgroep advisor expressed that within their organization various types of victims and perpetrator are present, but that the Blijfgroep in general handles the more serious cases, both in the shelter and ambulatory. It was indicated by this interviewee that the group in which violence is used as an instrument to control is growing, but that this cannot be substantiated with figures yet. Following the Oranje Huis method, when it is considered safe enough the partner is invited to the shelter of the Blijfgroep to tell their story individually and if desired by both parties, conversations will be held together with both partners. Under the guidance of a social worker possibilities for the future will be explored. ‘When dealing with intimate terrorism, the case often has a red or orange code from the risk assessment and there has often been an intense history of violence’ (Blijfgroep advisor). In such cases it is not recommended that social workers ‘naively’ invite the partner for a conversation, but they will be linked to specialists such as forensic psychiatry for examination (Blijfgroep advisor). This interviewee stressed that these kinds of perpetrators are often manipulative, well-spoken males that are capable of changing the narrative in their advantage. Other respondents also made the connection between controlling relationships and personality disorders (social worker Blijfgroep, Psychologist VT, employee Movisie). The Blijfgroep social worker commented on this subject: ‘It is very difficult to get in a conversation with a narcissist partner’. When such personality issues are suspected by VT, something that is common with both victim and perpetrator, a social-psychiatric nurse accompanies the social worker (Psychologist & social worker VT).

Both the employee from Movisie and the Blijfgroep advisor emphasize that the difficulty here lies in the fact that it is not always clear from the start that it actually is a pattern of CCV, it might take a while before his pattern is observed. The Blijfgroep advisor illustrated this with an example of a case where at first is seemed that it was Mutual Couple Violence and it looked like both partners agreed on this. After dealing with this couple for a while on ambulatory basis, it came out that the woman was highly dependent on her husband and that there was a strong suppressing mechanism in the relationship. This meant other measures had to be taken than the Blijfgroep advisor initially thought (Blijfgroep advisor). This is an example where signs of intimate terrorism have been noticed in a later stage and at first were mistaken for a different dynamic of partner violence. These remarks are in line with the difficulties that Johnson (2008) identified in his own typologies when utilizing them in practice. In this case, the forms of violence are not mistake for SCV but for MVC and signs of CCV have been noticed in a later stage. Next to the potential misapplication or misjudgments

of partner violence dynamics, the professionals have to take into account potential changes in offender behavior of partner violence. For this reason, the Movisie employee questions the usefulness of applying static classifications to violent dynamics: SCV can have a coercive character that possibly evolves over time and become more present. This view is shared by other interviewees. The social worker from Blijfgroep Amsterdam commented: ‘It starts somewhere and we know that after the first use of physical violence, and the making up for it, it is only a matter of time for when it happens again. It does not necessarily has something to do with the urge to control but if one has crossed that line, it is becoming easier and more common to use violence’ (Social worker Blijfgroep). Following the Movisie employee, IPV can be considered as a downwards spiral, the amount of power used to get something done by their partner grows over time, the use of violence can get more intense and out of control. Applying static qualifications is very complex and therefore it is expressed by several interviewees as an undesirable activity when considering that social service providers only observe snapshots of a relationship. It is acknowledged that when it gets to pure intimate terrorism (CCV), ‘this asks for a very different approach than when the relationship issues arise out of escalating situations that the couple involved just don’t know how to handle’ (Movisie employee). The risk of certain treatments when dealing with intimate terrorism should be highlighted here. It is acknowledged in the literature (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001; Johnson, 2008) that couples who experienced violence with a characterological nature such as CCV, should not be treated conjointly due to the danger of perpetrator retribution for victim disclosures during therapy other forms of mediation. The interviewee from Movisie expressed that if such a dynamic is not recognized properly, these forms of therapy give the perpetrator more means to supress the victim. When such dynamics are recognized in the Blijfgroep the trajectory is arranged differently with the assistance of specialists.

Knowledge and awareness about this distinction is necessary to observe if power and control are present in a particular case. ‘It would certainly help if more people are aware of the distinction between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism but there are different levels in exercising power and control’ (Movisie employee). Opposing this view, the VT psychologist expressed that a sharp distinction between CCV and SCV is of little practical use. While discussing SCV this interviewee said: ‘I don’t really believe in situational violence; our clients want to deceive us that it is just incidents but we don’t buy that’ (Psychologist VT). He added that instrumental violence purely motivated to gain control over their partner is also uncommon and stressed that all the persons involved try not to use

violence and especially do not want to appear like a violent person: ‘They do not have the intention to be violent, only psychopaths who see it as a way of life’ (Psychologist VT). This psychologist emphasized that on case level a lot of factors are identified and mapped out, but thereafter these cases are not categorized in a certain type, category or protocol from where certain consequences can be connected to these observations. While discussing this subject the respondent acknowledges that ‘there is a difference between using violence because of an argument, or becoming drunk and then get into a fight and use violence because there are entirely different underlying issues when there is distrust and suspicion at the perpetrator side’ (Psychologist VT). It was clarified that these factors are certainly considered in each case individually, but there are no protocols or certain actions bound to these particular findings: ‘We are not that far but it maybe is possible’(Psychologist VT). To decide on suited follow-up actions various factors such as the behaviour of the perpetrator and the context of the situation are considered, experience and knowledge are required to interpret this in terms of power and control, which is an important aspect of CCV.

While discussing the subject of categorizations in cases of IPV, a social worker from the social neighbourhood team SD commented: ‘there is no formula that you can fill in which gives you a solution for what is best, you need to look at it per case’ (Social worker SD 2). Another team member expressed that in the past they used to make a lot of categorizations of their cases: ‘We used to categorize a lot, we made entire analyses to understand everything but the question is: for who are you doing this and does it make you a better social worker?’ (Social worker SD 1). This social worker gave an example of a case where a women declared that her husband threatened to abduct their children to Egypt. When she confronted him with this, he denied that he had used these kinds of threats or verbally abused his wife in any kind of way. The interviewee expressed that this was clearly an example of intimate terrorism whereby fast intervention was necessary and was conducted, also with the help of the service for child protection (Social worker SD 1). The observation of this social worker corresponds with the theory on CCV which described that threatening with punishments such as taking away the children characterize an intimate terrorist. However, the typology did not have any role in the decision on possible follow ups in this case.: ‘We look more into what works, so I do not know if it really matters in which category I place it’ (Social worker SD 1). It is clear that making categorizations, analysing cases of IPV does not comprehend to the eventual solution of this social worker.

The third respondent from the social neighbourhood team expressed that she has heard about different types of violence during case meetings with others organisation, but does not know about them in detail herself. ‘Sometimes we have someone from de Waag2 _{who joins during} meetings about particular cases and there I’ve heard that there are various kinds of violence but in this field, we do not know them very well.’ (Social worker SD 3). This last team member had a positive attitude on learning and using more about the different types of violence. ‘It would certainly be interesting because it might also be helpful in choosing follow-ups’ (Social worker SD 3). The experience and knowledge on using categorizing theories differ in this social neighbourhood team. This can be explained by the fact that members of social neighborhood teams have to deal with various issues that can be present within families. In these three interviews it became clear that consulting a more experienced colleague to gather information on how to respond to a specific kind of case is a widely used tool in their social neighbourhood team. This type of advice is preferred over consultation to other experienced organizations such as VT. One of the respondents from the social neighbourhood teams expressed to consult the Blijfgroep and the Waag for information if necessary.

Dealing with IPV cases requires good coordination with colleagues, but also reflection to keep questioning and discuss your observations with those involved (Blijfgroep advisor). How domestic violence professionals work nowadays in practice mostly consists out of building from expertise created throughout the years. Next to experience, conversations with both perpetrator and victim are considered an important factor in the practice of domestic violence professionals. This changed compared to when the approach of social workers was primarily focussed on the female victims (Blijfgroep advisor). The difficulty of actually getting both partners involved is an issue that will be discussed in the final part of this chapter.