I. Introduction

The statistics are horrifying. Women are brutalized, terrorized, and murdered by intimate partners every day. [1] To make matters worse, battered women are often victimized a second time by police, prosecutors, lawyers, psychologists, and judges. [2] Batterers often seek and receive custody of children [3] even though they often abuse children as well as women. [4] While society and the legal system have improved their attitudes toward domestic violence, [5] we still have a long way to go.

And yet the statistics cannot tell the whole story. They are too abstract and impersonal. The sheer magnitude of the numbers can desensitize us. Domestic violence is so widespread, we can easily become numb to the human suffering behind the statistics.

Telling individual women's stories is one way to address this dilemma. Stories touch our feelings in a way that statistics cannot. [6] Stories can also spur us to action when statistics only depress us. [7]

And so, I have decided to tell the story of one woman, a woman I will call "Mary." [8]

After telling Mary's story, I discuss in Part III some lessons that can be learned from what she experienced. In Part IV, I then address some questions that might be raised by her story, including whether Mary's story is credible and whether Mary is a "typical" battered woman.

II. Mary's Story

A. Background and Methodology

Mary is an attractive, forty-year-old white woman. [9] She has lived her whole life in a mid-size southwestern city. She is a computer systems analyst and works for one of the major employers in her home town.

Mary and I talked for many hours on a number of occasions. What follows, while lengthy, does not purport to be her entire story. In particular, only major incidents of abuse by Mary's husband (now ex-husband) Russ are covered. [10]

I have put Mary's story in the first person for two reasons. First, storytelling is more effective and compelling that way; it makes it harder for the reader to distance herself from the narrator. Second, many of the phrases are direct quotes from Mary, and I wanted to preserve them as such.

I wrote the story based on my interviews with Mary. Therefore, most of the language is mine, not hers. However, Mary has read the entire story and made suggestions and corrections on both wording and content. The finished product is perhaps best viewed as Mary's story "as told to" Kathleen Waits.

The remaining parts of the Article are my work, and I bear sole responsibility for them. Mary has not read these parts of the Article. Based on discussions during our interviews, I suspect that Mary would agree with at least some of the lessons discussed in Part III, but I cannot vouch for that.

The footnotes in Mary's story are of two types. Some guide the reader to later sections of the article for lessons and questions that I think her story raises. Other footnotes provide citations to good discussions on issues that this Article will not address in depth. The interested reader can use the footnotes to follow up and learn more about issues such as abuse during pregnancy, battered women and child custody, and the relationship of alcoholism and domestic violence.

I would urge readers to initially read just the text of Mary's story and not to stop for the footnotes. That is the best way, I believe, to follow the events and feel the full impact of what happened to her. Then, readers can go back and check for the additional information contained in the footnotes.

B. Mary's Story

I was twenty-three years old when I started my relationship with Russ. He was thirty-five and also a computer analyst where I worked. The year was 1980. When I met Russ, my first marriage had recently failed and my son from that marriage, Richard, was three years old.

The end of my first marriage was very traumatic for me because I had been raised a strong Catholic. I felt as though I had failed. In retrospect, I think Russ sensed my vulnerability and took advantage of it. He acted the part of a "knight in shining armor." He wined me and dined me. I was very impressed.

Russ and I broke up a number of times while we were dating. I saw some of his anger and controlling behavior, and they frightened me. I even left the company where we both worked to get away from him. But he pursued me and won me back, and we were married in 1984. He was never physically violent during our courtship. [11]

I became pregnant soon after we were married. I had severe morning sickness during the first seven months of the pregnancy. I felt very weak. Also, while I was pregnant, Russ announced that he was quitting his job and was going to raise horses. He said this was something he had always dreamed about. Despite the fact that raising horses is rarely profitable, he made this incredibly important decision without consulting with me at all. [12] Going without Russ's salary scared me. I was pregnant and also had my son Richard to support.

Russ's first physical abuse occurred when I was pregnant. I have since learned that this is often the case. [13] He had quit his job. I tried to discuss with him my fears about our financial situation, especially with the baby coming. We argued. All of a sudden, he came at me like a rocket launcher. He pushed me against the wall and, holding me there, started to strangle me. He screamed, "You don't tell me what I need to do."

I was shocked. I slid down the wall and fell to the floor, crying. He stood over me and berated me, saying that I was crying because I was "weak."

I can still remember vividly what Russ looked like during this first attack. Words cannot describe it; it was so frightening. His face was distorted, inhuman, and filled with rage; his eyes bugged out. He did not look like the Russ I thought I knew; he seemed like a rabid dog.

I know there is this idea of the "cycle of violence" and that batterers express remorse after a battering episode. [14] I have heard of a "honeymoon" period following the abuse where the batterer is extra nice. [15] Well, that may happen in some cases, but it certainly did not happen in mine. [16] Russ never apologized for this incident or any of the more violent ones that came later. He did not even acknowledge what he had done or that there was anything wrong with it. He never promised, "Honey, it won't happen again." He would, however, sometimes give me gifts after a beating. But even these supposed "gifts" were selfish and controlling. After a severe beating in which he tore up my right arm and shoulder, he bought me a waterbed so I could sleep more comfortably. The purchase angered me because we could not afford it. When I asked him to take it back to the store, he blew up and said my bitching about my shoulder and inability to sleep on my right side was boring. He called me a whiner.

It occurred to me to leave him at this point, but I was much too ashamed to consider it seriously. I thought to myself, "Well, you've dug a hole for yourself -- now you have to live in it." I was much too ashamed and embarrassed to even think about calling the police. [17] If I had, everyone in our neighborhood would have known that we were not a perfect couple. I wanted to keep up appearances.

Though Russ never apologized for the violence, we did have many good times together, at least during the early years of our marriage. I am a very affectionate person, and he could be affectionate too.

During the pregnancy, I went to work at the second shift to make more money. This left Russ taking care of Richard, my son from my first marriage. I later learned that, while caring for Richard, Russ hit him with a paddle board. [18] After the beating, to intimidate Richard, Russ said mockingly, "Are you going to run to Mommy?" Richard did not reveal this to me until I had left Russ for good. He knew Russ would just beat him again if he told me. Richard figured one beating was better than two.

Naturally, the abuse from his stepfather has led to a lot of anger from Richard, now age twenty. However, the anger has not been directed toward me.

In 1985, I gave birth to our first child together, a daughter, Elizabeth. Russ was obviously disappointed that it was a girl. He pressured me to have another child right away. Because of the abuse and my fear of Russ, I was willing to do anything to appease him. So, I became pregnant when Elizabeth was just five months old, even though I was neither physically or emotionally ready for another child. Our son Daniel was born fourteen months after Elizabeth.

Getting back to the issue of Russ's abuse of me. After the choking incident when I was pregnant, Russ just had to give me "the look," and I would try to make peace. [19] I worked to keep the kids quiet; we all worked hard to keep from upsetting Russ. Everyone walked on eggshells. When the kids heard his truck coming, they would run and hide.

While I was pregnant with our second child, Daniel, Russ twisted my arm so violently that it permanently damaged my shoulder. I cannot even remember now what the fight was about. A doctor later told me he was shocked to see an injury like mine in a layperson. He told me the damage done to my shoulder was so severe that it was similar to what a he would expect from a professional baseball pitcher after years of throwing and stress.

The shoulder injury prevented me from full participation in athletics. This was devastating to me. I have always been a superb athlete and enjoyed doing physical things. Because of who I am, the shoulder injury was not just physically painful. It was a way of taking away my identity.

I did not initially seek medical help for the shoulder injury. I was ashamed and thought it was all my fault. Of course, Russ was always telling me that everything was my fault. I did not want anyone to know.

Russ also set up a number of rules for our house. [20] The children and I were to follow the rules "or else." For instance, I was not allowed to watch comedies such as "Cheers" and "M*A*S*H" on television. Instead, we always watched the blood-and-guts action shows that Russ liked. My sense of humor is an important part of who I am and an important part of my self-image. Once again, as with the shoulder injury, Russ was chipping away at the very core of my being.

There were always a lot of guns in our house. At one point, while in a face-to-face argument with my son Richard, who by then was about eleven or twelve, Russ shot a twelve-gauge shotgun straight up in the air, doing major damage to the ceiling and roof of our house. Obviously, this was a terrible act of intimidation and abuse. But, as I will discuss later, Russ did not see it this way, and the judge and custody evaluators did not take this incident seriously either.

As I now know is typical, I was subjected to an unending stream of degrading comments. [21] Russ was always saying things to me like, "Your thighs are fat. Your boobs are too small. No one else would want you. You're lucky to have me." I cannot express the horrible, demeaning, and damaging effects these comments had on me. After all, they were coming from someone I loved and who supposedly loved me. I thought they had to be true. I could not help but internalize them. I had always felt good about my body, but the constant stream of criticism tore away at that. At one point, Russ almost convinced me to have my breasts enlarged, an operation that would have been completely unnecessary.

The tearing away at my self-image and self-esteem is hard to describe. I like to draw an analogy to an artichoke. You can pull one leaf off an artichoke and it's no big deal. But you slowly pull away one leaf and then another and then another, and before long, you're down to the artichoke heart. It's not an artichoke anymore with the leaves gone. And, once the leaves are off, you can stab the artichoke in the heart, no problem. Russ really knew where the insults would hurt, and he tore away at me.

Still, I always kept up a good front. I was able to keep information about the abuse away from my family for a long time. The only exception was one sister who lives in Colorado (I have five brothers and two sisters; we are a very close and loving family [22] ). One time, when she and I were talking over the phone, she heard Russ's angry screaming in the background. She asked one of my brothers, who lives locally, to follow up with me. When he did, I sloughed it off and said, "I'm fine."

I think a lot of people saw the look of terror in the children's eyes when Russ was around. But they either thought nothing of it or did not do anything. In retrospect, I also think various people in my life knew about Russ's anger but did not allow themselves to see the abuse and did not come forward to help me.

My son Richard was not the only child who was abused. When Elizabeth was three, Russ's ten-year old son from a previous marriage (Russ Jr., known as Chip) molested her. Chip would stay with us for part of the summer. One day, when I was not there and Russ was supposedly in charge, Chip went into Elizabeth's bedroom, pulled the blanket over her head, pulled down her pants and started fondling her. When I returned home, Elizabeth was sitting on her bed crying. Unfortunately, it was not unusual for the kids to be crying when I got home after Russ had been caring for them.

When I asked Elizabeth what had happened, she told me what Chip had done. I went and told Russ. He immediately became a maniac and started hitting Chip and pounding him against the wall. I later learned that Russ's supposed anger toward Chip was just a show for my benefit. Years later when I had left Russ and Elizabeth finally felt safe, she told me what had really happened. After Chip had molested her, and before I came home, Elizabeth had told her father what Chip had done. Russ yelled at Elizabeth. That was the real reason she was crying when I got home. When Russ later talked about the incident, he referred to Elizabeth as a "manipulative bitch."

After Chip's molestation of Elizabeth, I never let him be alone in the house with her. Russ refused to send Chip home to his mother in Illinois. To Russ, what Chip had done to Elizabeth was no big deal, since it had happened in private. Interestingly, the next summer, when Chip was caught shoplifting, Russ was genuinely furious and did want to send him back to his mother. The shoplifting was a public event and a potential public embarrassment to Russ. People might find out about the shoplifting and think less of Russ.

Russ beat me severely for the first time in January 1989, right after the Super Bowl. We had had an argument three days before (I have forgotten over what) and he had not spoken to me since. This was a common way for him to punish me after a fight. Whenever he was giving me the "silent treatment," he would typically "make up" by having sex with me. It was rape or near-rape, really, since it did not matter whether or not I wanted to have sex. Russ did not care if I wanted to make up in that way. He would also punish me by staying out all night, presumably with other women.

Well, I had been sleeping on the couch for several nights. It was after the Super Bowl, and I thought he had passed out on our bed, drunk (Russ is an alcoholic [23] ). I wanted to get a good night's sleep, so, thinking he was asleep, I climbed into our bed. He immediately grabbed my hair very violently and started ripping off my clothes, trying to rape me. He twisted my breasts severely. The pain was excruciating. I screamed in pain but I fought back; I'm pretty strong.

Hearing my screams, Elizabeth (age four) came to the bedroom door and yelled, "Daddy stop!" He chased her out of the room. Meanwhile, I ran to the laundry room at the other end of the house, naked and crying hysterically. I closed the laundry room door behind me and tried to keep him out. Russ is 6'4" tall and weighs 240 pounds, so he easily pushed the door open. He shoved me against the wall and repeatedly beat my head against it. Finally, I slid down the wall, exhausted. As he had done before, he stood over me and called me names like "bitch" and "cunt." Then, satisfied that he had proven his power over me, he went back to bed and fell asleep.

One thing I remember vividly from this incident is seeing a hammer in the laundry room while Russ was beating me. I could have reached it. I remember thinking to myself, "Maybe I should use it on him." But I did not. In that split second, I thought of how Russ had told me many times that most women who tried to defend themselves were killed by the very weapon they had tried to use. I imagined that if I did not kill Russ with that hammer, he would use it to kill me. I thought to myself, "I'm getting beaten, but I'm not dead. And I sure as hell don't want to die and leave the kids with him."

After Russ had gone back to bed, I gathered up all three kids and went to my brother-in-law's house. He is the former husband of one of my sisters and like another brother to me. As I was leaving our house, Russ woke up and tried to keep me from taking the kids, but I managed to get away.

I was too ashamed to call the police. My brother-in-law said, "Don't go back." I replied, "I have to go back or else I'll be stuck with all the bills." What did I mean by that? Well, the IRS had ruled that Russ's horse raising scheme had been a hobby and not a business. So the IRS had disallowed all those expenses and we had been hit with a bill for back taxes of $20,000. I thought to myself, "If I don't go back, Russ will leave and I'll be stuck with paying back all the money we owe. But if I go back, he'll stay and help me pay it off." Ironically, in the end, I ended up paying it all back anyway.

I look back on it now and my thinking seems ridiculous. But people need to understand that battered women often do not think straight because of post- traumatic stress. [24] Who could or would think clearly under such circumstances? And I was also thinking that it would be disgraceful to be divorced a second time. [25] I knew that society would think I was unstable, probably a bad person, and certainly a bad mother.

There is another reason, in addition to post-traumatic stress, for why I found it hard to assess my situation clearly. Like most batterers, Russ had isolated me from my family and friends. [26] When they came over, he was very rude and would always play the television loudly. He acted as if they were not there or were a bother. I was always the peacemaker and did my best to make us look good. I would say, "He's had a bad day" or "He's really tired." But naturally, given his obnoxious behavior and my obvious discomfort, many of my friends stopped coming over.

I know that some batterers are always charming to everyone outside the family. [27] That was not really true of Russ. He was sometimes intimidating, condescending, and mean to my friends. He would often put me down in front of them. [28]

Actually, I was luckier than many battered women, as I continued to have contact with family and friends. [29] Plus, my family was always very supportive and never gave up on me. They did not blame me for the abuse or insist that I leave Russ before I was ready. I was even able to confide in one of my sisters about the abuse. I am also grateful to a good friend from work who asked me about the bruises on my arm. She had seen Russ be psychologically abusive to me and mean to other people. I told her the truth and she listened and believed me and cared and supported me. [30]

Still, even with the support I received, Russ had succeeded in isolating me. And it is hard to think clearly when you feel all alone with your problems. I now see how effective Russ's isolation techniques were.

Even after the January 1989 beating, I would not have considered myself an abused woman, [31] but going to my brother-in-law's house was important because it was my first time out. [32] It was also the first time I'd talked about the abuse with a man.

The laundry room beating marked the end of any good times between Russ and me. After this, it seemed he wanted to hurt me just about all the time.

I think battered women stay with their abusers out of both hope and fear. They hope the batterer will change; they fear what might happen if they leave. After this incident, hope was gone for me; fear was all that remained. How could I hope, when Russ showed no remorse and never apologized? He sometimes claimed to have "blacked out" during this and other incidents. I know he is an alcoholic, but his blackouts were just too convenient for my tastes.

After the Super Bowl beating, he never again made me cry. In order to survive, I shut out my emotions.

In terms of the health care system: shortly after Elizabeth was born, Russ complained to our family doctor about me. The doctor responded by putting both of us on thyroid medicine. This later led Russ to tell me that I was "crazy" because I was on this medicine; somehow his being on the medicine did not make him crazy. There were always two sets of rules, one for him and one for me. Whatever he did was fine; whatever I did was wrong.

It was the same way with money. Russ could spend money however he wanted and could buy whatever he wanted. His check was exclusively for him to spend. One of his favorites tricks was to get something he wanted (like a gun or rifle) and say to me, "Look what I bought for you."

My check was to take care of everything else in the house. If we were short of money, it was always my fault, never his fault for his extravagant, selfish purchases.

The doctor never asked me about domestic violence. At one point, I said to him, "Russ gets real angry with me." I wanted the doctor somehow to pick up on what I was saying and offer me help. Yet, I was also terrified that he would repeat to Russ whatever I said. I knew that Russ would respond violently to that, so I was very circumspect. The doctor's response was, "Is he manic- depressive?" I mumbled in response, "I don't know," and the doctor pretty much dropped the subject.

I think it was the doctor's job to make a diagnosis of Russ, not mine. Plus, he should have taken the time to earn my trust and to talk to me about the underlying facts, Russ's abuse, that were causing my medical problems. He should have assured me that he would keep what I told him confidential.

I also felt the doctor should have noticed that I was incredibly exhausted and depressed. True, I had three young children to care for and a demanding job; however, my exhaustion went way beyond what could be explained by those circumstances. If he had ever asked, "Why are you so exhausted?" in a way that indicated he really wanted to know the answer, I think I might have poured out my heart to him. [33]

Today, I have a doctor who starts every visit by sitting down and asking me, "How are things going, Mary? What is happening in your life? How are the kids doing?" And it is clear that he really cares about the answers. He is not looking at his watch or edging toward the door from the minute he comes in. And I think that, as a result, he can provide me with better medical care because he understands the context in which my medical problems are occurring.

The incident that caused me to leave for good happened in June 1990. It started on a Thursday night. I had long planned on going to a bridal shower on Friday evening. I had asked, and Russ had agreed, that he would look after the kids on Friday night. As far as I was concerned, it was all arranged. That Thursday night I reminded Russ, "You'll have the kids tomorrow night so I can go to the shower." He was furious and screamed in my face, "I made plans for tomorrow night. I made them before yours. You can't go. And don't hire a babysitter because we can't afford it." All that night, he kicked me while we were in bed together. He turned the lights on and off all night. I hardly got any sleep. (I have since learned that sleep deprivation is a common batterers' tactic [34] ).

I remember how relieved I was when he got up in the morning to take his shower to go to work. For those few minutes while he was in the shower, I could sleep and rest. Of course, it was not nearly long enough. It was clear that he was still enraged. As he left for work, he said to me, "No one deserves a beating more than you. You're going to get the worst beating of your life when I get home tonight."

That was it for me. I thought to myself, "It's time for this to be over." After Russ had gone to work, I grabbed some stuff for myself and my children. We left the house and went into hiding. This was also the point at which I finally called the local battered women's program, HomeSafe. Only after this June 1990 incident did I identify myself as an abused woman.

The first night the kids and I stayed at a friend's house. My oldest son, Richard, slept on the floor and the two little ones slept with me on a spare bed. After that I began networking with people I had met through Al-Anon. We moved to a different place every night. My counselor from HomeSafe advised me to stay on the move -- just like the North Vietnamese. Sometimes we stayed with people we knew; sometimes we met them for the first time at their door.

Just a few days after leaving, I sought and received an order of protection. The judge gave me what I wanted, but belittled me and minimized my safety concerns in the process. In my petition, I detailed Russ's "you're going to get a beating when I get home" threat. I also stated that the last severe beating had occurred in January 1989 (the Super Bowl/laundry room incident). The judge said, in a dismissive way, "It's been a year and a half since he last beat you. Is last week's threat really serious?"

After I'd gotten the order of protection, Russ was warned by our babysitter that I had some papers that were going to be served on him. He tried to hide from the sheriff and police. On Monday evening (three days after I'd fled), he trashed our house. I went by the house the next day and found the house destroyed. I then bought a camera and went back to the house and took pictures. After I took pictures, I started cleaning up the house. Later that evening (Tuesday) I saw that Russ had been to the house again. This time he wrote hateful messages on the walls and mirror in the master bath. He also tore up my underclothes and took all of my business suits and dresses (my Al- Anon friends helped me get spare clothes to wear to work). Russ urinated on the walls of the master bedroom and ejaculated on my pillow.

My big mistake was not taking pictures of the second incident. Later in the custody proceedings, Russ's lawyer ridiculed me and said that I had to be making it all up. The reason I didn't take pictures was because my children were with me. I cleaned up everything so they would not see it. I did have two witnesses with me to the urination/ejaculation incident, but the judge ignored them.

We stayed in hiding for three weeks, then we moved back into our house (after changing the locks). I had a girlfriend move in with me. I was too afraid to be alone. Plus, I wanted a witness for anything else Russ might do to me.

Soon after going into hiding, I hired the first of what would be several lawyers. Overall, I am very dissatisfied with how both the lawyers and the legal system handled my situation. I feel that my lawyers did not understand what I had experienced. They did not understand because they would not or could not listen to what I had to say. [35] They did not seem to care about what I wanted and why. Most had a predetermined outcome in mind and a predetermined approach of how they were going to accomplish that outcome. I could not get them to listen to me or to budge from their preconceptions.

I was always very up front with my lawyers about the abuse that had occurred. I also told them very clearly about my fears for myself and my children.

My first lawyer (I will call her Lawyer #1) was a woman and an experienced family lawyer. When I explained to her that I was very afraid of Russ, her response was completely egotistical: "Just let him come after me, and I'll kick his ass." Her focus was on what she was going to do, not what was best for me. She also said, "You're my client, we'll screw that bastard." This was not what I wanted. I wanted to be safe. I did not want to go "one on one" with Russ, and I did not want my lawyer to do that either. I felt that taking him on like this would increase the danger to me and my children. I felt that this lawyer just did not listen to me or take my concerns seriously. [36]

Lawyer #1 was also my first introduction to how people in the legal system -- people who should know better -- completely dismiss abuse of women and children. At one point, after I had told her my story, she said, "So he slapped you around and beat the kids. What's your point?" She acted as if these facts were irrelevant to the divorce and custody proceedings.

Russ's lawyer said to my lawyer, "Let's sit Russ and Mary together in the pretrial conference. That'll help work things out." I strongly objected to this. I told my lawyer that sitting next to Russ would be scary and intimidating for me. My lawyer responded, "Don't be gutless like they say you are." I also asked that Russ be searched for possible weapons, but my lawyer said that she would not ask for this. [37]

This lawyer talked tough, but she spent most of her time flirting with Russ's lawyer. She did not stand up to Russ. She was also just plain incompetent; she gave away a key issue to Russ and his lawyer. When we were negotiating over money, Russ and his lawyer wanted his payments to be labeled "house payments" instead of "child support." My lawyer said, "Fine, no problem." I was not happy about this, but my lawyer said to me, "money is money." I later learned, when Russ didn't make the payments, that there are special enforcement mechanisms that are available only for child support payments. [38] In this context, all money is not the same. So the lawyer's mistake deprived me and my children of valuable rights.

After I left Russ, he had no real interest in the kids. He did not care about seeing them, much less having custody. He only became interested when I insisted on supervised visitation. That was a challenge to his power and authority; plus, his ego could not tolerate the public embarrassment of being allowed only supervised visitation. That is when he demanded custody of Elizabeth and Daniel.

I sometimes wonder if I made a mistake in seeking supervised visitation. Not because the kids did not need it or deserve it, given his abuse of them. But maybe he would have left the kids and me alone if I had just "let sleeping dogs lie." I will never know. [39] Of course, if the legal system had responded properly and effectively to my request for supervised visitation, that would have made a big difference too.

While we were fighting over supervised visitation, my lawyer said, "We'll get psychological testing for both of you." She did not listen when I responded, "He'll pass the test with flying colors. He's very slick and impressive." [40]

When I sought supervised visitation, I was focused on the kids' safety. After I left him, I thought Russ would leave me alone. Boy was I wrong! I wish my lawyer would have alerted me to the continued danger that I would face. [41] I did not know -- and my lawyer never told me -- that separation often increases the danger to battered women. [42]

Lawyer #1 demanded and received a large up front retainer fee. Then she sent me to a psychologist, which cost even more money. This psychologist was very strange and later had a mental breakdown.

Other psychologists were not much better. My kids and I went through a bunch of them. One psychologist called me "an air head." [43] I confronted him about that, and he did not like how assertive I was.

Russ claimed that I was a lesbian and an alcoholic. Both of these accusations are completely false. I do not want to sound as if I believe that being a lesbian is bad; I do not. However, most judges are very homophobic, [44] especially in a fundamentalist-dominated city like mine. Accusing a woman of being a lesbian is, unfortunately, a very effective weapon in a custody battle and a very common one. Russ also claimed that he had really raised the kids, which was absurdly untrue.

Russ's tactics worked. The lawyers and psychologists, as well as the judge, all concentrated on me and what I had supposedly done wrong. They let Russ off the hook.

I am really angry that the legal system allows batterers to set the agenda through their wild accusations against victims. Russ played the game of "the best defense is a good offense" to perfection. The system allowed him to put the focus on me, instead of on his abuse of me and the children. My lawyers never fought effectively against this tactic.

Eventually, I fired Lawyer #1. From what I could tell, she was spending most of her time and energy flirting with Russ's lawyer, and I was very unhappy with her malpractice on the child support/house payments allocation. I then interviewed another female lawyer who had been recommended by HomeSafe, the local battered women's program. This lawyer told me about a specific psychologist in town who is often called as an expert witness in custody fights. The lawyer said, "We'll pay him off and he'll say what we want." I thought this was wrong and refused to hire this lawyer. This same psychologist ultimately testified for Russ in the custody hearing and is the one who referred to me as an "airhead." I do not know if Russ and his lawyer "paid him off," but I cannot help but wonder. I hired another female lawyer (Lawyer #2) instead.

Russ brought in the police to supervise the exchange of the children for visitation. He claimed that he called in the police because I was abusive. I have learned that batterers often claim that they are being abused.

Elizabeth did not want to visit with her dad, so I did not force her to go. This was later held against me as showing that I was uncooperative with Russ's rights as a father. [45] The judge tried to compare a visit with an abusive father with a trip to the dentist: a good mother will make her child go.

An important incident occurred when Russ came to a football game where my oldest son, Richard, was playing. Russ was not his father. It was my birthday, and obviously the game was an important event for my son and me.

Russ showed up, followed closely by my first husband, Chris, Richard's father. I was surprised to see Chris at the game, since he had shown only sporadic interest in Richard. I suspect Russ got Chris to come to the game as a further way to torture me. When Chris got out of his car, they shook hands and did not look at all surprised to see each other.

This was ironic, since the two of them had always hated each other. When I was living with Russ, he and Chris had fought over control of Richard. Russ had asserted his right to act as Richard's father, not out of love, but out of his need to dominate. Chris, even though he was not an involved father, had resisted somewhat. It is my guess that Russ used their mutual hatred of me to manipulate Chris. I think Chris was a willing pawn in Russ's mind games with me. [46]

When I retreated to my car after seeing Russ, he pointed at me in a taunting way. Chris went along. The two of them appeared to be having a good laugh at my expense. They were enjoying my fear and discomfort.

It was clear to me that Russ's only purpose in coming was to scare me. He had never shown any interest in Richard.

I had learned by now to always have my protective order with me. I showed it to the police who were working at the game. I asked them to order Russ to leave. The police responded that my protective order did not cover this situation because the game was a public event. I certainly was not going to stay there while Russ was there. So I had to leave the stadium without seeing the game.

This was an example of how Russ, like most batterers, always stayed right "on the line." That is, he did things that would intimidate me but would not get him in trouble with the authorities. [47]

Something I remember vividly from the football game incident was one police officer whose kindness and sensitivity meant a lot to me. The other officers, after determining that they could not or would not remove Russ from the game, just basically left. This police officer, however, came over to me and explained why the police thought they were unable to remove Russ from the game. He looked me in the eye and really talked to me. He dealt with me as a person. He was clearly empathetic and sympathetic with my fear and my anger that Russ was keeping me from attending Richard's game. I still think fondly of this officer, even though he did not do anything concrete to help me. It meant a lot that he talked to me and acknowledged the legitimacy of my fears and the unfairness of what was happening. [48]

Another person who helped me was a very good psychologist who had a reputation for understanding battered women and their children. My counselor at HomeSafe had recommended her. Unfortunately, at the time I was seeking help, this psychologist was feeling very burned out and could not accept me or my children as patients. However, she came and babysat for my children one night. Afterward, we spoke briefly. Even that short exchange was very meaningful to me. The psychologist validated my perceptions and concerns. She told me, "What you want for yourself and your kids is right."

This affirmation was important. All the discouragement I had received from my lawyers and other professionals had really taken its toll. When I first left Russ, I had felt strongly that I was right in my perceptions of Russ, myself, and my children. I thought the safety I wanted was reasonable and fair. But the lawyers and psychologists had been so disempowering. They did not listen. They undermined everything I thought and said. They did not take my safety concerns seriously. Consequently, my confidence in my own judgment had been stripped away. This psychologist, even in a very brief session, helped restore my faith in my abilities and judgment. [49]

The evening of the football game fiasco, I called my lawyer (Lawyer #2) to discuss what could be done. It was clear to me that she was very intoxicated. She did not respond at all to my outrage and to my safety concerns. I fired her shortly thereafter. I was tired of paying big retainers and getting nowhere.

I then went looking for a male lawyer. I want to acknowledge that I did not yet trust women. Russ had constantly belittled women, and so I did not really believe that women professionals could be competent. I also still bought into the idea that women were natural rivals with each other. In saying this, I do not mean to excuse what my first two lawyers did. I think I was more than justified in firing them. But I think I fired them much more quickly than I would have if they had been men.

Attorney #3, a man, represented me through the trial that eventually ended in my losing custody of my son Daniel. Attorney #3 sent me to a psychologist whose attitude reminded me of Lawyer #1. This psychologist, a woman, said "we'll get him," referring to Russ's psychologist. That is, the psychologist saw this as a personal battle with Russ's psychologist. The key was for her to "win"; she did not focus on the safety or well-being of my children and me. Perhaps because she was focused on herself and not me, ultimately she was charmed by Russ and came to believe his lies. She was so self-absorbed. I can still picture her tossing her hair flirtatiously as she made remarks that destroyed me and my children.

This psychologist had a very dismissive attitude. She never really believed my story of abuse. Because I was a professional and a strong person, I think she identified with me, but that identification hurt me. I think she did not want to confront the possibility that someone like her could ever be abused, or would stay in an abusive relationship. [50] The fact that I was a strong person seemed to make my story less credible to her. She virtually said to me, "Mary, you're a strong person. Because you're a strong person, I don't believe you'd put up with the abuse, if it was really as bad as you say. Therefore, you must be lying."

She did not understand domestic violence at all. Like the judge who reluctantly granted my protective order, she was puzzled and troubled by the fact that I was so scared by Russ's "you're going to get the beating of your life" threat. She focused on the fact that it had been a year and a half since the last severe physical incident when he made that threat. She even asked me at one point, "When he threatened to beat you [in June 1990], did he say it in a playful way?" She did not understand that physical violence is just one tool batterers use to control their victims. She did not understand the non-physical techniques (degradation, isolation, sleep deprivation) that Russ used. She did not understand that the physical violence does not have to be frequent or severe to be effective. [51]

Russ's psychologist -- the one who I had once been told was for sale -- really did a number on me, too. According to him, I was an "angry woman," and this was bad. He thought Russ should have custody of both children.

He completely bought Russ's lies about me. He suggested -- based on nothing other than Russ's statements and, perhaps, my assertiveness -- that I might indeed have lesbian tendencies. He criticized me for having "an agenda," which I suppose referred to the fact that I was doing my best to keep my children and myself safe. On the other hand, the fact that Russ had never paid a dime in child support was dismissed. His failure somehow did not indicate any lack of interest in the children's welfare.

The same denial/minimization occurred around Russ's sexual abuse of me, including the brutalizing of my breasts. The psychologists bought Russ's explanation that "Mary likes rough sex that way."

No one cared about Russ's ongoing intimidation of me either. During the divorce proceedings, Russ would leave angry messages on my answering machine, saying things like "I will get you." He would even threaten to kill me and make it look like a suicide. He would say, "I could do that without any problem. You know how good I am with guns." I told my family and friends over and over, "No matter how bad it gets, I'm telling you that I would never commit suicide. I would never leave my kids without a mother. If they find me dead and it looks like a suicide, don't you believe it. If that happens, make sure the police investigate Russ." I told the lawyers and psychologists about Russ's threats, but they did not take them seriously.

It also bothers me that psychologists will not investigate the true facts, yet they assert that they know the truth. [52] I repeatedly offered to put them in touch with other witnesses who would support my story. They declined, saying that was not their job. Yet, they would claim to know what actually happened. Apparently, they felt they were such experts that they knew who was telling the truth, Russ or me. Russ, with his charming batterer's demeanor, won every time.

Both the psychologists and the judge failed to understand how the abuse affected the children. [53] For instance, the children were scared to death of Russ. This is not surprising, given what they had seen him do to them and to me. As a result, they were very well-behaved when they were with him; they just wanted to avoid getting hurt more. Then when the kids were with me, in a comfortable, safe environment, they were often out of control. It just makes sense. They needed some place where they could safely express the trauma and stress they were experiencing. Yet, the psychologists, and ultimately the judge, held it against me that the kids did not always behave well when they were with me. They thought that Russ was a good parent because the kids were so well-behaved when they were with him. They thought I was a bad parent because the kids misbehaved when I was in charge. The psychologists and the judge never looked at the causes of the kids' problems. They never held Russ responsible for the behavior that was causing the kids to feel out of control in the first place.

Most fundamentally, the psychologists and judge bought the idea that Russ's abuse of me was irrelevant to child custody issues. They did not see any reason why the abuse should keep Russ from having full custody of the children. My own psychologist said, "So he's abused you. But he loves those kids." Even when I reminded her that the kids, especially Elizabeth, had seen the abuse, the psychologist responded, "She's young, she'll get over it."

I never got supervised visitation. At my insistence, my lawyer put a request for supervised visitation in my divorce petition. But he never fought for it or seemed to understand why the children and I needed it. In trying to discourage me from even asking for supervised visitation, he said, "Don't do that. It'll make the judge mad." [54]

From what I have said, it should not surprise you to learn that both psychologists opposed supervised visitation. They both thought Russ was a good parent and that supervised visitation was unnecessary for both me and the kids.

Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self-promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty-five thousand dollars.

As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex-wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge's recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, "You'll just get someone worse."

At the custody hearing, Russ denied everything. He said he had never done anything to me physically. My psychologist did testify that he had admitted the laundry room beating to her in a private session. However, Russ had obviously minimized the severity of that beating. His admission did not change my psychologist's opinion that Russ was a good father. Russ also denied yelling at Elizabeth after his son Chip had molested her. Besides, he said, the molestation had never been proven.

He testified that he had been the primary caretaker of the children. The key evidence supporting this allegation was that he had usually taken the kids to and from the babysitter's house. It did not seem to matter that the babysitter was close to his workplace and far away from mine. This piece of evidence alone seemed to outweigh the fact that I did practically everything else for the kids.

Russ's testimony was so slick and manipulative. He laughed at the right times and misted up with tears at the right times. He acted the part of the "good ol' boy." That goes a long way where I live; I could tell the judge really liked him. Russ referred to Elizabeth and Daniel, by now ages 5 and 4, as "my babies" and talked about how much he loved them. He said things like, "They mean the world to me" and "I can't live without them." He made a particular point of saying, "I'm so close to Daniel." Russ came across as intelligent and very stable, as someone who really had his act together.

Russ's most outrageous testimony was reserved for the shotgun incident with my son Richard. He said that the gun went off by "accident." He also testified, "It was an old gun," as if that somehow made a difference. He probably would have denied this incident too, but I had photographs of the damage done to the ceiling and roof. My lawyer tried to discredit Russ's testimony, but Russ never budged. And it is clear that the judge never saw through Russ's lies and manipulations.

I testified to the abuse of the children and me. I am sure I did not seem as calm or collected as Russ. Given what I had been through, and given the fact that I was fighting for my children's lives and my own, I think that is understandable. I cried at one point, but overall I was very matter-of-fact, even low-key in my testimony. That is just the kind of person I am. I am not going to be emotional in front of strangers or in a formal setting like a courtroom. I also think it came across in my testimony that I am a strong person with good self-esteem.

I feel that the judge held against me that I was strong and matter-of-fact. I think that, in his mind, I did not portray the proper image of a "real" victim of domestic violence. [55] Yet, at the same time, my crying and emotionalism hurt me, too. The judge seemed bored and annoyed when I started to cry. He asked, "How much longer is this going to take? Are we almost done here?" He had never said that during Russ's testimony. Indeed, throughout the trial, the judge seemed biased against my attorney and me. He often interrupted my attorney to ask, "How much longer is this going to take," but never interrupted Russ's attorney or asked him to hurry up.

I think it also probably hurt me that I was a professional. The judge did not seem to believe that a woman of my education and achievement would take the abuse I described.

I tried to offer testimony from other people whom Russ had abused. Shortly before the custody trial, I had learned that Russ abused his first wife. The judge refused to hear this testimony. I later learned that this was a typical pattern for this judge when hearing cases where women were claiming domestic violence.

Both psychologists' testimony damaged my case. Russ's psychologist said I had "drug addict tendencies," picking up on Russ's false accusation of alcoholism. He said that Russ had been very active in raising the kids and that I was an angry woman who would not cooperate fairly with Russ's rights as a father if I were given custody of Daniel. I thought my lawyer did a good job of cross-examining Russ's psychologist.

The worst damage was done by my psychologist. She testified that I was feigning the abuse. She also made a big deal about a phone conversation we had had. I was suffering from an allergy attack and had the sniffles. During the conversation, we laughed. She later testified that I had quickly gone from crying to laughing. As a result, she said, she questioned my stability. Of course, she had never said anything to me about this, nor had she asked why I was sniffling. She just assumed she knew it all.

My psychologist testified that I should have custody of Elizabeth but was wishy-washy about Daniel. She testified that he would do okay with either Russ or me. She also criticized me for just giving "lip service" on providing Russ with visitation. Along with the judge, she is the person I most blame for my losing custody of Daniel.

I must emphasize again how everything I did was scrutinized with a microscope and everything Russ did was excused. I had entered into evidence pictures of how Russ had totally destroyed our house after being served with the protective order. The Judge's response: "But he was hurt." Just like Russ had two sets of rules -- one for himself and one for me -- the court seemed to have completely different rules for batterers and victims.

Similarly, the judge completely bought Russ's explanation about the shotgun business. The fact that it had been an old 12-gauge shotgun made it okay. [56] And the judge believed that the gun had gone off by accident. Even if that were true, I will never understand why the judge did not ask himself, "What was a grown man doing face to face with an 11-year old with a shotgun in his hand, even if it was pointing straight up?" Why did this not count as child endangerment? Why did it not reflect badly on Russ's fitness as a parent?

I do not know how I could have gotten through this period without the support of my family and HomeSafe. I am also very lucky that my priest was supportive and understanding. [57]

The judge ordered that Russ be given custody of our son Daniel, then age four. The judge said that Russ was a good parent. He agreed with the psychologists that I would be a bad custodial parent because I was angry and could not get along with Russ with regard to visitation. The judge said that he was unable to determine my "sexual deviancy," thus giving credence to Russ's false claims that I was a lesbian.

To make matters worse, the judge told me that I was getting custody of Elizabeth for a six-month probationary period. I will never forget his warning from the bench: "If you do one thing to disrupt visitation, I'll take your daughter and give your ex-husband custody of her too."

As if losing Daniel weren't bad enough, the lawyer who accompanied me to the final hearing made it worse. My own lawyer was not there; he sent one of his associates instead. After hearing that I had lost custody of my son, I broke down in tears. The associate angrily took me into the court conference room and said, "Shut the fuck up. You'll lose the other kid."

The night that I lost custody of Daniel was the worst night of my life. I came very close to going back to Russ, just to protect my son. When I got home that night, there was a message on my phone from Russ. It said, "Well, this isn't exactly the way I wanted it, but I'm willing to take you back." He said it like he would be doing me a big favor.

I called my counselor from HomeSafe and told her I was thinking about returning to Russ. I had absolutely no positive feelings toward him and no delusions about what it would be like. The idea of taking more abuse from him made me sick, but I could not stand the idea of him abusing Daniel either. If I went back, I thought maybe I could protect Daniel, if not myself.

The counselor told me, "Mary, you've saved two of your three kids [meaning Richard and Elizabeth]. If you go back, everyone loses." I knew she was right, but it was still a horrible feeling, like I was sacrificing Daniel for the sake of myself and the other two children. I mean, if a parent saves two of her three children from a burning house, does she feel good about rescuing two, or terrible that she could not rescue all three? I cannot tell you how angry I am that the legal system required me to make that choice.

Needless to say, during that probationary period, Russ was in abuser's heaven. He could do anything he wanted. If I expressed any upset or disagreement, I knew it would be held against me and I might lose Elizabeth too. During this period, Russ would not return the kids as scheduled following visitation, so I had to get someone to go with me to his house and retrieve the children.

I did not appeal the custody decision because by this point, I had no money left to pay the lawyer. It was certainly clear that the lawyer would not pursue the appeal without more up-front money.

I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ's live-in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children's psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, "WHAT???!!!" I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ's having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.

After learning about Russ's abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, "Let the ink dry on the judge's custody order." That was the last straw and I fired him.

I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ's girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ's girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew -- and Russ knew -- that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.

Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn-out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.

As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.

He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. "This is what's best for you," he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.

Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.

Finally, in March 1996, about four years after returning Daniel to me, Russ lost visitation. He had put the children in the back of his pick up truck. He was driving fast and hit a bump. Elizabeth flew out and Daniel was dragged behind the truck. Elizabeth scraped her side, hit her head, and hurt her back. She had to have her back manipulated by the doctor and had to take muscle relaxants. Daniel did not want to admit the incident had even occurred, but he did limp for a few days. Because he had directly endangered the children, the judge took away visitation (this was a different judge from the one who had given Russ custody of Daniel).

Eliminating visitation was a proper result, and I am glad about it. Still, I cannot help but feel a little bitter that no one ever really cared about my safety and its affect on our children. In the court's eyes, Russ only became a bad father and a bad person when he injured the children personally and individually. He was never a bad father or a bad person because he had abused their mother. My word about his abuse of the children never counted. The court listened only after I had concrete, outside proof, such as their injuries from being thrown from the pickup truck.

Russ has never paid a dime in child support since I left him. He owes more than twenty-five thousand dollars. I could pursue various state and even federal legal action against Russ, but so far I have not. I have the paperwork all ready to file against him any time I need to. But I consider this my "ace in the hole" against him. I am sure he knows that if he does anything really harmful to me or the kids, I am in a position to have him jailed for willful non-support. This keeps him away from us, and that is a lot more important to me than the money. However, on two separate occasions, he has spent a month in jail for non-payment of child support. Another time, he was arrested for criminal violation of my order of protection; however, he posted bail immediately. Though he was found guilty on two counts, he received a suspended sentence.

In the course of one of the trials for criminal non-support, I learned an amazing story about my original custody judge. God knows why, but apparently the judge finally "got it" about Russ. I have it on good authority that the original judge said to an attorney who had been appointed to represent the children, "This case is like Sleeping with the Enemy [the Julia Roberts movie about domestic violence]. This guy is crazy. There should be an automatic protective order for the children." He also said to the new custody judge, "This guy [Russ] is a ticking bomb."

It has taken me a long time to come back emotionally from the trauma of what Russ did to me and the children. As a child and young woman, I was a happy and light-hearted person. The years of abuse by Russ and then the legal system turned me into someone very different. For many years, I rarely smiled or laughed. I was often short-tempered, especially at work. I walked around with my head down, burdened by my fears, just doing my best to get through the day.

As I said, it reached the point where Russ could no longer make me cry. But you do not just turn off your emotions toward one person; you turn them off for everything. Several years after I left Russ, one of my brothers died. I could not cry at his funeral. Slowly my ability to feel is coming back; recently I have been able to cry again, at least sometimes. But I will never be the jovial person I once was. Russ's abuse robbed me of many moments of both joy and sorrow that I should have experienced.

My children and I have a pretty good life. I am now forty years old. I recently bought a new house and we are settling in pretty well. For the past five years, I have had a new man in my life, Ken. He is wonderful, kind, and gentle with me and the kids.

However, Russ still affects our lives. He lives in a nearby county, so I am still afraid of what he might do to me or the children. Wherever I go, I always want to face the door so I can see him if he should come in. I'll never be free until one of us -- Russ or me -- is dead.

Elizabeth, now twelve, has not seen Russ since he lost visitation. She understands the kind of person he is and she does not want to have anything to do with him. All things considered, she is pretty well adjusted. Still, it hurts. We were shopping at K-mart this year shortly before Father's Day. The checkout clerk said cheerfully to Elizabeth, "What are you getting your Dad for Father's Day?" Elizabeth responded bitterly, "The same thing that he's gotten for me the last two Christmases and my last two birthdays: nothing." (Russ did, however, give both children a twenty dollar gift certificate for Christmas this past year.) The clerk responded quietly, "Oh, I guess your dad is like my son's father."

I worry that, because of Russ, Elizabeth will find it hard to trust people, especially men. I have made it a point to have good, kind, and gentle men around my children, not just Ken but also my brothers, men I work with, etc. And I do not allow gender bashing in my house or on the sports teams I coach. I do not allow boys to say bad things about girls, and I do not allow the girls to put down all boys either.

Still, Elizabeth is wary of what men might do in intimate relationships. When I have talked with Elizabeth about the possibility that Ken and I might get married, she says, "Mom, I'm worried that he'll turn out to be like Dad." I encourage her to look at how Ken treats people and how it is so different from Russ. But I understand her fear.

It's even harder on Daniel, now eleven. Of all my children, I worry about him the most. Daniel goes back and forth about Russ. He still wants to have a relationship with his father. That is only natural for a boy approaching adolescence, I guess. Besides, Russ had custody of him; that led to a certain closeness, even if Russ did abuse him. Though there's no visitation, Daniel and Russ continue to talk on the phone and Russ continues to manipulate him.

I know Daniel is holding in a lot of anger and confusion. I worry what that is doing to him. Sometimes he lets the anger go, and that is very scary, especially now that he is getting bigger. It will not be long until he will be bigger, probably much bigger, than I am. I worry whether or not I will be able to control him.

At times Daniel completely denies the abuse. Other times, he says, "I hated Dad when he did that." Daniel is mad at me for having Russ's visitation terminated. He also blames himself, not Russ, for the pickup truck injuries that led to the termination; he says, "I asked Dad to go fast." I do not know how much Russ has encouraged Daniel to blame himself, but I certainly know that Russ takes no responsibility for endangering his children.

Sometimes, Daniel defends Russ to me. Sometimes he will even say, "I'm just like my Dad and I want to be just like my Dad." When he does that, I reply, "I disagree," and try to point out the many ways that Daniel is caring and kind. It is a tightrope. I do not want to put Russ down so much that Daniel feels he must protect him. If you put the father down too much, the son can start to feel like he is no good too. On the other hand, I cannot let Daniel romanticize Russ.

Daniel does not remember Russ's physical abuse of me. He was too young. Sometimes Daniel indicates that he believes Russ and not me about the abuse. This hurts me so much, and scares me too. I try not to disparage Russ. Instead, I tell Daniel, "Keep an open mind. See whether things really support your dad's story or mine." I hope he comes to see his father realistically before it is too late.

As I mentioned, Russ continues to manipulate Daniel. He has said to Daniel, "Take money from your mother, lie to her about where you're going, and run away and come live with me." When Daniel told this to the children's psychologist, she was very firm, "Parents shouldn't teach their children to lie and steal."

Russ does other things to hurt and control Daniel. For instance, Daniel recently tried to call Russ from our home phone. He kept getting a busy signal despite repeated tries. When I called Russ from my office to see what was going on, I got right through. Russ then told me, as casual as could be, that he was blocking calls from our home phone number. How could a supposedly loving father do that to his child?

Recently, Daniel snuck out on the babysitter and met his father. I know Russ had arranged the meeting, showing his disregard for the legal order against visitation. I grounded Daniel for that incident.

I allow Daniel to call Russ sometimes. I think cutting off all communication against Daniel's wishes would make matters worse. I do record the conversations sometimes. I know Russ is always trying to get to me through what he tells Daniel. For instance, Daniel once said to me out of the blue, "Even if you and Ken get married, I'll never call him Dad." Well, I had never suggested that to Daniel. I am sure Russ told Daniel, "You know, if your mother marries Ken, you'll have to call him Dad." Interestingly, Daniel has said he thinks Ken and I should get married. He thinks it would be best if we all lived under one roof.

I cannot help but feel that Daniel's problems are tied to the years that Russ had custody of him. Those were such important, impressionable years when Russ had him and abused him.

To make matters even worse, Daniel has had such horrible experiences with therapists that he does not trust any of them. The therapist he sees now is someone I trust, and I make him go, but I understand his mistrust of therapy. The kids were so poked and prodded and mistreated during the custody battle; that is not something that magically goes away. This therapist has gained Daniel's trust somewhat, but progress is still hard.

I also worry about Richard, the child of my first marriage. He experienced so much abuse from Russ, as well as seeing the abuse of me when he was at a very impressionable age. Like Elizabeth, he finds it hard to trust Ken. Some time ago, he said to me, "I don't think you should marry Ken while Elizabeth and Daniel are still at home." He knows firsthand what stepfathers can do. Richard and I both realize that he has shown some abusive tendencies. Between the role modeling and the anger that Richard feels, I guess this is understandable. I worry that he might become an abuser. I hope he will continue to work hard to see that does not happen.

People do not always understand the impact on our society of children who have witnessed and experienced abuse. [58] Sometimes I meet people whose attitude seems to be, "Gee, it's terrible what happened to Mary's children, but it really doesn't affect me." I tell them, "Your children are playing next to my children. If my child has behavioral problems because some judge gave him to his abusive father, you'd better believe it affects your children."

Besides my job and my kids, HomeSafe is a big part of my life. I am on the Board of Directors. I volunteer on the twenty-four-hour crisis line at least one night every month. I think there have been times when I have really helped a woman by listening to her and saying "I've been there myself." People at work also know about my experience as an abused woman and sometimes seek me out for advice.

My kids are very supportive of my HomeSafe work. On nights when I am on the crisis line, they understand it is important. They like to hear my stories about women I have helped on the crisis line.

The children really came through during a recent period when a battered woman stayed at our house for six weeks. She was someone I worked with. Other people at work had learned about the abuse and came to talk to me. They asked me to talk to her, even though I did not know her well. I said, "I'm not going to force myself on her. She's already got someone doing that at home; I'm not going to add to her burden. [59] But tell her that I would be happy to talk to her if she would like to talk to me." Just a few hours later, she came to talk. She desperately needed to leave her abuser, and I said, "Why don't you come stay at my house?" She accepted and I called my kids and told them about her situation. Daniel could not have been sweeter or more supportive. He said, "Tell her everything will be okay. Tell her we've been through all this." He even offered to let her stay in his room.

From my work at HomeSafe, I know now how lucky I am compared to most battered women. In addition to supportive family, friends, and clergy, I had a good job and some money. In contrast, most battered women I have met through HomeSafe are trying to escape their batterers without any money or support from family or friends. Indeed, their family and friends have either encouraged them to stay in the relationship, have blamed them for the abuse, or have commanded them to leave before the women were ready. I also hear terrible stories about clergy telling women that "Marriage is sacred," or "This wouldn't be happening to you if you were right with the Lord," or "You must forgive him and reconcile your marriage." Additionally, I talk to women who might leave their abuser if they could be sure that they and their children would still have a roof over their heads and food on the table.

I give many speeches in the community about my experience as a battered woman. I share my story so people will understand that domestic violence happens to all kinds of women. I want them to know that there is still a lot we need to do to change the system. It is bad enough to be abused by someone who says he loves you; unfortunately, women today, like me, are often abused a second and third time by lawyers, psychologists, and judges.

I am public about the abuse for another, more selfish reason. I figure if I put myself in the spotlight, more people -- domestic violence workers, police, friends -- will be watching my back. If anything happens to me or my children, they will go looking for Russ.

I agreed to share my story with Professor Waits for the same reason that I speak in the community. If just one person reading this story comes away with a better understanding of abuse, it will be worth it. I am not going to go down quietly. I feel that Russ and the legal system took away my children, my money, and my life. They will not take away my voice.

III. Lessons from Mary's Story

The reader may now want to take several deep breaths or even put down this Article for a while. If I have done my job as a storyteller, reading Mary's story should have been draining. It is hard -- and it should be hard -- to hear battered women's stories. [60] Of course hearing these stories, even from women like Mary who have partly escaped their batterers, does not hold a candle to actually living through them.

One of the strengths of narrative is that the reader can reach his or her own conclusions. The moral of an absorbing story will be different for different people. Below I've shared some of the lessons from Mary's story that are most important to me.

A. Support Counts: You Can Make a Difference in the Victim's Life

One of the most important elements of Mary's story is the support she received from her family, friends, and priest. As she herself noted, such support is all too rare for battered women. [61]

I am convinced that the loving support Mary received was an important reason why she escaped Russ as (relatively) quickly and successfully as she did. In saying this, I do not want to take away from Mary's own personal strength and resolve. She deserves all the credit in the world. I also do not want to minimize the importance of her relative financial security and independence. Women with limited access to money often have a harder time escaping abuse. [62]

But I must still insist, as Mary herself does, that emotional support matters. After all, Mary returned to Russ only once before leaving for good. We know that most women return many more times before making their final escape. [63]

Friends, family, and others must offer the right kind of support. Often, even well-meaning people say things and have attitudes that are very damaging, unhelpful and victim-blaming. [64] They may focus on what the battered woman did before a violent incident occurred, [65] as if that mattered. They may focus on what is "wrong" with her. [66] Even if the battered woman has some real problems, and even if they pre-dated the abuse, they do not explain or justify it. Further, even if she were to deal with whatever her other faults might be, that would not stop the battering. Those who care about battered women must understand that their behavior is never the cause of the violence, though it may be the excuse. [67] Thus, the importance of the phrase and attitude, "You don't deserve this." Because the batterer never takes responsibility for his actions [68] and invariably blames the victim for what has happened, women need to hear this over and over again. Certainly, Mary heard it from her family, friends, and priest, in both words and deeds.

Even people who do not blame the victim can hurt her by insisting that she leave the batterer now. It is appropriate to express fear and concern for the safety of the battered woman and her children. But an insistence that she leave or take other action when she is not ready is both dangerous and unhelpful.

In Appendix A, I have collected some "do's" and "don'ts" that supporters of battered women may find helpful. I must emphasize that attitude is more important than phraseology. After all, Mary's former brother-in-law said, "Don't go back." But he said it as a suggestion, not an order. He was advising her, not commanding her. He did not imply that she was nuts or masochistic if she went back to Russ. He clearly communicated, "I'll be here for you next time. Even if you do go back, you're welcome to return to my house."

Mary's friend who noticed and commented on her bruised arm also did her a great service. She did not insist that Mary talk about it; however, she did not pretend that she did not notice. Even if the victim is not yet ready to discuss the abuse, such comments leave a door open. They also communicate, contrary to what the abuser is always saying, that others do care about the battered woman and that others will help her. [69]

When faced with someone else's problems, many people respond with, "What can I do? What difference can I make?" Here, the answer is clear: you might make a big difference, if you will. [70]

B. Lawyers and Other Professionals Matter

Friends and family sometimes downplay their ability to make a difference. So do professionals. In some circles, it can even be considered fashionable and sophisticated to throw your hands up and say, "These people's problems are so bad, it doesn't really matter what lawyers, judges, and psychologists do. He'll continue to abuse her, and she'll continue to take it. It's a sad situation, but it's basically hopeless."

Mary's story shows how important lawyers, psychologists, and judges are. Most of them, sadly, harmed Mary and her children. A few -- like the one psychologist she spoke to briefly, the lawyer who handled Daniel's return to Mary, and the judge who finally took away Russ's visitation -- helped her a lot.

It does not have to be this way. Other battered women I have interviewed have had somewhat better experiences. [71] Still, Mary's story is sadly common. [72] For example, I asked Laura Lawyer, who works in Mary's city, about the psychologists who do custody evaluation work there. This woman, who is universally regarded as one of the best family lawyers in town, said, "In this city [of more than half a million people], there isn't a single psychologist who has the right credentials, who actually does custody evaluation work, and who really "gets it' about domestic violence and children. Some who understand the issues don't have the credentials or don't do the work. Those that do, don't really understand. Some have their hearts in the right places, and some are trying. But a lot of them are awful."

It should not really surprise us that professionals do so badly. They can be sexist and victim-blaming, just like anyone else. [73] And many that might do better are still ignorant about domestic violence. [74] The media and other social institutions must take some of the blame, but the professions themselves are responsible, too. Lawyers and doctors continue to receive little or no training about domestic violence. [75] When training is offered, it is generally in specialized courses, where the trainers are often preaching to the choir. Professionals who represent respectable, educated, affluent clients or patients are especially resistant to learning about domestic violence. [76]

C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law

Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on-going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers' Rights movement. [80]

Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.

Mary's story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims "look like" and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad's fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.

Mary's custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children's "best interest" [81] and that Russ's visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers' counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]

My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children -- and Russ -- could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system's sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.

D. Process Counts

The next lesson has to do not with what happened to Mary but with how she was treated. Dr. Anne Flitcraft, probably the leading medical crusader for domestic violence, put it best: "Process counts." [84] Dr. Flitcraft recognizes that battered women will continue to encounter difficult and hostile situations. [85] Even the most competent and caring helpers cannot always make it "all better" for the victim and her children. Despite this, Dr. Flitcraft insists that it still matters how we treat battered women, even when we can offer them little concrete help. [86]

In Mary's story, this lesson comes across loud and clear in how she was treated by the one sympathetic police officer and the one understanding psychologist. In both instances, these people were of little or no practical help to her. Yet, they did help. They helped by caring about her and acknowledging the validity of her perceptions and fears. [87] Their help gave her the strength to carry on and fight for herself and her children. In short, they empowered her.

Compare this to how the lawyers, psychologists, and judges treated Mary. Their manner was cold, condescending, and downright mean. Even with someone as strong as Mary, they caused her to doubt herself. They were disempowering, even when they gave her substantive help. This happened with her protective order judge, who gave her the order but treated her dismissively. It is a tribute to Mary that she remained resolute enough to resist the double abuse she suffered from both Russ and these "helpers."

Other battered women are not so lucky. As one domestic violence advocate expressed it to me, "The tolerance level for what the system dishes out to victims varies from woman to woman." [88] Some, like Mary, push through it, although not without horrific damage to themselves and their kids. [89] Others give up and return to their batterers discouraged and disempowered. [90]

The depression, guilt, and low self-esteem observed in some battered women are often by-products of the ineffective, disempowering responses from the people to whom victims turn for help. [91] For such women, battered by the system, as well as their partners, it will be harder to escape again, [92] although many do. [93] They reasonably fear the unsympathetic and ignorant attitudes they know they will encounter. [94] Still worse, some women may internalize the demeaning attitudes of others. [95] When this happens, outsiders have played right into the batterer's hands. They have aided and abetted him in blaming the victim, in isolating her, and in impeding her escape. [96]

"Process counts" is an especially hard lesson for lawyers, I think. By training and perhaps predisposition, they are likely to be "bottom line" oriented. [97] Many lawyers pay no attention to how they deliver news, good or bad, to clients. [98] They seem to think process doesn't matter, just results. They assume clients feel the same way.

When I emphasize process, I am not saying that lawyers and other helpers should not be straight with battered women. Because most systems remain unresponsive to domestic violence, [99] even the best lawyer will often have to deliver horrible, scary, dangerous news to victims: "the psychologist is going to recommend that the batterer get custody"; "this judge will not order supervised visitation"; "your ex-husband will not serve any time in jail for his violation of the protective order"; etc. The victim deserves to "hear it like it is" not just as a matter of respect and decency, but to assist her in planning to maximize her own safety and that of her children. [100] Still, how you tell it matters.

E. Do With the Battered Woman, Not To Her

Dr. Flitcraft advises helpers in dealing with women such as Mary to "[d]o with [the battered woman], not to her." [101] What this means is that helpers must work with the battered woman as she makes decisions about her safety and legal options. [102] Outsiders, no matter how knowledgeable or well-meaning, must not impose their will or their ego on her life. [103] They can and should counsel as well as listen, but the battered woman and her needs and desires must be at the forefront. [104]

Obviously, many of Mary's supposed helpers failed on this score. The egocentricity of her lawyers and psychologists is appalling, unprofessional, and, frankly, incompetent. To satisfy their egos, Mary's lawyers talked tough, which scared her. Yet in the end, they did not fight for her when she wanted zealous representation on issues like the pretrial conference and supervised visitation. Ego convinced them that whatever they wanted was best for Mary. This is inappropriate and unethical with any client, [105] but when the client is a battered woman, it is also dangerous. [106] The fact that Mary was treated with such disdain shows how powerful sexism, victim-blaming, and ignorance still are among professionals, both male and female. [107]

Of course we all have egos; I am not suggesting that we can or should do away with them. Nor am I suggesting that lawyers and other professionals cannot exercise their independent judgment in advising and evaluating the situations faced by their battered clients. But the helpers' egos must be kept in their proper place; they should not dominate. The helpers must see the battered woman as the full-fledged human being she is, as someone who deserves to be listened to and taken seriously. Helpers can express their egos by attending to the battered woman and her needs, not riding roughshod over her.

In one area in particular, the helpers should have been more assertive with Mary. They should have addressed safety planning with Mary after she left Russ. As Mary indicated, she had no idea that she might be in danger; she was focused on her kids, not herself. Like many people, she did not know that the most serious abuse often occurs after a woman has left her batterer. [108]

A good lawyer or psychologist would have counseled Mary about safety planning. [109] Without scaring her, he or she could have said, "Listen, I've had a lot of experience with these kinds of cases. I must tell you that often men come after women who've left them. Let's talk about ways you and the children can be safer." Then, the lawyer and Mary could have worked through a safety plan, using questions like those in Appendix C. [110]

Failing to work with the battered woman can be disastrous in many ways. First and foremost, it can endanger her. [111] Battered women are not psychic, but they know their batterers well. They have a good idea of what they need for their safety. [112] Outsiders can err by either pushing too hard or not hard enough. They can compromise the victim's safety either by not taking her demands for protection seriously, or by pushing her to take steps that she thinks are dangerous or premature. [113]

Ego also prevents helpers from seeing the situation accurately. [114] I agree with Mary that her psychologist's ego, first expressed as "we'll kick their ass," naturally succumbed to Russ's charm. When helpers' ego-needs are paramount, helpers are "easy pickings" for batterers. [115]

F. Any "Solution" Not Based on Battered Women's Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure

We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors' stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]

Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women's safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]

Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near-magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper's ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator's. Battered women's expertise does not seem to matter. [122]

Sometimes, it seems that battered women's voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi-respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the "good old days" when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims' lives.

G. Batterers as Rulemakers

The next several sections will examine some ways in which Mary's story illuminates recurring issues in woman abuse.

One telltale sign of abuse that has been largely ignored is what can be called "batterers as rulemakers." [127] In Mary's house, Russ set up many arbitrary, unfair rules, such as what television programs they would watch. This is typical of batterers. [128]

Barbara J. Hart, a leading national expert on domestic violence, notes that "[a]ll [of the batterer's] rules are not equal. Batterers create a hierarchy of rules with a concomitant hierarchy of enforcement measures [i.e., punishment for disobedience of rules]." [129] Hart goes on:

The four rules invariably most important to batterers are the following:

1. You cannot leave this relationship unless I am through with you.

2. You may not tell anyone about my violence or coercive controls.

3. I am entitled to your obedience, service, affection, loyalty, fidelity, and undivided attention.

4. I get to decide which of the other rules are critical. [130]

The reader may be objecting, "But every family needs rules. The alternative is chaos. Children especially need the discipline and predictability that comes from having household rules." Or the reader may be saying, "Hey, my dad expected that dinner would be on the table every night at six and got sort of grumpy when it wasn't. But I didn't consider this part of some battering pattern, and neither did my mom."

As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where "anything goes" and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.

But rules are different in a batterer's house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one-way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.

The rules in a batterer's house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self-image. Batterer's rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim's isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136] Even "little" rules, like "don't play the radio when I'm gone" and "keep the curtain in the kitchen down" are part of an overall pattern of isolation. [137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation.

In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone's needs, but they do not destroy family members' self-esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]

Second, the batterer's list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non-abusive "dinner at six" dad. We have all known non-abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non-abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. "Just feed him on time and he's a happy man" is not something an abused wife would say.

Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non-compliance with rules. [143] The non-abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.

Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: "Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they're not met?" With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter-of-factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]

H. How Physical and Non-Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When Argentinean Generals Do It,
But Not When It's the Guy Next Door?

People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.

Yet, as Mary and other battered women tell their stories, it is clear that the batterer's focus is always on power and control. [149] Physical violence is only one tool he uses to achieve power and control. [150] This point is made most graphically in the "Power and Control" wheel in Power and Control Wheel Appendix D .

Many batterers use physical violence only "as needed" to obtain and retain control. [151] One battered woman, who had experienced relatively little physical violence told me, "Just a little of that stuff goes a long way." [152] It's the credible threat of violence, combined with other coercive techniques that makes for a batterer. [153]

In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones's book Next Time, She'll Be Dead. [155] In the left-hand column are non-physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and catalogued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right-hand column are battered women's descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary's story to what appears in Jones's book.

Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non-physical abuse. When seen in context, a "slap" is not just a "slap"; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer's demands "or else." Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, "you could be next." [159]

We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]

I sometimes think those of us involved in domestic violence focus too heavily on the most violent cases, especially homicides. Of course, cases of extreme violence are important and it is proper to give them a high priority. Plus, the drama of severe injury and death may get the attention of people who would not be touched or spurred to action by Mary's story. [163] But if society is to understand abuse, we must tell the truth. The truth is that many battered women suffer limited, though repeated, physical abuse. [164]

Without an understanding of the power and control dynamics, women like Mary will continue to hear judges, psychologists, and lawyers say, "Okay, he hit her a few times, but it really wasn't that bad. It's ridiculous for her to be so afraid when the last physical violence was more than a year ago. And it's clearly no reason for him not to see or have custody of the kids." [165] And abused women will still be asked ludicrous questions like, "Did he have a playful voice when he warned you that he was going to beat you that night?"

I. Mary Did Not Display "Battered Women's Syndrome";
"Battered Women as Survivor" Is A Better Explanation
of Mary's Responses

Mary's story shows, once again, that "Battered Women's Syndrome," [166] at least as it is classically stated, fails to describe most battered women's experience with abuse. [167]

First and foremost, Mary never experienced the "cycle of violence." [168] Russ was never contrite or loving after a severe beating. He never apologized, and, except for a few presents, acted as if he had done nothing wrong. We now know that the loving and contrite phase is absent in many abusive relationships. [169] In others, it may occur after the first severe battering, but then disappear. [170] Yet some experts in the field continue to push the cycle of violence as an essential element of violent intimate relationships. [171]

Nor did Mary exhibit "learned helplessness." [172] Mary did, however, experience certain elements of post-traumatic stress, such as depression and anxiety. But, like most battered women, Mary's helpseeking efforts increased as the violence escalated. [173] Unlike the dogs in the famous shock experiment, [174] she did not become passive; she did not give up. As one friend of mine in the movement says, "If you buy learned helplessness, then you can't explain all the battered women who escape. If learned helplessness were right, battered women would all stay until they were dead." [175]

There is now ample literature criticizing Battered Women's Syndrome. [176] Yet Battered Women's Syndrome still holds sway in popular publications [177] and legal writings. [178] This may be due to the way "learned helplessness" dovetails into our society's image of women as weak creatures and natural victims. [179] Alternatively, the cause may be Lenore Walker's proficiency in self-promotion. [180]

Yet, there are other, much better theories already out there. The best of these theories recognizes that battered women, like other trauma victims, do not all react the same way. [181] The best theories further emphasize that abuse does not occur in a vacuum. [182] Different women's responses may turn on their own backgrounds, [183] but especially on the response of people from whom they seek help. [184] The indifference, condemnation, and blame they may experience from others (viz. police, judges, lawyers, psychologists) will inevitably influence victims' future actions. [185]

Mary's responses fit well under the "battered woman as a survivor" theory of Edward Gondolf and Ellen Fisher. [186] Gondolf and Fisher suggest that, instead of the psychological paralysis of "learned helplessness," battered women cope valiantly. [187] They deal with their tragic and traumatic circumstances as best they can. [188] Emphasizing context, Gondolf and Fisher point out that women return to their batterers because "help sources" like family, friends, police, social service agencies, and the judiciary are ineffective. [189] They dispute the "learned helplessness" image of a woman cowering in the corner, accepting the blows, and doing nothing. Instead, their research indicates that most victims make repeated and increasing attempts to seek help and escape. [190]

As suggested by the "survivor" theory, Mary made repeated helpseeking attempts. She tried to broach the subject with her doctor. She left Russ, albeit briefly, after the laundry room incident. She continued to seek support from family and friends, even when she did not reveal the abuse. Unlike women who give up when faced with an unspeakably hostile system, Mary continued to fight against Russ's abuse of her and the children. However, even she acknowledges that she came very close to going back to Russ after he won custody of Daniel. It would not have been "learned helplessness" if she had returned. It would have been an understandable, even reasonable, response to the utter failure of the lawyers, judges, and psychologists to act responsibly in the face of Russ's violence.

No theory can fully describe the richness and variety of battered women's responses. [191] But the "survivor" theory describes many women, including Mary, much better than Battered Women's Syndrome.

IV. Questions -- Skeptical and Otherwise -- About Mary's Story

Before closing, I want to briefly address certain questions that I suspect many readers may have about Mary's story and the lessons I have drawn from it. Some of these questions may come from doubters. Such people may be either skeptical in general, or particularly skeptical about my feminist-based lessons. Other questions may come from people who are just learning about the issues.

A. Is Mary a "Typical" Battered Woman?

This is an easy one. There is no such thing as a "typical" battered woman. [192] They come from all socioeconomic, racial and religious backgrounds. [193] Some had happy childhoods, some did not. [194] Some, like Mary, work outside the home, others do not. [195] Some are women who subscribe to traditional gender roles; others have strong feminist beliefs. [196] Some are straight, some are lesbians, some are bisexual. [197] They are, in short, a cross-section of all women.

Equally important, battered women do not react to the abuse -- and society's condemnation of it -- uniformly. [198] Some keep fighting, some go underground to protect themselves and their children, and some give up and return to the batterer. [199] Some have their self-esteem destroyed; [200] others, once safe, quickly rebound. [201]

Of course, there may be some recurring behavioral response patterns. Post-traumatic stress is real. [202] Feelings of depression and self-blame are real. [203]

It is appropriate to devise sensible programs and policies to deal with domestic violence. But in doing so, we should never lose sight of the individual victims and their individual responses. We must stop talking about them and thinking about them as "these women." When we think of them in this matter, we make two mistakes. First, we push them away. When we say "these women," we are saying, "Not me, not anyone I would know." Second, when we say "these women," we are implying that they are all alike, when they are not. [204]

B. Is Russ a "Typical" Batterer?

This is a more difficult question to answer. [205] Batterers do show a lot of commonalities. [206] In particular, they use similar techniques of power and control. [207] Sometimes the stories of how batterers behave seem so similar that victims and advocates may ask themselves, "Do these guys go to some secret batterers' school that we don't know about?"

But, it is not so surprising that we should see the same methods used to maintain power and control over and over. Men are trained in our society to dominate other men, as well as women and children. [208] Further, as the Amnesty International chart shows, [209] torturers throughout history have used similar techniques without going to torturers' school. [210] Human psychology is not that tough. The ways to dominate and brainwash another person are relatively straightforward. They are not hard to figure out, even without attending an official batterers' school. [211]

Additionally, because batterers have an intimate relationship with their victims, power and control are easier. [212] When you are close with someone, you know their soft spots. Every spouse knows how to hurt the other, how to "go for the jugular." This intimacy makes degradation simpler. Loving and caring people simply choose not to say destructive, hurtful things to each other, or at least not too often. Batterers are not necessarily clever; they are just willing to use methods we all have at our disposal.

But, despite their similarities, batterers are not all alike either. [213] They differ in how far they are willing to go to hurt and destroy their victims. [214] When the victim flees, many will pursue her, [215] but others will just move on to another victim. [216] Many will fight for custody of the children, but some will not. [217] They also differ in their inclination to change. [218] A few will work long and hard on their destructive tendencies; they will take responsibility for their past misdeeds and make some real changes. [219] Most, sadly, will not. [220] And, of course, someone like Russ has never been given any incentive to change. Why should he change when he has never been held responsible for his abuse of Mary and the children?

C. Haven't Things Changed a Lot: Would Mary's Story Happen Today?

Some readers may wonder whether Mary's story is "old news." She left Russ more than seven years ago. She lost custody of Daniel more than five years ago. Isn't it all different now?

Society has made miraculous progress on domestic violence over the past several decades. [221] However, there has also been some backlash. [222]

Still, it is slow going. Without question, every element of Mary's story -- the lawyers, the psychologists, the judge -- could happen today and is happening today. [223] Mary herself continues to work on domestic violence issues because she continues to see women suffer in the same system she did. When I talk to women's advocates around the country, they tell me the system may be better here and there, but it still has a long way to go. [224] After all, O.J. Simpson still has custody of his children, [225] although he has been found by clear and convincing evidence to have murdered their mother. [226]

D. Isn't This Story Just About a Few Bad Apples?

Another response to the horrors of Mary's story is to consider the lawyers, psychologists, and judge individual villains. We do this a lot in America. We think all evil comes from individual wrongdoing, not society-wide failures. [227]

Neither Mary nor I excuse the individual ignorance, indifference, and ego of the individual players in her story. But, more is involved here than a few bad apples. "Bad apples" implies that overall, people in these positions understand domestic violence and are doing right by battered women and their children. It further implies that people like these are roundly condemned by their peers.

Sadly, this is not the case. Mary's custody judge is still on the bench, and all the other villains in this story are still working and still highly regarded in the community. [228] Mary's psychologist speaks badly about Mary and HomeSafe, the local domestic violence program. My research reveals no indication that any of the people who wronged Mary have learned from their experience.

E. Why Should I Believe Mary's Story?

This is a legitimate question, and I do not have a slam dunk answer. I did confirm with HomeSafe's Executive Director that Mary's custody judge had an outstanding protective order against him at the time of the custody hearing. Otherwise, I have not confirmed her story.

My best response is, "If you'd heard her tell it, you'd believe it." Or, "If you'd heard as many different battered women tell their stories as I have, you'd start to believe them." I can say that I have heard Mary tell parts of her story to different people, and I think nearly all of them believed her. In American society, we have images of vengeful women inventing or exaggerating abuse, but generally the opposite is true. [229] Mary did not dramatize the abuse; if anything, she understated it.

All I ask for is open-mindedness. I do not ask the reader to accept everything Mary or other women say as the gospel truth, but at least consider the possibility that much -- if not all -- of it is true. Similarly, consider the possibility that there are men who put on a superb show in public, but terrorize their families in private. If people will just listen and dig deeper, I think they will usually find evidence to support abuse allegations. There certainly was plenty of evidence in Mary's case. It came from family, co-workers, even photographs of a destroyed house. All of this evidence supported her claims. The people who did not believe her just did not want to, or did not understand domestic violence.

F. Do You Hear What I Hear? The Danger of Telling Stories

One danger of telling stories is that people will respond based on their own preconceptions of the narrated situation. [230] I fear some readers will focus on questions such as, "Why didn't Mary leave earlier?" or "The key is Russ's drinking. Why didn't you put more emphasis on his alcoholism?" [231]

Obviously, those are not the morals I take away from Mary's story. But, both Mary and I understand we cannot control the reader's response. We think, though, that there are enough people with an open mind and a good will who will say, "Oh, now I understand domestic violence a little better. And, I know a little more how far we still have to go."

V. Conclusion: Why We Must Keep Telling Stories

We must keep telling stories because a battered woman might hear a story similar to her own life and seek help. She might hear, for the first time, she does not deserve the abuse. She might hear she has a chance for a better life for her children and herself. A victim who has received good treatment from the legal system told me, "I want to give women hope." [232] Hope is the reason these stories must be told.

We must keep telling stories because a victim who was not ready to listen yesterday may be ready today, or tomorrow. A battered woman might read about a woman being killed and for the first time say to herself, " That could be me. I need to get out now." Of course, other battered women have been killed, but she was not yet ready to make the connection. [233] Such stories would not have worked for Mary, even after the laundry room beating. But they were important to her a year later when she came to self-identify as an abused woman and left Russ.

Additionally, other people -- students, lawyers, judges, doctors, psychologists -- might resist a battered woman's story at one time but be receptive the next. Why is this? There are many reasons, but people often open their minds after domestic violence touches them personally. [234] For many people, once they hear a story from someone they know and care about, they become more willing to listen to other women's stories. [235] I have seen this happen over and over again. We can never be sure when it will all "click" for a given person. After all, it ultimately "clicked" even for Mary's custody judge. [236]

We can only keep trying. Mary, and many other courageous women like her, will not be silenced. They will keep telling their stories till everyone hears.

APPENDIX A
What to Say (and Not to Say) to a Battered Woman