I hadn’t realized how many assumptions I had before going into a training on the relationship between Domestic Violence and Substance abuse. Although the correlations between the two have been in the back of my mind, the real dynamic of working with these clients became very real to me. Most people look at Domestic Violence as a form of anger, and routinely refer clients to anger management treatment in order to control the problem. What was one of the most interesting pieces of this course was the distinction that was made between Anger Management and Domestic Violence.
Does Domestic Violence happen at times out of anger? Sure, but it is not an anger management issue because domestic violence is demonstrating choice and control in their target. True anger management would occur at any time towards anybody; the mailman, your boss, the policeman. When it shows itself to be directed at one person, usually a spouse or family members, the person is showing an ability to control themselves…this is not congruent with normal anger. The second distinction is that in most anger management courses, anger is taught to be “ok” and “acceptable” so long as it is expressed in an appropriate way. Also not true for domestic violence. Domestic Violence is never ok, nor acceptable, and what the batterers need to learn is that violence, be it verbal, financial, physical or sexual, is never ok, we must never allow it to be acceptable.
Many of us deal with or will deal with abuse, abusers and anger during our careers. Although we take no official oath, our main goal will always be to first do no harm. What we don’t always realize is the harm that we can do through our own ignorance. Many, including our presenter on this topic spoke about how our first reaction to domestic violence is to get them out, or send them to couples counseling. What we forget is that the most dangerous period of time for those being abused is when they try to leave. And that couples counseling is contraindicated for abusive couples. So our interventions must always reflect the population we are working with, and to fall short of that is to put our charges in harm’s way.
Now a piece of policy change on the subject. As of 2013, all those doing a specialization in substance abuse will now need to also complete an amount of trainings for domestic violence as well. We have realized that there is a connection, despite that one cannot be responsible for causing another. Just remember, our commitment to continuing education is what makes us competent in our profession. It might be the single greatest responsibility we have.
Our authors want to hear from you! Click to leave a comment
Related Posts
I’m really glad you addressed this Matt. The other piece to be aware of is that anger management is often ordered in family court proceeding without any psychological testing and anger management is ineffective and contraindicated for narcissistic, sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies and may in fact exacerbate violent and abusive behavior. The abuser goes to the prescribed number of meetings, gets a certificate, and appeases the court, and the victim thinks this may be a helpful remedy. However this remedy, like many others, is a Band Aide and does not address the underlying issues, and leaves the vicitim at a disadvantage giving a false sense of security that this will be helpful. It offers no real protection to the abuse victim(s). What I’d like to see is trainings on Narcissism and psychopathy in Substance Abuse, Family Court, Domestic Violence, and Child Welfare…if we don’t address the underlying issue, we are giving the illusion of help while allowing the harmful behaviors to continue unchecked by failing to acknowledge the real issue.
Domestic Violence is about power and control. Whether the underlying issues are communication failures, or psychopathology should define treatment protocols. The article link is a good overview and speaks to areas that need further study: “The importance of psychopathy as a risk factor in risk assessment has been well established across a variety of samples and institutional types (Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thorton, 2000). In their meta-analysis, Salekin, Rogers, and Sewell (1996) noted that use of the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), which resulted in a determination of psychopathy to predict violence, was “unparalleled” and “unprecedented” in the risk assessment literature. In our discussion of psychopathy, we are keenly aware that many incorrectly equate the term psychopathy with antisocial personality disorder.” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J146v13n01_04
What’s up mates, its great paragraph on the topic of
cultureand entirely defined, keep it up all the
time.