GOING BEYOND THE GENDER PARADIGM:A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT, FAMILY VIOLENCE,AND FATHERING AFTER SEPARATION: How Does this Apply to NYS?
ABSTRACT
This article focuses on the intersection of interparental conflict, family violence, and
fathering after parental separation. We review key research findings related to this intersection,
including general family violence research, as well as parenting-after-separation-specific family
violence research. We then examine the core components of responsible father involvement in
children’s lives after parental separation, including shared parental responsibility for children, in
light of these findings. Finally, we discuss recommendations for socio-legal reform, as well as for
therapeutic practice, aimed at the reduction of interparental conflict and prevention of family
violence during and after parental separation, to enable fathers to share parental responsibility in
the best interests of children and the post-separation family.
Written by: Edward Andrew Kruk, 2024, AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MALE HEALTH AND STUDIES
NYFFT reaction and take-a-ways:
The themes presented in Mr. Kruk’s latest piece reflect an ongoing battle in updating the opinions, thoughts, policies and laws that continue to produce the oppose to those that hold, “Over the past quarter century, traditional ideas about interparental conflict, family violence and IPV have been scrutinized, leading many to conclude that outdated conceptualizations of IPV are a significant factor in perpetuating the problem of IPV, posing ongoing challenges for effective intervention (Saini et al., 2023; Dutton, 2012; Spencer et al., 2022). Clinging to antiquated ideas such as the gender paradigm of family violence (which posits that IPV is primarily a unidirectional phenomenon involving male perpetrators and female victims, with family violence essentially a patriarchal mechanism of control and superiority), and gender paradigm-based interventions such as the Duluth model of family violence intervention, underscores the need for a radical restructuring of how IPV is addressed in contemporary society (Dutton, 2012; McNeely et al., 2001; Brown, 2004). Further, according to Mills (2009), we must also attend to the “ground zero” of IPV: how personal experiences and projections in regard to family violence affect one’s understanding. In addition, recognizing the systemic roots of IPV and implementing structural reforms are crucial elements in understanding and addressing IPV as a social problem (Russell & Hamel, 2022).
A component of current controversies regarding the adoption of evidence-based approaches to addressing IPV has been the lack of coordination among the disparate social systems involved in the field of family violence, including academicians and legal and mental health professionals, who often find themselves polarized in regard to needed policy reforms and best therapeutic practices (Russel & Hamel, 2022). As the Canadian Research Centre on Family Violence has asserted, the key to reducing and working toward the elimination of IPV is to address the issue openly and directly (Gill, 2006). Open dialogue is critical toward achievement of the goals of reduction of interparental conflict and the prevention of family violence in all its forms, particularly IPV in the context of parental separation and the living arrangements of children in these situations (International Council on Shared Parenting, 2020).” Kurk, 2024.
Within the context of “protection” and reform measures, the ongoing misuse of gender in the family court environment is prolonging any improvements to decrease IPV cases and child abuse frequency. Our board has acknowledged this issue, and have taken great risks to our professional reputations to educate law makers in Albany, NY to see the science behind family conflict; to remove the proven biases against fathers, and to put forward REAL family law reform polices. Kruk allows us to provide yet, another piece of common sense literature where he systematically removes the rose colored glasses from the viewing of domestic violence. The studies, peer reviewed journals, blogs, opinions of professionals in family science, advocacy and more all agree that the measuring of IPV and family violence must move forward with equity at the forefront.
Kruk also suggest 7 directions to overcome the impasse:
1. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INTERPARENTAL CONFLICT AND FAMILY VIOLENCE/IPV
2. IN REGARD TO FAMILY VIOLENCE/IPV, THE GENDER PARADIGM HAS BEEN LARGELY REFUTED; MEN AND WOMEN ARE BOTH PERPETRATORS AND VICTIMS OF IPV AT SIMILAR RATES
3. MOST IPV IS RECIPROCAL ABUSE RATHER THAN UNIDIRECTIONAL VIOLENCE, AND SITUATIONAL RATHER THAN REFLECTING A CYCLE OF COERCIVE CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR
4. THERE ARE DIFFERENT FORMS OF IPV, ACROSS A WIDE SPECTRUM, AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SEVERITY OF IPV
5. PARENTAL ALIENATION IS A WIDESPREAD AND OFTEN OVERLOOKED FORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE AND IPV.
6. BATTERER INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ARE LARGELY INEFFECTIVE, AND MOST IPV TRAINING AND INTERVENTION MODELS ARE OUTDATED.
7. PREVENTION IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF IPV AND FAMILY VIOLENCE.
We can no longer cater to the few or the outliners when seeking reform policies. Harden laws and policies must be passed in reforming our current Family Court Act/Domestic Relations Law (DRL. Sec. 240) in New York State, while backed by science; not emotions or underhanded agendas to foster authority. We share the opinion from Kruk, that in most cases, initial acts ,or increased risks of violence are caused by the high-conflict adversarial approach currently witnessed in family court proceedings and that no history of IPV or family violence have been noted prior to court proceedings. NYFFT stands on that finding, and has been promoting this opinion for years in our advocacy efforts. We also agree, that conflict during divorce or separation is common and part of the normal human emotion scale. Without proven beyond a doubt, or ongoing evidence by ways of police reports, doctors visits, family and friend testimony; there is no scientifically proven reason to withhold child(ren) from a parent during custody hearings.
Proven, scientific reform is long overdo in family court(s). New York State has had a common sense shared parenting bill entered for over 10 years. Year after year, our arguments only get stronger, with science backing many of the components of our bills. Now is the time to lean on experts, science, future therapeutic advances and fix our broken family system for the betterment of millions of children througout New York State.
To read the full piece by Edward Kurk, clink HERE
Edward Kruk is Associate Professor Emeritus of Social Work at the University of British Columbia, specializing in child and family policy. As a child and family social worker in Canada and the U.K., he has practiced in the fields of welfare rights, child protection, school social work, hospital social work, and family services. He is currently teaching and practicing in the areas of family mediation and addiction.
MORE
