Safe and Together

Shifting the paradigm where domestic violence, child maltreatment and child welfare meet

Stories from the 2010 Florida Dependency Summit

Aug 31

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Florida, Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

I attended the 2010 Florida Dependency Summit and, along with David Mandel and Bridget Reilly, met with various leadership staff from DCF and other agencies that’ve been trained in the Safe and Together model. There were excellent stories from these sites about their implementation, the changes in practice and case outcomes.

Workers and managers alike shared stories about the success for families of the implementation of the Safe and Together model. There were stories about how workers had begun intervening with domestic violence perpetrators to reduce the risk to children. There were stories about children who did not have to be removed from their mothers’ care because of assessing survivors’ strengths. In addition, managers talked about how their workers trained in Safe and Together advocated for maintaining children in the care of domestic violence survivors when other staff (not trained in the model) suggested removal. There were stories about how the assessment skills learned in the Safe and Together training helped DCF maintain the safety of children in cases that had the potential to end tragically.

Here are some of those stories:

  • Several managers discussed their strategies for implementing the Safe and Together model. In Jacksonville, FL, they’ve brought in David Mandel &Associates for additional training for their staff and they do monthly meetings of staff trained in the Safe and Together model to discuss cases and the adherence to the model.
  • In Monroe County, the community based care providers began reviewing all case plans and safety plans to ensure that the language of these documents was in line with the principles of the Safe and Together model. They found that many case plans asked domestic violence survivors to end their partner’s abuse (over which survivors have no control) and made changes to how staff writes these plans to avoid putting the responsibility on survivors to end their partner’s abusive behaviors.
  • One attorney discussed a situation in which they reopened a case that was about to end in the termination of parental rights of a mother. When examining the case it was clear that the mother was a survivor of domestic violence and she’d been alienated from the children by her batterer’s family. By reexamining the case through the Safe and Together lens, DCF was able to reopen the case and establish visitation between the children and their mother to support the healing nature of that relationship and their bond for the sake of the children.
  • One manager discussed a tragic case in which historically DCF would have been very “hard” on the domestic violence survivor. Instead, however, a supervisor trained in Safe and Together partnered with the client and was able to learn important assessment information, safety planning information and information that will shape the case plan to protect the child in the future.
  • And finally, a manager and an attorney discussed a case in which the Safe and Together training and the direct case consultation by Bridget Reilly led to the attorney returning to court and amending the case plan to put in interventions for the batterer who was not biologically related to the child in the home. These interventions were a unique approach that can work to protect the child in the future and to support the domestic violence survivor in caring for her child.

There were many success stories that we heard while at the Summit. The entire experience was, honestly, inspiring for me. To hear the stories of good practice and to think how many children have already been kept safe and their well-being accounted for is more than exciting, it’s heartwarming. It was encouraging and informative for me to also hear the creative and innovative ways in which Safe and Together Florida sites have strategized to maintain the momentum of the Safe and Together training as well as find ways to monitor the implementation and ongoing practice.  It supports my confidence that our collective work is really benefiting families and maintaining the safety and well-being of children every day.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments

Florida DCF removes takes steps to stop “failure to protect” allegations against domestic violence survivors

Aug 12

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

The Orlando (FL) Sentinel recently published an article entitled “DCF officials changing the way they assess “failure to protect” cases: Advocates for battered women praise new direction child welfare agency is taking.” The article, which highlighted a recent serious assault by a father against the mother of his children,  focused on the changes the Florida Department of Children and Families is making to its response to domestic violence.   As of June 1st, 2010 the Department’s Hotline is no longer able to allege “failure to protect” against domestic violence survivors in reports taken in domestic violence cases.  “Failure to protect” against a domestic violence survivor can only be alleged after a child welfare investigation is initiated and even then the investigator is required to get a legal consultation before he or she is able to allege “failure to protect” against a domestic violence survivor.  David Mandel & Associates, as part of their Safe and Together consultation and training work in Florida,  provided support and input into the review of the Hotline procedures related to domestic violence cases.  The hope is that this change will lead to less removals of children from domestic violence survivors without a reduction in child safety.  And because it will reduce the likelihood of domestic violence survivors suffering the loss of their children due to their partners’ behaviors,  it is also believed that it will lead to greater openness on the part of survivors and their advocates to collaborate with child welfare. As Alan Abramowitz, the DCF Family Safety Program Office State Director said in the Sentinel article “We are hoping that removing children because of a ‘failure to protect’ will be rare or in very unique cases.”

No Comments

Adult Probation has an important role to play in child welfare

Aug 12

Posted by David Mandel in Batterers as Fathers, Children Exposed to Batterer Behavior

by David Mandel

Dr. Katreena Scott (recently returned from supporting the implementation of her Caring Dads curriculum in the UK) shared with me a comprehensive UK statutory guide on inter-agency child welfare collaboration.   Browsing the document I was struck by this item: “Probation services supervise offenders with the aim of reducing re-offending and protecting the public. By working with offenders who are parents/carers, Offender Managers can safeguard and promote the welfare of children.  Probation areas/Trusts will also…ensure support for victims, and indirectly children in the family, of convicted perpetrators of domestic abuse participating in accredited domestic abuse programmes.” (p. 10).

I really like the clear and simple identification that Adult Probation has a role to play in the welfare of children.   In the US, I would love to see more  attention paid by Adult Probation to domestic violence perpetrators as parents, and more collaboration in the US between child welfare and Adult Probation around the safety and well-being of children in domestic violence cases.

No Comments

One dimensional view of domestic violence perpetrators can harm survivors

Aug 4

Posted by David Mandel in Batterers as Fathers, Domestic Violence Survivors

David Mandel, MA, LPC

It’s difficult not to demonize domestic violence perpetrators.   If you listen to domestic violence survivors describe their abuse, see their injuries, read police reports of violence and abuse, or  even read news reports of  extreme abuse, it’s very human to  be horrified. It’s also very human to feel anger, even hatred, towards the perpetrator.

Often this anger, hatred and horror makes it challenging for us to see that some domestic violence perpetrators have some positive traits.    So why should we bother understanding that perpetrators may have positive interactions with their families?  Why extend ourselves towards someone who has caused others harm and suffering?   The principle reason to cultivate the awareness that many perpetrators  can have positive traits is to be the best possible allies to domestic violence survivors and their children.

A one dimensional perspective of perpetrators can rebound against domestic violence survivors in the form of judgment and blame.   We frequently hear people say “How can she stay with him when he treats her like that?”  “What’s wrong with her?” A one dimensional view of the perpetrator does injustice to the complex mix of feelings that domestic violence survivors and their children have towards a person who is not just a perpetrator of abuse but also a husband and father.  When we ignore how he is involved in the children’s soccer practice, how he takes care of the car and the house, or helps the children with homework, then we miss a critical part of the survivor and her children’s experience of him.  And in missing this part of their experience, we can miss opportunities to support them sorting out their ambivalence (“I really appreciate the way he’s supports the kids in sports but I can’t tolerate the way he treats me.”).  We can also miss opportunities to help children sort out conflicting feelings about their parent. (“I love my father but I don’t like the way he treats Mommy.”)   Finally we may end up putting up unnecessary obstacles to  partnering with survivors around the safety of their children.

Our ability to see domestic violence perpetrators as multi-dimensional is part of  the foundation for positive interactions with domestic violence survivors.   When we acknowledge her love for her partner and we can support her in her right to be safe from abuse and violence–when we communicate to her that we will not judgment her for still having feelings for her partner—-then we are more likely to create constructive partnerships with domestic violence survivors.

No Comments

Creativity Aids in the Application of the Safe and Together Model

Aug 4

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

In order to maintain the safety and well-being of children with limited resources and  following policies and statutes which weren’t necessarily developed with domestic violence cases in mind, child welfare workers need to be creative or think outside the box.   This skill can assist child welfare workers in their application of the Safe and Together model . Workers committed to intervening with perpetrators and partnering with survivors can develop innovative strategies to achieve child safety.  In recent months, I’ve seen this creativity in action in several states currently using the Safe and Together model.

In Florida, attorneys recommended keeping domestic violence survivors’ safety planning information and confidential disclosures separate from the rest of the case record. This is a creative solution to an issue of survivors’ disclosures being provided to batterers in case plans. Because of the work of this group of attorneys, their colleagues along with case managers and supervisors now have better resources for maintaining the confidentiality of survivors which can directly enhance the safety of children.

In Ohio, a child welfare manager discussed ways to create separate case plans for domestic violence survivors and perpetrators. Currently, families receive one case plan which creates expectations of survivors to end the domestic violence. Because domestic violence survivors do not have the power to change the perpetrators’ behaviors, these plans are inaccurate and set up survivors to fail if their partners choose to continue behaving in an abusive manner. The proposed changes are a creative way to ensure that domestic violence perpetrators are clear on the expectations set for them as well as ensuring survivors are not given the responsibility for ending his abuse. Beyond that, this change can be a creative way of enhancing the children’s safety by ensuring that perpetrators don’t have access to interfering with survivors’ case plans.

In Connecticut, the Department of Children and Families (DCF) has found ways to use the criminal justice system to intervene with perpetrators or find other ways (including subpoenaing perpetrators who are not biologically related to children to juvenile court proceedings or testifying in family court on behalf of the safety needs of the children). These interventions allows DCF to connect perpetrators to services or have court orders in place that assisted in protecting children. In addition, there have been numerous examples of how DCF has partnered with survivors to find creative ways to get children into treatment, to use resources and kin networks to maintain safety for children in the care of the domestic violence survivor.

In each of the above cases, child welfare professionals made significant advances in the practice of partnering with survivors or intervening with perpetrators without having to resort to changes in policy or statute.    So I pose the following questions to the child welfare professions reading this blog: What kind of changes can you make in your practice or the practice of your staff today that will lead to stronger partnerships with domestic violence survivors and/or stronger interventions with perpetrators?  What out-of-the-box actions can you take today that will enhance child safety and well being in cases where domestic violence is a factor?  You don’t need to wait for policy or statues to change in order to make real changes that lead to real improvements in safety and well being.

Tags: , , , , ,

No Comments

The language of child safety

Mar 10

Posted by David Mandel in Children Exposed to Batterer Behavior, Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

Professionals who work in the domestic violence and child welfare fields use language that others outside these fields may find unusual. Terms such as fatality, safety planning, imminency, order of protection, and many others are common in our conversations but are not always common for others outside our professions. Although professionals in both fields use the same terms, the words may have slightly different meanings whether you’re working in child welfare or if you’re working in the domestic violence field.   This was apparent to me during a recent training I facilitated that was attended by domestic violence advocates and child welfare staff.

Safety planning, for example, in the domestic violence field is about planning with a battered woman based on her experience and needs with her input. Within a framework of “woman defined advocacy,” domestic violence advocates work with their clients to strengthen plans the client has already enacted and provide her with information to broaden her options. Domestic violence advocates safety plan with clients who choose to stay with the batterer and those who choose to leave. Its hallmark is the collaboration between the advocate and the survivor that prioritizes the adult survivor’s right to make her decisions and the centrality of the wisdom gleaned from her experience of the batterer and her situation.

For child welfare workers, safety planning means something significantly different. Child welfare workers regularly use the term “safety planning” to mean the process for developing a plan for keeping children safe from the risk factors in the home. A safety plan for child welfare often involves a parent agreeing to engage in steps to ensure child safety. These steps could involve attending substance abuse treatment, leaving the home, or to ensuring a child is safely sleeping without hazards. Child welfare safety plans may include language about domestic violence but this will rarely be the only item written down as a task or goal for a parent.   Even when domestic violence is included in a child welfare safety plan, it is singularly focused on creating conditions related to the safety of the child.

Because of this difference, along with the many other terms that both professional fields use with slightly different meaning, domestic violence advocates and child welfare workers can believe they’re on the same page when they are not. This can lead to confusion and tensions between the fields. In the training I recently facilitated, advocates and child welfare staff had an open discussion about the barriers to their communication, including differences in the meaning of terms. It was a frank and important discussion to address and move past these barriers to improve communication. Throughout the training, the participants worked at defining their terms and using the Safe and Together model as  a framework and common language for collaborative conversations focused on the safety and well-being of children and their mothers. It is useful for domestic violence advocates to articulate the importance of child safety to working towards safety and empowerment for domestic violence survivors. It would also be helpful for child welfare to work towards the safety of adults as part of their safety planning for children.

With such alignment around ending violence and keeping children safe, domestic violence advocates and child welfare workers should be natural allies. There are, however, tensions at times between the fields. By talking openly about these tensions and finding common ground and common purpose (at times through a mutually understood language), I believe that domestic violence and child welfare fields working together will only improve the outcomes for families. In areas where there is good partnership between advocates and child welfare, I have seen extraordinary collaborative efforts that have led to safe outcomes for children while they can remain in the care of the non-offending parent.  I am also excited to see efforts to improve collaboration in various locations throughout the country as I believe it will only lead to improved outcomes for battered women and their children. This can be accomplished in various ways, but it is an important step for advocates and child welfare alike to learn about each other’s positions, missions and the language each field uses to discuss the safety of children and their mothers.

Tags: ,

No Comments

10 item checklist about the intersection of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues

Mar 9

Posted by David Mandel in Children Exposed to Batterer Behavior, Safe and Together Model, Trauma Exposure Reaction

by David Mandel, MA, LPC

Domestic violence frequently co-occurs with mental health and substance abuse issues.   A batterer may be diagnosed correctly or inappropriately with mental health issues.  A domestic violence survivor may also have a substance abuse problem.  A child who has been exposed to batterer’s behaviors may have mental or behavioral health issues. Frequently our response to these issues are “siloed,” meaning we prioritize one over the other or even completely ignore one issue to focus on another.  For instance substance abuse and mental health counselors may not screen for domestic violence or if domestic violence perpetration  is identified as an issue it may seen as a symptom of the substance abuse.  A survivor’s recovery plan may be developed without consideration of how the perpetrator might try to sabotage her recovery.   Or a child’s behavioral health issues are not evaluated in the context of historic and current domestic violence.

The following is a 1o item checklist to help begin the conversation about the intersection of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health issues.  I share this list with the idea that raising our awareness by asking questions about the connection between different issues can be huge step forward in our ability to help families.

  1. What is the relationship between domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health issues?
  2. How have the batterer’s behavior created or exacerbated mental health/behavioral health and/or substance abuse issues for the adult survivor and/or child?
  3. What is the relationship between the batterer’s abusive behavior and any of his mental health and/or substance abuse issues?
  4. How is the batterer interfering with/supporting the treatment and recovery of family members?
  5. How are family members more vulnerable to the batterer because of their mental health and/or substance abuse issues?
  6. How is child welfare and others assessing for domestic violence when the presenting issue is adult or child behavioral/mental health/ substance abuse?
  7. What are important case or treatment plan steps when domestic violence is co-occurring with substance abuse and/or mental health issues?
  8. What are skill level/policy/practices of substance abuse and mental service providers regarding assessing for domestic violence, safety planning and the integration of co-occurring issues into their treatment plan?
  9. What information do mental health and substance treatment providers have access to regarding the domestic violence?
  10. What is the training and skill level of mental health or substance abuse evaluators/assessors regarding domestic violence in general and more specifically regarding the co-occurrence of domestic violence with substance abuse and/or mental health issues?

Tags: , , ,

1 Comment

Daycare providers as an example of who else should be at our collaborative “table”

Jan 27

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

By Kristen Selleck, MSW

National Training and Consultation Director

I recently facilitated a training attended by child welfare investigators, family preservation and other in-home service providers, domestic violence advocates, and day care providers who work with child welfare involved clients. The varied group of professionals in this training led me to think about the importance of including less conventional community partners in our domestic violence-child welfare collaborations.

Hearing the experiences and needs of daycare providers within this group led me to reflect upon the numerous professionals who have regular contact with children but are not regularly working with child welfare; these professionals can be allies in working toward the safety and well-being of children. Teachers, coaches, clergy members and religious educators, school administrators, doctors, nurses, daycare providers, therapists and counselors, bus drivers, guidance counselors, mentors, and others work with children on a daily basis; it is uncommon for many of these community partners to be involved in training together with child welfare staff to develop a shared language for the critical discussion about child safety and well-being. Vitally important in the day-to-day lives of children, these professionals provide and ensure children’s heath, routine, structure, social development, education or developmentally appropriate play. For a child exposed to a domestic violence perpetrator’s behavior, these things can assist a child in healing. However, in the child welfare and domestic violence fields, we rarely take the opportunity to collaborate with these other professionals who spend significant time with children on a regular basis.

Collaboration with others in children’s daily lives would require some cross training. Child welfare and domestic violence agencies could learn about the structure of different professionals’ capacities and obligations for their work with children. Additionally, child welfare and domestic violence professionals could educate these providers about indicators of exposure to domestic violence as well as ways to provide for the needs of children to have safety, stability and an opportunity to talk about their experiences.

In the recent training I facilitated, the presence of daycare providers working with child welfare involved children was beneficial to them and to the group as a whole. As the entire group learned about the Safe and Together model, the day care providers in the room were able to discuss with the group their observations about how children were impacted by domestic violence and begin to formulate ideas about how to improve their own responses to children; this information was useful to child welfare staff in thinking about how to gather information for their documentation about the children on their case loads.

As a result of this training, relationships were formed that hopefully will lead to improved collaboration, communication, and practice. By regularly communicating about the children (their needs, their behaviors, and their comments), child welfare and community providers can continue to monitor the behaviors of perpetrators of domestic violence as well as the impact of that battering on children. In addition, input from community providers can assist child welfare staff in learning about the strengths of non-offending parents through information about their actions to protect and provide for routine and stability for children. With more information, child welfare workers and management can make better educated decisions about their case plans and the needs of the children on their caseloads. This training opened my eyes about community partners I personally had not thought about engaging with through the Safe and Together model. Going forward in my work I know that I will be asking questions about the inclusion of child care providers and other unconventional partners in communities’ efforts to address the needs of families impacted by domestic violence perpetrators.

No Comments

Preventing disclosures of abuse and neglect

Jan 20

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

By David Mandel

By now,  everyone is clear about  how damaging, counterproductive and dangerous it is when law enforcement officers tell a domestic violence violence survivor that any new reports of violence will lead to the arrest of both herself and her partner.  While this is not a sanctioned practiced, some domestic violence survivors report that this is what she was directly told or that it was implied through the interaction with law enforcement. For folks who aren’t clear about the downside to this practice:  it blames the survivor for the violence;  it adds, for the survivor, the threat of arrest and incarceration to the existing danger posed by the perpetrator; and makes the survivor more vulnerable because of the barrier it represents to help seeking.

There are parallels to this situation in child welfare. The following are similar actions:

  1. Asking a domestic violence survivor to sign a case plan that includes a condition of  “No further engagement in  violence in the home.”
  2. Workers directly stating or suggesting that if there is any more violence will summarily lead to more aggressive steps being taken, e.g. filing a petition or removal of a child.
  3. Not clarifying to a domestic violence survivor (and the perpetrator) the child welfare agency’s expectations and likely responses to new incidents of violence including the ways the agency could helpful and supportive to the survivor and her child if new violence was reported.

These actions, like those of law enforcement, can prevent disclosure of  new incidents of abuse and/or neglect;  increase the vulnerability of domestic violence survivors and their children; give perpetrators more power; decrease the flow of information on risk and safety factors to outsiders including child welfare; further isolate a survivor and her children from their support system; and ultimately impede the development of effective plans or timely interventions.

The interests of domestic violence survivors and child welfare are, in my opinion, highly consistent with one another.  Both the survivor and child welfare are interested in seeing the domestic violence stop and seeing the survivor’s child safe and well.  These common interests can form the basis of partnership and collaborative planning. And one of the principle steps to creating an effective partnership with the domestic violence survivor  removing barriers to that partnership while taking practice and policy positions that encourage collaboration.

A collaborative approach to domestic violence survivors is characterized by the following:

  1. Child welfare clearly explaining their approach to domestic violence issues to the survivor.  This approach starts with child welfare specifically articulating that it sees the perpetrator as responsible for causing the violence and being the source of the harm to the children. It is also includes stating that child welfare wants to partner with the survivor around the safety and well being of the children and intervene with the perpetrator to reduce is harmful impact on the family.
  2. Child welfare actively seeking to understand the domestic violence survivor’s strengths including the actions she takes on a daily basis to maintain her children’s  safety, stability and well being.  This includes understanding what she does to maintain their basic needs.
  3. The collaborative development of a safety plan for the children that fits with the perpetrator’s patterns, the survivor’s resources and can be documented by child welfare.
  4. Validation, by child welfare, of the survivor’s strengths (which does not preclude expressing concerns about the perpetrator’s danger to the survivor and the children or asking the survivor to agree to certain jointly identified steps to improve the safety and well being of the child.)
  5. Child welfare taking other active steps to be an ally and a support to the domestic violence survivor and her children.  This can include helping her with housing, other basic needs for herself and her children, helping overcome barriers to assistance and so on.

Domestic violence survivors are assessing outsiders through the lens:  “Are you going to make things better or worse for me and my children?  When child welfare takes the steps like the ones outlined above, they demonstrate to domestic violence survivors (and their advocates) that they understand her experience, that they won’t blame her for the perpetrator’s actions and that they will actively partner with her in practical, concrete and useful ways around the safety and well being of the children.   These steps can lead to more information about what is happening in the home and the development of more efficient, effective case plans.  This collaborative approach can ultimately pay huge dividends for child welfare and for families in the form of increased safety and well-being.

1 Comment

Paying attention to worker safety in domestic violence cases

Jan 11

Posted by David Mandel in Safe and Together Model

by Kristen Selleck, MSW, National Training and Consultation Director

Successful child welfare interventions with families experiencing domestic violence depends on child welfare staff feeling confident, competent, and comfortable in working with situations where violence is a possibility. As part of our Safe and Together model we discuss safety concerns and safety measures taken by child welfare workers during the course of their daily tasks.

For example, worker safety needs to be considered when engaging and interviewing a perpetrator. The assessment of worker’s safety begins with seeking all available knowledge about the batterer’s specific tactics (his use of violence, threats and his potential actions towards escalation) and risk factors (possession of weapon, criminal record, past attempts or acts of aggression towards police or child welfare among others) prior to interviewing domestic violence perpetrators. While we know that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators will pose no physical harm towards child welfare workers, it is important to recognize that, despite this low occurrence of incidents, many workers have fear and worry at times when interviewing perpetrators of domestic violence. These fears can be about their own safety or fears that the intervention will trigger harm to the family members.

When I was a domestic violence victim advocate, clients spoke about their instinctive awareness of a batterer’s escalation. Numerous clients could identify key signals that their abuser was working himself up towards choosing to be violent. Battered women’s instincts were important to their ability to safety plan.  This is true for child welfare workers whose instincts are shaped and enhanced by their training, their supervision and their use of consultation.

I recently sat in on an interview of a domestic violence perpetrator by a child protective investigator in which the client was visibly agitated and fixated on the investigator’s ability (or lack thereof) to allow him to see his children despite the presence of a court order barring him from seeing his children. When the investigator appropriately explained her inability to change a judge’s order, the client became increasingly agitated and aggressive before finally stating that he wanted to harm someone. My instincts told me that the investigator and I were in physical danger and I repeatedly motioned to the investigator that we needed to end the interview. The investigator continued her interview until I stated that we had to leave. After we safely were out of the situation, I asked this investigator, for whom I have utmost respect, why she did not end the interview. She stated that she did not want her supervisor to be angry that she had not collected all of the information she was required to obtain.

Child welfare workers have incredibly difficult jobs with high levels of potential risk; much like firefighters walking into a burning building, child welfare workers walk into homes and situations that most people would turn away from. It is the job of a child welfare worker to go into volatile homes without armor, weaponry, badges or even hazardous duty pay. They face strict time frames and expectations of their duties and at times what falls by the wayside is their ability to take the time to trust their own instincts and walk away from a potentially dangerous situation.  While workers understand this risk and do their jobs despite it, it is important to recognize the tension between meeting the needs of a job and maintaining one’s safety.

It is important for child welfare supervisors, managers and consultants to allow for ongoing conversations about their workers’ anxieties and worries. These conversations will increase the likelihood that workers will use their instincts and make decisions based on those instincts rather than on a blanket anxiety that doesn’t account for the specific risk posed by any particular domestic violence perpetrator.

Here are some tips for workers and their supervisors to think about related to assessing worker safety related to going into homes with domestic violence:

  1. Worker should seek out information on related to the perpetrator’s dangerousness from multiple sources including criminal record, child welfare case records, and interviews with family members and collaterals.
  2. It is especially useful for workers to ask the domestic violence survivor how she believes the perpetrator will respond to the presence of child welfare.
  3. It is helpful for workers to understand the warning signs of high-risk or dangerous situations including perpetrators who have a history of assaultive and/or threatening behaviors to non-family members.  Especial attention should be paid to perpetrators who have history of assaultive and/or threatening behavior to law enforcement, child welfare and/or other authority figures.
  4. To actively seek out information regarding perpetrator access to or a history of weapon possession.
  5. Workers who are aware of potentially dangerous clients may feel more comfortable interviewing perpetrators in safe locations, such as courts, police departments or in the child welfare office.
  6. Child welfare staff should also have the opportunity to process their fears and concerns with their supervisors and learn about de-escalation tactics to assist them in their interviews with potentially dangerous domestic violence perpetrators.
  7. Cases involving high risk perpetrators can often benefit from being teamed with in a multi-disciplinary setting that includes law enforcement, child welfare and others.

Tags: , , , ,

No Comments