The Myth of the Domestic Violence Incident: Embracing a Pattern-Based Approach

By David Mandel, CEO and Founder, Safe & Together Institute 

In my book Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence, I dedicate an entire chapter to exploring the myth of the domestic violence incident. This concept, deeply ingrained in many of our systems, has been holding us back from truly serving adult and child survivors while effectively holding perpetrators accountable. 

As professionals dedicated to addressing domestic violence across various sectors, we’ve certainly made progress. But despite all our efforts, the current approach, often centered on the “domestic violence incident,” is falling short. It’s time we take a hard look at this myth and its implications.

The Incident-Based Paradigm

The incident-based paradigm is the dominant one in many systems and, on the surface, might seem straightforward, but it’s like trying to understand a novel by reading a single page. By focusing primarily on discrete acts of physical violence, we're missing the plot:

1. The pervasive nature of coercive control

2. The full impact on children beyond “witnessing” violence

3. The critical role of perpetrators as parents

4. The diverse cultural contexts in which abuse occurs

In this way, the myth of the domestic violence incident suggests that our focus on physical violence is the best guide for our policy and practice—which it isn’t. When we privilege a focus on physical violence, we often end up out of alignment with the lived experience of survivors and often make our work as professionals unnecessarily harder. 

Research backs this up. Evan Stark's groundbreaking work on coercive control shows that an incident-based approach fails to capture the ongoing patterns that characterize many abusive relationships. We’re not just dealing with isolated explosions of violence—we’re facing a constant, oppressive environment of control and fear.

Moving Toward a Pattern-Based Approach

So, what’s the alternative? I’ve been advocating for a coercive control pattern-based approach for years, and here’s why it’s a game-changer:

1. Common Language: It gives professionals across diverse systems—from child protection and healthcare to education and law enforcement—a shared vocabulary. No more talking past each other.

2. Improved Coordination: With a common framework, different agencies can actually work together effectively. Imagine that!

3. Holistic Understanding: We capture the full spectrum of abusive behaviors, including the non-physical forms of control that can be just as damaging.

4. Child-Centered Focus: We get a clearer picture of how perpetrators’ behaviors impact children, both directly and indirectly.

5. Cultural Competence: This approach is flexible enough to recognize how abuse manifests in diverse cultural contexts.

6. Context for Understanding Survivors’ Decision-Making: When we consider domestic abuse from the angle of coercive control, we have a much better chance of understanding why survivors make the choices they make. 

Potential Beyond the Incident-Based Paradigm

I’m not alone in seeing the potential here. Professor Cathy Humphreys and her colleagues have been doing fantastic work demonstrating the effectiveness of the Safe & Together Model in providing this common language and framework. Their PATRICIA Project found that the Model “provided a common language and approach to DFV [domestic and family violence] across the participating organizations.” This shared understanding led to better collaboration and more effective interventions.

And it’s not just academics taking notice. England, Scotland, and parts of Australia, like Queensland, are already incorporating coercive control into their legal frameworks. Others are following suit. This is more than a trend—it’s a recognition that our old ways of thinking just aren’t cutting it.

At the Safe & Together Institute, we've been applying this framework for nearly two decades. We’ve seen firsthand how it can transform practice across diverse situations and systems. Humphreys’ STACY Project further confirmed this, finding that our Model provided “a practice framework which supported work at the intersections of DFV, child abuse and neglect, and parental issues of mental health and alcohol and other drugs.” In other words, it’s bridging gaps between different service sectors and providing a unified approach to complex cases.

Reimagining Our Response

This shift isn’t just about changing our language—it’s about fundamentally reimagining how we respond to domestic abuse across all systems. Imagine a response that:

• Recognizes patterns of behavior rather than isolated incidents

• Addresses the full spectrum of harm to children, including direct abuse and neglect

• Holds perpetrators accountable as parents, not just as offenders

• Acknowledges and responds to the intersectionality of domestic abuse with race, culture, and socioeconomic factors

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky thinking. Research by Emma Katz and her colleagues shows that adopting this more comprehensive, pattern-based approach leads to more effective interventions and better outcomes for survivors and their children.

This shift requires us to be both visionaries and pragmatists. It challenges us to reimagine our roles while working within existing structures. But the potential impact is transformative: a coordinated, multi-system response that truly reflects the complexities of domestic abuse and better serves all those affected by it.

So, where do we go from here? Let’s start by asking ourselves some tough questions:

• How can we integrate this more comprehensive understanding of domestic abuse into our policies and practices across different sectors?

• What innovative approaches can we develop to address the full scope of harm?

• How can we learn from and build upon the progress made in jurisdictions that have already taken steps to recognize coercive control?

Leading the Way

Together, we can create a paradigm shift that moves beyond the myth of the domestic violence incident toward a more nuanced, effective, and just response to domestic abuse. This isn’t just about keeping pace with global trends—it’s about leading the way in creating safer, more equitable communities for all.

I want to hear your thoughts. How do you see the potential for change within your role or organization? Let's start a conversation and drive meaningful change in our field.

References

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Oxford University Press.

Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81-104.

Humphreys, C., Healey, L., & Mandel, D. (2018). Case Reading as a Practice and Training Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Protection. Australian Social Work, 71(3), 277-291.

Humphreys, C., Healy, L., Tsantefski, M., Gill, K., & Healey, L. (2020). Substance Use and Domestic Violence in the Context of Child Protection: New Directions for Practice. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory, 3(1), 1-20.

Katz, E., Nikupeteri, A., & Laitinen, M. (2020). When Coercive Control Continues to Harm Children: Post‐Separation Fathering, Stalking and Domestic Violence. Child Abuse Review, 29(4), 310-324.