14 Oct From “Serial Victim” to “Serial Survivor”: Reframing Our Approach to Domestic Violence
Blog by David Mandel, CEO, Safe & Together Institute
In my years of training and coaching professionals working with domestic violence, I’ve witnessed and encouraged a shift in how we approach support and intervention with survivors. This shift is not just changing professional practices but transforming the lives of a survivor and their children. I remember clearly the moment this shift crystallized for me.
The Safe & Together Model was developed and field-tested over decades of work with child protection systems. In one jurisdiction, I oversaw a group of domestic violence consultants who provided input on hundreds of domestic violence cases a year. It was a successful initiative for the change it created and the lessons we learned.
A simple shift
In a case conference, I was listening to a colleague describe a woman who had been in multiple abusive relationships. Someone referred to her as “a serial victim.” She then went on to say, “Her future choices will likely mirror her past ones.” This was a statement I heard repeatedly about many survivors, with different language, like “She’s a trauma survivor. How can we expect her to make different choices?” Or the more colloquial, “Her ‘picker’ is broken.” While I always challenged this perspective as being victim-blaming, I had an epiphany when another colleague said, “Wait a minute. She’s left multiple abusive relationships? What can we learn from what she did right each time?”
The room fell silent. It was as if a light had switched on. In that moment, we all realized we had been viewing this woman – and countless others like her – through the wrong lens.
This simple shift in perspective represents a revolutionary change in how we approach domestic violence support and intervention. It helped me deepen and expand the Safe & Together Model’s existing commitment to partnering with survivors. It’s a move from viewing a survivor through a lens of deficit to one of strength and resilience. And I’ve seen firsthand how it’s changing everything about how we understand and support those who have experienced intimate partner violence.
The Power of Perspective
For too long, the professional discourse around domestic violence has been mired in a deficit-based view. We’ve focused on trauma, vulnerability, and the potential for revictimization. While these concerns stem from a place of genuine care, they can inadvertently cast survivors as passive victims rather than active agents in their own lives.
But what happens when we flip the script?
I’ve seen remarkable changes when we look at a survivor who has left multiple abusive situations and ask, “What incredible strength did it take to leave not just once, but multiple times? What skills and resources did she develop and use? How can we build on these strengths to support her future safety and well-being?” It opens up a world of possibilities.
Partnering with a Survivor: A Truly Strength-Based Approach
One of the most significant changes I’ve observed is how professionals become better at partnering with a survivor when they view them as active agents in keeping themselves and their children safe, even when they’re not always fully successful. This perspective combats the damaging “failure to protect” narratives that often dominate child protection and family court proceedings.
The key word here is “active.” While we know that survivors are harmed by their partners’ abuse and control, the trauma and harm narrative can inadvertently reinforce the idea that “if she can’t keep herself safe, how can she keep her children safe?” What should engender compassion and empathy instead reinforces “failure to protect” myths, which can galvanize systems to unnecessarily remove children from survivors. And in systems that have histories of removing children from First Nation, Black, Brown, and other marginalized communities, these family separations can affect them at greater rates.
I recall the moment when I realized that systems often respond more positively to a survivor whom they perceive and label as actively working to keep their children safe, even when those efforts don’t produce absolute safety. The realization happened when I watched child protection bend over backward to partner with a mother to keep her children with her, even though her estranged husband was a potentially lethal risk to her and the children. In this instance, her protective efforts were extremely tangible – she was building a “panic room” to retreat to in case he showed up. While her efforts didn’t end the risk, it was clear for all to see that she was taking serious measures to protect herself and her children. It was evident that she was “active” in her efforts to protect her children, not “failing to protect” because he remained dangerous.
When we shift our focus away from asking, “Did she call the police?” or “Go to shelter/refuge?” to a wider lens based on the question, “What is she actively doing to promote the safety and well-being of children in the context of the perpetrator’s behaviors?” we make it easier to see the survivor as “active” and to partner with her.
This approach, when combined with a “pivot to the perpetrator,” doesn’t ignore the very real dangers and challenges survivors face. Instead, it balances addressing these issues with recognizing and building upon the survivor’s strengths and capacities. It also increases our sensitivity to the unique environment of the perpetrator’s pattern and the survivor’s cultural and socio-economic context.
Changing Self-Perceptions of a Survivor
Perhaps one of the most powerful effects I’ve witnessed is how a survivor themselves will rethink their self-perceptions when a professional approaches them from a strength-based perspective. Survivors often internalize the same culture of victim-blaming that permeates our society, which manifests as self-blame and a sense of powerlessness.
I’ve heard from survivors and professionals working with survivors that guilt and shame as a parent is such a common experience. Those same survivors have shared with me that when they became exposed to the Safe & Together Model, they began to realize their own incredible resourcefulness in protecting themselves and their children. Professionals have told me that survivors have broken down crying in relief as they feel seen and heard for the first time – the validation of their parenting strengths from the practitioner helping them crawl out of a black hole of self-doubt and blame.
By challenging these internalized narratives, we can help survivors see themselves differently – as strong, capable individuals who have already demonstrated incredible resilience.
The Impact on Mothers
While both male and female survivors are likely to experience this shame and guilt, this shift in perspective is particularly crucial when it comes to mothers who have experienced domestic violence. I’ve observed time and again how our systems tend to hold mothers to higher standards than fathers, often blaming them for the abuse they’ve endured and questioning their ability to parent.
By adopting a strength-based approach, we can challenge these double standards. I’ve seen how recognizing a mother’s protective actions – even when they’re imperfect or incomplete – can lead to more just and effective interventions. It’s not about ignoring risks or challenges but about providing a more balanced and accurate assessment.
For instance, I worked with many cases where professionals negatively viewed a mother who had stayed with her abusive partner. Initially, this decision was seen as a failure to protect. But when we delved deeper into her strategic thinking, the complex safety calculations she was making daily, and how she was mitigating harm, it painted a very different picture – one of a mother doing her absolute best in an impossible situation.
Beyond Individual Survivor Psychology: The Role of Social Context and Perpetrator Behavior
In my work, I’ve observed a troubling tendency in how we approach domestic violence: an overemphasis on individual psychology at the expense of understanding broader social vulnerabilities and the calculated behaviors of perpetrators. This narrow focus not only misses crucial aspects of the domestic violence dynamic but can also inadvertently reinforce victim-blaming narratives.
How many of us know of situations where a highly educated, successful woman found herself trapped in an abusive relationship? Many people approach her with the attitude: “How could someone so smart get into this situation?” This perspective ignores the reality of how abusers operate and the social contexts that enable abuse.
As we delve deeper into those stories, often, a different picture emerges. We can find out that her partner had initially presented himself as caring and supportive. Over time, he systematically isolated her from her support network, exploited her financial vulnerabilities, and used subtle tactics of coercive control that were difficult for outsiders to recognize. This pattern of entrapment is far more common than many realize.
Shift the focus from survivor choices
Stark (2007) argues that coercive control is a liberty crime comparable to kidnapping or indentured servitude. This framing shifts our focus from individual incidents of violence to the ongoing, cumulative impact of abusive behavior. It helps us understand why “just leaving” is often not a simple or safe option.
Moreover, by focusing solely on the survivor’s choices, we often fail to hold perpetrators accountable for their deliberate, manipulative behaviors. Bancroft (2002) emphasizes how abusers often consciously choose tactics that are hard to identify and name, making it difficult for survivors to articulate their experiences and for systems to respond effectively.
I’ve seen how this plays out in legal and child protection settings. When the focus remains on why a survivor “allowed” the abuse to happen or why they didn’t leave sooner, we miss the opportunity to address the real issues: the perpetrator’s tactics and the societal structures that enable abuse.
For instance, economic abuse is a powerful tool of entrapment that’s often overlooked. Adams et al. (2008) found that financial abuse was present in 99% of domestic violence cases they studied. Yet, our systems often fail to recognize this as a form of abuse, instead questioning why a survivor doesn’t simply leave and support themselves.
Failure to protect a survivor
Similarly, the failure of systems to adequately protect survivors and hold abusers accountable creates a cycle of vulnerability that’s difficult to break. We have all seen women who had left their abusers multiple times, only to return when the systems meant to protect them failed: restraining orders weren’t enforced, child support wasn’t collected, and affordable housing wasn’t available. Each time she returned, it was seen as a personal failure rather than a systemic one.
By shifting our focus from individual psychology to these broader contexts, we open up new avenues for intervention and support. We can:
-
Educate about the tactics of coercive control and how abusers entrap their victims over time.
-
Advocate for legal and policy changes that recognize the cumulative impact of non-physical forms of abuse.
-
Develop interventions that address economic abuse and provide concrete support for financial independence.
-
Hold systems accountable for their role in either enabling abuse or supporting survivors.
-
Train professionals to recognize and respond to the subtle tactics of coercive control.
This shift in perspective doesn’t mean ignoring individual experiences or the importance of personal resilience. Rather, it places these individual stories within their proper context, allowing us to see the full picture of domestic violence and respond more effectively.
As Goodman et al. (2020) argue, we need an ecological approach to understanding domestic violence that considers individual, relationship, community, and societal factors. This comprehensive view allows us to honor survivors’ strengths while also recognizing the complex web of factors that contribute to vulnerability and entrapment.
The literature around domestic violence survivors and Posttraumatic Growth Theory also provides support for this approach. This body of research highlights the potential for positive psychological change and growth following traumatic experiences, challenging the notion of inevitable, lasting damage (Flores-Ortega et al., 2023).
Implementing Change
Based on both research and my personal observations, I believe several changes are crucial to fully realize the benefits of a strength-based approach:
-
Training for Professionals: We need comprehensive training on strength-based approaches and the dynamics of domestic violence for all professionals working in this field – from social workers to judges.
-
Revised Assessment Tools: We must develop and implement assessment tools that balance risk factors with strength and protective factors. The Safe & Together Model (Mandel, 2023) is an excellent example of this approach.
-
Survivor-Centered Policies: We need to implement policies that prioritize survivor and child safety while recognizing survivor agency.
-
Collaborative Approaches: We must foster collaboration between domestic violence services, legal systems, and child protection services. I’ve seen how this collaborative, strength-based approach leads to better outcomes for survivors and their children.
Conclusion
The shift from viewing domestic violence survivors as “serial victims” to recognizing them as individuals who have successfully navigated multiple dangerous situations is more than just a change in terminology. It’s a fundamental reimagining of how we understand and support those who have experienced intimate partner violence.
Throughout my career, I’ve seen how this approach can transform not just professional practices but survivors’ own self-perceptions and life trajectories. It challenges victim-blaming narratives, empowers survivors, and leads to more just and effective interventions.
As we continue to evolve our understanding and approaches to domestic violence, this strength-based perspective offers a promising path forward—one that honors the experiences of survivors while also recognizing their incredible capacity for resilience and growth. It’s a path that I believe holds the potential to create real, lasting change in the lives of survivors and their children.
To learn more about how to put this into action, take a Safe & Together Institute e-course: Partnering With Survivors or our virtual CORE training. Or reach out to the Safe & Together Institute directly for other options.
You can also read more about this approach in my book “Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to Transform the Way We Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence”
References
Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 563-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208315529
Bancroft, L. (2002). Why does he do that?: Inside the minds of angry and controlling men. Berkley Books.
Flores-Ortega, M., Brumbaugh, C., Nikulina, V. (2023). Domestic Violence: Post-Traumatic Growth in Female Survivors. In: Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85493-5_419-1
Goodman, L. A., Banyard, V., Woulfe, J., Ash, S., & Mattern, G. (2020). Bringing a network-oriented approach to domestic violence services: A focus group exploration of promising practices. Violence Against Women, 26(1), 64-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219826738
Mandel, D. (2023). Safe & Together Model. Safe & Together Institute. https://safeandtogetherinstitute.com/
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.