NRC: His approach to domestic violence is used in more than ten countries: ‘Don’t hold mothers responsible for the father’s actions.’

By Christel Don (Translated from Dutch)

It began 35 years ago with a remarkable discovery. David Mandel was working as a therapist with men who abused their partners. Every session was about the violence against their wife or ex. But it was never about how their violent behavior harmed their children.

Until child protection services asked him for advice after the murder of a two-year-old girl by her mother’s boyfriend—the same man who had abused both of them. Through conversations with care professionals at that time, he realized that they rarely worked with fathers, even when the father’s violence was the reason help was needed. Instead, everything in their approach revolved around mothers. Just like him, care workers had a blind spot for the role of fathers in domestic violence situations. Mandel then decided to change the course of his career. A transformation of the entire system was needed, he realized.

Since then, David Mandel (59), now an international expert on domestic violence in relation to child abuse, has worked on transforming how child protection agencies, courts, and other support institutions respond to domestic violence. And with success. His Safe & Together Model is used in more than ten countries across three continents, and in the past years he has trained around 50,000 care professionals. Next week, he will visit the Netherlands for the first time as the opening speaker at the annual Domestic Violence Conference in Amersfoort.

His expertise comes at exactly the right time. Women experiencing domestic violence at home do not receive sufficient support in the Netherlands. That was the conclusion of a study conducted by the Council of Europe at the end of October. Institutions like Veilig Thuis and the courts often treat domestic violence as a conflict between two equals, rather than as an abuse of power. The consequences are significant. Research by the Verwey-Jonker Institute shows that violence occurs in one out of five high-conflict divorces, but lawyers often hesitate to mention it for fear their client will be labeled “uncooperative.” There is little interest in what happened between the parents, who caused it, and what it means for the children, two family law experts recently told NRC.

Yet awareness seems to be growing that things must change. Next week’s conference is titled Mothers responsible, fathers not? “Care workers, lawyers, and judges traditionally focus on mothers and what they can do, while fathers are seldom held accountable for their violent behavior and their role as a parent,” Mandel explains during a video call. “In other words: the father commits violence, but the mother is held responsible for the consequences.” His solution? “Put the perpetrator’s behavior at the center of the approach.”

In your book Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers, you describe several “professional myths” about domestic violence. What do you mean by that?
“They are persistent assumptions about mothers and fathers in violent situations that unconsciously influence the questions care workers and institutions ask, what observations end up in case files, and what decisions judges make. Take the myth of domestic violence as an incident. As if it’s a one-time event that disappears once a fight or outburst of anger is over. Because of that, the pattern of coercive control—a form of violence characterized by extremely controlling and manipulative behavior—is often missed. From intimidating messages, stalking, and threats to what he does when he has the children for the weekend—something that often continues after separation. If as a care worker you don’t recognize and investigate that pattern, you fail to document that the child lives in daily fear, and how the mother navigates that fear every day.”

Which myth do you consider the most persistent?
“The myth of the child as a witness. Many care workers assume children are passive witnesses to domestic violence, and that seeing and hearing it is the main way they are harmed. That view is far too narrow. First, an estimated 30–60 percent of children are not only witnesses but also victims. Second, children are not passive at all: they develop survival strategies, try to de-escalate situations, and protect siblings. If you only focus on seeing and hearing, you miss what they do. Finally, this myth obscures other forms of violence and control. I think of the father who removed all the doors in the house—including the bathroom door—so no one had privacy, or the father who used tape on the floor to mark where family members were allowed to walk. If care workers focus only on seeing and hearing violence, they fail to record the harm caused by this controlling behavior.”

“We have much higher expectations of mothers than fathers when it comes to raising and protecting children.”

Care workers and institutions naturally focus on victims—usually mothers and children—and not on the perpetrators, who are predominantly fathers. How do you explain that?
“As a society, we have much higher expectations of mothers than fathers regarding child-rearing and protection. That’s not only within institutions; that old patriarchal mindset still runs through society. Moreover, 90 percent of the care workers I speak to have had no formal training in working with fathers, let alone violent fathers. Working with mothers, on the other hand, is familiar territory, and thus the easiest route. The flip side is that you end up holding mothers responsible for the harmful behavior of their (ex-)partner. One mother told me that every time her violent ex did something wrong, she—as the ‘primary caregiver’—was called in by the social worker because he never showed up. She had to constantly answer for his actions.”

Is that why your book and the conference focus specifically on fathers and mothers, even though domestic violence also occurs in other relationship forms?
“Exactly. My approach applies to all relationship forms and recognizes that anyone can be violent or controlling. But just as ‘all lives matter’ in response to ‘Black Lives Matter’ obscures the reality of structural racism, a gender-neutral approach to violence hides how our system ignores fathers and punishes mothers. This structural inequality runs so deep that you must name it explicitly to break through it.”

The Council of Europe found that the Netherlands is falling short in addressing violence against women. One of the problems: There is no coordinated approach, and agencies work in isolation. What are the consequences?
“Marianne Hester, a British professor who has done groundbreaking research on gender-related violence, calls this the ‘three-planet model.’ You have criminal law, child protection, and family law—functioning like separate planets, each with its own methods and interventions. In short, it works like this: a mother who has been abused for years finally calls the police. They say, ‘Good that you called, we’ll deal with him.’ But when child protection gets involved, the message becomes: ‘Why didn’t you leave earlier? You’re exposing your child to danger.’ Then the relationship ends, and she goes to the family court for custody or visitation arrangements. There, the prevailing belief is that children have a right to contact with both parents, so she is forced to let her ex back into her life. This mother receives three contradictory messages, and in all three cases his role as a father remains invisible. No one holds him accountable for the harm done to the children.”

So is the solution better information sharing and cooperation among institutions?
“Something else must come first, because an emphasis on cooperation can actually worsen the harm if it is still based on the same myths. Step one is that institutions adopt a shared perspective and approach that centers the perpetrator’s behavior. This means training care workers, lawyers, and judges so they know how to do that and how to address perpetrators in their parenting role—something systems like criminal law are not yet equipped to do. This creates a common language, which in turn allows for improved cooperation and information-sharing.”

You developed an approach that centers the perpetrator’s behavioral patterns. How does that work in practice?
“To begin with, it requires a different way of looking at domestic violence. If you view domestic violence as a parenting choice, your focus shifts entirely. The core of the model revolves around simple questions: What is the pattern of coercive and controlling behavior? How does he, as a father, harm the children? And what is the impact on the child, the partner, and the family? This encourages care workers to document the behavior thoroughly—investigate who does what, in which situation, and with what effect. Crucially, you examine his behavior not only in the current relationship but also in previous ones, with other partners and children. This reveals that the danger comes from him, not from the relationship. And equally important: you document the protective efforts of the non-offending parent.”

“Perhaps the mother receives intimidating messages from her ex at night and barely sleeps.”

Can you give an example?
“With mothers we often create a timeline documenting all incidents of violence—not just physical violence but also financial control, emotional abuse, threats, and what happens when the children spend a weekend with him. We also record everything she does to keep the children safe. Then you compare other issues in the family to that timeline. Take a child who is chronically late for school. Case files often say, ‘Mother shows little involvement in the child’s schooling.’ With this approach, you investigate why: perhaps she receives intimidating messages from her ex-husband at night and can barely sleep, or he refuses to lend her the car. You begin to see how his behavior affects the family’s daily functioning.”

What if parents make conflicting claims and there are no witnesses?
“This is never about a single incident, so you investigate patterns across many sources: police reports, text message histories, teachers’ observations, medical records, what the mother says, what friends say. You ask the children what they did when dad suddenly showed up at the door and threatened mom. This reveals their survival strategies, and thus the harm of the violence. An added benefit is that this approach makes it easier to talk with perpetrators because you can concretely describe how their behavior harms the children.”

Care workers often say that “fact-finding” is not their responsibility, even though the law requires it. How do you see that?
“I hear that often, and it’s problematic. I once gave a training at child protection in Florida. A staff member presented a case and said both parents were violent. I asked her to describe the behavior of each parent factually. It turned out the father had threatened his partner with a weapon and repeatedly beaten her severely, while the mother had once jumped on his back when he tried to remove the license plate from her car. Yet the staff member had written: both parents use violence. I often see care workers who believe they are reporting neutrally, while their files contain assumptions without factual basis. But it is your duty and responsibility to conduct thorough fact-finding, especially because life-changing decisions are made based on these files.”

How should a care worker talk to a violent father?
“What’s crucial is to focus the conversation on his role as a parent. Ask questions instead of making accusations: How do you fulfill your role as a father? How do you want to protect your children? How do you think your behavior harms them? Many fathers admit they know their behavior is harmful. Research in Western Australia showed that this awareness motivates many men to voluntarily seek help.”

You have been advocating against male violence for more than 35 years. Where does your ongoing motivation come from?
“As a student, I listened to women around me who told me about their experiences with violence from men. It affected me deeply and made me reflect on my role as a man. That was the beginning, and I am still working to understand and unlearn my own sexism. I am also grateful to my father, who taught me how to respect women. He was always respectful toward my mother. I never heard him say a bad word about her.”

Original Article (in Dutch): https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/11/14/hou-moeders-niet-verantwoordelijk-voor-geweld-door-de-vader-a4911676