The woman on the tightrope: the invisible man

Chris Burke used the term “invisible man syndrome” in relation to perpetrators of domestic violence in 1999, and it refers to what Cathy Humphreys terms “the absent presence of the perpetrator” after women and children have separated from the perpetrator.  Workers and agencies may ignore the on-going presence of the perpetrator and put responsibility for the violence of the woman, especially in relation to protecting children, thereby making him “invisible”.

References:

Chris Burke http://gracieproductions.com.au/chris-burke-profile.htm

Cathy Humphreys: Domestic Violence and Child Protection: challenging directions for practice Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Issues Paper 13
http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/IssuesPaper_13.pdf

 The “invisible man” has been located under the storm cloud of the woman on the tightrope as the storms that occur on the journey can often be linked to this man.

On-going effects of having lived with trauma and abuse

The “invisible man” remains in the lives of women and children in memories of the times they lived with abuse, and as they heal from the impacts of abuse (see the post of the first session on the “Woman on the tightrope: the abused brain”).

On-going risks

A number of authors have pointed out that domestic violence often increases after separation, and new tactics are often introduced.

Dr Leah Bromfield from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse (2010) wrote that there is strong evidence to show that physical and psychological violence towards women and children continues post-separation and that the severity and lethality of the violence may increase post-separation, and that these risks need to be taken seriously (I was unable to locate the exact article this came from).

Cathy Humphreys writes that domestic violence usually increases and often escalates within the first 12 months of separation, and that there is lack of attention to the dangers of separation, which is often construed as the only possible safety strategy. She says that the impact of the perpetrator is ever present but often not addressed and, if workers fear the perpetrator, this can lead to avoiding or colluding with him instead of seeing him as accountable for the violence (see reference above).

This does not mean that leaving is not to be encouraged, but that leaving as safely as possible is the goal.

On-going contacts

Cathy Humphreys points out that children may continue to have contact with the perpetrator post separation, and this is often encouraged in Family Law, meaning that the mother also has on-going contact (see reference above).

Impacts on relationships with others

Cathy Humphrey's work revolves around the concept that mother/ child relationships are undermined by the abusive tactics of the perpetrator and that the resultant broken bonds and damaged attachments will need to be rebuilt (see reference above).

Since a commonly used tactic includes social isolation, it is likely that living with domestic violence has also damaged relationships with friends, relatives and other significant others, and healing may need to occur here too (if possible – some relationships become too damaged for this to be possible).

For workers

Shirley Patton reminds us that we need to:

• locate the responsibility for violence with the perpetrator
• respect the woman’s feelings about her partner
• understand the woman’s choices about returning to her partner
• acknowledge the grief attached to realising that there is no hope for change

Reference: Pathways: how women leave violent men, Shirley Patton (2003)
http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/47012/pathways_how_women_leave_violent_men.pdf

I will cover working with perpetrators in another post.