No Contact Orders
My colleagues and I have been asked to submit a paper to our local judges to address the issue of No Contact Orders in IPV cases. Currently in Oregon, an IPV arrest results in an automatic No Contact Order until the case is dropped or (more commonly) until the individual has been involved in a BIP for a minimum of 12 weeks. Then, at the discretion of the BIP provider and the PO, a No Contact is changed to a No Offensive Contact Order and contact is allowed. Based on Oregon Administrative Rules, most BIPs adhere to the “patriarchal beliefs” model. My colleagues and I have decided to address three issues: 1. the impact of No Contact Orders on parent-child attachment, 2. differences in implications of No Contact Orders on collectivistic vs individualistic cultures, and 3. assessments which would help move away from a one-size-fits-all. If you were doing this presentation, what assessments would you recommend to the judges and why? If possible, please provide or reference research to support your position. Please know that your suggestion may be used and, if you desire, you will be given credit.
Thank you in advance.
Patricia Warford, PsyD,
Apr 18, 2020 @ 20:49:28
I would be interested in what you believe the impact of No Contact Orders is on parent/child attachment, and what your intention is in responding to that. To me, a more compelling question would be “what is the impact of ongoing coercive controlling behavior on the family and healthy attachment?”
I’m not sure if I discern agreement or disdain for “patriarchal beliefs” as a foundation to the theoretical model for intervention, but I’m not sure if you are looking for a therapeutic path or a judicial justification for orders or what.
I would have the question of what your intention in the assessment is: predictive validity of recidivation? Lethality? Aggression? Attachment pathology? Are you seeking a path to customized treatment of individual pathology?
If you are looking for validated measures of aggression/violence, you might look in Ronan, Dreer, Maurelli et al. “Practitioner’s Guide to Empirically Supported Measures of Anger, Aggression, and Violence” which catalogs a range of them, though with the mandated client you need to be cautious of social desirability bias in responses and not all instruments can suitably control for that.
If you could clarify what you are trying to accomplish with your paper it would be easier for me or others to respond. Peace. GG
Apr 18, 2020 @ 21:35:39
I was debating as to whether to respond to the initial post. If I might add something to what Mr. Guerrero said – in Canada a restraining order (no contact order) is always instituted when there is a compaint of assualt – whether in the context of the home or a bar fight. An anger management program is usually mandated as well in order to he;p the batterer or perpetrator understand his (or her) responsibility in what has occurred. Safety of the victim (survivor) is not guaranteed but if the person accused understands why he was charged for his behaviour and what options he might have to avoid re-offending, survivor safety could be more of a possibility. If there is a question of the state of mind of the person he or she would be referred for psychological evaluation. In our program we would refeer to a psychologist or psychiatrist for this purpose. As well, if the client does not seem to “get it,” then we will indicate the same in our report. Accountability and safety are always a priority.
Apr 18, 2020 @ 22:12:02
I would like to address number 3 on your list because that is very near and dear to me. Here in Washington, a potential participant in a DVIP will be assessed for a level of care beginning with 0, as in no treatment required to 4, which is reserved for those with psychopathy issues. You must assume in this assessment that the individual has been judged guilty and is being considered for treatment. The assessment in this scenario (according to the WAC) is to be used for the determination of the appropriate level of care. This, by definition, is not a DV Evaluation.
A DV evaluation as I do them is to determine if there is a propensity to abuse or be violent with family members, specifically intimate partners and is the violence solely attributed to DV behaviors or is something else a major contributor to the behavior. These evaluations are complex and very comprehensive in my format and the reasons for this are to arrive at an appropriate conclusion based on the data I collect and the testing instruments I administer to them. This is forensic in nature meaning, I will render a diagnosis and professional opinion based on the data and after having all of the necessary demographic information on the individual. At play in a DV evaluation are police incident reports, victim statements, collateral contact information, witnesses to the behavior and history of the person being evaluated, and a multijurisdictional criminal background check.
If it is determined that DV chronicity is present, then they would be most likely reporting to a treatment facility where they will receive an “Assessment for a level of care.” The reason I do this is because I do evaluations only and will not assess for a level of care because I believe that responsibility should rest with the actual treatment provider.
Lastly, if I may, there should be a distinction between a DV evaluation and DV assessment to determine the level of care.
Submitted with respect,