by Mike Willbur | Anger Management, Domestic Violence, Familicide, Forensic Counseling, PTSD, Uncategorized
Actually, I have more than one mentor, but all are equally important to me. I turn to my mentors when I’m in need of advice. These mentors are not always aware of when I’m in need but that’s because I don’t call them – I recall something they have said or did to get some of the answers I seek. Sometimes I socialize with my mentors; not always in person but am always listening to them and taking in what they say or have read something they wrote that I save for use at a later date – never know though, when that date will arrive.
My mentors don’t pick me rather I pick them. They are young, old, male and female. I have known many of them for years and others, just recent acquaintances. When I pick them, they are not aware that I am doing so; it is that discreet. They have said something wise or have taught me something that has enhanced my life but in any case, they are selfless and their only motive is to share something useful with the rest of the world – “they are giving back.”
When my mentors witness me in error, they are not judgmental and when correcting me, they don’t point out the actual error. Instead, they bring attention to alternative points of view, allowing me to make another, more sound decision that will give me a more desirable outcome. I guess it’s like math – certainly an equation that requires calculated risks in order to realize a desired change.
My mentors are not afraid to tell me what their opinion is on controversial subjects and don’t try to sway my opinion in the process. It is just an exchange of ideas. They treat me with respect and as I watch them, I see that they respect everyone. What they give to the world is indiscriminate with no prerequisites for receiving – it’s based on needs only. They are keenly aware of their own imperfections and embrace the chance to improve them.
My mentors know how to criticize without being contemptuous. They understand the difference between the two words and know one is destructive to relationships. To the many mentors on my list, I would like to thank you for knowing that doing the right thing is not the exception rather the norm.
Contact Me
Ask a question or book an appointment below. For emergencies call 911 or visit your nearest hospital
by Mike Willbur | Anger Management, Domestic Violence, Familicide, Uncategorized
Most often in the universe outside law enforcement and the Court system, family annihilators are viewed as sociopathic, living outside the law. But the research shows otherwise, and we should all take heed and consider the possible corrective actions that would help with early warning signs and prevention.
The research about family annihilators shows that those who would commit such acts, are typically not engaged with the criminal justice system and don’t exhibit any mental health conditions. In other words, they fly under the radar. On the surface, they are loving husbands and good fathers. Most often, they hold good-paying jobs. So, what does the profile of a typical annihilator resemble? I took the following information from an article published by the UK titled, “A Taxonomy of Male British Annihilators, 2008-2013.”
In this article, Dr. Wilson states, first of all, “Very few of these ‘family annihilators’ had criminal records or were known to mental health services beforehand.”
Everyone will agree that family annihilation is a male crime due to out of 71 annihilators, 59 were male, and 12 were female. And although the reasons are not stated in the article, I believe that males and females who kill their children will do so for very different reasons. Therefore, the two should be parsed accordingly for research purposes.
Interestingly enough, 81% percent of the men attempted suicide after the act, which refutes the traditional idea that family annihilators may force the police to shoot them as is familiar with the spree murderers. In the case of family annihilators, there were no such cases recorded. Notably, 71% of those were employed, with occupations ranging from surgeons and marketing executives to mail carriers, and drivers.
According to the family members of the 71 annihilators mentioned, the family breakup was the most common cause in 66% of the cases. However, this included related domestic issues such as access to children. Financial difficulties were the second most commonly cited motive, followed by honor killing and mental illness.
The article discusses traits and motives which identify four types of family annihilators; anomic, disappointed, paranoid, and self-righteous. It is differentiated from the traditional ideas of revenge or altruistic murderers.
The self-righteous killer seeks to locate blame for his crimes upon the mother, who he holds responsible for the breakdown of the family. This type may phone his partner beforehand to explain what he is about to do. I believe this is the man who feels his breadwinner status is central to their idea of the ideal family. The disappointed type believes his family has let him down or has acted in ways to undermine or destroy his vision of perfect family life. An example might be that the children are not following the traditional religious or cultural customs of the father.
A third, and I believe to be one I will be talking about in the future because it speaks to the possibility of a disordered personality person but more on that next week; is the Anomic killer. This one sees his family as a result of economic success, allowing him to display his achievements. However, if the father becomes a financial failure, he sees his family as no longer serving this function.
Another and the last one cited in the article is the Paranoid type. Annihilators perceive an external threat to the family. He may think that social services or the legal system will side against him and take away the children. In this case, the motive might be a twisted desire to protect the family. I think more accurately, is not to protect the family instead, to preserve it.
My conclusion is, it boils down to masculinity and perceptions of power that sets the background for the crime. His role in the family is central to what their idea of masculinity and what their part is in the family. If gender roles are central to the issue, I would say it is equally essential for society to understand that family roles should be defined and should be mutually agreed upon by the intimate partners. This would help prevent relationship ambivalence.
Contact Me
Ask a question or book an appointment below. For emergencies call 911 or visit your nearest hospital
by Mike Willbur | Anger Management, Domestic Violence, PTSD
A Thoughtful Response
This article, written by the WND staff, delivers evidence of how we became unbridled in our belief that sparing the rod would produce well-balanced children—absent of all the anxiety caused by chaos in the home. While it is true that when the wrong kind of discipline is doled out, and done so liberally without regard for what the child is even learning, it may cause harm. However, when no discipline at all is used to correct/raise a child, we produce what we may now call an unruly generation.
In fact, it’s been several generations since Dr. Spock published his book. It’s changed the world as we know it! In all the homes in which I have conducted evaluations, the most chaotic ones are those without rules or roles for family members to live by—homes following Dr. Spock’s model where personal responsibility takes a back seat to gratification.
Dr. Spock didn’t influence our family much. I recall as a child there were consequences for everything we did. We learned to consider those consequences before leaping into uncharted territory. It’s a model that works when affection, understanding and respect are present as well.
Unfortunately, the solution to high crime levels in America goes beyond the scope of this article, but if we look at the true value of discipline in the home, the answer is obvious to any reasonable person.
Contact Me
Ask a question or book an appointment below. For emergencies call 911 or visit your nearest hospital
by Mike Willbur | Anger Management, Domestic Violence
When conducting domestic violence treatment groups, we sometimes show lists of thought distortions. A short list of thought distortions looks like this:
- All or nothing thinking
- Overgeneralization
- Mental Filter
- Discounting the positive
- Jumping to conclusions
- Catastrophizing/Minimizing
- Emotion based reasoning
- Should Statements
- Labeling
- Personalization.
There is a reason these things are not listed together with the positive aspects of your life…Because it’s not possible for happiness and sadness to co-exist. Just like it’s not possible for pride to co-exist with dignity.
Most aggressive thinking and behaviors stem from attachment problems which were developed during childhood, most likely before the age of 2-3 years of age when a child is in a quest to be autonomous and at the same time, seek comfort from a attachment figure, most likely the mother but not always.
This is a time when anxiety is sometimes born and embedded into the character of the child. This character may progress to levels of maladaptive behavior if no intervention is employed to head off the label of “personality disorder.”
These early childhood experiences can sometimes evolve into character traits that are not conducive to healthy intimate partner relationships. One of the reasons domestic violence is so dangerous is because those with a maladaptive personality trait will almost never seek out help because they don’t see their trait as a problem – it’s always the other person’s problem.
If you have anxieties based on adverse childhood experiences and have also, relationship difficulties, such as being one who craves the argument versus the solution or feel you are being rejected when someone (especially a partner) criticizes you, why wait until the police are called when you finally resort to physical violence to get your point across or to simply use intimidation to gain that control you so desperately need?
The solution to our domestic violence problem lies not just with the treatment of the offender but a proactive relationship with Law Enforcement, Shelters, Schools, families. One part of the solution is in treatment of the offender and the other let’s call….”Community Based Solution Focused Counseling.”
by Mike Willbur | Anger Management, Domestic Violence, Familicide
Being classified as a DV perpetrator is probably the broadest way to categorize someone into the one-size fits all group. For the sake of this post, I will speak in terms of low level, medium, and high risk categories of perpetrators of domestic violence.
First, let me say that I am aware of the many groups of advocates and social activists who are doing great work in terms of caring for the victims of partner violence – that is their share of this pie. Also, even though DV can be perpetrated by both females and males, it is predominate among males and so, I refer only to the males as perpetrators in this article.
Now, on with what I’d like to say about the subject of classification of those who commit crimes against their intimate partners.
In many of the interviews of DV perpetrators I have conducted, there was a distinction between what we all know to be a “Batterer” and a person who could be placed into a category of an immature person who is incapable of coping with life as an adult simply because they did not learn this skill for some reason. This person could be placed in a high risk category if the intensity of the violence was/could cause harm to the household (anyone under the same roof). Also, if this person was abusing drugs/alcohol and was under the influence during the assaultive behavior. That is not to say that substance abuse causes intimate partner violence (IPV), but it can be a factor when considering just how dangerous a person really is and how intense the violence can be.
Let’s say that this low level person does not use drugs or alcohol, is married and is fairly young, as is the partner they are married to (Around 20). They are just getting started in life and are struggling with making financial ends meet month to month. Both are products of low income homes and chaotic lifestyles while growing up. One or both of them have parents who have divorced and were ultimately raised without any role models present in their lives.
The above is a recipe for coping disasters in most relationships but can it be defined as domestic violence? I think in most States, it would if going by the letter of the law but are there elements of power and control which is found in most battering situations? What is the real fix for a mutually combative couple like this?
My answer to that question is to have a DV evaluation done by using testing instruments which have been empirically proven as valid and reliable (if there are any questions about the incident being mutually combative, an evaluation on both parties could re victimize the victim). With a comprehensive interview and the testing, the evaluation will be more accurate than if not tested.
Still, if both parties are evaluated, the same counselor should not do both. This does not mean it would be okay to treat the couple conjointly. A review of any Police incident reports is useful to compare versions of an incident too. A trained domestic violence counselor should be able to come to conclusions about how to classify after the evaluation.
What would automatically put a person in either the medium or high risk class in my opinion, is the underlying belief about the relationship they are in. Does the perpetrator believe his spouse is his to do with as he wishes? Or does he assume that by virtue of gender, there are certain responsibilities attached to the relationship? In other words, is there an abnormal attachment in play? Those type of thought distortions need to be worked through and if not, most likely the only thing that may take place during DV treatment is to make a shift from one type of abusive behavior to another. No real change is taking place in that scenario.
The high risk (serial batterer) perpetrator is not ready or willing to change and this should be recognized during the evaluation period, prior to treatment. If the person who has been found guilty of assaulting a family member is not ready for change then everyone concerned is probably wasting their time (the only person in control of changing behavior is the person who needs change). I am not part of the punitive process rather a presenter of alternative routes.
As a mental health professional, I concern myself with what can be done to help my client achieve their emotional goals. I should be able to figure out in a few sessions if this person is ready for change and if not, then I am compelled to terminate the therapeutic relationship.
Domestic Violence treatment should be no different in that regard. We should be held accountable ethically for keeping those in treatment who are not compliant or are not changing. This requires a counselor to constantly and ongoing, evaluate and re-evaluate their DV perpetrator clients to ensure change is taking place.
And finally, it has been and is still being said that domestic violence is not about mental health rather behavior that needs to change. And as that may be true – especially when a Court is sentencing a person convicted of assaulting family (DV) when all they are concerned about is stopping the behavior and the safety of the victim/s, it takes a professional who is willing to consider the personal history of the perpetrator and discover a way to deliver a message about non-violence in a palatable manner so that real change can take place. It is time to look past mandated treatment curriculum to augment the didactic platform with appropriate counseling techniques that effect real personal change. Otherwise, the only change likely to take place is the change from one abusive behavior to another…
If after an evaluation of a person who has been charged with a DV crime, it is determined he is not in the category of a batterer (in the sense that he believes he is entitled to the power and control), then you have ruled out the need for DV treatment. It does open up the idea of, “what is appropriate treatment for this person who is violent but for different reasons than what we define as IPV?” (note to self…imposing oneself on a partner against their will either physically or psychologically automatically qualifies them for DV treatment).
The Court has the final say but I always render my professional opinion on the matter and the court will make its decision. I am not the one who is prosecuting the client but I am the one who may be charged with doing the treatment and when asked, I submit reports regardless of the outcome. There are times when there has been a conviction for a DV crime and as a result, the court orders a DV evaluation. If I have ruled out DV behavior, I will not recommend mandated DV treatment rather something more appropriate for this particular client. Now, that doesn’t mean that person won’t get DV treatment – most of the time when they are guilty according to the statute, they end up in DV treatment. I consider though, the Court has discretion in how it sentences assault against a family member. If asked by the court for a professional opinion, I give it regardless of how the testing and evaluation turns out. This way, the court can make a more informed decision.
I do not decide whether a person is guilty or not of a crime rather, I do DV evaluations as requested and do them according to our Judge’s manual for our State. I utilize all of my DV experience as well as my mental health experience – remembering that DV is not a mental health condition rather a behavior that needs to change, it is helpful though, to have therapeutic skills to help with the change process. There is so much more involved with domestic violence than the treatment of the perpetrator; that is just part of it…
I submit this with respect for all treatment providers and realize there are many schools of thought about DV – I am just one.
by Mike Willbur | Domestic Violence, Uncategorized
A domestic violence perpetrator treatment program must focus treatment primarily on ending the participant’s physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. The primary goal of a domestic violence perpetrator treatment program must be to increase the victim’s safety by:
- Facilitating change in the participant’s abusive behavior; and
- Holding the participant accountable for changing the participant’s patterns of behaviors, thinking, and beliefs.
The minimum treatment period is the time required for the participant to fulfill all conditions of treatment set by the treatment program. Satisfactory completion of treatment is not based solely on a perpetrator participating in the treatment program for a certain period of time or attending a certain number of sessions. - The program must require participants to attend treatment and satisfy all treatment program requirements for at least twelve consecutive months.
- The program must require the participant to attend:
(a) A minimum of twenty-six consecutive weekly same gender group sessions, followed by:
(b) Monthly sessions with the treatment provider until the twelve-month period is complete. These sessions must be conducted face-to-face with the participant by program staff who meet the minimum qualifications set forth in this chapter.
