TRAUMA,

Barnett / WHY
VIOLENCE,
BATTERED
& ABUSE
WOMEN/ October
DO NOT 2000
LEAVE

WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE, PART 1

External Inhibiting Factors Within Society

OLA W. BARNETT
Pepperdine University

There is an urgent need to identify the factors that impede battered women’s flight
from violent relationships. This article is organized into two articles: Part 1 centers
on external inhibiting factors within society (patriarchy, economics, and the crimi-
nal justice system) that influence battered women’s stay/leave decisions. Answering
the questions surrounding stay/leave decisions calls for a comprehensive, current
overview and evaluation of methodologically rigorous research, including unpub-
lished dissertations, qualitative studies, and opinions of advisory panels. However,
the subject matter is sensitive, and some informants may be unsympathetic or un-
cooperative. This, in addition to the newness of scientific inquiry in the area, has re-
stricted the empirical knowledge available. Part 1 of this review concludes that the
patriarchal and sexist structure of society along with women’s economic depen-
dency and the inadequate practices of the criminal justice system are the primary
obstacles battered women must overcome to leave their abusive partners.

Key words: battered women, economic dependency, criminal justice system, patriarchy

THE QUESTION Submerged within the question of why bat-

tered women do not leave is a tidal wave of ac-
Why don’t battered women leave? This ques-
cusatory implications, such as “What is wrong
tion does not have a single answer but, rather,
with her?” Advocates suggest that the question
many answers. Even the question has many
should be rephrased to take the onus off victims
connotations. For battered women, the question
and to place it where it belongs, on the batterers.
is not uniformly, “How can I leave him?” but
From this perspective, better questions might
“How can I get the violence to stop?” or “How
be, “Why does he beat her?” or “Why does soci-
can I get my relationship to be happy and fulfill-
ety let him get away with it?” or “What can be
ing?” For women who want to leave, the ques-
done to stop him?”
tion may become “Can I support myself and the
One must also ask whether all segments of
children by myself?” “How can I escape?” “Will
society truly want battered women to leave. For
he kill me if I try?” or “How will my children
the clergy, the question might be, “How can I
fare without a father?” For clinicians working
help keep this marriage together?” An un-
with battered women, the question might be,
trained criminal justice worker might ask,
“How can she make any decisions when she is
“What did you do to provoke him?” and an un-
so emotionally traumatized?”

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 1, No. 4, October 2000 343-372

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

343
 344 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
trained medical practitioner might not ask any
questions at all.
Statistics on Violence Against Women
Although data about the frequency and im-
pact of intimate partner violence (IPV) have
steadily improved during the past decade, esti-
mates have varied widely across studies de-
pending on the kinds of questions asked, who
asked the questions or created the records,
which groups or samples of people responded,
when and where they responded, and what
type of statistical methodologies were em-
ployed to analyze the data (see Bachman, 2000;
Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; R. P. Dobash, Do-
bash, Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998; D. G. Dutton &
Hemphill, 1992; Kruttschnitt & Dornfeld, 1992;
Moffitt et al., 1997; Rennison & Welchans, 2000;
Riggs, Murphy, & O’Leary, 1989). As a group,
women are far more likely than men to be raped,
injured, and murdered by an intimate or ac-
quaintance than by a stranger (Cook, 1997;
Greenfeld et al., 1998; Nazroo, 1995; Rennison &
Welchans, 2000).
Defining Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
Various definitions of IPV affect responses to
the problem (Eisenstat & Bancroft, 1999; Mohr,
1998). Definitions have arisen from three major
areas: (a) advocates, who generally portray bat-
tering as a reflection of patriarchal norms that
allow men to control women by force (R. E.
Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Pagelow, 1981; Walker,
1979); (b) researchers,
who use operational defi-
Because emotional
abuse seems object- nitions, such as those of-
ively less potent and fered by the Conflict Tac-
tics Scale (CTS) (M. A.
less tangible, it is
difficult for a victim to Straus, 1979) (see also the
CTS2, M . A. Straus,
justify making major
life changes because Hamby, Boney-McCoy, &
Sugarman, 1995) or the
of it.
Psychological Maltreat-
ment of Women Inven-
tory (PMWI) (Tolman, 1989), and (c) criminal
justice personnel, who rely on legal definitions
that vary across jurisdictions.
KEY POINTS OF THE
RESEARCH REVIEW
• It is important to distinguish between severe
physical violence, psychological abuse, and nor-
mative abuse.
• Many external and internal factors contribute to
the process of leaving a violent relationship.
• Treatment of women in many countries around
the world places them in grave danger and jeop-
ardizes their survival.
• Because patriarchy and sexism dominate the
American structure of society, they contribute to
battered women’s external challenges in leaving:
economic dependency and lack of support by the
criminal justice system.
• Battered women cannot depend on any compo-
nent of the criminal justice system to function ef-
fectively on their behalf—not the police,
prosecutors, or judges.
One criminologist defines IPV as “violent
acts committed by men against women that
would be considered a violent crime if it were
committed against a stranger” (Simon, 1995,
p. 43). O’Leary (1999) has proposed an espe-
cially useful operational definition as follows:
“The presence of at least two acts of physical ag-
gression within a year (or one severe act) and/or
physical aggression that leads the partner to be
fearful of the other or that results in injury re-
quiring medical attention” (p. 19). A benefit of
this definition is that it excludes low-level, nor-
mative IPV (see Gordon, 2000; M. P. Johnson,
1995).
Psychological abuse is extremely common
and extremely damaging to women (Vivian &
Lan gh in ric h se n -Ro h lin g, 1994). E m o-
tional/psychological abuse, rather than physi-
cal abuse, generates much of the apprehension
in a battering relationship (Arias & Pape, 1999;
Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek,
1990; Tang, 1999a). It is a significant predictor of
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Street,
1998). Threats to hurt and kill others as well as
the battered women themselves can be terroriz-
ing and paralyzing (see Nicole, 1997; Pearson,
Thoennes, & Griswold, 1999). Stalking by
ex-partners also produces intense fear (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998).
Because emotional abuse seems objectively
less potent and less tangible, it is difficult for a

victim to justify making major life changes be-
cause of it. Molidor (1995) identified seven ma-
jor types of psychological abuse incorporated
within Tolman’s (1989) PMWI: (a) isolation, (b)
monopolization (making the abuser the center
of the woman’s life), (c) economic abuse, (d)
degradation, (e) rigid sex-role expectations, (f)
psychological destabilization (making her feel
crazy), and (g) emotional withholding (also see
Nielsen, Endo, & Ellington, 1992).
The results of community-based surveys of
IPV using the CTS (M. A. Straus, 1979) usually
reveal gender mutuality. Both men and women,
married or unmarried, admit to committing vio-
lent acts (e.g., kicking) at commensurate rates
(Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992; Magdol
et al., 1997; O’Keefe & Treister, 1998; M. A.
Straus & Gelles, 1986; Sugarman & Hotaling,
1989; Worth, Matthews, & Coleman, 1990). Sev-
eral surveys have disclosed even greater perpe-
tration by women than by men (e.g., Moffitt,
1997). Very often, victimization and perpetra-
tion rates are significantly correlated with each
other (Magdol, Moffitt, Caspi, & Silva, 1998).
Assessments of IPV derived from the CTS and
CTS2 can affect battered women negatively by
implying that IPV stems primarily from con-
flicts between intimate partners and by failing
to account for contextual variables (see Koss
et al., 1994, for a review).
In contrast, canvasses of general populations
using scales other than the CTS (i.e., National
Crime Victimization Survey, National Survey of
Families and Households) as well as one using a
modified CTS (National Violence Against
Women Survey) have not substantiated gender
equivalence (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995;
Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Zlotnick, Kohn, Peter-
son, & Pearlstein, 1998). Furthermore, data col-
lected in these broad population surveys do not
capture the qualitative aspects of IPV as re-
vealed by data emanating from emergency
rooms, police departments, and shelters. Data
from these other sources show that despite
some identifiable risk factors for female perpe-
tration (Magdol et al., 1998; Wall, 1993), women
are unequivocally more victimized by IPV than
are men (Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; D. G.
Dutton, 1995; Greenfeld et al., 1998; “Physical
Violence,” 1996; Rand, 1997).
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 345
Causes of IPV
Over the past two decades, experts have in-
creasingly relied on four broad-based theories
to account for IPV: (a) the structure of society
(patriarchy, legal traditions) (e.g., R. E. Dobash
& Dobash, 1979), (b) socialization (cultural
learning, learning in family) (see Ohlin & Tonry,
1989; M. A. Straus, 1980; Walker, 1977), (c) psy-
chological processes (e.g., fear, PTSD, attribu-
tions, victimization) (e.g., Cohen, Rosenbaum,
Kane, Warnken, & Benjamin, 1999; J. Finn, 1985;
Graham, Rawlings, & Rimini, 1988; Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1988; Kemp, Rawlings, & Green, 1991;
Vitanzas, Vogel, & Marshall, 1995), and (d) traits
of victims and perpetrators (e.g., psycho-
pathology, low self-esteem) (e.g., Bolton &
Bolton, 1987; Cohen et al., 1999; D. G. Dutton
& Starzomski, 1993; Hamberger & Hastings,
1991; Magdol et al., 1997). Some newer at-
tempts to understand male-to-female violence
integrate existing theories into multivariate
risk-factor models (O’Neil, 1999).
Women’s Leave/Stay Decisions
Women’s leave/stay decisions are multidi-
mensional, as are the reasons for IPV. Battered
women usually do not leave their relationships
the first time their partners abuse them (Camp-
bell, Miller, Cardwell, & Belknap, 1994;
Follingstad, Hause, Rutledge, & Polek, 1992;
Henderson, Bartholomew, & Dutton, 1997; Her-
bert, Silver, & Ellard, 1991). L. E. Okun (1986)
found that 30% of a sample of 187 sheltered
women did leave upon exiting the shelter,
whereas 43% left within 2 years. On average,
women left and returned five times before a fi-
nal leave taking.
A number of professionals have conceptual-
ized leaving an abusive relationship as a pro-
cess, perhaps with several stages (Landen-
burger, 1989; Merritt-Gray & Wuest, 1995; Moss,
Pitula, Campbell, & Halstead, 1997). Basically,
battered women must traverse several changes
in beliefs: (a) acknowledging their relationship
as unhealthy, (b) realizing it will not get better,
(c) experiencing some catalyst (e.g., severe in-
jury), (d) giving up the dream of an idealized
 346 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
committed relationship, and (e) accepting that it
will never be over (e.g., sharing child custody)
(Moss et al., 1997). Also, battered women may
not perceive their relationship as either ongoing
or over but on a continuum of involvement
(Campbell, Rose, Kulb, & Daphne, 1998).
One four-dimensional classification focuses
on differences between external and internal
processes and situations: (a) external inhibiting
factors, (b) external empowering factors, (c) in-
ternal inhibiting factors, and (d) internal em-
powering factors (A. Okun, 1998; also see Foa,
Cascardi, Zoellner, & Feeny, 2000; Grigsby &
Hartman, 1997). A combination of basic causal
theories of IPV and components of A. Okun’s
(1998) classification scheme serves as an effec-
tive framework for examining why battered
women do not leave.
THE STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY
There may be no totally effective individual
solutions to IPV because it is obvious that indi-
vidual actions, such as leaving an abusive mate
or participating in counseling, do not automati-
cally eliminate the violence (Langford, Isaac, &
Kabat, 1999; Stawar, 1996). Evidence consis-
tently shows that batterers often continue ha-
rassing their victims by way of assaults, stalk-
ing, and threats (Campbell et al., 1998; Sullivan,
Campbell, Angelique,
There may be no Eby, & Davidson, 1994).
totally effective In fact, leaving may pro-
individual solutions to voke some batterers to
IPV because it is kill their partners, their
obvious that children, and themselves
individual actions, (Dearwater et al., 1998;
such as leaving an Langford et al., 1999;
abusive mate or St awar, 1996). An
participating in in-depth analysis of 57
counseling, do not women killed by their
automatically male partners indicated
eliminate the t hat 43 (75%) o f th e
violence. women were separated or
trying to terminate their
relationships at the time the murder occurred
(cited in New York Commission, 1998). Of 119
women killed in North Carolina between 1988
and 1992, current or former male partners killed
99 and then killed themselves. In 29% of the
murder-suicides, there was documentation of
prior IPV and, in 41%, the impetus was victim
separation from the perpetrator (E. Morton,
Runyan, Moracco, & Butts, 1998).
Problems of Patriarchy and Sexism
A relatively large volume of literature indi-
cates that the patriarchal and sexist structure of
society makes it difficult, if not impossible, for
battered women to leave. O’Neil and Nadeau
(1999) have defined patriarchy as “the suprem-
acy of the father over family members and the
domination of men over women and children in
every aspect of life” (p. 94). They defined sexism
as “the social, political, and personal expression
of patriarchy” (p. 94). There are relationships be-
tween patriarchy and IPV. Where men control
the family’s resources, use physical force to
solve conflicts, and allow women few options to
divorce, the rate of wife assaults is especially
high (J. K. Brown, 1992; also see Meyer, 1998)
(see Gartner, 1993, for an opposing view).
Women in these situations tolerate abuse be-
cause they have no other choice (Shalhoub-
Kevorkian, 1997).
In many countries, women do not leave be-
cause violence against them is the norm and
there is no sanctuary for them anywhere.
Male-to-female violence is so common, varied,
and multidimensional that it constitutes human
rights abuses. Some illustrations are murder,
physical assaults, rape, burning, mutilation, en-
slavement, forced prostitution, torture, acid at-
tacks, malnourishment, abortion, infanticide,
and denial of education (e.g., Counts, Brown, &
Campbell, 1992; Fields-Meyer & Benet, 1998;
Heise, 1998; Meyer, 1998; O’Toole & Schiffman,
1997; Power, 1998; Prasad, 1994). In some parts
of Jordan and Fiji, males may resort to honor
killings when their wives disobey, are sexually
unfaithful, or try to leave (Adinkrah, 1999; N. V.
Baker, Gregware, & Cassidy, 1999; Beyer, 1999).
Jordanian women may have to go to prison
themselves to escape murder by their male inti-
mates (N. V. Baker et al., 1999; Beyer, 1999). A
mother-in-law in India may conspire with her
son to murder a young bride for financial gain
(see Holloway, 1994, for a review).

Even when patriarchal practices do not have
deadly outcomes, they feed beliefs that impede
women’s decisions to leave. A seamless array of
results shows that sexism occurs in the family,
the media, psychiatry, medicine, language, or-
ganized religion, government, and in the legal
system (see Messner, 1997; Schuler, Hashmi,
Riley, & Akhter, 1996). In some situations, patri-
archy allows men to determine whether female
intimates may work or leave the home at night
and even gives men the right to have sex with an
unwilling partner (M. D. Smith, 1990) (see also
Haj-Yahia, 1998a, 1998b; Myers, 1995; O’Toole &
Schiffman, 1997; Schuler et al., 1996).
Patriarchal beliefs tend to normalize violence
against women (Kandel-Englander, 1992). In a
Canadian study, the majority of men believed
that IPV is acceptable if a wife insults her hus-
band privately or publicly, if she comes home
drunk, if she strikes the first blow, if she has an
affair, or if she does not do what he tells her to do
(Ellis, 1989; see O’Toole & Schiffman, 1997, for a
review). Whether legal or illegal, a number of
societies, such as those in Austria, Hong Kong,
Japan, Nigeria, and Thailand, condone male-
to-female assaults as a normal part of the culture
rather than as criminal acts (e.g., Bernard &
Schlaffer, 1992; Hoffman, Demo, & Edwards,
1994; Kahn, 1980; Kalu, 1993; Schuler et al., 1996;
Tang, 1999b; Walker, 1999; Yoshihama &
Sorenson, 1994). Women in these countries vir-
tually have no support for leaving their hus-
bands and no safe place to go.
There are some components of male social-
ization, when implemented in a battering rela-
tionship, that hinder women’s decisions to
leave. Studies of power, control, and dominance
have determined that batterers’ violence may
stem from men’s need to control or, relatedly,
not to feel powerless (D. G. Dutton, 1988;
Hamby, 1996; O’Neil & Nadeau, 1999; Rouse,
1990; Stets, 1988; also see Coan, Gottman, Bab-
cock, & Jacobson, 1997; Levant, 1995).
From the perspective of learning theory, IPV
is a goal-oriented behavior that maintains an
imbalance of power between the batterer and
battered woman (see Barnett, Lee, & Thelen,
1997; Felson, 1992; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, &
Tolin, 1997). A batterer’s ability to gain control,
to feel powerful, or to be sexually aroused
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 347
through intimidation is reinforcing (as in D. G.
Dutton, Fehr, & McEwen, 1982) and therefore
will increase (also see Wood, Gove, Wilson, &
Cochran, 1997). Surprisingly, individuals in-
volved in IPV actually perceive their partners’
controlling behavior as
less controlling than do
The American
individuals not involved
political and legal
(Ehrensaft & Vivian, 1999).
system continues to
Although batterers may
allow sexist practices
be unaware of their moti-
that sabotage
vations (Barnett, Lee, &
women’s attempts to
Thelen, 1997), more re-
become
search is needed.
economically
If a woman manages to
independent in areas
gain more power than her
of income,
partner through eco-
employment, and
nomic or educational su-
child support.
periority, the imbalance
may cause him to reassert
dominance through IPV (e.g., Allen & Straus,
1980; Anderson, 1997; Avakame, 1999; Lambert
& Firestone, 2000; C. Smith, 1988).
Problems of Economic Dependency
Female economic dependency is one of the
many reflections of patriarchy and the major
reason that battered women do not leave. At the
micro level, the positive association between
lack of an independent income and not leaving
emerges in many studies (e.g., Aguirre, 1985;
I. M. Johnson, 1992; Kalmuss & Straus, 1982;
Strube & Barbour, 1983; Sullivan, Basta, Tan, &
Davidson, 1992; Wilson, Baglioni, & Downing,
1989). The American political and legal system
continues to allow sexist practices that sabotage
women’s attempts to become economically in-
dependent in areas of income, employment,
and child support.
Some impoverished battered women may
not leave because basic survival is such a strug-
gle (see also Byrne, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Best, &
Saunders, 1999; Cucio, 1997). At the macro level,
large-scale government (Greenfeld et al., 1998)
and nongovernment (e.g., M. A. Straus &
Gelles, 1990) studies have consistently shown
an inverse relationship between rates of partner
assault and lifetime income (see also Coker,
Derrick, Lumpkin, & Oldendick, 1999; Magdol
348 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
et al., 1997; Pan, Neidig, & O’Leary, 1994). In a
National Crime Victimization Survey special re-
port, Bachman and Saltzman (1995) stated that
women with a family income less than $10,000
were 4 times more likely to be victims of IPV
than other women. In an investigation of 210
women who had obtained restraining orders,
reabuse was significantly more likely to occur in
low socioeconomic status (SES) women (M. J.
Carlson, Harris, & Holden, 1999).
Some studies in other countries show a simi-
lar relationship (e.g., Hoffman et al., 1994). A
longitudinal survey of a birth cohort in New
Zealand determined that SES was a risk factor
for IPV (Magdol et al., 1998). Finally, low SES
was associated with the use of internal and pas-
sive (i.e., less effective) coping strategies (see
B er nha rd, 2000; F ernand ez-E s que r &
McCloskey, 1999; J. Finn, 1985; Hodson, 1982;
Nurius, Furrey, & Berliner, 1992). It remains un-
clear what elements of low SES, such as stress or
long-working hours, might most closely relate
to IPV (see Kaufman-Kantor, Jasinski, &
Aldorando, 1994; Neff, Holamon, & Schluter,
1995).
Economically dependent battered women
who wish to leave are exposed to the many haz-
ards associated with poverty, such as crime and
violence (Byrne, Resnick, et al., 1999; DeFronzo,
1997; Kury & Ferdinand, 1997), illness and
death of children (Belle, 1990), and inadequate
housing (G. Brown, Bhrolchain, & Harris, 1975;
Fitzpatrick, La Gory, & Ritchey, 1993). In a par-
ticularly shocking case, anesthesiologists at one
California hospital refused to provide pain
medication (epidural blocks) during childbirth
to Medi-Cal patients because of financial con-
cerns (Cabrera, 1998). It has been clear for many
years that downward mobility is the price many
divorced women pay for their freedom
(Devillier & Forsyth, 1988; Weiss, 1984). Women
represent 57.7% of economically poor adults
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1997), indicating
that the feminization of poverty continues
(Burkhauser & Duncan, 1989; Duncan, 1987;
Espinal & Grasmuck, 1997; Haberfeld,
Semyonov, & Addi, 1998).
Finding safe emergency housing is also a
problem for economically dependent women
(e.g., Jackels, 1997). Without community sup-
port, many women must return to their
batterers because housing and child care are not
available (C. F. Klein, 1995). Battered women
may be unaware of battered women’s shelters
or cannot find any with space available (Frisch &
MacKenzie, 1991; Irvine, 1990) (see also
Huisman, 1996; Suarez, 1994). A 1994 Los An-
geles survey ascertained that shelters turned
down requests from 8,800 families (Burke,
1995). An analysis of calls to the National Do-
mestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE) re-
vealed that the greatest gap in services was in-
adequate shelter capacity, followed by legal
resources, criminal justice response, and perma-
nent, affordable housing. The account also high-
lighted the existence of several underserved
populations: (a) foreign-language speakers
needing AT&T’s translators, (b) women who
were hearing-disabled or had other disabilities,
and (c) women in rural areas (Danis, Lewis,
Trapp, Reid, & Fisher, 1998).
Research indicates that IPV is a contributing
factor for 21% to 64% of clients in shelters for the
homeless (e.g., Bassuk et al., 1996; L. A. Good-
man, 1991; U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998; Vir-
ginia Coalition for the Homeless, 1995; Wax-
man & Trupin, 1997; J. Zorza, 1991). A 1998
broad-based survey established that 32% of re-
quests for shelter by homeless families were de-
nied because of inadequate housing resources
(U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1998). Older
women, lesbians, immigrants, some ethnic
groups, and disabled women are especially dis-
advantaged in finding suitable refuge (see also
Huisman, 1996; Short et al., 2000; Suarez, 1994).
Furthermore, without access to affordable hous-
ing upon exiting a shelter, homeless women are
vulnerable to repeat shelter stays (Metraux &
Culhane, 1999).
Because of gender-based pay differentials,
even working women may remain economi-
cally dependent on their male partners. The Bu-
reau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 1998 showed
that women make approximately 76.7 cents for
every $1 a man makes. The median income of
women who work full-time is $24,492 a year
and, for men, $31,928 (BLS, 1999). Business lead-
ers have made little effort toward eradicating
wage discrimination (Faludi, 1991, p. xiii), and
according to Pratto (cited in DeAngelis, 1997),

employers use many subtle tactics to keep
women from receiving equal treatment and job
opportunities. Some insurance companies have
gone so far as to deny health, life, or disability
coverage to battered women (see K. Parker,
1996; J. Zorza, 1994). A current example of sex-
ism is the policies of insurance companies that
are willing to pay for male potency drugs (e.g.,
Viagra) but unwilling to cover the costs of con-
traceptives (Sasaki, 1998).
IPV also is associated with a higher risk for
unemployment (Byrne, Resnick, et al., 1999).
Battered women’s efforts to find or retain jobs
often meet with interference and sabotage from
their partners (Tsesis, 1996; J. Zorza, 1991). In
one analysis, batterers forbade 33% of the
women from working, successfully prevented
21% from actually obtaining a job, and caused
job loss in 24% of the cases. Batterers also ob-
structed women’s job performance by increas-
ing their absenteeism and harassing them at
work (Shepard & Pence, 1988; see also
Gianakos, 1999). An account of male partners’
hindrance of the education, training, or work of
abused women on welfare disclosed a level of
interference ranging from 15% to almost 50%
(Shepard & Pence, 1988; also see Browne,
Salomon, & Bassuk, 1999; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999;
Pearson et al., 1999; Raphael & Tolman, 1997). In
addition, the legal system will not uniformly
protect women who lose their jobs as a result of
IPV (“Federal Court,” 1996). Ending abuse can
enable many women to become more economi-
cally independent (Browne & Bassuk, 1997;
Frisch & MacKenzie, 1991).
Adding to battered women’s economic de-
pendency are government policies that allow
men to penalize divorced wives and their chil-
dren economically. A 1990 U.S. Census Bureau
survey (cited in Waldman, 1992) showed that
only half of 5 million women received full
court-ordered payments, one quarter received
partial payment, and the last one quarter re-
ceived nothing (also see Pearson & Griswold,
1997). One account of women seeking protec-
tion orders revealed that the court awarded
child support payments to only 13% (Rowe &
Lown, 1990; also see Gondolf, McWilliams,
Hart, & Stuehling, 1994), and batterers are even
less likely than nonbatterers to pay child sup-
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 349
port or alimony (Liss & Stahly, 1993). The failure
of fathers to consistently pay child support is a
factor in the downward mobility of divorced
women with dependent children (Devillier &
Forsyth, 1988). Furthermore, when women are
unable to leave for economic reasons, their chil-
dren are exposed to IPV with the risk of
transgenerational transmission of aggressive
behaviors. Thus, economic equality for women
is a long-range crime-prevention strategy
(Hackler, 1991).
All but one of the states has passed a Victims’
Bill of Rights, and 22 states have passed consti-
tutional amendments requiring certain
crime-victim services (Tomz & McGillis, 1997),
but funding of services is insufficient (C. F.
Klein, 1995). Availability of victim compensa-
tion for IPV has been especially problematic
(”Victim Agencies,” 1992). Regulators often in-
terpreted battered women’s behavior as viola-
tions of certain statutes, for example, (a) she par-
ticipated in a fight (e.g., a barroom brawl) that
she may have provoked, (b) financially com-
pensating her might result in unjust enrichment
because the money might assist her batterer, or
(c) she was not prepared to cooperate with law
enforcement agencies (i.e., make an official
complaint) (Tomz & McGillis, 1997).
Surveys have shown that 33% to 67% of
women on welfare are currently abused by their
partners (see Raphael, 1999; Tolman, 1999, for
reviews). The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 trans-
formed welfare from an entitlement program to
a temporary cash assistance program (Tolman,
1999). Welfare staff charged with qualifying
welfare applicants frequently deny necessary
exemptions called for by federal guidelines. En-
forcement of regulations (e.g., paternity identi-
fication to enforce child support payments) can
place women at risk for IPV because the process
could provide the batterer with information
about the woman’s location (Brandwein, 1998).
PROBLEMS IN THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM (CJS)
Because of the $1.62 billion Violence Against
Women Act (Biden, 1994), the legal basis for in-
tervening in IPV and sexual assault has been
 350 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
dramatically strengthened (also see Feder,
1998). The major problem is not the need for
new laws but the failure of the criminal justice
system (CJS) to implement them appropriately.
The country has remained incapable of devising
a coherent criminal justice procedure to address
IPV (R. L. Davis, 1998). Battered women experi-
ence significant difficulties in obtaining needed
services at every level (Hofford & Harrell, 1993).
Of all the possible reasons why battered women
do not leave abusive men, CJS practices proba-
bly rank second only to economic dependency
as a major stumbling block.
Advocates claim that the CJS is too anti-
q u a t ed, bi ased , unsupport i v e , an d
underfunded to provide the services needed by
battered women (e.g., Epstein, 1999; L. A. Good-
man, Bennett, & Dutton, 2000). Today’s CJS
practices reflect historical precedent and patri-
archal beliefs that fail to serve and protect bat-
tered women (e.g., Feder, 1998; L. S. Parker,
1997). Despite some improvement, women vic-
timized by IPV express significantly more dis-
sat i sfact i on th an do
The inadequacies of women victimized by
the court system nonpartners (Byrne, Kil-
greatly hamper patrick, Howley, & Beatty,
battered women’s 1999). Some feminist legal
opportunities to leave scholars view reform of
their violent male the CJS as a critical last
partners. step in ending husbands’
legal rights to beat their
wives (L. G. Mills, 1999).
Other authorities decry the CJS’s missed oppor-
tunities to promote emotional benefits for indi-
viduals involved in IPV through more suitable
policies (therapeutic jurisprudence) (Simon,
1995; Wexler & Bruce, 1996).
The inadequacies of the court system greatly
hamper battered women’s opportunities to
leave their violent male partners. The court has
been oriented toward nonenforcement of ap-
propriate legislation and remains insensitive to
the needs of battered women. The system is
fragmented and confusing. Many battered
women must file multiple petitions in several
different courts before different judges who are
unaware of court actions elsewhere (Epstein,
1999). One of the most serious problems in the
CJS is lack of resources (Hartman, 1999). Fre-
quently, funding is so minimal that court per-
sonnel are unable to guide battered women
through the court system. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that lack of funds precludes providing
legal assistance to many battered women
(Grigsby & Hartman, 1997). Victims concerned
about their abuser’s incarceration, for example,
may have no information about alternatives
such as mandatory counseling or community
service (Healey & Smith, 1998).
The list of problems is extensive and includes
serious flaws in prosecution and judicial deci-
sion making. Some of the most obvious chal-
lenges faced by battered women are as follows:
(a) confusion about the court system (e.g., lack
of knowledge about differences between the
civil and criminal courts), (b) frustration with
the criminal justice system (e.g., slowness, fear
triggered by lack of action, lack of contact with
the court), (c) conflict over batterer incarceration
(e.g., foreseeable lack of child support or help in
taking care of children, lack of a father in the
home), and (d) views of the criminal justice sys-
tem as racist and oppressive (M. A. Dutton,
Goodman, & Bennett, 1999; Epstein, 1999). A
Kentucky case of a battered woman, Karen
Graves, and her husband, Richard (cited in Ep-
stein, 1999), illustrates the fragmented approach
of the CJS.
Case Study of Karen
and Richard Graves
During a year’s time, two different police de-
partments responded to 22 calls from Karen and
Richard’s residence. None of the police officers
was aware of any previous calls. Although Rich-
ard seriously injured Karen by hitting her with
the baby’s car seat, stomping on her ear, and as-
saulting her, several different judges set aside
six different warrants for Richard’s arrest. Ka-
ren and Richard appeared before 10 different
judges (who had no notification of previous
cases and rulings) at 16 hearings in the local
family and criminal courts. A total of three dif-
ferent judicial officers at eight separate hearings
heard Karen’s petitions for divorce, custody,
and child support. Richard participated in three
separate court-ordered counseling programs
for alcohol and drug abuse and anger manage-

ment. Advocates from four different agencies
(e.g., Child Protective Services) addressed vari-
ous problems the couple had, but none of the
agencies communicated with any of the others.
When Karen started seeing a new boyfriend,
Richard fired a gun near Karen and made re-
peated death threats, which Karen reported.
Eventually, Karen wrote a letter to the court beg-
ging the court to read the entire file of her case,
to force Richard to follow the court’s directives,
and to protect her and her children. Six months
later, Richard killed Karen with a shotgun and
then killed himself.
Problems With Police
Police find IPV a vexing problem (Watten-
dorf, 1996). Police can play a pivotal role in help-
ing battered women escape, or they can choose
to put up serious barriers (Grigsby & Hartman,
1997). Police can also play a crucial role in inter-
rupting the intergenerational cycle of violence.
Trained and motivated police can take the op-
portunity at the time of arrest to inform victims
of available community services. Police officer
George Wattendorf (1996) claims that fully
trained police officers are often able to collect
the evidence necessary to convict batterers
without the victims’ testimony (also see
Rebovich, 1996).
When police do not respond appropriately,
their conduct can negatively affect battered
women’s decisions to leave. In fact, police ac-
tions may make it much harder or even danger-
ous for battered women to leave. Despite appro-
priate new legislation, police departments
generally have lagged behind in implementa-
tion and in training their officers (Feder, 1997,
1998).
A review of 498 sheltered women indicated
that only 58% of them called the police, and of
those who called, most had been physically
abused (Coulter, Kuehnle, Byers, & Alfonso,
1999). One comparison established that more
minorities call the police for IPV, and those who
do are treated about the same as others
(Hutchison, Hirschel, & Pesackis, 1994). Some
claim that African American women do not
want police intervention for fear of contributing
to negative racial stereotyping of Black men
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 351
(Richie, 1985; also see Moss et al., 1997). Empiri-
cal evidence, however, suggests otherwise.
Studies of calls to police departments and shel-
ters reveal that African American women are
more likely than Anglo women to seek help (see
L. A. Goodman et al., 2000; Hutchison &
Hirschel, 1998; Murty & Roebuck, 1992; Tjaden
& Thoennes, 1998).
In the overwhelming majority of IPV studies,
the findings show that police decisions to arrest
perpetrators are inconsistent, sometimes illogi-
cal, or even in opposition to written policies. Po-
lice may fail to arrest some of the most violent
men, including those who have used guns,
knives, or clubs or who have thrown wives
downstairs or over balconies (Fyfe, Klinger, &
Flavin, 1997). Police often require higher stan-
dards of probable cause for arrest in IPV cases
than in acquaintance or stranger cases (Buzawa,
Austin, & Buzawa, 1995; also see Fyfe et al.,
1997; U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Jus-
tice Statistics, 1994) (see Feder, 1997, 1998, for a
contrasting view). Overall, a recent review cited
25 studies showing that police typically avoid
arresting batterers (Erez & Belknap, 1998).
Research on arrest rates of women involved
in IPV is extremely limited. Experts suspect that
police commonly fail to identify males as the
primary aggressor in IPV cases. An examination
of 2,670 court cases in a large Midwestern juris-
diction revealed that 86.1% of defendants were
males, 13.9% were females, and 1.3% were
same-sex couples. According to a preliminary
analysis of court transcripts, many women
charged as abusers were actually victims
(Belknap et al., 1999; also see Hamberger & Ar-
nold, 1991). Disparate results emerged from an
inquiry of 498 women entering a battered
women’s shelter in Florida. They reported that
police rarely arrested female victims (Coulter
et al., 1999).
The attitudes of individual police officers
typically mirror those held by the public: (a) IPV
may be the woman’s fault (Ford, 1999; Home,
1994; Rigakos, 1995), and (b) involving police
may not be the best solution to IPV (Feder, 1998;
Saunders & Size, 1986). Police also frequently
claim that battered women are manipulative or
unbelievable (Rigakos, 1995). Attempts to dis-
entangle the relationship between police atti-
 352 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
tudes and arrest have afforded only preliminary
and conflicting results. The majority of studies
have concluded that extralegal factors, such as
officers’ attitudes toward women’s roles, the re-
lationship between the victim and the perpetra-
tor, victim or perpetrators’ traits or demeanor,
and drug use, all influence arrest decision (e.g.,
Buzawa et al., 1995; M. A. Finn & Stalans, 1997;
Fyfe et al., 1997; Gondolf & McFerron, 1989). In a
dissenting view, Feder (1998) attributed arrest
decisions to the characteristics of the situation,
such as injury, presence of the perpetrator, and
the victims’ preference for arrest, rather than to
policemen’s attitudes and knowledge of the
law.
Opinions also clash
Without exception,
over police sensitivity to
research indicates
battered women during
the need for more
on-scene handling of a
initial training of
call. A qualitative investi-
police and more
gation of 25 battered
follow-up training.
women revealed that 71%
described police behavior
in positive terms. About 33% were very critical
of officers’ behaviors and attitudes, claiming
that officers threatened them with a dual arrest
or made jokes about the violence (Stephens &
Sinden, 2000). As an example from a different
inquiry, one woman reported that officers told
her that if she called the police again, they
would arrest both her and her husband and that
her children would be put in foster care (Coulter
et al., 1999).
Some police are batterers themselves, so it is
difficult to imagine what sort of services they
provide. Lenore Johnson (cited in Van Hasselt,
2000) found that 40% of officers in one sample
reported at least one episode of IPV in the previ-
ous year. In the 9,300-member Los Angeles Po-
lice Department, approximately 150 officers
had domestic assault arrest records and others
had their records expunged (“Three Deputies,”
1997).
Without exception, research indicates the
need for more initial training of police and more
follow-up training (M. T. Baker, Miller, Johnston,
Van Hasselt, & Bourke, 1998; Eigenberg & Mori-
arty, 1991; Newmark, Harrell, & Adams, 1995).
Police lack rudimentary facts about IPV: (a) the
psychosocial context of abuse (Kelling, 1999;
Wattendorf, 1996), (b) the self-defensive nature
of most women’s violence (Hamberger & Ar-
nold, 1991), (c) the gender discrepancy in emer-
gency room admissions for injuries, (Greenfeld
et al., 1998; Rand, 1997), (d) the terror of children
exposed to IPV (Stubbing, 1990; also see T. O.
Woods, 2000; Wuest & Merritt-Gray, 1999), and
(e) the crucial nature of crime-scene investiga-
tory work (Kelling, 1999; Wattendorf, 1996).
The practices of police around the world of-
ten seriously undermine women’s safety. In a
number of countries, women find it useless, if
not dangerous, to report IPV (Heise, 1996). In to-
day’s Russia, for example, police have the statu-
tory right to refuse service to women who claim
that their husbands have beaten them (Horne,
1999). In Peru or Pakistan, an assaulted
woman’s visit to a police station puts her at risk
for being raped by the police (Human Rights
Watch, 1992; Kirk, 1992).
Problems With Arrest Policies
Arresting a man for IPV may be pivotal in a
woman’s ability to leave. The most contentious
element within the CJS is the arrest of batterers
and its effectiveness. The role of prosecutorial
and judicial actions following arrest are equally
fundamental in deterring future violence (R. L.
Davis, 1998; Tolman & Weisz, 1995). As learning
research has pointed out, lack of punishment,
intermittent punishment, and delay of punish-
ment do not suppress behaviors (Lieberman,
1993). Most likely, the arrest of batterers is no
more helpful in deterring IPV than arrest of
criminals is in deterring other crimes (see
Dunford, Huizinga, & Elliott, 1990; Sherman
et al., 1991). “It may be unreasonable to expect
any short-term action by the criminal justice
system to have a significant deterrent effect”
(Hirschel, Hutchison, & Dean, 1992, p. 31).
A few studies, such as the Spouse Assault
Replication Program, have detected a decrease
in assaults following arrest. Victim interview
data from this research revealed that aggression
occurred 30% less often following arrest,
whereas police reports showed that 60% of the
suspects never reoffended during the follow-up
period. Other variables, such as drug use at the
time of arrest, were related to rearrest (National

Institute of Justice Journal, 1999; also see
Sherman, 1992). Professionals propose that ar-
rest can be beneficial in other ways. Putting
batterers under the control of the court allows
judges to take advantage of several options,
such as compelling offenders to seek treatment
(Stark, 1993; see Erez & Belknap, 1998; L. G.
Mills, 1998).
CJS experts and battered women’s advocates
continue their polemics about whether manda-
tory arrest policies serve battered women. Ad-
vocates initially believed that mandatory arrest
would guarantee aggressive police intervention
on behalf of battered women. As of 1996, 15
states and Washington, D.C., had adopted man-
datory or at least limited-discretion arrest poli-
cies (L. G. Mills, 1999).
Some authorities allege that mandatory ar-
rest practices are advisable only if they reduce
future IPV (Sherman et al., 1991), whereas oth-
ers reject the deterrence argument, stating that
there is no convincing evidence that mandatory
arrest exerts a deterrent effect on any criminal
behavior (e.g., burglary) (R. C. Davis & Taylor,
1997; Sigler & Lamb, 1995). Mandatory arrest
can be difficult to implement because police do
not always know whom to arrest (i.e., who is the
violent party). Furthermore, mandatory arrest
policies result in an increase in inappropriate
dual arrests (Martin, 1997). Kelling (1999) ar-
gues that allowing police discretion is most ap-
propriate because police officers must take the
context of any presumed criminal act into con-
sideration. In fact, discretion is used at every
level of the CJS.
Dual-arrest policies refer to the practice of ar-
resting both parties in response to a domestic
disturbance call. Serious hardships for battered
women have resulted from these requirements.
One illustration is the denial of shelter access to
arrested women (Grigsby & Hartman, 1997).
Another example is that police in one state actu-
ally arrested a greater portion of women than
men for assault (34% and 23%, respectively)
(Martin, 1997; also see Hamberger & Arnold,
1991). To make matters worse, one review of
prosecutions in dual-arrest cases established
that district attorneys prosecuted arrested
women (11%) more often than arrested men
(6%) (Martin, 1997).
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 353
When the CJS acts in a coordinated fashion
(as in model domestic abuse court programs),
arrest rates may be as high as 75% and success-
ful prosecution as high as 70% (Buzawa,
Hotaling, & Klein, 1998). In addition, battered
women’s satisfaction with the CJS appears to in-
crease (Henning & Klesges, 1999).
Problems With Prosecutorial Policies
Battered women’s chances of escaping can be
impeded by the actions of prosecutors, espe-
cially those who fail to focus on the victim’s
safety. Well-trained prosecutors have the poten-
tial for breaking the cycle of violence (Roberts,
1996). Interview data from one study showed
that prosecutorial action of any type lowered re-
cidivism (Ford & Regoli, 1992). Concentrating
on the practical problems of running a court,
such as reducing caseloads and clearing court
dockets through plea bargains, is counterpro-
ductive to ending IPV (Roberts, 1996).
Prosecutors have repeatedly complained that
battered women waste their time by refusing to
testify (e.g., Ford & Regoli, 1992). More than half
of the battered women in one survey failed to
cooperate with criminal prosecution (Rebovich,
1996). There are a number of reasons why bat-
tered women may not cooperate: (a) fear (P. L.
Baker, 1997; Tomz & McGillis, 1997), especially
when victims think police and prosecutors are
unwilling to protect them (Ferraro & Pope,
1993); (b) lack of tangible support for victims
(e.g., baby-sitting, transportation) (L. A. Good-
man et al., 2000; also see Henning & Klesges,
1999); (c) lack of congruence between the vic-
tims’ and the system’s goals (e.g., a woman may
use prosecution to force a batterer to give her a
divorce, and once convinced she can obtain the
divorce, she may drop the suit) (Bennett, Good-
man, & Dutton, 1999); and (d) failure to inform
victims of their court date (Belknap et al., 1999).
Notwithstanding these assertions of non-
cooperation, one in-depth analysis of 2,670
court cases determined that prosecutors gener-
ally viewed women victims as cooperative. In
this inquiry, prosecutors’ lack of time to prepare
victims for testifying fed into victims’ fears. The
best predictor of court outcome (e.g., guilty ver-
dict) was the number of times the prosecutor
354 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
met with the victim (Belknap et al., 1999; also see
Sirles, Lipchik, & Kowalski, 1993). The average
number of prosecutor-victim meetings was less
than one time (0.53).
Although prosecutors tend to denounce vic-
tims’ failure to cooperate, battered women com-
ment on objectionable prosecutor actions. Re-
search examining prosecutorial styles has
furnished limited information. Victims in one
survey voiced two basic concerns: (a) that the
prosecutor would not prepare them adequately
for testifying and (b) that the abuser would not
be found guilty (Belknap et al., 1999; also see
Sirles et al., 1993).
The amount of funding apportioned to prose-
cutors appears to play a decisive role in the suc-
cess of their task. Differential funding of prose-
cutors’ offices in Los Angeles County, for
example, produced broad contrasts. Prosecu-
tors’ offices with sufficient funds were able to
assign specialized prosecutors to IPV cases,
whereas those without could not. During a
6-month period, specialized prosecutors work-
ing on 196 cases dismissed only 12.7% of cases
and successfully prosecuted 87.2%. Nonspecial-
ized prosecutors handling 189 IPV cases dis-
missed 35% and successfully prosecuted 64.5%.
The researchers attributed the disparate out-
comes to dissimilar prosecutorial styles precipi-
tated by funding decisions (McGreevy, 1998;
also see Rebovich, 1996).
A novel liberalized charging policy that
stretched prosecutors’ resources in one city ac-
tually worsened overall outcomes. The wider
the prosecutorial net extended, the more fre-
quently victims were reluctant to continue with
the case, which in turn led to a high backlog of
cases. The time to case disposition doubled,
convictions declined, pretrial crime prolifer-
ated, and victims were less satisfied. A second
novel but successful procedure enabled prose-
cutors to speed up the process. Processing time
was halved, convictions went up by 25%, pre-
trial crime diminished, and recidivism showed
a slight decline (R. C. Davis, Smith, & Nickles,
1997).
Many authorities have argued that aggres-
sive prosecution policies (no-drop) will serve
IPV victims best. Initially, advocates thought
that no-drop policies would enhance victim
safety. Battered women would experience less
responsibility for managing their own cases,
batterers might not blame victims, and the over-
all effects would be positive (Buzawa et al.,
1995; Hanna, 1996; J. Zorza & L. Woods, 1994). If
nothing else, prosecution addresses batterers’
IPV. Others maintain that no-drop policies may
endanger or disempower battered women (L. G.
Mills, 1998; Stark, 2000). No-drop requires pros-
ecution regardless of the victim’s wishes, recan-
tation, or objections. Some battered women
have misgivings, including those related to reli-
gious beliefs about leaving their marriage or
those related to loss of spousal economic sup-
port (see Epstein, 1999, for a review).
Implementation of no-drop policies has var-
ied. At one extreme, battered women who did
not wish to testify were actually put in jail (Roth,
1998). Other approaches, known as soft
no-drop, openly declared a no-drop policy but,
in reality, allowed some women the option of
not testifying. Some experts suggest abandon-
ing hard-drop policies (e.g., Ford, 1999) because
mandatory arrest and prosecution curtail vic-
tims’ power to decide what happens to abusers
(R. C. Davis et al., 1997). Rather than forcing re-
luctant battered women to testify, making the
court user-friendly and woman-friendly is the
better path to follow (Ford & Regoli, 1992; Wan,
2000). Others believe women are far better
served when mandatory policies are imple-
mented (Stark, 2000). To date, research has
failed to validate the claim that no-drop is an ef-
fective strategy for reducing recidivism (R. C.
Davis et al., 1997).
Researchers/practitioners are making some
headway in finding ways to make the court
more accessible. A qualitative assessment of 23
battered women disclosed that when victims re-
ceived information and social support from le-
gal advocates, they were much more likely to
cooperate with the prosecution (Weisz, 1999).
When victims balk or refuse to cooperate, prose-
cutors could treat these cases as they treat mur-
der cases—as though there were no victim avail-
able to testify. As evidence, they could use
spontaneous statements made by the victim at
the time of arrest, videos or photographs of inju-

ries, and police officers’ testimony (see L. G.
Mills, 1999, for a review).
Problems With Judges’ Behavior
and Decision Making
A number of battered women cannot leave
because of judicial decisions. In fact, the biggest
problem facing many battered women, their
children, and advocates is the failure of judges
to respond appropriately to cases of family vio-
lence (Hofford & Harrell, 1993). Nearly all stud-
ies show that judges fail to enforce laws aimed at
controlling batterers’ IPV (see R. L. Davis, 1998,
for a review). Consequently, battered women’s
safety is greatly jeopardized.
Some judges also harm battered women by
demeaning them. Deborah Epstein (1999) re-
ported on several unbelievable accounts of
shocking judicial conduct. One judge, for exam-
ple, presided over a case in which testimony de-
scribed the behavior of a man who doused his
wife with lighter fluid and set her on fire. The
judge broke into song in open court, “You light
up my wife,” to the tune of “You Light Up My
Life.” Some judges seem to believe that batterers
are justified in assaulting their partners or even
murdering them (Myers, 1995; Schornstein,
1997). One judge expressed resentment about
having to deal with a husband who pled guilty
to killing his wife after finding her in bed with
another man. The judge complained that his job
was very difficult when he was called on to sen-
tence noncriminals as criminals (Epstein, 1999).
A number of biases have appeared in judicial
rulings, including antivictim bias and antiwoman
bias (Epstein, 1999; Stone & Fialk, 1999). A 1990
study showed that judges rarely punished hus-
bands who hid their assets during the discovery
phase of the trial (“California Panel Urges,”
1990). One antiwoman bias, for example, in-
cluded finding mothers less fit as the custodial
parent if they worked, especially if the fathers
had remarried and had a stay-at-home wife
(Winner, 1996). As mentioned previously,
judges only sporadically order batterers to pay
child support (Rowe & Lown, 1990).
Research shows that without exception, most
assaultive men are rarely sanctioned by the
court. A synthesis of investigations revealed
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 355
that about one fourth of batterers are arrested,
about one third of those arrested are prosecuted,
and 1% of those prosecuted receive jail time be-
yond the time served at arrest (often just a few
hours) (see Bourg & Stock, 1994; Coulter et al.,
1999; R. L. Davis, 1998; Hirschel, Hutchison,
Dean, & Mills, 1992; Holmes, 1993). In an analy-
sis of 2,670 court cases, 44% resulted in a guilty
verdict, 5% in a not-guilty verdict, and 51%
were dismissed (Belknap et al., 1999). Judges’
nonenforcement also extends to noncompliance
with restraining orders (see R. L. Davis, 1998).
The public also seems to favor lenient treat-
ment of batterers. In one survey, community
members preferred court-ordered mediation
more than jail or probation (Stalans, 1996;
Stalans & Lurigio, 1995). A 1992 poll showed
that most respondents chose counseling, not ar-
rest, as the best alternative. A little more than
half thought an arrest was appropriate but only
in cases where a man hit a woman hard. If he
punched her, however, more than 90% agreed
arrest was appropriate (E. Klein, Campbell,
Soler, & Ghez, 1997).
To remedy this lack of consequences for IPV,
some jurisdictions have inaugurated manda-
tory penalties. Very little research evidence about
the effects of mandatory
penalties is available. In A number of biases
an Iowa investigation, in- have appeared in
dividuals convicted of judicial rulings,
IPV did receive greater including antivictim
penalties, but other prob- bias and antiwoman
lems arose. Because fewer bias.
wife abusers were willing
to plead guilty and because victim cooperation
was more problematic, conviction rates actually
declined (C. Carlson & Nidey, 1995).
All empirical studies and experts’ analyses
cite judges’ lack of training as a serious problem
in the court, if not the most serious flaw within
the criminal justice system (Burt, Newmark,
Olson, Aron, & Harrell, 1997; Epstein, 1999;
Hofford & Harrell, 1993; The Family Violence
Project of the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges, 1995; J. Zorza, 1998). It is
common for court personnel to develop an
antivictim bias in IPV cases (Epstein, 1999). This
tendency is exacerbated by the fact that many
battered women present an unappealing per-
 356 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000

sona because of IPV (Solender, 1998). Because Attorney behaviors can make it especially
court personnel do not understand battered difficult for women to extricate themselves from
women, they misinterpret their behavior. batterers. Untrained attorneys do not under-
Judges often believe that women have pro- stand family violence and therefore tend to min-
voked IPV or that IPV represents a problem in imize it. Attorneys who represent battered
the relationship (Solender, 1998). With more ed- women may not act in the best interests of their
ucation, judges would have to acknowledge clients. Attorneys may engage in gender bias
that a substantial number of batterers are men and inappropriate practices that harm battered
who assault others as well as wives (see Buzawa women (The Family Violence Project, 1995).
et al., 1998). One policy analyst for New York City docu-
Attorney behaviors Despite the obvious mented widespread overcharging, misrepre-
can make it need for training of court senting, and failing to litigate diligently for fe-
especially difficult for personnel, some training male clients (see Goelman, Lehrman, & Valente,
women to extricate may have i m pe de d 1996).
themselves from needed change. Training In 1997, the American Bar Association’s
batterers. Untrained by advocates has encoun- (ABA’s) Commission on Domestic Violence
attorneys do not tered some negative reac- convened to assess the ABA’s response to vic-
understand family tions. The strong view- tims of IPV. So generally flawed was the legal
violence and points expressed by some profession’s representation of victims that the
therefore tend to advocates tend to irritate Commission issued a series of recommenda-
minimize it. Attorneys judges, thus leading to tions concerning legal education. It is interest-
who represent miscommunication. ing that the commission also reemphasized the
battered women may Some court personnel necessity of disciplinary committees to include
not act in the best have reached a saturation professional consequences for lawyers who
interests of their point of training by advo- abuse their own partners and children (see
clients. cates with a political Goelman & Valente, 1997, for a review).
agenda (Dalton, 1999; Mediation during divorce and custody can
also see Solender, 1998). pose grave dangers for battered women and
Advocates themselves may tend to act in a bu- their children and should not be mandatory
reaucratic manner, contradicting the agency’s (“California Panel Urges,” 1990). Mandatory
goals (see Wan, 2000). Finally, some advocates mediation is inappropriate because of power
have irritated victims by mistakenly assuming imbalances between the batterer and the victim
their knowledge about battered women’s feel- and because of the victim’s psychological condi-
ing is superior to that of battered women them- tion (e.g., PTSD) (Dalton, 1999; Maxwell, 1999;
selves (L. G. Mills, 1996). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges, 1994). In one survey, 80% of mediation
Problems With Child programs claimed to use required IPV screening
Custody and Visitation procedures, but further analysis revealed that
only half actually interviewed husbands and
A major stumbling block for women trying to wives separately (Pearson, 1997; see also Bryan,
escape IPV are the laws governing child cus- 1992; Davies, Ralph, Hawton, & Craig, 1995). In
tody and visitation. Women are especially fear- fact, one review demonstrated that mediators
ful of losing their children (e.g., Jackels, 1997). successfully detected and excluded only 5% of
Problems of custody and visitation are wide- couples involved in IPV (Pearson, 1997).
spread. Roughly 50% to 80% of couples in- A1997 survey of members of the National Co-
volved in court-based divorce and custody/vis- alition Against Domestic Violence (“NCADV
itation have experienced IPV (e.g., Depner, Reports,” 1997) ascertained that their first legis-
Canatta, & Ricci, 1995; Newmark, Harrell, & Sa- lative priority concerned child visitation and
lem, 1995; O’Sullivan, 2000; Pearson, 1997). safety. Battered women often cannot leave a city
because the court mandates paternal visitation

rights. Many battered women and children are
terrified because batterers often use visitation as
an opportunity to continue their abuse (Geffner &
Pagelow, 1990; Hilton, 1992; O’Sullivan, 2000).
Unfortunately, judges appear uninfluenced by
IPV in their visitation orders (O’Sullivan, 2000).
Women in the process are likely to suffer from
stress-induced illnesses (Shalansky, Ericksen, &
Henderson, 1999). It is important that guide-
lines for court-supervised visitation be devel-
oped and that funding of these services be made
available (The Family Violence Project, 1995;
Maxwell, 1999; McGill, Deutsch, & Zibbell,
1999; Reihing, 1999; R. B. Straus, 1995).
As previously noted, the need for training of
judges is urgent. Courts tend to blame mothers
for the father’s abuse of their children or for
being victimized themselves (Edleson, 1998;
Stone & Fialk, 1999). They wrongly believe that
separation (e.g., divorce) will end the abuse
(Dearwater et al., 1998). Custody evaluators, in
particular, are inadequately trained (The Family
Violence Project, 1995). Surprisingly, psycholo-
gists involved in custody evaluations also need
more training, as evidenced by their frequent
failure to consider IPV as a factor in their recom-
mendations (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1996;
Shalansky et al., 1999; J. Zorza, 1997). All court-
connected services should have access to refer-
ral information for parents, such as contact in-
formation for shelters and abuser counseling
programs (Newmark, Harrell, & Salem, 1995).
Many experts believe that batterers use any
type of court proceeding to discredit the victim
and to maintain contact with her. According to
one authority, batterers often file counterclaims
that are disproportionately expensive for
women to fight (see J. Zorza, 1998, for a review).
Batterers are more likely to fight for custody
than are nonabusive men, even when they have
been disengaged in parenting or have abused
the children (Liss & Stahly, 1993).
Some batterers’ defense attorneys have suc-
ceeded in attributing two syndromes to mothers
that have undermined their attempts to gain
custody (see Jaffe & Geffner, 1998, for a review):
malicious mother syndrome (Turkat, 1995), re-
cently updated to divorce-related malicious
parent syndrome (Turkat, 1999), and parental
alienation syndrome (Gardner, 1987). These
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 357
syndromes describe unjustified attempts by a
parent to punish the other parent by denying
him (or her) access to the couples’ children. By
the author’s own admission, malicious mother
syndrome has no supportive empirical evi-
dence. Parental alienation syndrome (Gardner,
1987), another unsubstantiated syndrome, cov-
ers false allegations of child sexual abuse (CSA)
(see American Psychological Association,
1996). False allegations of CSA are rarely made
(see Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 1997, for a
review).
Judges’ behaviors pose problems for battered
women in custody decisions as well as in other
matters. Until recently, most courts were con-
cerned with balancing maternal and paternal
rights to children. Courts perceived abuse of the
mother as totally separate from paternal cus-
tody rights. Whereas courts have been very apt
to consider alcohol or drug abuse as relevant to
custody issues, they have usually ignored expo-
sure to IPV (National Center on Women and
Family Law, Inc., 1994; Shalansky et al., 1999).
According to Taylor (cited in Jaffe & Geffner,
1998), some judges believe that a child’s es-
trangement from his or her father is more trau-
matic than the child’s exposure to his or her fa-
ther’s battering. Finally, some judges simply do
not believe that exposure to IPV is harmful de-
spite ample evidence to the contrary (Holden,
Geffner, & Jouriles, 1998; Solender, 1998), and
some require proof of harm in individual cases
(Belknap et al., 1999). Slowly, legislators have
begun to decide that exposure to IPV is not in
the best interests of the child. By 1995, 44 states
required courts to consider batterers’ violence
as a factor in intrafamily custody cases (Hof-
ford, Bailey, Davis, & Hart, 1995).
Because of judges’ lack of knowledge about
batterers’ behavior, judges usually grant liberal
visitation to fathers, which is a decision that pre-
vents women from escaping by leaving the city
(Shalansky et al., 1999). Judges usually give in-
sufficient weight to safety issues for women and
children during visitation and do not ade-
quately take into account the terrible fear and
stress of victims dealing with custody and visi-
tation issues (Shalansky et al., 1999). Some
judges even feel obligated to award custody to a
batterer because the mother has been rendered
358 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
almost nonfunctional by the abuse. She may
have no job skills, be isolated, and temporarily
be unable to formulate a plan to care for the chil-
dren (Solender, 1998).
Problems With Orders of Protection
Although a protection order (PO) has several
functions, such as forcing a batterer to vacate the
family residence, its primary function is to pro-
tect victims from physical abuse, harassment,
and threats. By 1994, all 50 states had some form
of PO available for battered women (Keilitz,
1994). Some battered women do not leave be-
cause they are either too fearful to apply for a
PO against their male partner, the judge will not
grant a PO, or the PO is ineffective (Hart, 1996).
Victims’ apprehensions revolve around dread
of retaliation by the batterer, fear of courtroom
rituals, and fear that they will be disbelieved
(Ptacek, 1999).
There is little academic disagreement that
battered women need access to POs. M. J.
Carlson et al. (1999) reported that 68% of those
seeking POs reported prior victimization by
physical violence, and Harrell and Smith (1996)
established that more than half the women ap-
plying had been injured during the incident
preceding their petition.
As in other situations, judges’ decision mak-
ing is problematic. A number of judges are not
inclined to issue restraining orders (Solender,
1998; also see Perry & Lemon, 1998, 2000, for re-
cent cases) even though a majority of women
seeking POs are unmarried or already sepa-
rated (Buzawa et al., 1998; also see Stewart,
2000). Judges may not accept a petition improp-
erly completed by inexperienced advocates (R.
Zorza & Klemperer, 1999).
Judges may accept arguments of defense at-
torneys that women claiming to be battered do
so to manipulate the court into giving them a
monetary advantage in a divorce case or to gain
custody. In reality, studies uniformly show that
a majority of batterers handled in court already
have arrest histories (e.g., M. J. Carlson et al.,
1999; Keilitz, Davis, & Eikeman, 1998; A. R.
Klein, 1996; Langford et al., 1999), and some of
these men are particularly dangerous and need
control (Stewart, 2000).
Two studies specified a rate of about 75% of
granting POs (Gondolf et al., 1994; Stewart,
2000). Judges, however, sometimes failed to or-
der the batterer to vacate the residence or to pro-
vide financial support. Such limited orders
make it impossible for many women to leave the
abuser and do not seem to fulfill the intent of the
law (Gondolf et al., 1994). Some judges err by is-
suing mutual POs. Mutual POs give the impres-
sion that the abuse is trivial and that the victim is
as much to blame as the perpetrator. They also
allow the batterer to manipulate the system
(J. Zorza, 1999).
After a victim finally gets a PO, she is still un-
likely to be safe. According to one authority, POs
are so ineffective that it might be best to warn
women not to count on them (R. L. Davis, 1998).
Sometimes, law enforcement officers show a pa-
triarchal institutional indifference to the plight
of battered women and refuse to enforce POs
(Rigakos, 1995). Because most judges will not
punish violators (see R. L. Davis, 1998), many
POs are worthless. Enforcement has been so lax
that women have been forced to sue depart-
ments making them liable for nonenforcement
(“Municipal Liability,” 1998).
Because most studies on the effects of POs
lack comparison groups of battered women
who did not obtain POs, assessing their effec-
tiveness is jeopardized. Preliminary evidence
suggests that the probability of reabuse signifi-
cantly declines following issuance of protective
orders (M. J. Carlson et al., 1999). A study of the
Quincy, Massachusetts, district court indicated
that of 663 restraining order cases, almost half
the respondents were reabused within 2 years.
Research conducted by the National Center for
State Courts found that 72% of 285 battered
women with POs experienced no continuing
problems at 1 month, but the percentage
dropped to 65% at follow-up (Keilitz et al.,
1998).
Even when POs are not entirely effective in
preventing reabuse, a number of women feel
more empowered through the process (Fischer &
Rose, 1995; Ptacek, 1999). Interview data from
355 women who filed petitions revealed that
 Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 359

they felt POs were worthwhile because they

documented the abuse, sent a message that
abuse was wrong, and punished the abuser
(Harrell & Smith, 1996; also see Stewart, 2000).
Another study disclosed that low-SES women
gained significantly more by arrest and issuance
of POs than did medium-SES or higher SES
women (M. J. Carlson et al., 1999). Because
low-SES women are at much greater risk for
abuse, this finding has important policy
implications.

Improvements in the CJS

Several different methods for improving the

CJS’s response to IPV have emerged. Ordinarily,
proposed reformations require additional fund-
ing. Although some court personnel have wor-
ried about costs, one must consider many of the
other monetary costs of victimization (Miller,
Cohen, & Wiersema, 1996).
The most ambitious efforts are domestic as-
sault response teams (DARTs) (“City Receives
Grant,” 1996). DARTs consist of judges, prose-
cutors, police, probation officers, advocates,
and professional batterer counselors trained in
the problems of IPV (see LaViolette & Barnett,
2000, for an example). Roberts (1998) has further
noted that there is a critical need for civilian vic-
tim advocates within these crisis-intervention
units. Evidence about the merit of these units is
encouraging. An evaluation of one specialized
police unit that included arrest, prosecution,
trial, sentencing for the offender, and enhanced
support services for the victim disclosed signifi-
cantly less repeat victimization than did arrest
alone (Jolin, Feyerherm, Fountain, & Friedman,
1998; Jolin & Moose, 1997; also see Orchowsky,
1999). Even without the benefit of DARTs and
specialized police units, the court can play a
useful role by periodic review of batterer com-
pliance with mandatory treatment programs
(Gondolf, 2000).
360 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH1
Of relevance to Part 1 of this series of two arti-
cles is a list of battered women’s general needs
for changes in policy, practice, and research.
Sullivan, Tan, Basta, Rumptz, and Davidson
(1992) ascertained that more than 60% of bat-
tered women living in a shelter needed legal as-
sistance. More than half needed jobs, further ed-
ucation, transportation, material goods, health
care, social support, financial assistance, child
care, and resources for their children. Almost
40% of the women needed housing.
In a similar query, battered women enumer-
ated the following factors that would facilitate
leaving (Short et al., 2000): (a) laws that impose
sanctions on batterers; (b) resources that allow
independence, such as housing and money; (c)
education about abuse; (d) more shelters; and
(e) provision of interim help during the
woman’s decision-making phase (also see
Lombardi, 1998).
Specific suggestions flowing from the infor-
mation presented in Part 1 of this two-article se-
ries follow.
World organizations that have traditionally champi-
oned human rights should recognize the inhumane
treatment of women as a human rights issue and
take action to eliminate it.
Other countries need to redefine male honor in a way
that does not depend on women’s behavior.
Society needs to
• change its patriarchal view of women as subordi-
nate to men;
• change the societal structures that impose male
domination of women;
• transform basic conceptions of masculinity so
that males are less violent, less controlling, more
loving, more emotionally expressive, more nur-
turing, and more appreciative of women;
• teach men to have the courage to protect women
against other men;
• teach men to become women’s partners, not per-
petrators of intimate partner violence (IPV);
• insist that women obtain an education that al-
lows them to be self-sufficient; and
• teach women to be less subordinate and less emo-
tionally and economically dependent.
Legislation first needs to help women achieve eco-
nomic independence. Second, legislation should
compel changes in the criminal justice system that
would ensure fair treatment for women and children
and provide for their safety. Economic independ-
ence problems suggest that legislators should
• strengthen and enforce laws protecting women
against pay discrimination,
• disallow insurance companies and health main-
tenance organizations (HMOs) to discriminate
against battered women,
• mandate workplaces to assist battered women
who are being threatened or harassed at work by
taking preventive safety measures,
• mandate essentially all noncustodial parents to
pay child support and insist on strict enforcement
of deadbeat parent laws,
• ensure that welfare programs and job-training
programs help battered women learn how to earn
a living,
• find ways to provide affordable and available
permanent housing, and
• fund more prevention programs that help fami-
lies at risk.
The criminal justice system’s problems suggest that leg-
islators should
• provide sufficient funding for the criminal justice
system;
• mandate IPV training of judges, prosecutors, law
enforcement officers, attorneys, and other crimi-
nal justice personnel; and
• revamp legislation on custody, visitation, and
mandatory mediation to protect victims and their
children.
Criminal justice agencies need to promote coordinated,
systemwide responses to IPV. There must be effec-
tive collaboration that includes law enforcement,
prosecutors, judges, probation offices, victim advo-
cates, and batterer treatment. The system should
• focus on preventing offenders from future vio-
lence, rather than on holding victims responsible
to escape; and
• treat batterers as criminals, that is, the same as of-
fenders who assault strangers.
Criminal justice personnel should
• hold a national conference on systematizing re-
sponses to IPV,
• establish specialized units or courts or combine
civil and criminal functions into a special court,
• receive training so that the system is more respon-
sive to battered women and actually works on
their behalf (e.g., use of affective lawyering), and
• carefully follow prescribed guidelines for man-
dated mediation and be sensitive to cultural issues.
Law enforcement personnel should
• receive training on how to become partners in
preventing IPV by recognizing the crucial role
they play;

• receive a written protocol on responding to IPV
and information about the importance of their
role;
• comply with four major guidelines: (a) identifica-
tion of the primary aggressor, (b) execution of
proarrest or mandatory arrest policies, (c) collec-
tion of evidence at the scene for use in prosecu-
tions, and (d) initial management of temporary
restraining orders;
• form special units of staff with special expertise
within police, prosecutors, and probation/parole
areas;
• strengthen their response to enforcement of pro-
tection orders, develop a uniform code of re-
sponses, and construct a registry of restraining
orders;
• realize that children exposed to IPV are being vic-
timized; and
• form alliances with other community agencies,
such as health clinics, shelters, and rape crisis
centers.
Prosecutors should
• reconsider no-drop prosecution policies and ex-
plore the efficacy of modifications that empower
victims,
• tailor individual services that are most likely to
ensure each battered woman’s safety and the
well-being of her children, and
• try to obtain more funding for processing IPV
cases.
Judges should
• obtain suitable training in family violence issues
and practices,
• place the blame on offenders instead of victims,
• ensure victim safety,
• carefully control men with prior convictions be-
cause they are especially dangerous,
• consider using electronic monitoring of men who
have incurred restraining orders,
• adopt protocols for granting protection orders as
a safeguard against unwise discretion,
• carefully manage the risks of children exposed to
IPV,
• recognize that exposure to IPV is damaging,
• order child support payments by noncustodial
parents whenever possible,
• order treatment for children whenever possible,
• be cautious about ordering mediation for child
custody and visitation issues,
• evaluate the background education of involved
court personnel (e.g., advocates, counselors) and
demand appropriate training when necessary,
• try to ensure that battered women receive ade-
quate legal representation,
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 361
• set guidelines for appropriate judicial behavior,
and
• establish a judicial body (perhaps a special unit of
the bar) to discipline judges whose behavior is
outrageous.
Criminal justice researchers should
• determine whether a focus on empowering vic-
tims is beneficial (e.g., impact of victim-directed
arrests); and
• determine whether and how to use mandatory
practices, such as mandatory prosecution.
Researchers, in general, should prioritize two areas of
research: (a) solutions to women’s economic de-
pendency and (b) problems throughout the criminal
justice system. They also should
• start defining IPV as O’Leary (1999, p. 19) has
done to separate normative abuse from battering;
• include a measure of fear in addition to assaultive
behaviors;
• include a measure of control, such as Tolman’s
(1989) control items on the Psychological Mal-
treatment of Women Inventory;
• move away from constructions and measure-
ments scales conceptualizing IPV as the outcome
of conflict;
• examine how social and legal institutions can ad-
dress psychological abuse; and
• be cautious about treating batterers as men who
specialize in IPV but are not generally violent.
Advocates need to
• tone down their rhetoric so that those they are
training (e.g., judges) can hear the message,
• evaluate their attitudes toward women pursuing
restraining orders, and
• individualize their approaches to battered
women and avoid assuming they know how ev-
ery battered woman feels.
NOTE
1. Information for Implications for Practice, Policy, and Re-
search was obtained from the following sources, which are repre-
sentative but not exhaustive: Advisory Council on Violence
Against Women (1996); “California Panel Urges” (1990); R. C. Da-
vis, Smith, and Nickles (1997); R. L. Davis (1998); Duryee (1995);
Fain (1999); the Family Violence Project of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1995); Geffner and Pagelow
(1990); Good (1998); E. Goodman (2000); Healey, Smith, and
O’Sullivan (1998); Hilton (1992); Jenkins (1996); L. D. Johnson
(1998); Kelling (1999); Koss et al. (1994); Landau (1995); Maxwell
(1999); Metraux and Culhane (1999); L. G. Mills (1996, 1998, 1999);
“Model Police Protocol,” (1999); National Institute of Justice
(1990); M. A. Morton (1997); Newmark, Harrell, and Salem (1995);
O’Sullivan (2000); O’Sullivan and Rodriguez (1998); Orloff and
Kelly (1995); Pollack (1999); Rosen (1991); Sherman, Smith,
Schmidt, and Rogan (1992); Short et al. (2000); Solender (1998);
Stewart (2000); Sue & Sue (1990); Wan (2000); Warchol (1998); and
Wong (1995).
362 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
REFERENCES
Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1996). Child custody
evaluation practices: A 1996 survey of psychologists.
Family Law Quarterly, 30, 565-586.
Adinkrah, M. (1999). Uxoricide in Fiji: The sociocultural
context of husband-wife killings. Violence Against
Women, 5, 1294-1320.
Advisory Council on Violence Against Women. (1996). A
community checklist: Important steps to end violence against
women [Online]. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/
vawo/cheklist.htm.
Aguirre, B. E. (1985). Why do they return? Abused wives in
shelters. Social Work, 30, 350-354.
Allen, C. M., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Resources, power and
husband-wife violence. In M. A. Straus & G. T. Hotaling
(Eds.), The social causes of husband-wife violence (pp. 188-208).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
American Psychological Association. (1996). Violence and
the family: Report of the American Psychological Society
Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status and domestic vio-
lence: An integration of feminist and family violence
approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59,
655-669.
Arias, I., & Pape, K. T. (1999). Psychological abuse: Implica-
tions for adjustment and commitment to leave violent
partners [Special issue]. Violence and Victims, 14, 55-67.
Avakame, E. F. (1999). Sex ratios, female labor force partici-
pation, and lethal violence against women: Extending
Guttentag and Secord’s thesis. Violence Against Women,
5, 1321-1341.
Bachman, R. (2000). A comparison of annual incidence
rates and contextual characteristics of intimate-partner
violence against women from the NCVS and NWAWS
[Special issue]. Violence Against Women, 6, 839-867.
Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against
women: Estimates from the redesigned survey (Special
Report, NCJ No. 154348). Rockville, MD: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice.
Baker, M. T., Miller, E. R., Johnston, F. E., Van Hasselt, V. B., &
Bourke, M. L. (1998, July). Strategies for the training of
police (STOP) in domestic violence. Paper presented at
Program Evaluation and Family Violence Research: An
International Conference, Durham, NH.
Baker, N. V., Gregware, P. R., & Cassidy, M. A. (1999). Fam-
ily killing fields: Honor rationales in the murder of
women. Violence Against Women, 5, 164-184.
Baker, P. L. (1997). And I went back: Battered women’s
negotiation of choice. Journal of Contemporary Ethnogra-
phy, 26, 55-74.
Barnett, O. W., Lee, C. Y., & Thelen, R. E. (1997). Differences
in forms, outcomes, and attributions of self-defense and
control in interpartner aggression. Violence Against
Women, 3, 462-481.
Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997).
Family violence across the lifespan. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Bassuk, E. L., Weinreb, L. F., Buckner, J. C., Browne, A.,
Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1996). The characteristics
and needs of sheltered homeless and low-income
housed mothers. Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion, 276, 640-646.
Belknap, J., Graham, D.L.R., Allen, P. G., Hartman, J.,
Lippen, V., & Sutherland, J. (1999, October/November).
Predicting court outcomes in intimate partner violence
cases: Preliminary findings. Domestic Violence Report, 5,
1-2, 9-10.
Belle, D. (1990). Poverty and women’s mental health.
American Psychologist, 45, 385-389.
Bennett, L., Goodman, L., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic
obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering part-
ner. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 761-772.
Bernard, C., & Schlaffer, E. (1992). Domestic violence in
Austria: The institutional response. In E. C. Viano (Ed.), Inti-
mate violence: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 243-254).
Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Bernhard, L. A. (2000). Physical and sexual violence experi-
enced by lesbian and heterosexual women. Violence
Against Women, 6, 68-79.
Beyer, L. (1999, January 18). The price of honor. Time,
153(2), 55.
Biden, J. R., Jr. (1994). Turning the act into action: The violence
against women law (Committee on the Judiciary). Wash-
ington, DC: United States Senate.
Bolton, F. G., & Bolton, S. R. (1987). Working with violent fam-
ilies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Pre-
dictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Vio-
lence and Victims, 7, 297-311.
Bourg, S., & Stock, H. V. (1994). A review of domestic vio-
lence arrest statistics in a police department using a
pro-arrest policy: Are pro-arrest policies enough? Jour-
nal of Family Violence, 9, 177-192.
Brandwein, R. A. (Ed.). (1998). Battered women, children, and
welfare reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, G., Bhrolchain, M., & Harris, T. (1975). Social class
and psychiatric disturbance among women in an urban
population. Sociology, 9, 225-254.
Brown, J. K. (1992). Introduction: Definitions, assump-
tions, themes, and issues. In D. A. Counts, J. K. Brown, &
J. C. Campbell (Eds.), Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural
perspectives on the beating of wives (pp. 1-18). Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Browne, A., & Bassuk, B. A. (1997). Intimate violence in the
lives of homeless and poor housed women: Prevalence
and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 261-278.
Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impact
of recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity to
maintain work [Special issue]. Violence Against Women,
5(4), 393-426.
Bryan, P. (1992). Killing us softly: Divorce mediation and
the politics of power. Buffalo Law Review, 40, 441-523.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1999). Usual weekly earnings of
wage and salary workers: Fourth quarter 1998 (USDL No.
99-15). Washington, DC: Author.

Burke, A. (1995, July 31). Valley needs more shelter beds.
Daily News, p. 6.
Burkhauser, R. V., & Duncan, G. J. (1989). Economic risks of
gender roles: Income loss and life events over the life
course. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 3-23.
Burt, M. R., Newmark, L. C., Olson, K. K., Aron, L. Y., &
Harrell, A. V. (1997, March). 1997 report: Evaluation of the
STOP formula grants under the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Buzawa, E. S., Austin, T. L., & Buzawa, C. G. (1995).
Responding to crimes of violence against women: Gen-
der differences versus organizational imperatives.
Crime & Delinquency, 41, 443-466.
Buzawa, E. S., Hotaling, G. T., & Klein, A. (1998). The
response to domestic violence in a model court: Some
initial findings and implications. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 16, 185-206.
Byrne, C. A., Kilpatrick, D. G., Howley, S. S., & Beatty, D.
(1999). Female victims of partner versus nonpartner vio-
lence: Experiences with the criminal justice system (NCJ No.
178788). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Byrne, C. A., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., Best, C. L., &
Saunders, B. E. (1999). The socioeconomic impact of
interpersonal violence on women. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 67, 362-366.
Cabrera, Y. (1998, July 11). Refunds ordered in hospital
epidural probe. Daily News, p. 4.
California panel urges reforms to curb gender bias in
courts. (1990, May 1). Criminal Justice Newsletter, 21(9),
4-5.
Campbell, J. C., Miller, P., Cardwell, M. M., & Belknap, R. A.
(1994). Relationship status of battered women over
time. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 99-111.
Campbell, J. C., Rose, L., Kulb, J., & Daphne, N. (1998).
Voices of strength and resistance: A contextual and lon-
gitudinal analysis of women’s responses to battering.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 21-40.
Carlson, C., & Nidey, F. J. (1995). Mandatory penalties, vic-
tim cooperation, and the judicial processing of domestic
abuse assault cases. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 132-149.
Carlson, M. J., Harris, S. D., & Holden, G. W. (1999). Protec-
tive orders and domestic violence: Risk factors for
re-abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 205-226.
City receives grant to combat abuse. (1996, December 21).
Daily News, p. 8.
Coan, J., Gottman, J. M., Babcock, J., & Jacobson, N. (1997).
Battering and the male rejection of influence from
women. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 375-388.
Cohen, R. A., Rosenbaum, A., Kane, R. L., Warnken, W. J., &
Benjamin, S. (1999). Neuropsychological correlates of
domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 397-411.
Coker, A. L., Derrick, C., Lumpkin, J. L., & Oldendick, R.
(1999, July). Partner violence and forced sexual activity vic-
timization in women and men: A statewide telephone survey.
Paper presented at the 6th International Family Vio-
lence Research Conference.
Cook, P. W. (1997). Abused men: The hidden side of domestic
violence. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 363
Coulter, M. L., Kuehnle, K., Byers, R., & Alfonso, M. (1999).
Police-reporting behavior and victim-police interac-
tions as described by women in a domestic violence
shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1290-1298.
Counts, D. A., Brown, J. K., & Campbell, J. C. (Eds.). (1992).
Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural perspectives on the beat-
ing of wives. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Cucio, W. (1997). The Passaic county study of AFDC recipients
in a welfare-to-work program: A preliminary analysis.
Patterson, NJ: Passaic County Board of Social Services.
Dalton, C. (1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting bat-
tered parents and their children in the family court sys-
tem. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37, 273-296.
Danis, F. S., Lewis, C. M., Trapp, J., Reid, K., & Fisher, E. R.
(1998, July). Paper presented at the meeting of Program
Evaluation and Family Violence Research: An Interna-
tional Conference, Durham, NH.
Davies, B., Ralph, S., Hawton, M., & Craig, L. (1995). A
study of client satisfaction with family court counsel-
ling in cases involving domestic violence. Family and
Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 324-341.
Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Nickles, L. (1997). Prosecuting
domestic violence cases with reluctant victims:
Assessing two novel approaches in Milwaukee. In
National Institute of Justice and the American Bar
Association, Legal interventions in family violence:
Research findings and policy implications (NCJ No. 171666,
pp. 71-72). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics
(NIJ).
Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (1997). A proactive response to
family violence: The results of a randomized experi-
ment. Criminology, 35, 307-333.
Davis, R. L. (1998). Domestic violence: Facts and fallacies.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
DeAngelis, T. (1997, August). Societal values dictate job
paths for women. APA Monitor, 28(28), 42.
Dearwater, S., Cohen, J. H., Nah, G., Campbell, J. C.,
McLoughlin, E., & Glass, N. E. (1998). Prevalence of
domestic violence in women treated at community hos-
pital emergency departments. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 280, 433-438.
DeFronzo, J. (1997). Welfare and homicide. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 395-406.
Depner, C. E., Canatta, K., & Ricci, I. (1995). Report 4: Medi-
ated agreements on child custody and visitation. 1991
California family court services snapshot study. Family
and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 87-109.
Devillier, P. L., & Forsyth, C. J. (1988). The downward
mobility of divorced women with dependent children:
A research note. Sociological Spectrum, 8, 295-302.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives:
A case against patriarchy. New York: Free Press.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R.
(1998). Separate and intersecting realities: A compari-
son of men’s and women’s accounts of violence against
women. Violence Against Women, 4, 382-414.
Duncan, G. J. (1987). Economic status of women. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
364 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The
role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police
experiment. Criminology, 28, 183-206.
Duryee, M. A. (1995). Guidelines for family court services
intervention when there are allegations of domestic vio-
lence. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 79-86.
Dutton, D. G. (1988). The domestic assault of women. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Dutton, D. G. (1995). The domestic assault of women (2nd ed.).
Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia
Press.
Dutton, D. G., Fehr, B., & McEwen, H. (1982). Severe wife
battering as deindividuation violence. Victimology: An
International Journal, 7(1-4), 13-23.
Dutton, D. G., & Hemphill, K. J. (1992). Patterns of socially
desirable responding among perpetrators and victims
of wife assault. Violence and Victims, 7, 29-39.
Dutton, D. G., & Starzomski, A. J. (1993). Borderline per-
sonality in perpetrators of psychological and physical
abuse. Violence and Victims, 8, 327-337.
Dutton, M. A., Goodman, L. A., & Bennett, L. (1999).
Court-involved battered women’s responses to vio-
lence: The role of psychological, physical, and sexual
abuse. Violence and Victims, 14, 89-104.
Edleson, J. L. (1998). Responsible mothers and invisible
men: Child protection in the case of adult domestic vio-
lence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 294-298.
Ehrensaft, M. K., & Vivian, D. (1999). Is partner aggression
related to appraisals of coercive control by a partner?
Journal of Family Violence, 14, 251-266.
Eigenberg, H., & Moriarty, L. (1991). Domestic violence
and local law enforcement in Texas. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 6, 102-109.
Eisenstat, S. A., & Bancroft, L. (1999). Domestic violence.
New England Journal of Medicine, 34, 886-892.
Ellis, D. (1989). Male abuse of a married or cohabiting
female partner: The application of sociological theory
to research findings. Violence and Victims, 4, 235-255.
Epstein, D. (1999). In search of effective intervention in
domestic violence cases: Rethinking the roles of prose-
cutors, judges, and the court system. Yale Journal of Law
& Feminism, 11, 3-50.
Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own words: Battered
women’s assessment of the criminal processing sys-
tem’s response. Violence and Victims, 13, 251-268.
Espinal, R., & Grasmuck, S. (1997). Gender, household and
informal entrepreneurship in the Dominan Republic.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 28, 103-128.
Fain, T. W. (1999, Winter). Program profile: 16 months of
monitoring domestic violence offenders and victims in
Dallas. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 12(1), 9-10.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash. New York: Crown.
The Family Violence Project of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Family vio-
lence in child custody statutes: An analysis of State
codes and legal practice. Family Law Quarterly, 29,
197-227.
Feder, L. (1997). Domestic violence and police response in a
pro-arrest jurisdiction. Women & Criminal Justice, 8(4),
79-97.
Feder, L. (1998). Police handling of domestic and
nondomestic assault calls: Is there a case for discrimina-
tion? Crime & Delinquency, 44, 335-349.
Federal court finds no protection against dismissal from
employment due to spousal violence. (1996, Febru-
ary/March). Domestic Violence Report, 1, 7.
Felson, R. B. (1992). “Kick ‘em when they’re down”: Expla-
nation of the relationship between stress and interper-
sonal aggression and violence. The Sociological Quar-
terly, 33, 1-16.
Fernandez-Esquer, M. E., & McCloskey, L. A. (1999).
Coping with partner abuse among Mexican American
and Anglo women: Ethnic and socioeconomic influ-
ences. Violence and Victims, 14, 293-310.
Ferraro, K. J., & Pope, L. (1993). Irreconcilable differences:
Battered women, police and the law. In N. Z. Hilton
(Ed.), Legal responses to wife assault: Current trends and
evaluation (pp. 96-126). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fields-Meyer, T., & Benet, L. (1998, November 16).
Speaking out. People Weekly, 50(18), 232, 234.
Finn, J. (1985). The stresses and coping behavior of battered
women. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary
Social Work, 66, 341-349.
Finn, M. A., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). The influence of gender
and mental state on police decisions in domestic assault
cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 157-176.
Fischer, K., & Rose, M. (1995). When “enough is enough”:
Battered women’s decision making around court
orders of protection. Crime & Delinquency, 4, 414-429.
Fitzpatrick, K. M., La Gory, M. E., & Ritchey, F. J. (1993).
Criminal victimization among the homeless. Justice
Quarterly, 10, 353-368.
Foa, E. B., Cascardi, M., Zoellner, L. A., & Feeny, N. C.
(2000). Psychological and environmental factors associ-
ated with partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1,
67-91.
Follingstad, D. R., Hause, E. S., Rutledge, L. L., & Polek,
D. S. (1992). Effects of battered women’s early responses
on later abuse patterns. Violence and Victims, 7, 109-128.
Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., &
Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physi-
cally abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5,
107-120.
Ford, D. A. (1999, July). Coercing victim participation in
domestic violence prosecutions. Paper presented at the 6th
International Family Violence Research Conference,
Durham, NH.
Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. J. (1992). The preventive impact of
policies for prosecuting wife batterers. In E. S. Buzawa &
C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: The changing
criminal justice response (pp. 181-207). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Frisch, M. B., & MacKenzie, C. J. (1991). A comparison of
formerly and chronically battered women on cognitive
and situational dimensions. Psychotherapy, 28, 339-344.

Fyfe, J. J., Klinger, D. A., & Flavin, J. M. (1997). Differential
police treatment of male-on-female spousal violence.
Criminology, 35, 455-473.
Gardner, R. A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and
the differentiation between fabricated and genuine child sex
abuse. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gartner, R. (1993). Methodological issues in cross-cultural
large-survey research on violence. Violence and Victims,
8, 199-215.
Geffner, R., & Pagelow, M. D. (1990). Victims of spouse
abuse. In R. T. Ammerman & M. Hersen (Eds.), Treat-
ment of family violence: A sourcebook (pp. 81-97). New
York: John Wiley.
Gianakos, I. (1999). Career counseling with battered
women. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 21, 1-14.
Goelman, D. M., Lehrman, F. L., & Valente, R. L. (Eds.).
(1996). The impact of domestic violence on your legal prac-
tice: A lawyer’s handbook (No. 548001). Chicago, IL:
American Bar Association.
Goelman, D. M., & Valente, R. L. (1997). When will they ever
learn? Education to end domestic violence: A law school
report (American Bar Association Commission on
Domestic Violence) (NCJ No. 168098). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice (OVC).
Gondolf, E. W. (2000). Mandatory court review and
batterer program compliance. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 15, 428-437.
Gondolf, E. W., & McFerron, J. R. (1989). Handling batter-
ing men: Police action in wife abuse cases. Criminal Jus-
tice & Behavior, 16, 429-439.
Gondolf, E. W., McWilliams, J., Hart, B., & Stuehling, J.
(1994). Court responses to petitions for civil protection
orders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 503-517.
Good, G. E. (1998). Men & masculinities: The good, the bad,
and the ugly. Society for the Psychological Study of Men and
Masculinity Bulletin, 3(4), 1-3.
Goodman, E. (2000, March 26). Women will gain when men
worry less about honor. Denver Rocky Mountain News,
p. 4B.
Goodman, L. A. (1991). The prevalence of abuse among
homeless and housed poor mothers: A comparison
study. American Journal of Orthospychiatry, 61, 489-500.
Goodman, L. A., Bennett, L., & Dutton, M. A. (2000). Obsta-
cles to victims’ cooperation with the criminal prosecu-
tion of their abusers: The role of social support. Violence
and Victims, 14, 427-444.
Gordon, M. (2000). Definitional issues in violence against
women: Surveillance and research from a violence
research perspective [Special issue]. Violence Against
Women, 6, 747-783.
Graham, D.L.R., Rawlings, E. I., & Rimini, N. (1988). Survi-
vors of terror: Battered women, hostages and the Stock-
holm Syndrome. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist
perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 217-233). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A.,
Perkins, C. A., Ringel, C., Warchol, G., Matson, C., &
Fox, J. A. (1998, March). Violence by intimates (NCJ No.
167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 365
Grigsby, N., & Hartman, B. R. (1997). The barriers model:
An integrated strategy for intervention with battered
women. Psychotherapy, 34, 484-497.
Haberfeld, Y., Semyonov, M., & Addi, A. (1998). A hierar-
chical linear model for estimating gender-based earn-
ings differentials. Work & Occupations, 25, 97-112.
Hackler, J. (1991). The reduction of violent crime through
economic equality for women. Journal of Family Violence,
6, 199-216.
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1998a). Beliefs about wife beating
among Palestinian women. Violence Against Women, 4,
533-558.
Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1998b). A patriarchal perspective of
beliefs about wife-beating among Arab Palestinian men
from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Journal of Family
Issues, 19, 595-621.
Hamberger, L. K., & Arnold, J. (1991). The impact of man-
datory arrest on domestic violence perpetrator counsel-
ing services. Family Violence Bulletin, 6(1), 11-12.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1991). Personality cor-
relates of men who batter and nonviolent men: Some
continuities and discontinuities. Journal of Family Vio-
lence, 6, 131-147.
Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F.
(1997). An empirical classification of motivation for
domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 3, 401-423.
Hamby, S. L. (1996). The Dominance Scale: Preliminary
psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11,
199-212.
Hanna, C. (1996). No right to choose: Mandated victim
participation in domestic violence prosecutions. Har-
vard Law Review, pp. 1850-1909.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B. (1996). Effects of restraining orders
on domestic violence victims. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa
(Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? (pp. 214-242).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hart, B. (1996). Battered women and the criminal justice
system. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and
restraining orders work? (pp. 98-114). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hartman, H. H. (1999, June/July). Aggressive prosecution
requires money, not more mandates. Domestic Violence
Report, 4, 74.
Healey, K. M., & Smith, C. (1998, July). Batterer programs:
What criminal justice agencies need to know (NCJ No.
171683). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Health.
Healey, K. M., Smith, C., & O’Sullivan, C. (1998, February).
Batterer intervention: Program approaches and criminal jus-
tice strategies (NCJ No. 168638). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Heise, L. L. (1996). Health workers: Potential allies in the
battle against woman abuse in developing countries.
Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 51,
120-122.
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated,
ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4,
262-290.
366 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
Henderson, A.J.Z., Bartholomew, K., & Dutton, D. G.
(1997). He loves me; he loves me not: Attachment and
separation resolution of abused women. Journal of Fam-
ily Violence, 12, 169-191.
Henning, K. R., & Klesges, L. M. (July, 1999). Evaluation of
the Shelby County domestic violence court. Paper pre-
sented at the 6th International Family Violence Confer-
ence, Durham, NH.
Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping
with an abusive relationship: How and why do women
stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 311-325.
Hilton, Z. N. (1992). Battered women’s concerns about
their children witnessing wife assault. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 7, 77-86.
Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I., Dean, C. W., & Mills, A. M.
(1992). Review essay on the law enforcement response
to spouse abuse: Past, present, and future. Justice Quar-
terly, 9, 247-283.
Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W., III, & Dean, C. W. (1992).
The failure of arrest to deter spouse abuse. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 7-33.
Hodson, C. A. (1982). Length of stay in a battering relation-
ship: Test of a model (UMI No. 8226470). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 43, 1983B.
Hoffman, K. L., Demo, D. H., & Edwards, J. N. (1994).
Physical wife abuse in a non-Western society: An inte-
grated theoretical approach. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56, 131-146.
Hofford, M., Bailey, C., Davis, J., & Hart, B. (1995). Family
violence in child custody statutes: An analysis of state
codes and legal practice. Family Law Quarterly, 29,
197-224.
Hofford, M., & Harrell, A. D. (1993, October). Family vio-
lence: Interventions for the justice system. Program brief.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Holden, G. W., Geffner, R., & Jouriles, E. N. (Eds.). (1998).
Children exposed to marital violence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Holloway, M. (1994, August). Trends in women’s
health—A global view. Scientific American, pp. 76-83.
Holmes, W. M. (1993). Police arrests for domestic violence.
American Journal of Police, 12, 101-125.
Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (1988). Causal attribution in mari-
tal violence: Theoretical and methodological issues.
Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 331-344.
Home, A. M. (1994). Attributing responsibility and assess-
ing gravity in wife abuse situations: A comparative
study of police and social workers. Journal of Social Ser-
vice Research, 19, 67-84.
Horne, S. (1999). Domestic violence in Russia. American
Psychologist, 54, 55-61.
Huisman, K. A. (1996). Wife battering in Asian American
communities. Violence Against Women, 2, 260-283.
Human Rights Watch. (1992). Double jeopardy: Police abuse
of women in Pakistan. New York: Author.
Hutchison, I. W., & Hirschel, J. D. (1998). Abused women:
Help-seeking strategies and police utilization. Violence
Against Women, 4, 436-456.
Hutchison, I. W., Hirschel, J. D., & Pesackis, C. E. (1994).
Family violence and police utilization. Violence and Vic-
tims, 9, 299-313.
Irvine, J. (1990). Lesbian battering: The search for shelter. In
P. Elliott (Ed.), Confronting lesbian battering (pp. 25-30).
St. Paul: Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women.
Jackels, N. (1997). Hispanic immigrant women and domes-
tic violence [CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest File:
Dissertation Abstracts Items: 1383003.
Jaffe, P. G., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody disputes and
domestic violence: Critical issues for mental health,
social service, and legal professionals. In G. W. Holden,
R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to
marital violence (pp. 371-396). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association.
Jenkins, E. L. (1996). Homicide against women in the work-
place. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Associa-
tion, 51, 118-119, 122.
Johnson, I. M. (1992). Economic, situational, and psycho-
logical correlates of the decision-making process of bat-
tered women. Families in Society: The Journal of Contem-
porary Human Services, 73, 168-176.
Johnson, L. D. (1998). Caught in the crossfire: Examining
legislative and judicial response to the forgotten victims
of domestic violence. Law and Psychology Review, 22,
271-286.
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common
couple violence: Two forms of violence against women.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Jolin, A., Feyerherm, W., Fountain, R., & Friedman, S.
(1998). Beyond arrests: The Portland, Oregon, domestic vio-
lence experiment-final report (NCJ No. 179968). Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice (Office of Justice
Programs).
Jolin, A., & Moose, C. A. (1997). Evaluating a domestic vio-
lence program in a community policing environment:
Research implementation issues. Crime & Delinquency,
43, 279-297.
Kahn, M. W. (1980). Wife beating and cultural context:
Prevalence in an aboriginal and islander community in
Northern Australia. American Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 8, 727-731.
Kalmuss, D. S., & Straus, M. A. (1982). Wife’s marital
dependency and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 44(1-4), 277-286.
Kalu, W. J. (1993). Battered spouses as a social concern in
work with families in two semi-rural communities in
Nigeria. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 361-373.
Kandel-Englander, E. (1992). Wife battering and violence
outside the family. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7,
462-470.
Kaufman-Kantor, G. K., Jasinski, J. L., & Aldorando, E.
(1994). Sociocultural status and incidence of marital
violence in Hispanic families. Violence and Victims, 9,
207-222.
Keilitz, S. L. (1994). Civil protection orders: A viable justice
system tool for deterring domestic violence. Violence
and Victims, 9, 79-84.

Keilitz, S. L., Davis, C., & Eikeman, H. S. (1998, January).
Civil protection orders: Victims’ views on effectiveness.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice (NIJ).
Kelling, G. L. (1999). “Broken windows” and police discretion
(NCJ No. 178259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Kemp, A., Rawlings, E. I., & Green, B. L. (1991). Post-trau-
matic stress disorder (PTSD) in battered women: A shel-
ter sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4, 137-148.
Kirk, R. (1992). Untold terror: Violence against women in
Peru’s armed conflict. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Klein, A. R. (1996). Re-abuse in a population of
court-restrained male batterers: Why restraining orders
don’t work. In E. Buzawa & C. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests
and restraining orders work? (pp. 192-213). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Klein, C. F. (1995). Full faith and credit: Interstate enforce-
ment of protection orders under the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 [Special issue]. Family Law Quar-
terly, 29(2), 253-271.
Klein, E., Campbell, J. C., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). End-
ing domestic violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F.,
Puryear-Keita, G., & Russo, N. F. (1994). Male violence
against women at home, at work, and in the community.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kruttschnitt, C., & Dornfeld, M. (1992). Will they tell?
Assess preadolescents’ reports of family violence. Jour-
nal of Research on Crime and Delinquency, 29, 136-147.
Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. (1997). The victim’s experience
and fear of crime. International Review of Victimology, 5,
93-140.
Lambert, L. C., & Firestone, J. M. (2000). Economic context
and multiple abuse techniques. Violence Against Women,
6, 49-67.
Landau, B. (1995). The Toronto forum on women abuse:
The process and the outcome. Family and Conciliation
Courts Review, 33, 63-78.
Landenburger, K. (1989). A process of entrapment in and
recovery from an abusive relationship. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 10, 209-227.
Langford, I., Isaac, N., & Kabat, S. (1999, July). Criminal and
restraining order histories of intimate partner-related homi-
cide offenders in Massachusetts, 1991-1995. Paper pre-
sented at the 6th International Family Violence
Research Conference, Durham, NH.
LaViolette, A. D., & Barnett, O. W. (2000). It could happen to
anyone: Why battered women stay (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levant, R. F. (1995). Masculinity reconstructed. New York:
Dutton.
Lieberman, D. A. (1993). Learning: Behavior and cognition.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Liss, M. B., & Stahly, G. B. (1993). Domestic violence and
child custody. In M. Hansen & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering
and family therapy: A feminist perspective (pp. 175-197).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 367
Lloyd, S. A., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence
on female employment [Special issue]. Violence Against
Women, 5(4), 370-392.
Lombardi, L. (1998). A survey of formerly battered
womens’ perceptions of professional response to
domestic violence [CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest
File: Dissertation Abstracts Items: 9829189.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Newman, D. L., Fagan,
J., & Silva, P. A. (1997). Gender differences in partner
violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: Bridging the
gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 68-78.
Magdol, L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Silva, P. A. (1998).
Developmental antecedents of partner abuse: A pro-
spective-longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 107, 375-389.
Martin, M. E. (1997). Double your trouble: Dual arrest in
family violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 139-157.
Maxwell, J. P. (1999). Mandatory mediation of custody in
the face of domestic violence: Suggestions for courts
and mediators. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37,
335-355.
McGill, J. C., Deutsch, R. M., & Zibbell, R. A. (1999). Visita-
tion and domestic violence: A clinical model of family
assessment and access planning. Family Conciliation
Courts Review, 37, 315-334.
McGreevy, P. (1998, April 10). Valley called soft on abusers.
Daily News, pp. 1, 17.
Merritt-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse
and breaking free: The process of leaving revealed
through women’s voices. Health Care for Women Interna-
tional, 16, 399-412.
Messner, M. A. (1997). Politics of masculinities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. P. (1999). Family dynamics,
housing, and recurring homelessness among women in
New York City homeless shelters. Journal of Family
Issues, 20, 371-396.
Meyer, M. K. (1998). Negotiating international norms: The
inter-American commission of women and the conven-
tion on violence against women. Aggressive Behavior, 24,
135-146.
Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996, Febru-
ary). Victim costs and consequences: A new look (Final sum-
mary report presented to the National Institute of Jus-
tice) (NCJ No. 155282). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice.
Mills, L. G. (1996). On the other side of silence: Affective
lawyering for intimate abuse. Cornell Law Review, 81,
1225-1263.
Mills, L. G. (1998). Mandatory arrest and prosecution poli-
cies for domestic violence: A critical literature review
and the case for more research to test victim empower-
ment approaches. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25,
306-318.
Mills, L. G. (1999). Killing her softly: Intimate abuse and
the violence of state interventions. Harvard Law Review,
113, 551-613.
368 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
Model police protocol on interstate orders. (1999, Febru-
ary/March). Domestic Violence Report, 4, 37.
Moffitt, T. E. (1997, April). Partner violence among young
adults. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Krueger, R. F., Magdol, L.,
Margolin, G., Silva, P. A., & Sydney, R. (1997). Do part-
ners agree about abuse in their relationship? A
psychometric evaluation of interpartner agreement.
Psychological Assessment, 9, 47-56.
Mohr, W. K. (1998, April/May). Refining surveillance
activities on intimate partner violence. Domestic Vio-
lence Report, 3, 54.
Molidor, C. E. (1995). Gender differences of psychological
abuse in high school dating relationships. Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12, 119-134.
Morton, E., Runyan, C. W., Moracco, K. E., & Butts, J.
(1998). Partner homicide-suicide involving female
homicide victims: A population-based study in North
Carolina, 1988-1992. Violence and Victims, 13, 91-106.
Morton, M. A. (1997). Wife assault and the limits of leav-
ing: The consequences of individualizing a social prob-
lem [CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest File: Disserta-
tion Abstracts Items: NN10285.
Moss, V. A., Pitula, C. R., Campbell, J. C., & Halstead, L.
(1997). The experience of terminating an abusive rela-
tionship from an Anglo and African American perspec-
tive: A qualitative descriptive study. Issues in Mental
Health Nursing, 18, 433-454.
Municipal liability for domestic violence homicides. (1998,
August/September). Domestic Violence Report, 3, 90.
Murty, K. S., & Roebuck, J. B. (1992). An analysis of crisis
calls by battered women in the city of Atlanta. In E. C.
Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspec-
tives (pp. 61-81). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Myers, D. A. (1995). Eliminating the battering of women by
men: Some considerations for behavior analysis. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 493-507.
National Center on Women and Family Law, Inc. (1994).
The effects of woman abuse on children: Psychological and
legal authority (2nd ed.). New York: Author.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
(1994). Model code on domestic and family violence. Reno,
NV: Author.
National Institute of Justice. (1990). Civil protection orders:
Legislation, current court practice, and enforcement. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
National Institute of Justice Journal. (1999, October). The
impact of arrest on domestic violence: Results from five
policy experiments [JR000241]. In National Institute of
Justice Journal (pp. 27-28). Washington, DC: Department
of Justice (Office of Justice Programs).
Nazroo, J. (1995). Uncovering gender differences in the use
of marital violence: The effect of methodology. Sociol-
ogy, 29, 475-494.
NCADV reports on annual member survey. (1997,
Spring/Summer). Update, 3(2), 10. (Newsletter of the
California Coalition for Battered Women)
Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D. (1995). Spousal
violence among Anglos, Blacks, and Mexican Ameri-
cans: The role of demographic variables, psychosocial
predictors, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Family
Violence, 10, 1-21.
New York Commission. (1998, December/January). New
York Commission on domestic fatalities. Domestic Vio-
lence Report, 3, 27-30.
Newmark, L., Harrell, A., & Adams, W. P. (1995, Novem-
ber). Evaluation of police training conducted under the Fam-
ily Violence Prevention and Services Act (NCJ No. 157306).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Newmark, L., Harrell, A., & Salem, P. (1995). Domestic vio-
lence and empowerment in custody and visitation
cases. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 30-62.
Nicole, J. (1997). Hispanic immigrant women and domes-
tic violence [CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest File:
Dissertation Abstracts Items: 1383003.
Nielsen, J. M., Endo, R. K., & Ellington, B. L. (1992). Social
isolation and wife abuse: A research report. In E. C.
Viano (Ed.), Intimate violence: Interdisciplinary perspec-
tives (pp. 40-59). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Nurius, P. S., Furrey, J., & Berliner, L. (1992). Coping capac-
ity among women with abusive partners. Violence and
Victims, 7, 229-243.
O’Keefe, M., & Treister, L. (1998). Victims of dating vio-
lence among high school students. Violence Against
Women, 4, 195-223.
O’Leary, K. D. (1999). Psychological abuse: A variable
deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Vio-
lence and Victims, 14, 3-23.
O’Neil, J. M. (1999). Revised multivariate model explain-
ing men’s risk factors for violence against women. In
M. Harway & J. M. O’Neil (Eds.), What causes men’s vio-
lence against women (pp. 207-241). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
O’Neil, J. M., & Nadeau, R. A. (1999). Men’s gender-role
conflict, defense mechanisms, and self-protective
defensive strategies: Explaining men’s violence against
women from a gender-role socialization perspective. In
M. Harway & J. M. O’Neil (Eds.), What causes men’s vio-
lence against women (pp. 89-116). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
O’Sullivan, C. (2000). Estimating the population at risk for
violence during child visitation. Domestic Violence
Report, 5, 65-66, 77-79.
O’Sullivan, C., & Rodriguez, C. (1998, July). Coordination of
criminal and family court in domestic violence cases. Paper
presented at Program Evaluation and Family Violence
Research: An International Conference, Durham, NH.
O’Toole, L. L., & Schiffman, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). Gender vio-
lence: Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: New York
University Press.
Ohlin, L., & Tonry, M. (1989). Family violence in perspec-
tive. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Violence in marriage
(pp. 1-18). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Okun, A. (1998). Battered women who leave: An explana-
tory model of factors involved in the separation process
(UMI No. 9825315). Dissertaion Abstracts International,
59(02), 882B.

Okun, L. E. (1986). Woman abuse: Facts replacing myths.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Orchowsky, S. J. (1999). Evaluation of a coordinated commu-
nity response to domestic violence: The Alexandria domestic
violence intervention project—Final report (NCJ No.
179974). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice
(NIJ).
Orloff, L. E., & Kelly, N. (1995). A look at the Violence
Against Women Act and gender-related political asy-
lum. Violence Against Women, 1, 380-400.
Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Woman-battering: Victims and their
experiences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pan, H., Neidig, P., & O’Leary, K. D. (1994). Predicting mild
and severe husband-to-wife physical aggression. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 975-981.
Parker, K. (1996, January 10). Managed care being applied
to wife beating. Daily News, p. 13.
Parker, L. S. (1997). A “brutal case” or “only a family jar”?:
Violence against women in San Diego County,
1880-1900. Violence Against Women, 3, 294-318.
Pearson, J. (1997). Mediating when domestic violence is a
factor: Policies and practices in court-based divorce
mediation programs. Mediation Quarterly, 14, 319-335.
Pearson, J., & Griswold, E. A. (1997). A preliminary look at
client experiences with the good clause exemption to
child support cooperation requirements. Domestic Vio-
lence Report, 2, 65-66,77-79.
Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., & Griswold, E. A. (1999). Child
support and domestic violence: The victims speak out
[Special issue]. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 427-448.
Perry, A. L., & Lemon, N.K.D. (1998, April/May). Review
of recent domestic violence restraining order cases.
Domestic Violence Report, 3, 57-58, 63.
Perry, A. L., & Lemon, N.K.D. (2000, February/March).
Cases involving duration of protection orders. Domestic
Violence Report, 5, 43, 46.
Philbert-Ortega, G. (1997). Emergency response teams
assist victim at incident scene. Update: The Newsletter of the
Statewide Coalition for Battered Women (SCCBW), 3(2), 9.
Physical violence and injuries in intimate relation-
ships—New York, behavioral risk factor surveillance
system, 1994. (1996). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 45, 765-767.
Pollack, W. S. (1999, Winter). The sacrifice of Isaac: Toward
a new psychology of boys and men. Society for the Psy-
chological Study of Men and Masculinities Bulletin, 4(1),
7-14.
Power, C. (1998, August 3). When women are the enemy.
Newsweek, 132(5), 37.
Prasad, B. D. (1994). Dowry-related violence: A content
analysis of news in selected newspapers. Journal of Com-
parative Family Studies, 25(1), 71-89.
Ptacek, J. (1999). Battered women in the courtroom: The power
of judicial responses. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
Rand, M. R. (1997, August). Violence-related injuries treated
in hospital emergency departments (NCJ No. 156921).
Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice.
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 369
Raphael, J. (1999). The family violence option: An early
assessment [Special issue]. Violence Against Women,
5(4), 449-466.
Raphael, J., & Tolman, R. M. (1997). Trapped by pov-
erty/trapped by abuse: New evidence documents the relation-
ship between domestic violence and welfare. Ann Arbor:
Taylor Institute and the University of Michigan.
Rebovich, D. J. (1996). Prosecution response to domestic
violence: Results of a survey of large jurisdictions. In
E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and
restraining orders work? (pp. 176-191). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Reihing, K. M. (1999). Protecting victims of domestic vio-
lence and their children after divorce: The American
Law Institute’s Model. Family and Conciliation Courts
Review, 37, 393-410.
Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000, May). Intimate part-
ner violence (NCJ No. 178247). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Richie, B. E. (1985). Battered Black women: A challenge for
the Black community. Black Scholar, 16, 24-25.
Rigakos, G. S. (1995). Constructing the symbolic complain-
ant: Police subculture and the nonenforcement of pro-
tection orders for battered women. Violence and Victims,
10, 227-247.
Riggs, D. S., Murphy, C. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1989). Inten-
tional falsification in reports of interpartner aggression.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 220-232.
Roberts, A. R. (1996). Court responses to battered women.
In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Helping battered women: New per-
spectives and remedies (pp. 96-101). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Roberts, A. R. (1998). Police chiefs’ responses and sensitiv-
ity to violent crime victims in the 1990s: A national sur-
vey. Crisis Intervention & Time-Limited Treatment, 4,
13-21.
Rosen, R. (1991, April 8). Women’s rights are the same as
human rights. Los Angeles Times, p. B5.
Roth, A. (1998, June 8). Jailing the victim. Daily News, pp. 1, 9.
Rouse, L. P. (1990). The dominance motive in abusive part-
ners: Identifying couples at risk. College Student Devel-
opment, 31, 330-335.
Rowe, B. R., & Lown, J. M. (1990). The economics of divorce
and remarriage for rural Utah families. Journal of Con-
temporary Law, 16, 301-332.
Sasaki, N. (1998, May 24). Viagra and insurance for contra-
ceptives. Daily News, p. 2.
Saunders, D. G., & Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes about
woman abuse among police officers, victims, and vic-
tim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 25-42.
Schornstein, S. L. (1997). Domestic violence and health care:
What every professional needs to know. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Schuler, S. R., Hashmi, S. M., Riley, A. P., & Akhter, S.
(1996). Credit programs, patriarchy and men’s violence
against women in rural Bangladesh. Social Science &
Medicine, 43, 1729-1742.
Shalansky, C., Ericksen, J., & Henderson, A. (1999). Abused
women and child custody: The ongoing exposure to
370 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
abusive ex-partners. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29,
416-426.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (1997). Tolerating battering:
Invisible methods of social control. International Review
of Victimology, 5, 1-21.
Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on
the employment status of women. Affilia, 3(2), 55-61.
Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experi-
ments and dilemmas. New York: Free Press.
Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., Gartin, P. R.,
Cohn, E. G., Collins, D. J., & Bacich, A. R. (1991). From
initial deterrence to long-term escalation: Short-cus-
tody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic violence. Crimi-
nology, 29, 821-850.
Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P.
(1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity:
Legal and informal control of domestic violence. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 57, 680-690.
Short, L. M., McMahon, P. M., Chervin, D. D., Shelley,
G. A., Lezin, N., Sloop, K. S., & Dawkins, N. (2000). Sur-
vivors’ identification of protective factors and early
warning signs for intimate partner violence. Violence
Against Women, 6, 272-285.
Sigler, R. T., & Lamb, D. (1995, June). Community-based
alternatives to prison: How the public and court per-
sonnel view them. Federal Probation, pp. 3-9.
Simon, L. M. (1995). A therapeutic jurisprudence approach
to the legal processing of domestic violence cases. Psy-
chology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 43-79.
Sirles, E. A., Lipchik, E., & Kowalski, K. (1993). A con-
sumer’s perspective on domestic violence intervention.
Journal of Family Violence, 8, 267-276.
Smith, C. (1988). Status discrepancies and husband-to-wife vio-
lence. Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family
Violence Research Program.
Smith, M. D. (1990). Patriarchal ideology and wife beating:
A test of a feminist hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 5,
257-273.
Solender, E. K. (1998). Report on miscommunication prob-
lems between the family courts and domestic violence
victims. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 19, 155-160.
Stalans, L. J. (1996). Family harmony: Public recommenda-
tions about how police can handle domestic violence
situations. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 433-448.
Stalans, L. J., & Lurigio, A. J. (1995). Public preferences for
the court’s handling of domestic violence situations.
Crime & Delinquency, 41, 399-413.
Stark, E. (1993). Mandatory arrest of batterers: A reply to
critics. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 651-680.
Stark, E. (2000). Do mandated state interventions contrib-
ute to woman battering? Domestic Violence Report, 5, 65,
75-76.
Stawar, T. L. (1996). Suicidal and homicidal risk for respon-
dents, petitioners, and family members in an injunction
program for domestic violence. Psychological Reports,
79, 553-554.
Stephens, B. J., & Sinden, P. G. (2000). Victims’ voices:
Domestic assault victims’ perceptions of police
demeanor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 534-547.
Stets, J. E. (1988). Domestic violence and control. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Stewart, A. (2000). Who are the respondents of domestic
violence protection orders? Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 33, 77-90.
Stone, A. E., & Fialk, R. J. (1999, December/January). Back-
lash against the abused victim in custody disputes.
Domestic Violence Report, 4, 1, 26-27.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and
aggression: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CT). Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1980). A sociological perspective on the
causes of family violence. In M. R. Green (Ed.), Violence
and the family (pp. 7-31). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and
change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed
by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Fam-
ily, 48, 465-479.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in
8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman,
D. B. (1995). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2):
Development and preliminary psychometric data. Durham,
NH: Family Violence Research Laboratory.
Straus, R. B. (1995). Supervised visitation and family vio-
lence [Special issue]. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 229-252.
Street, A. E. (1998). Psychological abuse and posttraumatic
stress disorder in battered women: Examining the role
of shame (UMI No. 9908648). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59(05), 2438B.
Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1983). The decision to leave
an abusive relationship: Economic dependence and
psychological commitment. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 45, 785-793.
Stubbing, E. (1990). Police who think family homicide is
preventable are pointing the way. Response, 13(1), 8.
Suarez, K. E. (1994). Teenage dating violence: The need for
expanded awareness and legislation. California Law
Review, 82, 423-471.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally differ-
ent (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence:
Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M. A.
Pirog-Good & J. E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relation-
ship: Emerging social issues (pp. 3-32). New York: Praeger.
Sullivan, C. M., Basta, J., Tan, C., & Davidson, W. S., II.
(1992). After the crisis: A needs assessment of women
leaving a domestic violence shelter. Violence and Victims,
7, 271-280.
Sullivan, C. M., Campbell, R., Angelique, H., Eby, K. K., &
Davidson, W. S., II. (1994). An advocacy intervention
program for women with abusive partners: Six-month
follow-up. American Journal of Community Psychology,
22, 101-122.
Sullivan, C. M., Tan, C., Basta, J., Rumptz, M., & Davidson,
W. S., II. (1992). An advocacy intervention program for
women with abusive partners: Initial evaluation. Amer-
ican Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 309-332.

Tang, C. S. (1999a). Psychological impact of wife abuse:
Experiences of Chinese women and their children. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 466-478.
Tang, C. S. (1999b). Wife abuse in Hong Kong Chinese fam-
ilies: A community survey. Journal of Family Violence, 14,
173-191.
Three deputies get domestic violence convictions sealed.
(1997, May 1). Daily News, p. 6.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998, November). Prevalence,
incidence, and consequences of violence against women:
Findings from the National Violence Against Women survey
(NCJ No. 172837). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Tolman, R. M. (1989). The development of a measure of
psychological maltreatment of women by their male
partners. Violence and Victims, 4, 159-178.
Tolman, R. M. (1999). Guest editor’s introduction [Special
issue]. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 355-369.
Tolman, R. M., & Weisz, A. (1995). Coordinated commu-
nity intervention for domestic violence: The effects of
arrest and prosecution on recidivism of woman abuse
perpetrators. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 481-495.
Tomz, J. E., & McGillis, D. (1997, February). Serving crime
victims and witnesses (2nd ed.) (NCJ No. 163174). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Tsesis, A. V. (1996). Preventing homelessness by empower-
ing battered women through vocational opportunities.
Domestic Violence Report, 1(5), 3, 12-13.
Turkat, I. D. (1995). Divorce related malicious mother syn-
drome. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 253-264.
Turkat, I. D. (1999). Divorce-related malicious parent syn-
drome. Journal of Family Violence, 14, 95-97.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1997). Current population survey
(Poverty statistics on population groups). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Conference of Mayors. (1998). A status report on hunger
and homelessness in America’s cities. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(1994, November). Violence between intimates (NCJ No.
149259). Washington, DC: Author.
Van Hasselt, V. B. (2000, Spring). When the batterer is a cop.
SPSMM Bulletin (The Society for the Psychological Study of
Men and Masculinity), 5(2), 17-19.
Victim agencies struggle with domestic violence and DUI
cases. (1992, June 15). Criminal Justice Newsletter, 23(19),
5-7.
Virginia Coalition for the Homeless. (1995). 1995 shelter pro-
vider survey. Richmond: Author.
Vitanzas, S., Vogel, L. C., & Marshall, L. L. (1995). Distress
and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in
abused women. Violence and Victims, 10, 23-34.
Vivian, D., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1994). Are
bi-directionally violent couples mutually victimized? A
gender-sensitive comparison. Violence and Victims, 9,
107-124.
Waldman, S. (1992, May 4). Deadbeat dads. Newsweek,
pp. 46-52.
Barnett / WHY BATTERED WOMEN DO NOT LEAVE 371
Walker, L. E. (1977). Battered women and learned helpless-
ness. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 525-534.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper &
Row.
Walker, L. E. (1999). Psychology and domestic violence.
American Psychologist, 54, 21-29.
Wall, C. E. (1993). Battered women and their batterers: Per-
sonality variables and attitudes toward violence
[CD-ROM]. Abstract from ProQuest File: Dissertation
Abstracts Items: 9324523.
Wan, A. M. (2000). Battered women in the restraining order
process: Observations on a court advocacy program.
Violence Against Women, 6, 606-632.
Warchol, G. (1998, July). Workplace violence, 1992-1996 (NCJ
No. 168634). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Wattendorf, G. (1996). Prosecuting cases without victim
cooperation. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 65(4), 18-20.
Waxman, L., & Trupin, R. (1997). A status report on hunger
and homelessness in America’s cities: 1997. Washington,
DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Weiss, R. S. (1984). The impact of marital dissolution on
income and consumption in single-parent households.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 115-127.
Weisz, A. N. (1999). Legal advocacy for domestic violence
survivors: The power of an informative relationship.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human
Services, 80, 138-147.
Wexler, D. B., & Bruce, J. W. (Eds.). (1996). Law in a therapeu-
tic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Dur-
ham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Wilson, M. N., Baglioni, A. J., Jr., & Downing, D. (1989).
Analyzing factors influencing readmission to a battered
women’s shelter. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 275-284.
Winner, K. (1996). Divorced from justice: The abuse of women
and children by divorce lawyers and judges. New York:
HarperCollins.
Wong, R. R. (1995). Divorce mediation among Asian Amer-
icans. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 33, 110-128.
Wood, P. B., Gove, W. R., Wilson, J. A., & Cochran, J. K.
(1997). Nonsocial reinforcement and habitual criminal
conduct: An extension of learning theory. Criminology,
35, 335-366.
Woods, T. O. (2000, January). First response to victims of
crime (chap. 2) (NCJ No. 176971). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Worth, D. M., Matthews, P. A., & Coleman, W. R. (1990).
Sex role, group affiliation, family background, and
courtship violence in college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 31, 250-254.
Wuest, J., & Merritt-Gray, M. (1999). Not going back: Sus-
taining the separation in the process of leaving abusive
relationships. Violence Against Women, 5, 110-133.
Yoshihama, M., & Sorenson, S. B. (1994). Physical, sexual,
and emotional abuse by male intimates: Experiences of
women in Japan. Violence and Victims, 9, 63-77.
Zlotnick, C. K., Kohn, R., Peterson, J., & Pearlstein, T.
(1998). Partner physical victimization in a national sam-
372 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2000
ple of American families. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 13, 156-166.
Zorza, J. (1991). Woman battering: A major cause of home-
lessness. Clearinghouse Review, 61, 421-429.
Zorza, J. (1994). Woman battering: High costs and the state
of the law [Special Issue]. Clearinghouse Review, 28,
383-395.
Zorza, J. (1997, June/July). Domestic violence seldom con-
sidered in psychologists’ child custody recommenda-
tions. Domestic Violence Report, 2, 65, 72.
Zorza, J. (1998, June/July). Batterer manipulation and
retaliation in the courts: A largely unrecognized phe-
nomenon sometimes encouraged by court practices.
Domestic Violence Report, 3, 67-68, 75-76.
Zorza, J. (1999, June/July). What is wrong with mutual
orders of protection? Domestic Violence Report, 4, 67-68,
78.
Zorza, J., & Woods, L. (1994). Analysis and policy implications
of the new domestic violence police studies. Washington,
DC: National Center on Women and Family Law.
Zorza, R., & Klemperer, J. (1999, April/May). The
internet-based domestic court preparation project:
Using the internet to overcome barriers to justice.
Domestic Violence Report, 4, 49-50, 59-60.
SUGGESTED FUTURE READINGS
Davis, R. L. (1998). Domestic violence: Facts and fallacies.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998). Rethinking violence
against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harway, M., & O’Neil, J. M. (Eds.). (1999). What causes
men’s violence against women? Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Mildon, M. (Ed.). (1999). Family violence [Special issue].
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(2).
Stout, K. D., & McPhail, B. (1998). Confronting sexism and
violence against women. New York: Longman.
Ola W. Barnett is a Professor Emerita of
Psychology at Pepperdine University, in
Malibu, California. She received her doctorate
at the University of California, Los Angeles,
specializing in learning. Her major research
and publication areas have been the characteristics of
interpersonally violent men, the assessment of marital vio-
lence, and battered women. Currently, she is conducting a
longitudinal study of sheltered battered women. She is the
recipient of the Harriet and Charles B. Luckman Distin-
guished Teaching Fellows Award. She has coauthored
(with Cindy L. Miller-Perrin and Robin D. Perrin) a
best-selling text Family Violence Across the Lifespan
(Sage, 1997) and another best-selling book (with Alyce D.
LaViolette) It Could Happen To Anyone: Why Bat-
tered Women Stay (Sage, 1993, 2000).