Comment

Being able to be a great husband and father

By 
Mike Guilfoyle
Tuesday, 9 February 2016

Having recently read Jane Monckton-Smith and colleagues’ powerful analysis of the experiences of victims, families and first responders in domestic violence, put me in mind of Eric (not his real name) when I was his supervising probation officer.

My first encounter with Eric was broadly positive. He had been sentenced at a local court to a term of statutory supervision with a specific condition, (now a requirement), to attend the bespoke programme which was aimed at perpetrators of domestic violence, and was an integral part of any sentencing proposal having regard to all the circumstances.

Eric offered clear-headed insights into how his behaviour and actions had precipitated an incident in his relationship with his partner that occasioned her harm and distress. The template for engagement and active participation appeared to point towards a successful outcome, and I completed the necessary paperwork (which at times could be needlessly bureaucratic!). Thus, he would be enrolled on the next available group work session which was preceded by an orientation meeting with one of the group coordinators. Due to his work commitments, arrangements were made to enable him to meet up with the group coordinator at the office and the three-way meeting went well with some negotiation on timings which might better facilitate completion. I did not detect any residual inklings that he might baulk at what he termed the 'do I really need all this?' approach. This approach often beset the process of effective engagement from some of the men (at the time, the group was exclusively aimed at male perpetrators) but deemed such an attitude as unsurprisingly commonplace prior to the commencement of a programme.

Eric's reassuringly affable manner and his readiness to examine the dynamics of his relationship, and issues centred on safety, coercive behaviour and non-threatening process of communication in his relationship (the added input from a woman safety officer bolstered this aspect of minimising harm) was pitched at the right level. I anticipated that, within the more challenging group forum, some of the resistance to looking more meaningfully at ensuring that a repetition of the earlier assault and abusive behaviour would be addressed would complement our weekly meetings.

As the time approached for the commencement of the group programme, Eric's attitude and engagement began to suggest that this was an aspect of supervision that although consented to might prove more problematic than at first anticipated. He mentioned that his work commitments might clash with the timings of the group, and his silences seemed to suggest that the prospect of a more challenging intervention might be ill suited to his outlook. I spoke to the coordinator and shared my opinion that Eric's restive manner (whilst understandable) and his change in employment might preclude his starting on the group - which was due to begin within the next month. The onus on Eric to provide a viable reason for not starting on a programme, was balanced by an awareness that the material, which informed the content of the group programme, could if jointly agreed be factored into the sessions that we undertook together. This seemed to offer a way for him to complete his period on supervision without the need to return the order to court for breach action or amendment.

Eric was prepared to consider all his options in the light of the fact that the next group work programme had started without his participation. Although tempered by an obvious measure of relief, I reiterated the importance for us to review the range of session material that was offered to men on the group. If need be to amend the programme condition particularly in light of all the information before me on the positives that supported his commitment to his relationship. He was now buoyed by, what I perceived to be, a wider network of support from his local church group. The previous shaming behaviour that had been partially overlooked in my dealings with Eric, and which had played more of a role in his sense of him having 'wronged' his partner and how his 'fallen state' was in need of a renewed faith commitment, reminded me of the often hidden significance of religious faith as a resource in influencing subsequent actions and modifying behaviour.

I remained realistic in assessing Eric's progress: although at times it was rather too easy to overlook those manipulative mechanisms that bypass a busy probation officer. However, I had a positive belief that Eric's commitment to change was genuinely meant. In addition, his readiness to offer informed understandings did not lead me to omit the need to prioritise the needs of his victim (now his partner). Furthermore, his expressions of remorseful intent led me to the conclusion, assisted by dialogue with the group coordinator, that this departure from agreed practice - always premised on the need to ensure that safety and effective engagement remained paramount - would result in the order being successfully completed. In the event, the order was amended as the work commitments did impinge on his ability to comply. His willingness to complete the one to one sessions gave me enough confidence that cooperation and active compliance in working with perpetrators, viewing them as people who want to change and move ahead without the malign trace of coercive and harmful conduct and with a healthy resilience in supervision, offers a pathway towards safety for victims and a toolkit for those under supervision to move away from some of the dominant beliefs that occasion domestic violence.

Eric invited me to his forthcoming wedding just before I left the probation office - after the order had been successfully concluded. 'Mike, I want you to be there as you have helped me to lift the darkness'. I mused as I was preparing this comment piece that I really hope that Eric and his partner are now doing well and living together as he wanted to as 'a great husband and father'.


Mike Guilfoyle is a retired probation officer