Domestic Homicide Case Review Case Study

Brief Summary

The victim was a teenager (under 18 years old) when she started the relationship with the perpetrator who was in his mid-20s. Before beginning the relationship with the victim, the perpetrator had several police records including arrests for ‘caring an offensive weapon,’ ‘threats to kill,’ ‘possession of a controlled drug,’ and ‘common assault’. The victim changed places of living several times including houses of her and the perpetrator’s parents from 2008 to 2012. The victim and the perpetrator had three children. The woman terminated the pregnancy when she was pregnant in 2012.

The victim addressed the police several times when the instance of domestic violence took place. She reported that the perpetrator was abusive, strangled her, hit her and did not let her see her family. There were several contacts with Children’s Social Care after 2010. In 2010, the victim reported to the police about the perpetrator’s actions who had taken the children to his father’s house. The care managers carried out certain procedures including the Initial child protection conference, and the responsibility to take care of the children and report any instances of violence was put on the victim and her mother. The victim noted that they separated with the perpetrator. However, when it was his birthday, she went to his father’s house where they started fighting about her pregnancy termination. The perpetrator hit the victim with his knife several times in the taxi when they were going to her mother’s house.

Key Events

It is possible to note that the authorities undertook some measures appropriate in such situations. However, a number of mistakes were made. It is possible to consider four key events that led to the death of the victim. The Initial assessment was held inappropriately, and it later led to the increased tension between the perpetrator and the victim. The major mistakes were the presence of the perpetrator, the absence of the communication with the GP, family members, police, Landlord services. The second key event took place in 2012 when after the decision of the social worker to close the case and place the complete responsibility on the victim without the support of the corresponding authorities and organisations. The third key happening was the conference that was held with both perpetrator and the victim present throughout the meeting. Major decisions were made, but the victim had to provide her assessments and agree to many things as she was intimidated by the perpetrator. The fourth event was the absence of assigned programs for the perpetrator and victim to help them develop certain skills to develop proper relationships.

Analysis of the Key Events

First, it is necessary to state that women are often victims of domestic homicide. Monckton-Smith and Williams (2014) claim that more than 80% of victims of marital homicide and 70% of non-married victims in the USA were women. More importantly, it has been acknowledged that domestic homicide never occurs abruptly as it becomes a result of many events that take place prior to the tragedy (Monckton-Smith & Williams 2014). The case in question is no exception as a number of key events led to the death of the victim. Clearly, the victim made several erroneous decisions including starting the relationship with the perpetrator. However, it is more important to focus on the event involving authorities as many mistakes were made by officials who could have prevented the homicide.

It is also important to outline the theoretical framework used to analyse the case under consideration. The conflict theory is the most applicable one in this case. According to this approach, an individual needs to get and maintain control in the relationship (Hyde-Nolan & Juliao 2011). A member of the family who has most power uses force, threats and violence to make other members exhibit the desired behavior. The perpetrator is an illustration of such an individual.

At that, to understand the situation, it is also necessary to apply the learned helplessness theory. According to this framework, an individual experiencing repeated abuse and having no power or support to stand up to it stops trying to resist and becomes submissive (Hyde-Nolan & Juliao 2011). This theory explains why females do not report instances of violence and do not want any prosecution for the perpetrators. Notably, recent findings are consistent with the theory. It is acknowledged that women often are reluctant to report about new cases of violence as they feel hostility and lack of support on behalf of the police and social workers who tend to judge women for unwillingness to participate in the court proceedings (Payne & Wermeling 2009). The theory is applicable as the victim also failed to use the system to the fullest and did not want the prosecution for the perpetrator.

Key Event 1: Initial Assessment

The first key event to be analysed is the initial assessment held by the social worker. The home visit was carried out when the perpetrator was at home. The social worker noted that the situation was quite normal ‘after the argument’ although the victim reported about particular physical violence against her. Clearly, the victim was vulnerable and could not respond to the social worker’s questions openly as she was intimidated by the perpetrator. Even if the home visit is carried out when the abuser is at home, it is essential to have a private conversation with the victim. It is also crucial to make the victim understand that she has to be completely sincere, and her answers will not be reported to the perpetrator. Thus, LeGeros and Savage Borne (2012, p. 5) note that the social worker has to “build a safe connection” with the victim during the first meeting. This is impossible when the perpetrator is present and using some techniques of the ‘microregulation’ (DeKeseredy & Schwartz 2011). These methods may involve verbal threats, or even glances and body movements. The social worker did not take into account this.

More so, the assessment was incomplete as it did not involve information from other stakeholders. Collaboration with other stakeholders is crucial when developing and implementing the plan (LeGeros & Savage Borne 2012). The social worker has to collect all the details concerning the victim, the children, the perpetrator as well as their health history and police records. It is especially important to communicate with the GP who has detailed information concerning the health conditions of the family members. In the case in question, the social worker could learn about the substance use history as well as the depression of the perpetrator that could affect the outcome of the case.

It is also important to add that the action plan developed was not implemented properly, and the social worker closed the case. The plan did not include the people responsible for the control over the implementation of the plan. The social worker did not monitor the plan implementation and did not provide any meaningful support to the victim. This contributed to the victim’s development of the learned helplessness. She did not feel safe and was discouraged to address the authorities or anyone else.

Key Event 2: Placing Responsibility

The second event took place in 2012 when the victim addressed the police reporting about the assault. The police officer set the ‘medium’ risk level to the situation. The social worker did not collect the necessary information on the perpetrator’s history with his ex-partner and his health issues. More so, no reference to Children’s Social Care was made although children were present during the assault. Again poor analysis and collaboration are evident. Thus, the social worker failed to provide the necessary support to the victim placing the responsibility to report and handle violence behaviour instances on her.

Clearly, it is inappropriate to place the responsibility of reporting any instances of domestic violence or even threats. Reportedly, over 80% of the marital violence cases are never reported “in contexts where the emphasis in on criminal assault and victimisation” (DeKeseredy & Schwartz 2011, p. 4). The victim was intimidated by her partner, which was apparent. When she decided to remove the formal complaint, it was crucial to make the woman address such organisations as Women’s Aid and Children’s Social Care. More importantly, it was crucial to make sure that the victim followed the recommendation and addressed the organisations.

Key Event 3: Conference

The third key happening to be discussed is the Initial Child Protection Conference that took place in June 2012. Again, the conference was held with the perpetrator and the victim present throughout the entire meeting. The victim did not have an opportunity to be totally sincere and active since she was exposed to the perpetrator’s control. Apart from this flaw, the conference was prepared improperly as the social work report was provided to the stakeholders right after the meeting, which made it impossible for the members of the committee to have all the necessary information about the situation. Importantly, there is a particular standard (giving the report 48 hours before the conference) was not followed. This led to the development of the action plan that did not take into account the history of the couple’s relationships as well as the perpetrator’s health conditions.

Again, the plan aimed at children’s protection involved certain tasks to be implemented by the stakeholders. However, the complete responsibility to protect herself and her children was placed on the victim even though this approach failed since the victim addressed the authorities after the incidents in 2010.

Key Event 4: No Training

LeGeros & Savage Borne (2012) stress that training and ongoing support are crucial, and social workers have to be ready to provide it to the victim as well as the perpetrator. In the case in question, the victim and the perpetrator were only advised not assigned to participate in certain programs. Thus, the perpetrator could have benefited from the participation in the anger management training program. The victim could have benefited from the course for domestic violence victims. However, the social workers did not assess the availability of the programs. There was no control over the participation of the victim and the perpetrator in such programs. At that, these training programs have proved to be efficient in many cases, and the tragedy could have been prevented (Laing, Humphreys & Cavanagh 2013). Thus, the perpetrator could have learnt to manage his anger as well as overcome his depression. Whereas, the victim could obtain the necessary skills to respond to the instances of domestic violence and end the relationship with the perpetrator.

Recommendations

It is necessary to start with recommendations aimed at the development of the theoretical background. DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2011) note that narrow definitions are mainly used when addressing instances of domestic violence. Such definitions have a negative impact on the development of solutions to the problem as officials disregard many instances while the government allocates limited funds to address the issue. More importantly, narrow definitions result in underreporting as women tend to tolerate the abuse seeing it as something natural. Thus, the definition of domestic abuse should be broadened. DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2011) note that the most appropriate broad definition should also include ‘microregulation’ of the partner’s behaviour.

LeGeros and Savage Borne (2012) note that the empowerment approach is mainly used in the social work, but it can often be difficult apply for novice social workers. The case in question shows that the approach has not been applied properly. Therefore, it is important to work on the development of particular methods and strategies within the empowerment framework. It is necessary to pay special attention to such issues as encouragement of women to participate in the corresponding programs, address the authorities whenever they might need it and be committed to ending abusive partners.

Furthermore, the present case is an illustration of the adverse effect of improper communication between the authorities. Thus, it is essential to improve communication between different stakeholders especially social work agencies and police as well as health facilities. The social worker has to collect the necessary data to be able to develop a plan. Hence, it is important to develop particular standards associated with communication with stakeholders involved. Particular attention should be paid to such authorities as health facilities (GPs) and police. These authorities often have comprehensive information on the situation that can be used when developing the plan of action.

Importantly, there should be some monitoring of the social worker’s decisions as well as the implementation of the plan. Notably, the plan of action developed had some shortcomings. For instance, it did not involve references to certain authorities. Standard procedures should include addressing to certain authorities and assignment to particular training programs for the victim and the perpetrator in the medium risk level situations. Besides, although the plan developed in this case had some flaws, it could be effective if carried out properly. The social workers failed to make sure that the recommendations are followed. To address the risks of low-quality social services provision, it is possible to develop peer review or checklists and self-reporting.

In conclusion, it is possible to note that it is important to undertake some measures to make sure that social work services are effective and provided properly. The research is needed in the theoretical as well as practical spheres. Researchers and practitioners should unveil possible pitfalls and develop efficient ways to improve the effectiveness of the services provided.

Reference List

DeKeseredy, WS & Schwartz, MD 2011, ‘Theoretical and definitional issues in violence against women’, in CM Renzetti, JL Edleson & RKennedy Bergen (eds), Sourcebook on violence against women, SAGE, London, pp. 3-21.

Hyde-Nolan, ME & Juliao, T 2011, ‘Theoretical basis for family violence’, in RS Fife & S Schrager (eds), Family violence: what health care providers need to know, Jones & Barlett Publishers, London, pp. 5-23.

Laing, L, Humphreys, C & Cavanagh, K 2013, Social work and domestic violence: developing critical and reflective practice, SAGE, London.

LeGeros, M & Savage Borne, J 2012, ‘Building bridges: training social work students in domestic violence work’, Field Scholar, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-6.

Monckton-Smith, J & Williams, A 2014, Domestic abuse, homicide and gender: strategies for policy and practice, Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Payne, D & Wermeling, L 2009, ‘Domestic violence and the female victim: the real reason women stay’, Journal of Multicultural, Gender and Minority Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 178-185.