can you do a essay of 3 pages + outline about social issue

301

Demystifying Female Perpetrated Sex Crimes Against Children by Michael Pittaro

This article presents the sobering realities about females who per- petrate child sexual abuse (CSA), a phenomenon that up till now has been largely unaddressed. Of course, this is in part attributable to the fact that males are far more likely than females to commit CSA. But it also has something to do with the observation made by author Michael Pittaro: that for most people, it is just too heinous and counterintuitive an idea to contemplate that a female, whose traditional identity has included giving life, nurturing, and protect- ing the young, could molest a child. As clearly outlined in this piece, the fact that some females do perpetrate child sexual abuse is, un- fortunately, a sad reality and one that must be grappled with.

S exual crimes, particularly those perpetrated against children and ad- olescents, are among the most heinous and disturbing criminal acts which one human being can infl ict upon another (Duncan, 2010). The

psychological and emotional ramifi cations both during and after a sexual as- sault or series of assaults are compounded by the fact that most victims often know and likely trust their attacker (Duncan, 2010). Recently, I asked my uni- versity students to describe the stereotypical pedophile. The descriptions that followed were almost exclusively confi ned to that of a male, and based on the research to date, that would be an accurate assumption. Very few would lump females under the general category of “sexual offender,” and even fewer would go so far as to categorize females as pedophiles. Scientifi c documen- tation of female perpetrated sex crimes against children dates back as early as the 1930s, yet we, for the most part, still operate under the premise that

Michael Pittaro is a Ph.D. candidate and a 27-year criminal justice veteran, highly experienced in working with criminal offenders. He has taught at the university level for the past 13 years while also serving as an author, editor, and subject matter expert. He serves as Assistant Profes- sor of Criminal Justice with American Military University and as an adjunct criminal justice professor with East Stroudsburg University. He can be reached at [email protected].

FIPV-0804.indb 301FIPV-0804.indb 301 10/21/2016 1:31:05 PM10/21/2016 1:31:05 PM

302 FAMILY & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE QUARTERLY

“women don’t do that” (Duncan, 2010). Societal and cultural bias continue to perpetuate the myth that women are incapable of such crimes, and if they do engage in such acts, an abusive, dominant, and manipulative male likely coerced them. This type of thinking is why criminal justice practitioners and scholars often perceive females who sexually target children and adolescents as victims, not perpetrators (Duncan, 2010).

Although female sexual offenders represent a mere 1% to 5% of the total number of “known” sexual offenders, female perpetrated sexual offending is now recognized as a signifi cant social, legal, and scientifi c problem warranting further criminological research (Gannon & Rose, 2009; Gannon & Rose, 2008; Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). Despite the growing media attention and scientifi c research conducted to date concerning female sexual offenders, few criminal justice researchers and practitioners have attempted to truly understand this largely misunderstood and understudied population (Gannon, Rose & Wil- liams, 2009; Sandler & Freeman, 2011). Even though there have been positive advancements within the research and practitioner literature, the research lead- ing to laws, public policies, and therapeutic programs still focus predominantly on male sexual offenders while erroneously dismissing female sexual offending as less abusive, traumatic, and violent (Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman, Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2010). One of the leading misconceptions is that there are universal criminogenic factors that lead to sex offending, which is based on the enormity of research uncovered over past decades in relation to male sexual offending (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011).

DISTORTED PERCEPTIONS Regrettably, this distorted perception that female perpetrated sex crimes against children and adolescents are less serious and harmful contradicts the current, although admittedly limited, scientifi c research fi ndings in regard to female sexual offenses against children (Gannon & Rose, 2010; Miller, Turner & Henderson, 2009; Muskens, Bogaerts, Van Casteren & Lubrijn, 2011; Pratley, Goodman & Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman, Bijleveld & Hendriks, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010). Contemporary research fi ndings acknowledge long- standing gender responsive bias within the societal, legal, political, clinical, and academic arenas. In response, female sex offender researchers have collectively emphasized and have fully supported the need for further research to understand and distinguish male pedophilia from female pedophilia (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Gannon & Rose, 2010; Miller, Turner & Henderson, 2009; Pratley, Goodman & Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010).

Sexual offending perpetrated by women continues to be an under-rec- ognized and under-researched area within the literature (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011). Though sexual offending among females has long been established, many still erroneously dismiss it as extremely rare and highly unusual, par- tially based on the earlier noted statistic that 1% to 5% of all known sex crimes involve females as the perpetrators (Gannon & Rose, 2009; Gannon &

FIPV-0804.indb 302FIPV-0804.indb 302 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

DEMYSTIFYING FEMALE PERPETRATED SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN 303

Rose, 2008; Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). If such crimes do occur, they do not rise to the level of dangerousness, and are not viewed as being as emo- tionally traumatic to victims as the sexual abuse perpetrated by male sexual offenders (Gannon & Rose, 2010; Muskens, Bogaerts, Van Casteren & Lubrijn, 2011). Researchers, clinicians, and practitioners have traditionally minimized the seriousness of sexual offending by females and attributed such crimes as reactions to the sexual abuse they encountered, which is why this subject was only discussed, at least initially, within the feminist criminologi- cal literature (Gannon, Rose & Ward, 2010; Gannon et al., 2009; Embry & Lyons, 2012). This traditional, yet close-minded way of thinking—that fe- male sex offenders only engaged in such crimes because they were victims themselves—inadvertently transfers blame, responsibility, and accountability away from the female sexual offender (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Gannon et al., 2010; Miller, Turner & Henderson, 2009; Muskens et al., 2011; Tsopelas, Spyridoula & Athanasios, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010).

LIMITED THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS Academic research on sexual offending has been dominated by studies focusing almost exclusively on males as the aggressors and perpetrators of such crimes (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Cortoni, Hanson & Coache, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012). Nevertheless, emerging and established scientifi c fi ndings sup- port the idea that female sex offending occurs more frequently than previous- ly imagined and is equally, if not more, dangerous and traumatic to victims because of the caring, nurturing gender roles that are thought to be innate and culturally defi ned by society’s standards (Kimonis, Skeem, Edens, Douglas, Lilienfeld & Poythress, 2010; Martellozo, Nehring & Taylor, 2010).

Feminist criminological theories have historically served as the backdrop in explaining why females engage in sex crimes, particularly pedophiliac acts involving children and adolescents (Gannon & Rose, 2008). The common theme throughout the female criminological literature has portrayed female sex offenders as reacting to their own sexual victimization, or shift all ac- countability, blame, and responsibility to male sexual offenders who coerce these women who are believed to be passive and submissive into becoming co-perpetrators (Gannon & Rose, 2008). While the research examining fe- male sexual offenders has increased substantially over the past decade, our research knowledge of female offenders has lagged signifi cantly behind that held for their male counterparts (Gannon & Cortoni, 2010; Gannon, Cortoni & Rose, 2010; Gannon, Rose & Ward, 2012; Gannon et al., 2010; Gannon, Rose & Ward, 2008). Due to extremely small population sample sizes, many researchers shy away from female sexual offender research and as a result, the research into these offenses has been limited to small-scale studies of- ten inundated with methodological and analytical challenges (Duncan, 2010; Gannon & Rose, 2009; Gannon & Rose, 2008; Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009). As a result, theorists have not had access to the critical amount of

FIPV-0804.indb 303FIPV-0804.indb 303 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

304 FAMILY & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE QUARTERLY

rigorous research required to construct a convincing comprehensive theory of the multiple factors involved in the etiology of female sexual offending. As a direct consequence of this, it appears that professionals have attempted to either (1) apply male-derived theories to the explanation of female sexual offending, or (2) develop basic theoretical building blocks in the form of a typological understanding of female sexual offending (Harris, 2010).

In response, Gannon, Rose and Ward (2008) have introduced “The De- scriptive Model of Female Sexual Offending (DMFS),” which provides a clearly detailed theoretical explanation of female perpetrated sex offending, noting specifi cally the contributory roles of cognitive, behavioral, affective, and contextual factors relative to the distinct pathways to these offenses. For the most part, culpability and accountability associated with female sex crimes against children are lessened, which minimizes or negates the seri- ousness of their offenses and sums up their crimes as being misguided, yet consensual, innocent love relationships often intended to fi ll an emotional void. This line of thinking is unlike the one we hold of men who sexually prey upon children.

UNRAVELING THE MYSTERY BEHIND THE FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDER Like their male counterparts, female sexual offenders can range in age, race, social class, and religious beliefs because sexual offending crosses all demo- graphic boundaries. Preliminary research fi ndings suggest the typical female sexual offender who preys upon children as Caucasian and in her mid-20s to early 30s, which is consistent with what has been appearing in the recent news. Furthermore, she has a history of physical or sexual abuse, suffers from a variety of mental disorders, struggles with substance abuse, and is socially isolated or under the perception of being socially isolated (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Cortoni, Hanson & Coache, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012). Addition- ally, the typical female sexual offender has a history of dysfunctional roman- tic relationships, and she often serves in roles with unsuspecting access and availability to children and adolescents, many of which are hidden in plain sight (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Cortoni, Hanson & Coache, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012).

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT In comparison to male sexual offenders, female offenders have a higher ten- dency to victimize children and adolescents they know and are entrusted to care for in some capacity. In fact, in more than 75% of all cases, the female perpetrator and victim knew each other (Duncan, 2010). These known victims, in turn, are less likely to report their involvement as victims in the crime be- cause they are overwhelmed with feelings of guilt, shame, and loyalty towards the female perpetrator (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Gannon et al., 2010). Reports

FIPV-0804.indb 304FIPV-0804.indb 304 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

DEMYSTIFYING FEMALE PERPETRATED SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN 305

of strangers being victimized by females obviously occur, but unlike male sex offenders who target children, such crimes are very rare (Duncan, 2010).

Sexual offenses against children by females are therefore mostly hidden in plain sight. For example, many offenses occur during common, everyday child caring practices such as bathing, dressing, and changing diapers be- cause these are cultural accepted expectations and practices in nearly every society (Wijkman et al., 2010). Females are universally regarded as caretak- ers, nurturers, and protectors of children and adolescents. As a result, sexual abuse by females will be less suspicious and therefore, less detectable when compared with child sexual crimes committed by men. However, the relative- ly recent increases in highly publicized instances of female sexual abuse per- petrated against children and adolescents has resulted in an increased demand for research (qualitative and quantitative) to fully understand the causes and distinct criminological pathways associated with females who sexually target children and adolescents (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Gannon et al., 2010).

THE DARK FIGURE OF CRIME However, it is the existing cycle of bias on the part of criminal justice practi- tioners and scholars that inadvertently contributes to the growing dark fi gure of crime, a term used in criminology to describe the crimes that occur in so- ciety but remain largely unknown and unreported to the police. As criminal justice practitioners, we only know about the crime when it is uncovered by the police or reported to the police for an investigation. Simply stated, we do not know how much and how often female sex offending against children is occurring.

It often starts with the non-reporting victim, someone who has been vic- timized once or repeatedly, yet does not bring the victimization to the at- tention of the authorities for one reason or another. To compound matters, law enforcement has traditionally minimized the severity of the sex crimes because the female is not perceived to be as deviant, as violent, or otherwise as predatory in comparison to her male counterparts. If criminal charges are fi led, there is the high likelihood of the case being plea-bargained, thereby diminishing the severity of the crimes once again by having the accused plead guilty to a lesser charge. If it reaches the courtroom, judges have customar- ily viewed females as more amenable to treatment; therefore, sentences are likely to be less severe in the length of the prison sentence and conditions of imprisonment (Duncan, 2010). Lastly, community-based sexual offender treatment programs continue to be dominated by male perpetrators; therefore, female sex offenders are mandated to participate in groups that were designed specifi cally for male sex offenders. We also know from the research that vic- tims, male or female, more often contact the police when males victimize them (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Cortoni, Hanson & Coache, 2010; Embry & Lyons, 2012). Taken collectively, all contribute to the dark fi gure of crime in regard to female sexual offending.

FIPV-0804.indb 305FIPV-0804.indb 305 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

306 FAMILY & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE QUARTERLY

GROOMING: THE DEVIANT ART OF DECEPTION Victims of female sexual offenders are often selected because the offender perceives them as vulnerable, isolated, and/or emotionally needy (Beech, Parrett, Ward & Fisher, 2009). Especially in the case of adolescent males, female offenders may rely on the victim’s natural sexual curiosity or feed into the victim’s feelings of being unloved or unappreciated. Some of the grooming techniques used by female sex offenders are similar to those of male sex offenders, including targeting vulnerable children and adolescents, often those with low self-confi dence and low self-esteem (Beech et al., 2009). The victims also tend to have less parental oversight and involvement, mak- ing them more vulnerable to the deception and trickery of a motivated sexual offender. Some strategies include:

• Assuming caretaking roles ( e.g., babysitting, teaching, tutoring, coaching);

• Forming a “special relationship,” which further drives an emotion- al wedge between the victim and his/her parents;

• Becoming a welcome, trusted guest in the victim’s home;

• Giving gifts, engaging in playful games, spending special quality time together with plenty of positive attention;

• Isolating the targeted victim from his/her family and friends through manipulative and deceptive techniques;

• Using the opportunity to seize upon the victim’s feelings of being unloved / unappreciated;

• Emotional bonding and trust building over a period so that there’s a mutual loving, caring relationship;

• Desensitizing the victim to sex ( e.g., talking, showing pictures, and watching pornographic videos);

• Using pretense, “safe” language (“teaching,” “exploring,” “closeness”)

• Exploiting the victim’s natural sexual curiosity or uncertainty to reassure and build confi dence in the victim that the acts are “nor- mal” (Gannon, Rose & Ward, 2008)

To maintain and sustain this relationship, perpetrators will often use bribes or gifts to ensure continued compliance, threaten dire consequences to ensure secrecy, threaten to blame the victim, and threaten with the loss of the “loving” relationship that has been formed.

CONCLUSION The thoughts that we hold in relation to female sex offending are largely in- grained in our societal and cultural beliefs, beliefs that also hold true for key criminal justice system participants ranging from law enforcement agencies

FIPV-0804.indb 306FIPV-0804.indb 306 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

DEMYSTIFYING FEMALE PERPETRATED SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN 307

responsible for investigating and charging the perpetrator, to the judges who render less-than-equitable prison sentences (Duncan, 2010). Once the female offender is eligible for parole, the parole board will likely assess most female sex offenders as low-risk, which is the opposite of the common designation given to male sex offenders who target children. Since the police are essen- tially the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, their collective decision to investigate and criminally charge female sex offenders with the most ap- propriate crimes is of the utmost importance in creating and sustaining equi- table treatment within the criminal justice system. The old adage “if you do the crime, you do the time” comes to mind.

These societal, cultural, and gender biases surrounding female perpetrated sex crimes, if left unchallenged, can and will prevent the criminal investiga- tion and subsequent charging of female sex crimes (Duncan, 2010; Gannon, Rose & Williams, 2009; Sandler & Freeman, 2011). If the police choose not to arrest or correctly charge the female perpetrator with the appropriate sex crimes under the law, we will never know the true extent of this phenom- enon. Admittedly, there have been positive advancements within the research and practitioner literature regarding sex offenders and the crimes they perpe- trate. The research produced thus far has contributed to the establishment of federal and state laws, public policies, harsher sentencing decisions, and the creation and implementation of evidence-based therapeutic programs to curtail recidivism rates among child sex offenders. Nevertheless, criminal justice practitioners and researchers continue to focus predominantly on male sexual offenders while erroneously dismissing female sexual offending against children as less abusive, deviant, traumatic, violent, and therefore, worthy of attention (Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010).

Regrettably, we still operate under the widely held, yet distorted per- ception that female perpetrated sex crimes are less serious and traumatic to victims. This thought process contradicts the current, but limited, sci- entifi c research fi ndings in regard to female sexual offending (Gannon & Rose, 2010; Miller et al., 2009; Muskens et al., 2011; Pratley & Goodman- Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010). Contempo- rary research fi ndings acknowledge long-standing gender responsive bias and prejudicial treatment within the societal, legal, political, clinical, and academic arenas. In response, a small but growing number of female sex- ual offender researchers have collectively emphasized the need for further research (Cortoni & Gannon, 2011; Gannon & Rose, 2010; Miller, Turner & Henderson, 2009; Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011; Wijkman et al., 2011; Wijkman et al., 2010).

Some researchers, including myself, believe that sexual offending by fe- males is relatively common, but the extent of such crimes is largely unknown because of the lack of reporting and because these women tend to be diverted out of the criminal justice system. Their “crimes” are minimized and not nec- essarily categorized as sex crimes. Others suggest that sexual offending by

FIPV-0804.indb 307FIPV-0804.indb 307 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

308 FAMILY & INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE QUARTERLY

women is likely to be under-identifi ed because of societal and cultural stereo- types that females are “passive” in regard to sexual behaviors and that they are nurturers, caretakers, and protectors, not violent predators. Simply stated, the criminal justice system’s position should refl ect the reality that some women do commit sex offenses against children, and they are dangerous predators.

References Beech, A.R., Parrett, N., Ward, T. & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual offenders’

motivations and cognitions: An exploratory study. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 15(2), 201- 216. doi: 10.1080/10683160802190921.

Cortoni, F. & Gannon, T.A. (2011). Special issue on female sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 1-3. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2010.544908.

Cortoni, F., Hanson, R.K. & Coache, M.E. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sexual of- fenders are low: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(4), 387-401. doi: 10.1177/1079063210372142.

Duncan, K.A. (2010). Female sexual predators: Understanding them to protect our children and youths . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Embry, R. & Lyons, P.M. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies be- tween male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146-162. doi: 10.1177/1557085111430214.

Gannon, T.A. & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment and treat- ment—an introduction. In T.A. Gannon & F. Cortoni (eds.), Female sexual offenders: Theo- ry, assessment, and treatment (pp. 1-7). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gannon, T.A., Cortoni, F. & Rose, M. (2010). Developments in female sexual offending and considerations for future research and treatment. In T.A. Gannon & F. Cortoni (eds.), Fe- male sexual offenders: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 181-198). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Gannon, T.A. & Rose, M.R. (2009). Offense-related interpretative bias in female child molest- ers: A preliminary study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 21(2), 194- 207. doi: 10.1177/1079063209332236.

Gannon, T.A. & Rose, M.R. (2008). Female child sexual offenders: Towards integrating theory and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(1), 442-461. doi: 10.1016/j. avb.2008.07.002.

Gannon, T.A., Rose, M. & Ward, T. (2012). A descriptive offense process model for female sexual offenders. In Schwartz, B. (ed.), The sex offender , Volume 7 (pp. 16-1 – 16.21). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research.

Gannon, T., Rose, M.R. & Ward, T. (2010). Pathways to female sexual offending: Approach or avoidance? Psychology, Crime, & Law , 16(5), 359-380. doi: 10.1080/10683160902754956.

Gannon, T.A., Rose, M.R. & Ward, T. (2008). A Descriptive Model of the Offense Process for Female Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(3), 352- 374. doi:10.1177/1079063208322495.

Gannon, T.A., Rose, M.R. & Williams, S.E. (2009). Do female child molesters implicitly as- sociate children and sex? a preliminary investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15(1), 55-61. doi: 10.1080/13552600802452559.

Harris, D.A. (2010). Theories of female sexual offending. In T.A. Gannon & F. Cortoni (eds.), Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 31-51). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Higgins, C. & Ireland, C.A. (2009). Attitudes towards male and female sex offenders: A com- parison of forensic staff, prison offi cers and the general public in Northern Ireland. British Journal of Forensic Practice, 11(1), 14-19.

Kimonis, E.R., Skeem, J.L., Edens, J.F., Douglas, K.S., Lilienfeld, S.O. & Poythress, N.G. (2010). Suicidal and criminal behavior among female offenders: The role of abuse and psy- chopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24(5), 581-609.

Martellozzo, E., Nehring, D. & Taylor, H. (2010). Online child sexual abuse by female offend- ers: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology , 4(182), 592-609.

FIPV-0804.indb 308FIPV-0804.indb 308 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

DEMYSTIFYING FEMALE PERPETRATED SEX CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN 309

Miller, H.A., Turner, K. & Henderson, C.E. (2009). Psychopathology of sex offenders: A com- parison of males and females using latent profi le analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(8), 778-792. doi: 10.1177/0093854809336400.

Muskens, M., Bogaerts, S., van Casteren, M. & Labrijn, M. (2011). Adult female sexual of- fending: A comparison between co-offenders and solo offenders in a Dutch sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(1), 46-60. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2010.544414.

Pfl ugradt, D.M. & Allen, B.P. (2010). An exploratory analysis of executive functioning for female sexual offenders: A comparison of characteristics across offense typologies. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(1), 434-449. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2010.495701.

Pratley, J. & Goodman-Delahuntly, J. (2011). Increased self-disclosure of offending by intrafa- milial child sex offenders. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand , 3(1), 10-22.

Sandler, J. & Freeman, N.J. (2011). Female sex offenders and the criminal justice system: A comparison of arrests and outcomes. Journal of Sexual Aggression , 17(1), 61-76. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2010.537380.

Tsopelas, C., Spyridoula, T. & Athanasios, D. (2011). Review on female sexual offenders: Findings about profi le and personality. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 34(1), 122-126. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp2011.02.006.

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C. & Hendriks, J. (2011). Female sex offenders: Specialists, gen- eralists and once-only offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression , 17(1), 34-45. doi: 10.1080/13552600.2010.540679.

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C. & Hendriks, J. (2010). Women don’t do such things! Characteris- tics of female sex offenders and offender types. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 22(2), 135-156. doi: 10.1177/107906321036826.

FIPV-0804.indb 309FIPV-0804.indb 309 10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM10/21/2016 1:31:06 PM

Copyright of Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly is the property of Civic Research Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.