There is a chilling story in the recent, inaugural issue of the Ontario Bar Association’s new magazine, JUST.
Titled “Hearts Broken All Around“, it tells of a lawyer who thought he was representing just another client.
For some considerable time he acted for his client—–sending correspondence, holding “four-way” settlement meetings, attending court conferences, and advancing what appeared to be a “routine” case. It all seemed so normal.
And then one day, with a court date pending, his client—the husband— killed the wife, and the police killed the husband.
“No hints, no clues”, writes the lawyer. “They were nice people”.
It was courageous for the author to tell his story. By sharing it, the family law community is enriched. We do not suggest that either lawyer did anything wrong as we have no information about the steps either lawyer took to “screen” their clients for control, mental illness or past violence, nor what the clients’ responses to such questions might have been.
Research– including that of York University’s Des Ellis— tells us that those living in relationships of coercion and control are at the greatest risk at the time of separation– or when they are facing the fall out of a separation, like a pending court date. Research also shows that the adversarial court system aggravates the emotions that lead to violence.
The predictors of post-separation violence and murder are well known. And there exist “screening tools”, well-tested and used widely by mediators and Ontario family arbitrators, to help predict the chances of a spouse (or child) being harmed or killed post-separation.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement that Ontario family lawyers use them.
The annual report of Ontario’s Chief Coroner, The Domestic Violence Death Review Committee Report, should be mandatory reading for every family lawyer. From it one will learn that the signs of a possible murder or suicide are often all too obvious…if you know what to look for and how to find it. That is what screening tools help us do.
Men (as it is usually men) who coercively control their wives are often very nice. Women who are being controlled are often exceedingly nice. They are often seemingly very normal people, who lead outwardly normal lives. Most victims never planned to be in violent, controlling and/or coercive relationships, and are too embarrassed or afraid to talk about it unless directly asked in a safe and non-judging way. And most abusers, at least the kind that kill their spouses, are also suffering from a host of problems that they may not even have the ability to acknowledge.
You can read in this report about men so depressed, long after the separation, that they cannot cope, but no one knew until they killed their spouse.
These cases may seem to come “out of the blue”; but there are almost always signs that could have been recognized by someone who knew what to look for.
All too often, lawyers fail to detect relationships of coercion and control, severe depression or other signs of mental illness –simply because they are not trained to ask.
Research shows that, unless they are asked directly, victims, abusers, those suffering from mental illnesses and other vulnerable people rarely tell their lawyers the truth about their relationship; and even then they both may lie. Traditional family lawyers are generally not trained to recognize the different kinds of intimate partner violence, nor the features of coercion and control, nor the many predictors of family violence including mental illness. Nor are they trained in the art of asking the questions, known as the screening process.
But many others in the family law business have this knowledge and skill.
Ontario’s accredited family mediators and family arbitrators must take training in the research and tools that help them diagnose the nature of the relationship between their clients. Clients in mediation and arbitration must be screened for signs of coercive control, depression and other predictors of harm– or self-harm– before the decision to attend mediation or arbitration is made.
The organization of collaborative lawyers, the IACP, has drafted proposed screening questions for all of its members to use. And, starting next March, all family law professionals in British Columbia, including lawyers and arbitrators, will be required to screen clients.
If all family law clients were always screened for such power imbalances, including domestic violence, coercion and control, not only might there be fewer domestic murder-suicides, but the parties might be directed to dispute resolution processes that better suit and support them.
For example, credible research shows that victims of coercion and control are less likely to be re-assaulted in mediation processes that include full screening and trained mediators. And some recent research suggests that violent men in the court system who are well supported are less likely to re-assault women than those who are on their own in the system, without support.
This is a complex area. Every case turns on its facts.
It is possible in this case that the husband was good at seeming too nice and normal to be dangerous, and the wife far too fearful, or in too much denial, to tell anyone. It is possible that no amount of screening could have enabled the lawyers to assess the relationship correctly.
This story is poignant, tragic and true. There is much to be learned from it and we thank the author for telling it.
