Abstract
The aim of this study is to shed light on how Swedish female survivors of male intimate partner violence experience support from social workers during post-separation violence. This is explored through an interview study with sixteen survivors. Hester’s three planet model is utilized in the analysis. The results show that while the survivors described positive experiences of support from social workers on the Domestic violence planet, they felt social workers in the family law system on the Child contact planet enabled post-separation violence, and reported that this contributed to them feeling betrayed rather than supported.
Keywords
Introduction
Intimate partner violence, especially men's violence against women, is a widespread social problem and a threat to women's human rights as well as to public health (Krug et al., 2002; WHO, 2013, 2020). Women who are abused by their male partners are defined as victims of crime entitled to support in international declarations such as the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (2011) and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993).
Furthermore, research from several countries shows that men's intimate partner violence towards women may continue post-separation (Brownridge, 2006; Ellis, 1987; Ellis et al., 2021; Hester & Radford, 1996; Holt, 2020; Humphreys & Thiara, 2003; Mahoney, 1991; Nikupeteri, 2017; Sev’er, 1997; Toews & Bermea, 2017). How female survivors of such violence experience support (or lack thereof) from social workers during post-separation violence has also been explored in research in several countries, showing that survivors may experience that social workers within the family law system enable post-separation violence by insisting that parents of a child should co-operate (Elizabeth et al., 2012; Francia et al., 2020; Holt, 2017; Laing, 2017; Zeoli et al., 2013).
The current study explores how female survivors of male intimate partner violence experience support from social workers during post-separation violence in a Swedish context. Sweden has a history of promoting gender equality and combating men's violence against women, yet male intimate partner violence toward women remains a problem. This has been referred to as the Nordic paradox (Eriksson & Pringle, 2005; Wemrell et al., 2019), making Sweden an interesting case for study. Men's violence toward women post-separation also remains a problem in Sweden. Quantitative studies have investigated how violence may continue post-separation (Ekbrand, 2006; Ornstein & Rickne, 2013; Roks, 2022), and how other parts of society (schools, courts, the financial aid system) deal with post-separation violence (Bruno, 2016). Eriksson (2003) explored how social workers in the Swedish family law system dealt with the issue, and found that women experiencing post-separation violence reported that family law social workers treated the violence as a conflict and tried to make them co-operate with their abusers (Eriksson, 2003). However, since Eriksson's (2003) study, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has administered guidelines for the social services’ work with domestic violence (HSLF:FS, 2022:39; SOSFS, 2014:4) to deal with these and other challenges. It is not known to what extent social workers in social work practice have implemented the guidelines.
The current study sheds light on this issue: how Swedish female survivors of male intimate partner violence experience contacts with social workers during post-separation violence after the guidelines (SOSFS, 2014:4) were introduced. This is explored through interviews with female survivors of male intimate partner violence who have experiences of meeting social workers working in women's shelters, specialized units in social services tasked to service victims of abuse, child protection units, and the family law system. Thus, the study contributes knowledge on how female survivors experience differences in support from social workers working in different social service units and/or organizations, and sheds light on survivor experiences of contacts with social workers after the implementation of the Swedish guidelines (SOSFS, 2014:4). Increased knowledge of survivor experiences of contact with (different) social workers during post-separation violence may assist social workers to better align their services with the needs of survivors and co-ordinate their interventions to help protect them from post-separation violence.
The Swedish Context
In Sweden, the women's movement first mobilized to construct men's violence against women as a political and social problem, instead of a private matter. The movement was successful; in the 1990s, it influenced the government bill on women's peace (Prop., 1997/98:55; SOU, 1995:60), and new legislation regarding men's violence against women, and the new crime gross violation of women's integrity was introduced. Several public authorities, including the social services, were given increased responsibility to address the issue of men's violence against women (Enander et al., 2013; Nilsson, 2009; Wendt Höjer, 2002). The women's shelters, founded in the late 1970s, were the first to offer support to female survivors of male intimate partner violence. These are non-profit, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work with advocacy and opinion formation and offer female survivors temporary shelter, emotional support, and “practical” support such as information and guidance in survivors’ contact with other authorities, support during court processes, etc. (Helmersson, 2017; Nilsson, 2009; Wendt Höjer, 2002). Another rather recent development is that shelters for female survivors are becoming increasingly privatized or “marketized”, i.e., run by companies, rather than NGOs (National Board of Health and Welfare, 2020).
After changes in the Social Services Act at the end of the 1990s, the Swedish social services were obliged to offer support to female survivors. The National Board of Health and Welfare is a government agency that gathers statistics, develops standards and guidelines, and assesses the work of the Swedish social services and health-care system. In 2009, the National Board of Health and Welfare administered recommendations to improve social service work on domestic violence (SOSFS, 2009:22). In 2014, these guidelines were revised to include binding regulations to further improve the work (SOSFS 2014:4). In 2022, the guidelines were updated to HSLF-FS 2022:39. Both the old and new version of the guidelines state that the support need of victims of domestic violence should be investigated and that support should be offered, both in the short and long terms (chapter 6, 1§ HSLF-FS, 2022:39; chapter 7, 1§ SOSFS, 2014:4). They also recommend that the social services should offer information/advice, support/counseling, shelter, and assistance in finding permanent housing as well as more practical support in terms of aid in contact with other authorities (chapter 2, 8§ HSLF-FS, 2022:39; chapter 7, 1§ SOSFS, 2014:4). Furthermore, the guidelines state that the social services have to co-ordinate their interventions to individuals in domestic violence cases. Thus, different social service units must co-ordinate their interventions when they are working on the same case, and must also co-ordinate their interventions with other authorities such as police, health care services, etc. (chapter 2, 9-10§§ HSLF-FS, 2022:39; chapter 3, 9-10§§ SOSFS, 2014:4). In 2021, a change was introduced into the Swedish Social Services Act (chapter 5, 11a§, SoL, 2001:453) to clarify the social services’ responsibility to offer support to perpetrators of violence. Hence, recommendations have been added regarding support to perpetrators of violence in HSLF-FS 2022:39.
Today, there are units in the Swedish social services that are specialized in providing support and counseling to survivors (and perpetrators) of domestic violence, henceforth referred to as specialized social service units. Survivors may receive support from them, and/or from women's shelters. Survivors who leave abusive men with whom they have children often also meet social workers in the social services’ child units, tasked with investigating the child's need of support and protection. Post-separation, survivors often meet social workers in the social services’ family law units, who investigate matters regarding custody, residence, and contact. If the parents can reach an agreement, social workers at the family law unit can write contracts on these matters. They can also make recommendations to the district court, where the matter is decided if an agreement cannot be reached.
Applying the Three Planet Model to the Swedish Context
Despite the above-mentioned guidelines, the Swedish welfare system for dealing with domestic violence shows many similarities with Marianne Hester's three planet model (2011), developed to describe work against domestic violence in Great Britain. Hence, the model has been used as an analytical framework in the study.
Hester (2011) discusses how different authorities and organizations interpret and handle domestic violence in terms of different “planets,” with different histories, laws, logics and staff. Hester distinguishes three planets, the first being the Domestic violence planet. Here, we find police, women's shelters, and units in the social services that view domestic violence as a gendered, criminal problem and offer support and protection to adult victims of (male) intimate partner violence. The second planet, the Child protection planet, focuses instead on the safety and best interests of the child. The mother is often made responsible for this, and is expected to take measures to protect her children. Social workers on this planet may not view domestic violence as a gendered problem, but as a problem of “dysfunctional families” (Hester, 2011). The Child contact planet comprises family law and court systems which deal with issues that arise when parents separate. The focus of the work is the future, not the past, and the separated parents are expected to co-operate and strive towards contact with each other as well as the child. Hester (2011) argues that the different logics or ways of handling violence between these different planets produce problems for abused women post-separation. The focus on protecting women and children on the Domestic violence and Child protection planets may collide with the Child contact planet's wish to instead bring families together and promote contact between victims and perpetrators of violence.
The family law system's emphasis on contact between parents and between parents and children has been discussed as a problem, not only in a British context but also in Australia, where Francia et al. (2020) used the three planet model in their study of mothering during post-separation violence to explore survivors’ experiences of the family law system's (in)ability to deal with violence. Holt (2017) sheds light on the same issue (mothering during post-separation violence) among women in Ireland. In Sweden, Eriksson (2023) has introduced the concept practice domains. However, the practice domains overlap with Hester's (2011) planets. Eriksson's research (2023) focuses on the implications of the different domains for Swedish children experiencing domestic violence. The current study focuses, instead, on the implications for adult survivors of (male) intimate partner violence.
Methods
Data and Participants
Since the aim of the study was to gain knowledge about experiences of female survivors, interviews were chosen to generate data (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). Sixteen female survivors of abuse from a male partner participated in the interview study. To be able to capture different experiences of the studied topic, I tried to recruit people of different ages and backgrounds (regarding class, ethnicity and so on) to the study. The inclusion criteria were that the person would be over 18 years of age and had experienced intimate partner violence.
Thirteen participants were recruited to the study via an advertisement in social media (Facebook), encouraging individuals with experiences of intimate partner violence to contact me directly via phone if they were interested in participating in the study. Advertisements in social media were chosen over advertisement in local public spaces or local organizations, since people from all over the country could be sampled for the interviews. The advertisement was shared in different Facebook groups for survivors and/or people working with survivors, and several women who wanted to participate in the study contacted me. To be able to interview survivors with experiences of ongoing support from social workers, three women were also recruited through women's shelters. Staffs were asked to give an information letter about the study to survivors staying at the shelter. To avoid feeling any pressure to participate, survivors were told that they only needed to respond if they wanted to participate in the study. If they did not want to participate, they did not have to say anything.
When I interviewed survivors with different backgrounds, and started to experience sufficient information power in the data, I decided to say no to further participants, and took down the advertisement. This is in line with Braun and Clarke (2021), who have been somewhat critical towards saturation, especially the idea that you can achieve it before the study by deciding to interview a specific number of participants. Instead, they argue that adequacy and information power are achieved during interviews and analysis, as the researcher evaluates whether she has enough data to be able to answer the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2021).
In accordance with the Swedish guidelines for good research practice (Swedish Research Council, 2017), the participants were informed about the study and conditions of participation both orally and in written text. They all consented to participate in the study and were informed that they could withdraw their consent at any point. Names and details about the participants have been anonymized, and all names in this text are pseudonyms. No compensation was offered for participating in the interviews.
The participating survivors were between 29 and 57 years of age and lived in different places in Sweden, in rural communities as well as in larger cities. Neither the advertisement nor the information letter stated that the interviewees had to be (cis)women and the perpetrators be (cis)men, but this turned out to be the case for all participants. Hence, when female survivor or woman is mentioned in this paper, it refers to people who self-identify as cis-gendered women. All the participants had ended the relationship with the abuser at the time of the interview. Some had left a few months ago, others several years ago. The relationships had lasted from 2 to 20 years, on average 9.5 years. Moreover, all participants had children with their ex-husbands/boyfriends. Two of the participants had grown up in countries outside of Europe, the rest in Sweden. Twelve had a college degree and fifteen were employed or studying at the time of the interview.
Fourteen of the participants had experienced male intimate partner violence that involved psychological, economical, sexual, and physical violence. They had also experienced psychological and economical violence post-separation. Their experiences can be best understood through Stark's (2007) concept of coercive control or Johnson's (2008; Johnson et al., 2014) intimate terrorism, since they talked about a one-sided, frequent, systematic, and harmful pattern of violence throughout the relationship. Two of the participants had instead experienced situational violence in accordance with Johnson's typology (2008, 2014). They did not describe a frequent or systematic pattern of control and violence. Rather, they experienced a couple of violent incidents during the relationship, which they connected to their husband's substance abuse and/or mental health problems. One of the participants described her husband as being violent towards the children rather than her.
Thirteen of the participants had sought and received counseling from social workers in women's shelters and specialized social service units, and six also had experiences from staying at women's shelters. Furthermore, all participants had been in contact with social workers in child protection units and the family law system. At the time of the interview, only one had sole custody of her children. Seven of the participants had filed at least one police report. Only one had seen her abuser get tried and convicted.
Procedures
Inspired by a feminist approach for interviewing (Carlsson, 2009; Hydén, 2014; Kelly, 1988), I interviewed each person twice in order to be able to ask follow-up questions and to follow up on any thoughts and feelings from the first interview. The first interview lasted between one and two hours, and the second lasted 30–60 min. The interviews were conducted in 2020 and 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, a digital VOIP-app offering end-to-end-encryption was used for the interviews. Building rapport in digital interviews may be difficult due to unstable internet connections and difficulties in making eye contact (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014; Weller, 2017). However, being able to see the faces of the interviewees offered me some clues as to their (emotional) reactions during the interviews. Furthermore, the interviewed women expressed that it felt convenient and safe for them to participate in the interviews from their homes (cf. Lo Iacono et al., 2016; Shannon, 2022; Weller, 2017). The digital interviews also made it possible to interview survivors living in different parts of the country (cf. Archibald et al., 2019; Lo Iacono et al., 2016; Matthews et al., 2018).
The interviews were semi-structured. The interview guide included questions about the violence the survivor had experienced, the leaving process, and experiences of help-seeking and support from family, friends, social workers as well as other authorities prior to and after leaving the relationship. Since the interviews were semi-structured, the topics and questions from the interview guide were not asked in the same order during all the interviews; rather, they were adjusted to the story the interviewed person was telling (cf. Brinkmann, 2018; Kvale & Brinkmann 2014). Furthermore, recommendations from Kvale and Brinkmann (2014) were followed regarding asking open-ended, short interview questions that encouraged rich answers. However, how the researcher is positioned in terms of, for example, gender, age, or ethnicity by the interviewee, and whether they think the researcher can share or understand their experiences may influence rapport, and how and what the interviewee chooses to talk about (Song & Parker, 1995; see also Mirick & Wladkowski, 2019). When first talking to the interviewees, I felt they were somewhat distanced towards me—until I told them that I used to work in women's shelters. Several of the interviewed women expressed that they were relieved to learn this, stating that they felt that such work-life experiences makes you “understand violence” and its consequences. Although only a few of the interviewed women mentioned it, it is also possible that me being positioned as a woman made it easier for them to talk to me about adverse experiences of male violence.
During the interviews, I utilized techniques from feminist interview research, such as Kelly (1988), Hydén (2014) and Carlsson (2009), as well as from my previous experiences of working with counseling in women's shelters. I practiced active listening and tried to listen with warmth and empathy, asking open-ended questions allowing the interviewees to tell their stories. I also asked if they had people to talk to after the interviews, and offered to provide them with contact information to professional counselors. Even though some said the interviews had been emotionally straining, they also expressed that it had been a therapeutic experience and meaningful to contribute to research that might help improve social workers’ aid to survivors (cf. Bredal et al., 2022; Buchanan & Wendt, 2018; Eriksson, 2003).
In accordance with the Swedish law regarding ethical approval (2003:460), an application for ethical approval was sent to the Swedish Ethical Review Authority before conducting the study. The review authority stated that they had no ethical objections to the study (Decision no. 2020-03444).
Data Analysis
The interviews were audio recorded and analyzed using thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022), which is: “[…] a method for developing, analyzing, and interpreting patterns across a qualitative data set, which involves systematic processes of data coding to develop themes […]” (Braun & Clarke, 2022, p. 4). I followed the phases recommended by Braun and Clarke (2022) during the analysis. First, I listened to the recorded interviews and then transcribed the data corpus verbatim. Specifically, I listened to the difficult parts of the recordings several times to check the transcription for accuracy. Thereafter, I read the entire transcribed material and coded the data corpus manually. The coding was guided by the aim and the research questions. Based on the initial inductive coding, I decided to use Hester's (2011) three planet model. In the third phase of analysis, I started searching for themes and collected coded extracts under those themes. Finally, I started to define and name the themes, and reviewed them by creating and revising a mind map over the generated themes. The themes and sub-themes generated by the coding were modified during the process of analysis, adhering to Braun and Clarke's (2020, 2022) reflexive thematic analysis. The themes and sub-themes generated by the analysis are presented in Appendix 1.
Results
The analysis generated three main themes: Support, Betrayal, and Caught between colliding planets. The first section introduces the first main theme, Support, and connected sub-themes, i.e., the mainly positive experiences of support that the interviewed survivors reported on social workers in women's shelters and specialized social service units on the Domestic violence planet. The following section explores the second main theme, Betrayal. This relates to the negative experiences that the survivors described from meeting social workers on the Child contact planet. Connected sub-themes that were found to contribute to the feelings of betrayal are discussed, such as experiences of the violence being mutualized (cf. Coates & Wade, 2004) and reduced to a matter of conflict and co-operation, as well as experiences of attribution of guilt and a lack of protection from (post-separation) violence. The final main theme, Caught between colliding planets, explores how the interviewed women expressed that they were caught between social workers’ disparate ways to handle violence.
Support From Social Workers on the Domestic Violence Planet
The interviewed survivors reported that prior to leaving their husbands/boyfriends, they had tried to end the violence using different strategies, including several forms of resistance identified in Rajah and Osborn's (2022) scoping review of abused women's resistance. The survivors had tried active opposition, covert resistance, and help-seeking from family and friends before deciding to leave the relationship. Thus, they had tried to end the violence on their own, before seeking the support of social workers (cf. Liang et al., 2005). They mainly talked about positive experiences of support from social workers in women's shelters as specialized social service units, i.e., from social workers on the Domestic violence planet.
Warm and Non-Judgmental Counseling
One sub-theme connected to the main theme of support was the positive experiences of the counseling the survivors stated they had received from these social workers. The positive experiences encompassed being met with warmth and empathy by the social workers, and experiences of not being judged but listened to and believed in. Furthermore, they appreciated when the support was accessible: I’ve been receiving support from them for many years, in some periods a lot of support and in some periods less support, but I’ve always felt they’re just a phone call away. It's been amazing, the support I’ve gotten from them. So, this specialized social service unit has offered such an amazing, well, warmth, non-judgment; they’ve always been there. So, it's been accessible, you don’t have to book in advance but can just call them, and there's no documentation. What have you experienced as most helpful or significant in the support you received from the women's shelter? What mattered the most is one sentence that she told me at the women's shelter: “you are not alone and it's not your fault.” Because I, and I think many other women also, we blame ourselves. Well it's been amazing to talk to other women, share experiences, and realize that we and I’ve also experienced this in Facebook groups in threads where you’re like, “have we been married to the same man?”, everyone gets these epiphanies; “these men are exactly the same!” […] It's been very helpful to share experiences like that; it's really important to understand how these men work and to realize that they’re exactly the same. Yeah, could you say something about what that meant for you, to realize that? Well a lot, because you feel so alone […] And then there's a lot of guilt, feelings of guilt, that this is my own fault; this only happened to me.
Practical Guidance and Information—a Long-Term, Holistic Support Need
Even though the interviewed survivors said they valued the counseling they had received, an important sub-theme of the experience of support from social workers on the Domestic violence planet was receiving a type of more “practical” support, such as legal advice regarding divorce and custody cases, help in navigating contacts with authorities, financial aid, help in finding housing, etc. Thus, the survivors spoke of a holistic support need. They also talked about needing support for a long period after separating since the violence did not end—they reported that they experienced threats as well as economical and psychological violence from their husbands/boyfriends several years post-separation. Legal processes, especially custody cases, could go on for years and were described as emotionally straining. A few of the survivors were offered counseling for a limited period, for example 10 sessions, and they expressed that such time limitations were problematic.
Furthermore, a couple of the survivors expressed that they had not received the support they needed from social workers when separating from their abusive husbands/boyfriends. Jasmine argued that the lack of support and information regarding her rights during the divorce made her surrender all her belongings to her husband when she left him, since she thought letting him have all of the belongings would make her be free from him sooner: I just let him have all of the belongings; at first I fought him; it took six months until I felt; what the hell, I’m just going to let go of all this crap. It's not worth it! That's where I could have used more help. To be informed what my rights were and, well, to be free of that person! To be completely free. The social workers [at the specialized social service unit] helped me by informing me about my rights and obligations […] because he played that card, and he also contacted the social services when I did not allow him to sleep at my house with me and the children. And he told me that I was keeping him from seeing his children. So, many times, I contacted them [the social workers], also between our booked counseling sessions, and asked if he had the right to demand this? “No, you can deny him that. If he wants to see his children, he can visit them in the daytime, between these hours.” So, they really helped me to see what rights I had and what I could deny him. I’ve reached a point where I feel that I don’t need pity anymore, or not exactly pity but, that's kind of what you get from, well a women's shelter. And I still call them sometimes to get advice and it's like, well they understand. I needed that before, but I don’t need that anymore. […] Today, I don’t need that. I need someone to create actual change. I need my children to be protected from violence. I need, if not sole custody, then at least to limit the time the children spend with him.
Betrayal From Social Workers on the Child Contact Planet
The interviewed survivors had experiences of meeting social workers on the Child contact planet, and of one or several custody disputes. The main theme in these experiences was a sense of betrayal, because of the way they did (not) deal with the violence the survivors were trying to tell them about and be protected from. Some of the survivors argued they felt that these social workers, sometimes the entire “society” and/or the Swedish justice system, perpetrated post-separation violence: Now, several years after the divorce, I’m not that mad at him anymore, because I see him as a sick individual, a psychopath […] But I feel such a terrible anger against society. Because I think, especially the justice system, is perpetrating post-separation violence, not just allowing him to perpetrate post-separation violence, but also perpetrating it by not giving us any right to financial aid, by not charging the perpetrators for their crimes, and by letting these fathers behave however they please; they’re not co-operating; they’re not working towards the best interest of the child, but they still get to keep custody.
Violence Seen as Mutual Conflict
The survivors used metaphors such as “night and day” or “coldness versus warmth” to describe the discrepancies they experienced in how social workers in women's shelters and specialized social service units on the Domestic violence planet had treated them, versus social workers in family law units. They expressed surprise toward these discrepancies, since the social workers sometimes worked in the same organization (the social services) in the same municipality: It felt very strange, because it's the same organization, this family law unit and the specialized social service unit that supported me, but it was like a cold and a warm hand. […] At the specialized unit, when we had that support group […] We’re sitting there trying to repair ourselves. We have these wounds from how the police have handled it, how other parts of the social services have handled this, that they want to see some sort of justice between the mom and the dad, rather than see what's going on in the family. So it's really been, well cold and warm there. It was like nothing; it was like we had difficulties “co-operating.” And that was, I hate that word. I hate, I mean, every time I hear it, it makes me so angry. Because it means I’m assessed the same way as him. But I think, when there's violence, you’re not equal. You can’t say it takes two to tango. And that you need to pull yourself together. No! Who's supposed to pull themselves together? I’m being abused. Should I pull myself together? No, I felt really betrayed. My ex-husband and I are described like these conflict parents. And you can see that a lot in all the documentation, in the social services' assessments and case investigations, and also with the family therapist that my child is seeing at the moment. That I’ve been given this label, that I’m some kind of conflict, um, conflict person. […] They’re really eager to see this as my conflict. And I have to sit there feeling, well guilty actually for bringing it up, that I have a “conflict”. […] And that, that makes me feel like the social services are working in the 1950s. It's like something you read in old, or see in a movie about the 50 s, and you know someone is beating his wife and the police arrives and they’re like “yeah but Mrs. Karlsson, you did cause this.” And that, that's how it feels!
Another sub-theme connected to the main theme of Betrayal was that the survivors expressed that social workers on the Child contact planet did not want to talk about the violence the survivors tried to tell them about because they wanted to remain neutral or objective and did not want to “look back at the past”: The social services told me that they never look back at the past because they want to achieve an objective assessment for each new case. I even asked them to check the old case investigation; it's five years old, but there's a lot in there, and it says they suspect the children are being abused. But they didn’t want to do that because every new case needs to be objective, and they don’t look at the past, at old investigations or police reports.
No Protection From Violence
The final sub-theme contributing to the second main theme of feelings of betrayal was that the interviewed survivors expressed that being compelled to “co-operate” with their violent (ex)husbands/boyfriends made them feel that they were not being sufficiently protected from violence, not even in meetings at the social service office. Rebecca, like several other survivors, had been invited to stay at a women's shelter. The offer came from social workers at a specialized social service unit. During the same period, Rebecca also had contact with social workers in the child unit and the family law unit. They did not seem to have talked to their colleagues at the specialized social service unit about Rebecca's case, and did not take part of their risk assessment. When the social workers at the child unit talked to the children, Rebecca was forced to sit in a waiting room with her ex-husband, who mocked and yelled at her. The family law unit decided to summon Rebecca and her ex-husband to a meeting where they were supposed to reach an agreement about the children's living arrangements. Rebecca was afraid of her ex-husband, and felt she had to agree to whatever he wanted during the meeting, which she tried to express to the social workers: After that meeting, they said “But you did really well; this went really well!” But I didn’t have a choice! “You don’t understand, he has threatened to kill me, and now he's sitting five centimeters from me. What was I supposed to do? How could I not agree to what he was saying?” And I said “You need to co-operate, and look up what has actually happened. What's the reason for this family being here in the first place?” […] And then, they tried to say “Yeah, but he would not dare to get angry in front of us.” “But you have no idea who you’re dealing with! He would easily do that. And if he had started choking me, you would never have gotten to him in time. And he's too strong for you to even have the slightest chance of removing his hands.” And I felt that was such a disaster, that you’re forced into some kind of a co-operation arrangement, where they had no idea what had happened, and I had no way out.
Caught Between Colliding Planets
Like Rebecca, the other interviewed survivors said that police and the social workers in the women's shelters and specialized social service units on the Domestic violence planet (and sometimes also child protection units on the Child protection planet) would encourage them to protect themselves and their children, move to a shelter, and cut off contact with their ex-husbands/boyfriends. On the other hand, social workers in the family law system would encourage them to meet and co-operate with their ex-husbands/boyfriends, and would not try to protect the children. Rather, they encouraged the children to go see their father.
Eva was one of the women that described this. She said social workers at the child protection unit and the specialized social service unit convinced her to move to a shelter with her children when she told them about the violence. At the shelter, social workers encouraged her to consider not moving back to the town where she used to live with her ex-husband. When Eva told the social workers at the family law unit about her thoughts about moving, she described experiencing that they accused her of wanting to abduct and manipulate her children: Suddenly, when I met this new caseworker at the family law unit, everything was turned against me. Suddenly I was, everything was questioned. I was accused of influencing and manipulating my kids. […] So, I think it's so strange, that they were like different worlds, this specialized social service unit that supported me, and this family law unit. Like they were completely different worlds that had nothing to do with each other. And at the one unit, in the same municipality, they’re saying “You’re abused, this is violence, and this is not okay; you need to protect your kids”, and at the other unit: “Well, is this really violence or did you make this up? It's your word against his.”
Moreover, the survivors expressed that social workers and staff in the different planets did not talk to each other, even though they were working on the same case. Some, like Lena in the quote below, were therefore critical towards tendencies to encourage survivors to report the violence to the police, since when they do so, some social workers may question them: And when the police investigation started, I was not supposed to answer him, not have any contact with him. […] But when I didn’t answer him, the social services questioned me, made me into the problem since I couldn’t communicate with the father. That I had reported him to the police and why, that was not interesting at all to them. And that makes me feel, you hear so much about domestic violence and there are these campaigns to encourage people to, “You need to be brave and report to the police, report and you will get help!” But my god, if you file a police report and they learn that there's a custody dispute, they become wary, and when they [the social services] learn about the police report, they just think it's difficulties in co-operation.
Thus, instead of social workers and other staffs at different units and authorities co-operating in domestic violence cases, as demanded by the guidelines from the Swedish National Board for Health and Welfare (Chapter 3, 9-10§§ SOSFS, 2014:4), the interviewed survivors described being caught between their colliding ways of handling intimate partner violence.
Discussion
This study sheds light on survivors’ experiences of (vast) differences between social workers on the Domestic violence planet and the Child contact planet. The interviewed survivors talked about being supported by social workers on the Domestic violence planet and viewed the counseling they had received from these social workers as helpful and healing, since they had been met with warmth and empathy and had been relieved of feelings of guilt or shame. Some had also received other types of “practical” support from these social workers that had helped them to leave as well as to protect themselves from post-separation violence, for example legal advice, information about rights, and shelter. Thus, the survivors in this study expressed a holistic, long-term need for support. The Swedish guidelines (HSLF-FS, 2022:39; SOSFS, 2014:4) for the social services work on domestic violence underscore that survivors should be offered support both short and long terms. However, the study indicates that survivors may sometimes be offered support for a limited period. Furthermore, a minority of the survivors in the study said that they had not received the practical support they needed, and that this had led to them not being protected from economical post-separation violence. Still, a majority talked about being supported and protected from further violence by social workers on the Domestic violence planet.
Despite the support from social workers on the Domestic violence planet, the interviewed survivors expressed that the family law system's inability to deal with violence allowed violence to continue post-separation. The main theme in their descriptions of contacts with social workers on the Child contact planet was betrayal. The survivors described that violence was mutualized and reduced to conflicts on the Child contact planet, and that they were told to co-operate with their abuser. The survivors expressed that they felt they were thereby attributed guilt, and that they were left without protection from post-separation violence. This is in line with Laing's (2017) discussion of secondary victimization in relation to survivors’ experiences of being silenced, questioned, and forced to co-operate with their abusers within the Australian family law system. The results of the current study are also in line with previous research on survivor experiences of meeting the family law system in other countries. Studies that were conducted decades ago found similar results, i.e., that separated mothers reported that child contact arrangements enabled post-separation violence (Eriksson, 2003; Humphreys & Thiara, 2003). Unfortunately, the problems seem to continue. Spearman et al. (2022) argues in their concept analysis of post-separation abuse that the family law system tends to be used by violent men as an arena for exerting post-separation violence (i.e., legal system abuse, cf. Douglas, 2018). Furthermore, Francia et al. (2020) found that separated mothers in Australia also experienced that violence would disappear in the family law system, and that the family law system did not act to protect them and their children. Zeoli et al. (2013) found similar results in an interview study with American mothers, as did Elizabeth et al. (2012) in their interviews with mothers in New Zealand. In a recent study, Hay et al. (2023) found that mothers subjected to post-separation violence reported experiences of violence being ignored, accusations of parental alienation, and feelings of betrayal from the family law system.
Furthermore, the survivors in the current study said that while they were told by social workers on the Child contact planet to “co-operate” with their perpetrators, social workers and/or police on the Domestic violence planet and the Child protection planet told them to avoid contact with their perpetrator and to protect their children from his violence. Thus, they seemed to be caught between colliding ways to handle violence. In other words, they were caught between colliding planets, or fell through black holes when the different planets were going in different directions (cf. Hester, 2011). This is also in line with the results of a previous study by Holt (2017) that discusses the paradox of post-separation mothering, i.e., how separated mothers are made responsible for protecting children from violence from the father/perpetrator, and at the same time are blamed if they obstruct the child's contact with the father/perpetrator.
Hester's (2011) three planet model predicted this issue, and Eriksson (2003) shed light on these problems within the family law system in a Swedish dissertation nearly twenty years ago. Since then, new guidelines (HSLF-FS, 2022:39; SOSFS, 2014:4) have been administered to strengthen the Swedish social services’ work against domestic violence. However, this study indicates that the guidelines are not always implemented in social work practice. Social workers still appear to be working on different planets, instead of coordinating their work on the same case (as demanded by the Swedish guidelines).
One way to understand this is that the work on the Child contact planet, like Hester (2011) points out, is guided by different laws and regulations than the Domestic violence planet. Eriksson and Hester (2001) discussed how the child–parent contact presumption in the Swedish Children and Parents Code and the English Children Act contributes to the problems that female survivors experience when meeting the family law system. In Sweden, the Children and Parents Code (1949:381) still guides the work on the Child contact planet. In chapter 6, 2a§ (1949:381), it is stated that the best interest of the child should guide decisions regarding custody and residence, and that when one assesses what is the best interest of the child, one should not only consider the risk that the child (or anyone else in the family) may be subjected to abuse, but also the child's need for a close and good relationship with both parents. From the perspective of the female survivors in this study, Swedish social workers at family law units still seem to put more emphasis on the child's need to have a relationship with both parents, than on the child's need to be protected from violence. However, the handbook that has been issued by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare to aid social workers in adhering to the guidelines states that if a parent is subjecting the child or anyone else in the family to abuse or harassment, it is often in the best interest of the child that this parent does not take part in custody (National Board of Health and Welfare, 2016, p. 91).
Once again, there seems to be something standing in the way of implementation. Elizabeth et al. (2012) argues that custody law in Anglo-West countries is underpinned by (un-articulated) principles and logics that become problematic in domestic violence cases. The principle of the best interest of the child rests on three logics. The first, durability, implies that parent and child contact is not to be terminated. The second, gender neutrality, means that both parents are seen as equally important (even though the mother may historically have taken more responsibility for the children, and the father may be using violence). The third logic of present future temporality implies that violence in the past tends to get lost in custody law, and the father's interest in the child post-separation in the present is seen as more important (and confused with the ability to care for the child) (Elizabeth et al., 2012). Furthermore, Eriksson and Hester (2001) have discussed how the construction of gender and male parenthood, where fathers are generally understood as non-violent, may contribute to the family law system's difficulties in dealing with (male) post-separation violence. Additionally, admitting that present fathers and child–father contact may not always be ideal post-separation can be especially difficult in Sweden, since there are dominating discourses and policy of gender equality and gender equal parenting (Eriksson, 2003).
Based on the current study, I suggest that yet another way to comprehend the difficulties of social workers on the Child contact planet to implement the guidelines is to consider how they understand intimate partner violence. This study highlights that they, from the perspective of female survivors, might understand intimate partner violence more in terms of mutual conflict than one-sided, harmful abuse where there is a clear victim and perpetrator. This is line with findings of Hart and Bagshaw's (2008) discourse analysis of judgments in the Australian Family Court, who found that violence tended to be re-labeled as conflict in a majority of the judgments. This is also echoed in a research report from the Swedish Gender Equality Agency (2022), which analyzed how violence is handled in child custody processes in Swedish courts. The report found that accounts of violence were sometimes re-labeled and turned into difficulties in co-operation between the parents (Swedish Gender Equality Agency, 2022). Furthermore, Hay et al. (2023) found in their interview study with Australian mothers experiencing post-separation violence that the family law system tended to understand violence in terms of situational violence or conflicts rather than serious, harmful violence. Hay et al. (2023) argue that this may contribute to the family law system's “pro-contact culture”.
This may be another piece of the puzzle that help us understand why social workers in the family law system see contact between the parents as unproblematic, and why they find co-operating with social workers on the Domestic violence planet unnecessary. If the matter is perceived as conflict rather than violence, then it makes sense to strive for contact between parents (and less sense to co-operate with social workers working with domestic violence). However, the study illustrates how their way of dealing with intimate partner violence may cause problems for survivors who have experienced coercive control and/or intimate terrorism, leaving them exposed to post-separation violence and feeling betrayed rather than protected by social workers and the (family law) system.
However, one of the women in the study who had been subjected to situational couple violence talked in more neutral terms about her experiences of contact with the family law system. She did not express distress or aversion toward having to meet her ex-husband at the family law unit. Her experiences of violence seemed to have fitted better with the logic of the Child contact planet, possibly because she did not need or demand protection from her ex-husband and instead went along with the demands to co-operate. The rest of the interviewed survivors expressed that the family law system enabled post-separation violence, and that their ex-husbands/boyfriends used the system to keep tormenting them, making it harder for them and their children to move on and live lives free of violence. Future quantitative studies could explore this further, i.e., if women subjected to coercive control or intimate terrorism experience more difficulties in meeting social workers in the Child contact planet compared to women experiencing situational couple violence.
Conclusion
The current study indicates that Hester's (2011) three planet model and the disparities between different planets’ way to deal with (post-separation) violence is still applicable in a Swedish context, despite new regulation and guidelines. Eriksson (2023) suggests that the distance between the different practice domains may have decreased in Sweden due to the new regulations and guidelines. Unfortunately, this study indicates that from a survivor perspective, the (different) planet metaphor is still useful.
Furthermore, the question “why doesn’t she leave?” and the assumption that leaving always ends violence still needs to be critically examined (Bruton & Tyson, 2018; Hardesty, 2002; Hydén, 1999; Mahoney, 1991). Leaving is not enough; there needs to be a system which ensures that survivors who decide to leave are protected from further abuse. Based on the perspectives of survivors, the current study identified several challenges for the family law system when dealing with (male) post-separation violence. This confirms the findings from previous studies in different countries (Elizabeth et al., 2012; Eriksson, 2003; Francia et al., 2020; Laing, 2017; Zeoli et al., 2013).
Hence, an implication of this study for the practice of social work is that it might be beneficial to educate social workers and other professionals working on the Child contact planet about the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of (male) intimate partner violence. This study shows how female survivors may appreciate the support they receive from social workers on the Domestic violence planet. Could learning from those social workers be a way forward for the social workers on the Child contact planet? Other researchers have also made fruitful recommendations that may aid social workers in the family law system that deal with domestic violence cases, such as James-Hanman and Holt's (2021) 7-point plan for safe(r) contact for children and Spearman's et al. (2023) recommendations for court professionals.
Future studies should also explore how social workers in different planets view the challenges of the family law system, and examine how they may find ways to implement legislation and guidelines and to co-operate with, instead of working against, each other in these cases and (How) can they start working on the same planet to improve the safety and well-being of women and children who have experienced male intimate partner violence?
Limitations
Since this is a qualitative, interview-based study with a rather small sample, the results are not generalizable. Furthermore, the sample in this study is rather homogenous when it comes to the education level and ethnicity. Hence, more studies are needed to explore if the results can be generalized to different populations.
Additionally, the study is limited to studying female survivors’ experiences of support from social workers, not professionals working within, for example, health-care. Also, the study takes the guidelines of 2014 as a departure, as the interviewed survivors separated and received support before the update to HSLF-FS 2022:39 was made. Future studies should explore survivors’ experiences of support from different professionals as well as implementation and implications of new(er) legislation and guidelines.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-vaw-10.1177_10778012231225227 - Supplemental material for Support or Betrayal? Swedish Survivors’ Experiences of Support From Social Workers During Post-Separation Violence
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-vaw-10.1177_10778012231225227 for Support or Betrayal? Swedish Survivors’ Experiences of Support From Social Workers During Post-Separation Violence by Josefin Kjellberg in Violence Against Women
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biography
In January 2024,
Appendix 1. Themes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
