Lesley Devoe, LCSW 18 Maple Street Rockland, Maine 04841

November 21, 2008

To Whom It May Concern; I have been asked to summarize my assessment of Lori Handrahans situation v.v. her estranged husband Igor Malenko from a domestic abuse paradigm in anticipation of court next month. I had initially been asked by Lori to review her situation in terms of risk if Igor is granted unsupervised visits with their almost two year old daughter Mila. Lori had been seeking help from mental health providers who were using mental health/medical model paradigms that are now being seen as not useful and, in some cases, dangerous in domestic abuse situations.(see attached Domestic Abuse Paradigm, and Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in cases with Domestic Violence: A Judges guide). I agreed to look at her situation from a different paradigm and found that the patterns of domestic abuse were missed or minimized by many of the mental health and legal professionals originally dealing with her case. I met Lori in person on Sept 8th but have scheduled phone appointments since then to save both of us travel between Rockland and Portland. I have spoken with her former lawyer Dori Chadbourne on several occasions and met with her on one occasion. I have spent much time verifying Loris concerns with other sources of information. I have met with Loris mother Jan Tarbuck once and spoken with her husband Woody by phone once and Loris sister Shauna also by phone. I have spoken by phone with Liz Stout G.A.L. twice, Polly Campbell from the Office of the Maine Attorney General and Jacqueline Campbell, Ph.D who has expertise in lethality assessment. I have also spoken to Fran Fuller from N.A.M.I., and Allie Knowlton LCSW and Kathryn Landon-Malone, a nurse practitioner both from True North. I have read many emails, two police records, a copy of a criminal proceeding in Macedonia against Igor when he was 16 years old, the G.A.L. Liz

Stouts report, 2 CDs, True North records of Loris individual sessions, a report by David Pritchard Ph.D from True North, notes from Frank Ochberg M.D., emails and letters submitted by Loris sister, Loris former husband, Loris employers, colleagues, and friends. I have also read a letter from the couples real estate broker. I have also received correspondence from Igors attorney Michael Waxman denying my request to meet with Igor and to receive releases of information re. Igors conjoint sessions with Lori and Dr. Pritchard and Igors psychiatric history. I will first list behavior by Igor to Lori, often with Mila in her arms or nursing in bed, that moves this case from high conflict divorce to one of abuse. These examples will be described in the following categories; battering of Lori, threats to Lori, emotional abuse of Lori, abuse of Mila, pet abuse, abuse of power/ control of others, and financial abuse of Lori. This case is unusual in that much documentation is available and abuse has been witnessed by two of Loris friends and Milas nanny and the aftermath of abuse by Igor was witnessed by another friend. Police reports are also available for two episodes of abuse by Igor and Igor has admitted to some of his abuse. Because I have not been able to meet with Igor, I must rely on his statements to Liz, to the police, to Allie Knowlton, and in emails and other reports listed above. As I describe the types of abuse evident in Igors behavior, I will note where Mila was to show her proximity to danger. While Mila may be too young to adequately speak for herself, there is much research on the impact of witnessing domestic abuse that will be included in this report. Lori states that rages and apologies by Igor, juxtaposed to loving behavior, characterized much of their relationship. (Igor agreed with this assessment in his conjoint sessions with Allie Knowlton). She explained that the first episode of battering involved Igor throwing hot food at her face when she was pregnant. Once Igor admitted to a counselor at True North (verified in record and in phone conversation with Allie Knowlton) that he slapped Loris hand really hard while she was nursing, without thinking, which reminded him of when he had hurt a boy when he was sixteen (to be explained later in more detail). Igor hit Lori another time and threw a sweater at her also while she was nursing Mila. Mila was hit as well as Lori and she began to cry. When the police were called the first time, Igor admitted to them that he threw a jar hitting Lori in the head while she was holding Mila but he told the guardian that he swept it off the table in anger

and it was not directed at Lori. Again Mila became very upset, as did Lori who was standing back up from putting Mila in the stroller right next to her when Igor threw the jar. Igors statement to the guardian does not match his statement to the officer where he admits to throwing the jar. Another time Igor grabbed at Loris neck and started to punch her in a nightmare when Lori was pregnant. Once Igor pushed his fingers into Loris nose hard in the middle of a threatening rage at a mall and again woke up Mila who was sleeping in her mothers arms. Once when Mila was afraid to take a bath with her raging father, Igor tried to force Lori to strip and bathe with Mila so he could watch. While he blocked the doorway, Lori refused and Mila cried during a ten-minute stand-off. In three other episodes Igor made sufficiently detailed and intense threats to kill Lori that, as recommended by David Adams (a psychologist who works with batterers at Emerge in Massachusetts and has published extensively), these threats are included here as battering/terrorizing. Igor threatened three times while in Budapest to break Loris neck and drag her body to the Gender Institute where she worked or to actually break her neck at the Institute. He asked her where are your friends? now and said nobody will help you in Budapest. Threats to Lori by Igor include threats to kidnap Mila, a statement that if he wanted to kill Lori he could but he just wanted to scare her. Once, Igor threatened to break the door down if Loris friend Lou Ivey took care of Mila. That time Igor came through the door in a threatening manner with his hands high in the air. This episode has been verified by Lou Ivey and Ian Giles who was present when the ambulance left after the resulting attempt to get Igor to the hospital. Ian saw how agitated Igor was and hoped he would get help with medication as he himself had received.(see emaiI). Also in Budapest, Igor told Lori she would never see Mila again. Other times he threatened to ruin her financially, ruin her career, and turn her friends and family against her. In the hospital when Mila was born, Igor threatened to slap Lori so hard shed never forget it. Once he said in a counseling session that he wished Lori would die so hed be alone with Mila and have all Loris money. When she got her job at C.A.R.E., Igor threatened to take Mila. Once he said he would shit on Loris face and push it up her nose and another time he threatened to kick the door in her face when she got a job. Examples of emotional abuse alone (all the examples above include an element of emotional abuse) include Igors rage when Lori asked Igors father for help with his mood changes. When Igor threw the sweater, noted above, he said hed

rather be fucked up the ass by the JNA than be with her and that she was a lousy mother. Igor also often called Lori a bad mother when anything happened to Mila like a fall or a bee sting. He accused her of trying to kill Mila by taking her to the beach half a block from their house and of potentially hurting her by bringing a chair with evil spirits home from a lawn sale. He decried her career and said she was a feminist, a whore, and a loser. An email from Jessica Taublib-Kiriat describes her own observations of how Igors moods controlled the household during a visit to Maine. Two emails from Igor to Lori are very degrading and totally unrelated to the topic that Lori was raising with him about Mila. In them, he called Lori paranoid, a liar imagining things, seriously lost, perverse, only capable of hurting people, harassing him, doing nothing but complaining, taking advantage of people, and having affairs when previously married. Igor was also jealous of Loris work and said she didnt really work, it was pretend work. All of this is contradicted by many letters from Loris friends, colleagues, and exhusband who is also a good friend. These accusations are particularly telling from a man who was not working, was not doing much child care, had no friends and was worried about evil spirits in a chair or trips to the beach half a block away. These emails point to a truism about batterers that what they say about their partners in rages says more about them than their partners. (Bancroft, Adams) A final example of emotional abuse resulted in a second call to the police by a neighbor and deserves separate discussion in this report. During this episode, Igor was raging outside, pounding the ground with his fists, and yelling at Lori in front of the neighbors while holding a screaming Mila. This was because Lori said she was leaving with Mila to have some time away from Igors moods. Lori had done this on other occasions and this time only stayed away one night and she and Igor made love the next day. Unfortunately, the neighbors only saw the part of the episode where Igor was defining himself as the victim of Lori and now the closest three neighbors no longer speak to Lori and Mila. This shows the power of the interpreter of events which must be tracked carefully when domestic abuse is present but is not part of a traditional mental health paradigm. The next area of concern is how this pattern of abuse impacts almost two year old Mila who was present at all of these assaults. As a child under three years of age, her central nervous system is at a critical formative stage and she lacks the words to describe her responses to Igors rages and the mobility to get away from them.

Lori describes Mila as comfortable with her father when hes in a good mood but often screaming and inconsolable when hes not. It is noted in domestic abuse literature that every episode of witnessing violence is an act of terrorizing in terms of the effect on the witness. Pynoos and Eth have studied child witnesses extensively and found that powerlessness organizes their perceptions and often causes PTSD. They believe that witnessing is even harder to incorporate than being the direct victim of physical abuse. This has serious implications for Mila who has been in her mothers arms and/or nursing when her father poked her mother in the nose, threw a sweater and a jar at them and threatened to break her mothers neck. Mila was there every time Igor overreacted to her fever, skinned knee, bloody lip, and planned trip to the beach and when Igor accused Lori of being a terrible parent and responsible if she dies. Igor admitted to helpers that Milas crying was upsetting to him but the more he overreacted, the more Mila overreacted and, most importantly, Lori had to shift her focus away from Mila to Igor to calm him down. Lundy Bancroft, also from EMERGE and a prolific author and trainer, notes that in episodes of violence as described above, the batterers need to control his partner overrides his concern for the safety of his child. There are examples in this case where Igors need to be in control overrides Milas voice as well as her safety. When Mila did not want to hold her fathers hand, he asked if she was ashamed of him. Igor also wanted to take a bath with Mila but Mila was resisting and wanted to be with her mother. Igor started accusing Lori of doing something inappropriate in her last bath and tried to force Lori to strip and get in the tub with a screaming Mila so he could watch. When put in context, this is a noteworthy accusation from Igor of Lori because Igor took daily baths with Mila that lasted 20-30 minutes (but did not put her to bed) when Loris lasted 10 minutes. This is also a noteworthy allegation from a man who got very upset when Lori breast fed Mila while in the tub, and who refused to let the nanny give Mila a bath ever, insisting that the nanny just give her sponge baths when caring for Mila for a full week. This accusation of Lori becomes alarming when viewing the CD showing Igor putting a sleeping Milas little hand entirely in his mouth and then licking and sucking on each finger individually to dark light and soft music. Not only did Mila have no say in whether he could do this as she was sleeping but this represents a serious eroticization of affection to his child. If this is what he is willing to show on a CD, I wonder what he has done or would do off camera. When put in this context, that Igor cannot deny, his behavior and his statement of

suspicion to Lori raise serious red flags about the potential of sex abuse by him of Mila. There is much research in the domestic abuse field that points to a 50% or higher correlation between domestic abuse and child sex abuse. In the attached article by Dalton, Drozd, and Wong, Barbara Hart reports that in cases in which the mother is assaulted by the father, daughters are 6.51 times more at risk of sexual abuse than daughters in homes without domestic abuse (see attached). It is also well accepted in domestic abuse literature that risk to children is connected to care of pets (Bowker, and Lockwood and Ascione). Lori has described Igors obsession with his dog Bjke which ate at the table with them. Yet, early in their relationship in Holland, Igor hit this dog hard in the face when their car broke down. Igor felt terrible and cried all weekend because of his deep love for him yet he had previously left this dog with his former girlfriends parents and later at a neighbors house in Portland long after he, Lori and Mila had returned from Budapest. Once when Lori, Igor, Mila, and the dog were going on a walk, Mila started to cry and Igor raised his hand to hit her. When Lori stopped him, Igor said he thought it was the dog. It is also interesting to note how enraged Igor got when Lori did a bad shaving job on the dog for the summer. Igor accused Lori of taking her frustrations toward him out on the dog and passed that interpretation of events on to Loris parents and a neighbor. Loris stepfather told me there were 30 cuts on the dog and it was abusive. I saw the pictures taken that day by Lori after the accusation and I thought it was a bad cut but not abusive. Lori notes that this dog does not show fear with her, with whom he now lives, but goes into the corner when Igor rages at Lori. Again, Igors accusations of Lori are interesting in light of his own clearly abusive behavior toward the dog and are indicative of projection by the abuser to the survivor. Another area of concern in this case is Igors ownership thinking v.v. Mila, in his dealings with others, and in the creation of isolation for Lori and Mila that results. Igor wanted Lori to keep Mila home much longer than is recommended for newborns. He did not want her being taken by Lori to the beach half a block away, to the library or to see monkeys at the zoo in DC and he was clear who he did and did not want to hold Mila. He stated quite loudly to Lou Ivey that he did not want her holding Mila and he hadnt given her permission. He personally showed Loris mother exactly which route to take Mila for a walk and was very upset with a nurse he thought was trying to kill his baby. Igor had established a climate of fear by his own behavior but then he expanded it as he saw danger to Mila

everywhere. This fear and his need to control fueled each other and resulted in Igors attempts to limit Loris and Milas freedom of movement. Multiple demanding phone calls/emails to Lori about Milas whereabouts and about Mila to child care provider Stephanie suggest a view of people to serve Igors needs with little indication of mutual respect. In a letter, Igor summed it all up by telling Lori she could not leave Mila with other people or he would hold it against her Another area of concern is Igors behavior with Lori that constitutes a pattern of financial abuse. Shortly after meeting Igor and hearing his story of torture and abuse, Lori paid off about $20,000 of Igors debt that was accumulated from buying expensive clothes as a compulsive shopper. Lori started her relationship with Igor with $250,000 and is now in debt $40,000. Igor talked her into a much bigger and more expensive house than Lori wanted to buy (see brokers letter) and he ran up debt on her credit card without producing much income during their time together. Igor also drained Milas college fund twice, made no deposits into it, delayed Loris filing of taxes, has not reimbursed Lori for Milas medical costs, and has paid Lori almost no child support. Lori fronted Igor money to start his swimming school but he did not follow through on that. Even Igors refusal to get a legal license left Lori worried for more than three months about the financial ramifications if he had an accident without a drivers license.(see contract with David Pritchard). During the divorce process, Loris former attorney Dori Chadbourne suggested that Lori pay for Igors visits and the psychological evaluation. Dori later recognized that this was a mistake as it put everyone in the position of doing Igors agenda, especially Lori. Its interesting that Igor worker very little when it was about helping to support Lori and Mila but when it was clear the relationship was about to end, he began to hold a regular job. When using a domestic abuse paradigm, it is important to look at how systems of intervention continue the abuse by the batterer as survivors are often willing to make agreements that are not in their best interest. In this case, it is important that the system not continue the financial abuse of Lori by expecting her to pay more than her share of the psychological report and any visits between Mila and Igor. The next area of concern in a domestic abuse paradigm is a history of violence by the abuser to people outside the family. Such a history is seen as posing an increased risk for survivors of abuse and is seen as the best predictor of future violence by the abuser. Violence earlier in life is especially relevant as it anchors

the pattern of abuse in terms of the family of origin and reflects deeply held views of entitlement/empathy that are more difficult to treat at a later date. Liz Stout and Carol Kabacoff apparently see Igors assault at age sixteen and psychiatric treatment resulting from that assault as not relevant now which is puzzling even from a mental health perspective. I will discuss the assault as Igor has described it in multiple settings and will contrast his description of events with the official record and life-altering outcome to the victim. Igor told Lori about the event early in their relationship with much remorse and a lot of crying which resulted in much support of him by Lori. Igor told Lori that a friend had been hurt on the soccer field, it was an accident, the boy hit his head, it could have just as easily have been Igor who was hurt and Igor personally took the boy to the hospital. Igor continues to refer to it as an accident in an email dated 8/26/08. Igor told Lori that he was very popular before the accident and treated badly by students afterward. He also implied the injury resulted from the victim falling and hitting his head on a rock. However, the official record describes a criminal act and the injuries to the victim were a temporary coma followed by permanent paralysis of one side. The injury was not an accident but resulted when Igor started walking to the damaged Baceski Naum and when he was close enough, he hit damaged with his head in area of the forehead and the root of the nose. Also in the record, Igor said he just wanted to scare the boy who had been teasing him. Igors slide from the truth is self-serving in an attempt to take the focus off the seriousness of his behavior and off the pattern that continues now of controlling people by scaring them. His story also meets his need to be seen as a victim, which continues as well today. The fact that Igor admits to flashing back to that incident when Mila cries shows how current and relevant that assault is to Igors risk to Mila. From a domestic abuse perspective, patterns of abuse and manipulation are important to uncover if risk is to be accurately assessed. David Adams believes that it is particularly important to look at how these patterns emerge in the courtship phase of the relationship. In this case Lori made the first call but Igor pushed the relationship hard and said to Loris friend Jessica Taublib-Kiriat (confirmed in email) after four days that he was going to marry Lori and have a child with her. Igor shared his story of brutality in the army in Macedonia which fit with Loris professional concern about Eastern Europes oppression. Igor emphasized his victimization as a child and in the war and celebrated the fact that he finally met someone he could trust. He glorified Loris career choice and they

moved in together very quickly in the midst of much sexual passion. It wasnt long after that, that Igors rages began, money from Lori covered his debt, her friends were concerned (see email from JessicaTaublib-Kiriat), and he started to badmouth Loris career. Igor promised to take care of Lori as house husband so Lori could grow her career but Liz Stout admitted to me by phone that Lori ended up doing all the work of the relationship. My telephone conversation with Allie Knowlton confirms this as well. Lori was much more transparent about her relationships and gave more details to Igor about her family of origin (also reflected in Lizs report). Igor told her about abuse of him by his father and two three year relationships with women. Otherwise very little is known about his life and now his experience in the army is being questioned. Later, Igor did tell Lori that his brother married two women for their money, and there were issues of abuse in those relationships. Igors father was trained as a lawyer but did not work most of his life. David Adams explains why this is important by describing a group of lethal abusers who are materialistic in their relationships with women. They are particularly concerning as their commitment is shallow, they are un/underemployed, they have frequent relationships, little is shared of their backgrounds to their partners, courtships are short, sex is frequent, and danger is very real when the relationship is over. Beyond David Adams concerns about courtship, he describes the earlier cited explicit nature of death threats as highly dangerous and characterizes such threats as rehearsals. Jackie Campbell has also dealt with the issue of lethality with batterers who eventually kill and she has developed a well validated index to assess that risk. Her index has achieved a 92% level of accuracy in predicting death or severe injury by batterers. After directly assessing Lori by phone, Jackie believes that Igor is extremely dangerous and that his danger would increase if he were unemployed. She describes the veracity of Loris responses as 80-90% and notes the amount of documentation available in this case. I have reviewed the index which was given to Lori and have also spoken directly with Jackie by phone. I believe Igors danger would increase as well if he returned to use of street drugs as he did in the past. The seriousness of Igors risk is placed in this part of the report to describe the context of Loris reactions, particularly her rather desperate help-seeking attempts. A domestic abuse perspective looks at how such risk is played out day by day in a climate of fear established by the abuser to control the survivor and

their children. Igor also told Lori in sessions with Allie Knowlton that his paternal grandmother told him at age twelve to leave home or his father would kill him. Four years later, Igor had almost killed a boy on the soccer field. This information early on established a climate of fear that was then reinforced by raging episodes of abuse. The record is full of statements by Loris friends of her fearlessness in the face of work and her sister and mother describe the way she stood up to a perversely abusive father. This bravery is punctuated with real calls for help to friends in tears and active help seeking which is also documented by NAMI and True North staff. Lori understandably tried to characterize Igors mood shifts as psychiatric in nature and hoped that they were amenable to a medication intervention. I submit the mental illness concerns were a red herring with the real issue being abuse of power and control by Igor. I also believe that Lori was not controlling Igor for the sake of control but was extremely afraid at times, denying it at other times but desperately trying to get help for Igor and to save their marriage. This perception is confirmed by Allie Knowton and by Loris mother. Igors ability to turn his rages on and off, as witnessed by Lou Ivey, led me to question a mental health diagnosis as primary. The pattern of manipulation that begins in abuse in his childhood, his slide from the truth regarding his behavior as an adolescent, the climate of fear established with Lori and Mila and the sexualized CD suggest that abuse of power and control is the primary concern and mental illness is secondary. Using a domestic abuse paradigm, it is important to establish the pattern of abuse and to accurately describe who is the abuser and who is the victim/suvivor. It is clear in this case that Igor is the abuser and Lori (and Mila ) the victims. A look at their childhoods reinforces what is clearly patterned behavior in their relationship. Lori is described by her mother and sister as standing up to her abusive father and telling her mother that she had to leave her father. She was a protector and outspoken in those attempts and she found a friends family to support her through those difficult times. Igor, on the other hand, turned the abuse at the hands of his father into an assault at the age of sixteen. He learned that people can be effectively controlled by violence and fear and he practiced that in his adolescence. When using the paradigm of mental health rather than domestic abuse, attempts to change the situation by survivors can be misconstrued and pathologized by helpers who feel badly for an abuser who is more charming than the survivor. We can feel empathy for both Igor and Lori who suffered serious abuse in their childhoods. However, survivors of childhood abuse

actively make decisions at young ages about the lethality of situations (Mullender) and about their own behavior in order to be safe. In this case past, and even recent behavior, confirmed by descriptions in the record, consistently show that Lori became a protector and Igor identified with the aggressor. That warrants very different recommendations regarding risk assessment and intervention. Using a domestic abuse paradigm, it is well understood that a mistake in accurately determining the roles of the participants in abuse can be lethal and needs to be tracked and challenged at ever point of intervention.

It is for that reason that I now turn attention to the interaction between survivors, abusers, and the mental health and legal professionals who are trying to assess risk and establish safety. A domestic abuse paradigm differs considerably from a mental health/medical model paradigm in that the behavior of professionals is evaluated carefully to avoid re-victimization of the survivor by the system. I have developed the concept of leveling as a teaching tool to show how professionals can have positive and negative impacts in domestic abuse cases. Leveling refers to the unintentional tendency by mental health, legal, and medical professionals to gradually and subtly reduce the batterers accountability for the violence and transfer that accountability to the survivor. The language of leveling is started by the abuser but is continued by professionals who refer to the batterers violence as family or couple violence and water down or lose all reference to the ownership of the violence in the record. Reports to the court that refer to violence but dont describe it in detail are referred to as sanitized by Gondolf and accomplish leveling ever so subtly. Professionals who lose empathy for an angry survivor engage in victim blame which is a powerful form of leveling. We all have to guard against this process. One of the most professionally sanctioned but powerful forms of leveling in domestic abuse cases is psychological testing. There is no question that psychological testing is enormously helpful in many non-abuse cases with complicated clinical and diagnostic questions. However, it is now well documented that testing is not only counter-therapeutic in domestic abuse cases but dangerous. Carlson, Dalton, Geffner, Bancroft, Jaffe, Saunders, and Stark and Flitcraft separately document the way psychological testing makes batterers look good and survivors look bad. There is no diagnostic category that fits batterers as

most have no mental health issues and testing is unable to predict violence or determine who will abuse or not. Domestic violence is not a mental health problem although dangerousness increases if the batterer is mental ill. Psychological testing is a snapshot in time that reflects how badly a survivor is feeling without describing how that survivor performed in life before the abuse or might again when the abuse is over. Abusers are good at transferring the feelings they cannot handle to their victims, especially fear, shame, and powerlessness. Survivors tend to take too much responsibility for the abuse and abusers take too little thus skewing the results. When psychological testing is requested in a domestic abuse case, it should only be done with carefully constructed clinical and diagnostic questions and with many disclaimers by a psychologist who has specialized training in domestic abuse (Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judges Guide by Dalton, Drozd, and Wong). I am unable to comment on the specifics of the report or Carol Kabacoffs training in domestic abuse as the report has only been released to Liz Stout. My understanding is that there are payment issues that have led Carol to only release the report to Liz. Lori has already paid $6,000 of the requested $11,000 and Igor is not being asked to pay any of these costs. I have already gone on record as saying that this expectation represents an extension of the financial abuse by Igor. Additionally, failure to release this report removes potentially useful information from my evaluation and reinforces the conspiracy of silence started by Igor and continued by his attorney Michael Waxmans refusal to allow me to meet with Igor or get needed releases. Regretfully, it appears that the leveling process is in place in terms of the process of the psychological report in this case. I need to read the report in detail to determine if the content and testing used in the report reflect leveling as well. The conclusions that Liz released from the report and the fact that Carol rejected Judge Kennedys suggestion to call me suggest that the report does level in an anticipated way. There is no mention of domestic abuse in the recommendations and Loris help-seeking efforts are seen not as motivated by desperation but as emotionally abusive. Also, Carols recommendation for therapy for Lori frames Loris problems as intrapsychic rather than abuse-related. My next focus in terms of professionals in this case is on Liz Stouts report. Liz called me twice and has good credentials in the area of domestic violence. However, her report missed some important concerns in domestic abuse assessments; the patterned nature of abusive behavior, batterer manipulation,

help-seeking behavior by survivors and impacts on children. She appeared to believe Igor more than Lori whom she clearly lost empathy for (Lori can be a difficult person to deal with). Her report describes behavior admitted to by Igor and described in even greater detail by Lori but she opts for Igors minimization. Some violence was relegated to footnotes in her report (Igor throwing the sweater at Lori and Mila). The report noted that Igors threats were witnessed and she believes two episodes of domestic abuse by Igor occurred which involved the police yet she engages in leveling by describing his violence as situational couple violence. By so doing, she blames the victim and misses the pattern of abuse by Igor in this marriage. Lori is described as a person trying to control Igor rather than as someone who is seeking help and running into one professional after another who is totally inexperienced in the assessment of domestic abuse. Another problem in this report is that David Pritchards lack of concern regarding violence, his boundary violations by doing individual and couples therapy, and his recommendation of anger management are unchallenged by Liz. Couples therapy and anger management are inappropriate (and often dangerous) in domestic abuse situations yet no concerns about that were discussed. Also, Igors anger in a conjoint session with Lori that might have been seen as pushing Lori into hypervigilance would mean nothing to a male therapist with no history of violence at Igors hands, with a different gendered sense of safety, and with no domestic abuse knowledge .This possibility, which is consistent with a domestic abuse paradigm, was not entertained by Liz even though she has been exposed to the domestic abuse literature. The refusal in the report to say who made negative comments about Lori continues the conspiracy of silence seen throughout this case that deprives Lori of the chance to rebut the observations. Yet Igor is given many opportunities to rebut Loris details. A more critical examination of the work of David Pritchard and of the use of psychological testing would also have been helpful given Lizs involvement on the Domestic Abuse Commission. The report also reinforces Betsy Van Betews myths about how abusers and children look in supervised visits by not challenging them. It is well known that batterers can look great for periods of time, especially when they are being observed. Children often are happy with abusers under supervision because they feel safe and, in this case, Lori has said Mila always feels happy with Igor when hes in a good mood. Its the rages they both have trouble with. A deeper look at the dynamics of power and control in

Igors and Loris relationship might have uncovered financial abuse rather than reinforcing the myth that career women with good salaries have all the power and cannot be abused. There is evidence that contradicts this in the literature. Adams talks about an income differential where the woman makes more money than the man as problematic for the man and fueling the mans resentment, resulting in abuse by the man. Lizs report noted serious information about Igor (ex Stephanies and Lous reports) that she found credible but her conclusions did not follow in terms of recommendations for safety. Liz did not appear to notice the difference between Igors description of events to the police and to her and hold him accountable. Following up on his comparison of pool safety and bath restrictions on Mila might have resonated with the alarms that I was sounding with her about that. Liz had an opportunity to talk to Igor which I have not been allowed. It also would have been helpful to talk to Igor about his hard hand-slapping, how out-of-nowhere it came, and why that might be frightening to Lori and might result in some controlseeking behavior on her part. It also would have been helpful to ask Igor what behavior on his part might have led Lori to leave Budapest. From a domestic abuse perspective, Loris choice to leave was appropriate and in Milas best interest. If Liz had called Allie Knowlton, she would have heard some real concerns about Milas safety that led Allie and her co-therapist to consider a call to DHHS. Allie told me that Igor agreed he was attentive during the birth but that his depressions/rages left him unavailable to co-parent with Lori after that. Igor confirmed to them that he stayed in his room much of the time, was nonresponsive to Lori and Mila, and was despondent. Igor described the assault at 16 years of age as a beating, not an accident and said he wanted help for it. The cotherapists finally began to see Lori as the victim and as hypervigilant in her attempts to get help and they saw Igor as charming. They see Lori as believable and wondered why Liz never called them to talk about their long involvement with the couple. Allie also recommends supervised visits of Igor with Mila and sees Lori as an appropriately protective mother. They are not experienced with domestic abuse and do not delve into abusive histories as part of their focus but began to understand that safety was an issue for Mila and Lori.

There are two final concerns with Carols recommendations and Lizs report. One is that both take behavior by Lori out of context and judge it as abusive. (Carol does it directly in her report and Liz does so by not challenging Carols statement). The other is that Liz then concludes that Igor and Lori are equally abusive, hence her description of them as a situationally violent couple. The problem of professionals taking behavior out of context is particularly serious in domestic abuse because it mirrors batterers attempts to de-contextualize their violence to keep survivors from getting help, leaving and attempting to hold abusers accountable for the violence. De-contextualization is also involved when abusers systematically isolate their partners from supportive friends and family. When a mental health lens is used to focus on the help-seeking attempts of survivors, these actions are often taken out of context, dont make much sense from that paradigm, and often result in victim- blame with no sense of the abusers role off camera. However, in this case, when the lens is widened to include the advice of, for example, NAMI counselors to Lori to talk quietly and to repeat her request in a rote manner in order to keep the conversation focused, recommendations from Frank Ochberg to get Igor into residential treatment, or referrals from True North staff for more evaluations, Loris attempts in those arenas become more understandable. She is doing what she has been told to do. When you widen the lens even further and see professionals who were not appreciating the intensity of Igors rages, and help-seeking that was having no impact on Igors rages, it is understandable that Lori would feel desperate and extremely focused on getting appropriate help to save her marriage and to protect her child. Without a domestic abuse perspective which looks for active help-seeking by survivors and challenges commonly accepted myths about how that behavior looks, Carols report has described Loris attempts to get more evaluations of Igor as verging on emotional abuse. Because she was being viewed from a mental health perspective, Loris sounds of alarm appear to have been missed and turned against her in a way that is quite common. Accountability was also apportioned incorrectly in Lizs conclusion that this couple is involved in situational couple violence. In the literature, this categorization recommends couples therapy, anger management, and work on impulse control for couples who are mutually violent in a spontaneous way around a specific stressor (Scuka). Threats of violence and tactics of intimidation and control tend to be absent as is the survivors fear of violence. There is no evidence that Lori has

been violent with Igor and a pattern of violence by Igor over many years has been established extensively is this record. To call this violence mutual, spontaneous, and organized around a specific stressor represents serious leveling and decontextualization of the violence. When using a domestic abuse paradigm to look at a series of interventions, it is often easy to see the trail of leveling between professionals who work closely together. The distortion of one is picked up and grown by the next professional and a closed feedback loop develops between them that disavows evidence of domestic abuse and blames the victim. In this case, the trail begins with Igors presentation that Lori is being too hard on him by asking him to work and by trying to diagnose him. Then, in his report, David Pritchard comments on the many attempts to get help and on Loris need to get the right diagnosis. Even after the trauma specialist Bessel van de Kolk in Massachusetts said he would not see Igor in crisis because of the domestic violence incident in April, David did not pick up that threat but instead referred to emotional abuse by each of you in his letter to the couple in August. David highlighted his belief that it was about different perspectives between them, never mentioning the actual violence and impact of Igors non-contribution to the household. David also never mentioned the contract he drafted to help Igor be more productive in daily life or his concern that Igor was driving illegally w/o a proper license. David then crosses therapeutic boundaries by offering to see Igor in individual therapy, subtly signaling his alliance with Igor and support of Igors rendition of events. Then Carol picks up the trail with language in her report of individual styles and personality characteristics and the parents tend to have an inflexible style of thinking. Carol suggests that Igor re-engage with David Pritchard to help him through stress with no mention anywhere of documented and admitted domestic abuse. Bessel van de Kolk and Frank Ochberg appear to be the only professionals in this sequence who can see the abuse is not mutual but nobody follows their lead. In the end, Liz carries the myth of mutuality into her report. At this point, I have spoken to Liz about the CD that reflects what I describe as sexualized affection of Mila. She told me that it sounded gross, shed like to see the tape, but she did not believe it posed a risk for child sex abuse. I am waiting to hear if, after seeing the tape, she has changed her recommendation of unsupervised visits.

In conclusion, I find Lori to be a reliable informant who has tried unsuccessfully to get help for her husband Igor from mental health and legal professionals who never saw the domestic abuse, misunderstood it, minimized it when they saw it, or turned it against Lori in the form of victim blame. Unfortunately, Lori went down the wrong road for help but the pattern of her frustrated help-seeking and attempts to save the marriage are indisputable. Igors side of the equation is equally clear. He has a documented history of attempts to scare people, underemployment, injury to others, and manipulation of the truth to serve his own needs. There is a documented pattern of battering, emotional and financial abuse of Lori and abuse of power and control by Igor much of which Mila has witnessed at a very impressionable age. Igors history of violence when 16 years old and the seriousness of his threats to Lori put him at high risk of lethal violence to Lori which would seriously impact Mila. What is also now concerning is that Igor has documented himself crossing boundaries with Mila in terms of sexualization of affection. There are sufficient documented risk factors present with Igor and admitted behavior by Igor to Lori and Mila to warrant the following recommendations.

1. Evaluation of Igor for and participation in a Batterers Intervention Program. 2. Psycho-sexual evaluation of Igor by someone specializing in work with offenders of children. 3. Full disclosure by Igor of all past and future evaluations, psychiatric hospitalizations, treatments, and military records. 4. Supervised visitation with Mila following an age-appropriate clarification session with Igor and a therapist (trained in a domestic abuse paradigm) and successful involvement in the BIP. Supervision cannot be by family members or friends and new standards must be set for the supervisors given new concerns re sexual boundaries with Mila. 5. Payment of visitation, his own legal fees and half of the psychological evaluation to be made by Igor. This will stop the pattern of financial abuse by Igor of Lori. 6. A permanent PFA to be given to Lori so that she does not have to keep returning to court to be safe. Building it into the divorce decree makes it invisible, waters down accountability for Igor, prevents the criminalization

of Igors behavior and is not as strong in helping the police protect Lori and Mila. 7. Continuation of therapy for Lori with particular emphasis on abuse in her family of origin and by Igor. Respectfully submitted,

Lesley Devoe, ACSW Licensed Clinical Social Worker