Economic Abuse: A Form of Abuse That Needs More Scrutiny

Some noted experts have stated: '[D]omestic violence is now viewed as a cluster or pattern of interrelated behaviors, which can not only impact another person's freedom and rights but also affect various aspects of physical health and emotional well-being. A comprehensive definition of domestic violence now includes all behaviors that exert physical force to injure, control, or abuse an intimate or family member, forced or coerced sexual activity, destruction of property, acts which threaten or abuse family pets, as well as nonphysical acts that threaten, terrorize, personally denigrate, or restrict freedom.' Roland Maiuro, 'Preface: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Names Will Also Hurt Me: Psychological Abuse in Domestically Violent Relationships' ix-x, in Daniel O'Leary & Roland Maiuro, eds., Psychological Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations (NY: Springer Publishing Co., 2001). These authors categorize economic abuse as a form of psychological abuse that restricts the victim's personal freedom.'Id. at xi.

Economic abuse has long been recognized as a form of domestic violence. For example, the well-known 'Power and Control Wheel,' used to illustrate the many different aspects of domestic violence, also includes not only physical and sexual violence but also coercion, threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, and economic abuse.

Similarly, the Council of Europe's Domestic Violence Campaign states that a 'typical pattern of violence may also involve economic abuse by denying financial independence and controlling economic decisions.'(http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/equality/domesticviolencecampaign/Aboutdomesticvio_en.asp'(last visited on Aug. 2, 2008).)

How is an economic abuser able to wield control over the abuse victim? An author who worked with thousands of abusive men as a counselor, evaluator, and investigator, starting with the men in Emerge ' a program for abusive men in Massachusetts ' points out that the abuser may, in fact, be the sole owner of all the family property. He states, 'One of the most common tactics I hear about ' [i]s that the abuser manages to finagle dealings so that his name is on his partner's belongings ' such as her house or her car ' along with, or instead of, her name. In fact, I have had clients whose abuse was almost entirely economically based and who managed to take many thousands of dollars away from their partners, either openly or through playing financial tricks.' Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (NY: Berkley Publishing Group, 2002).

Some other examples of economic abuse are: preventing the partner from going to work or school; controlling the partner's money; stealing property from the partner; destroying the partner's property; and withholding information and access to family resources, such as credit cards or a car. The common abuser tactic of filing repeated, frivolous or unnecessary petitions and motions is also economic abuse. It has the foreseeable, and often desired, effect of preventing the partner from working or going to school, and it depletes the partner's financial resources, often to the point where the abuse victim is forced tinto an unconscionable settlement because she can no longer afford to litigate. Many courts fail to see this for the abusive maneuver that it frequently is. Economic abuse is extremely prevalent. One study of substance abusers who killed their partners found that in all cases, their physical violence was accompanied by economic abuse. David Adams, Why Do They Kill? 64 (Nashville: Vanderbilt U. Press, 2007).

In the'Wissink'case, the Appellate Division referred to two acts it considered would 'clearly be relevant to the court's custody determination' ' the father's violation of the trial court's child support order and his termination of utilities in the marital home after he had been ordered to stay away. The Appellate Division did not specifically label these acts as economic domestic violence; it simply pointed out that both statutes and case law require courts to order support for children and to consider the financial circumstances of the parents. However, these acts happen to be two of the most common types of economic abuse.

Failure to pay child support is not limited to parents who have perpetrated other types of abuse, of course. Many non-custodial parents fail to pay child support. However, attorneys who represent domestic violence victims would probably agree that a greater percentage of financially solvent abusers fail to pay child support than financially solvent non-abusers. One such advocate has written: '[A]busive spouses have a strong tendency to use the withholding of payment as a way to punish and/or control their victims.' Barry Goldstein, Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths From Family Violence to Safety 197 (San Francisco: Robert D. Reed Publishers, 2002); Susan Weitzman, 'Not to People Like Us,' Hidden Abuse in Upscale Marriages 149 (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

Abusers' motivations to withhold child support are sometimes expressly stated. For example, one abuser stated to his children, 'When I get through with her, she'll be living on the street like a dog.' He ignored the fact that the children would also end up on the street if the mother lost her home because of his failure to pay support.

The second act of economic abuse referred to in'Wissink” termination of utilities in the abused spouse's home ' is also a common form of economic abuse. Typically the abuser is the owner or a co-owner of the home, so he or she continues to pay the mortgage on the home to protect his or her own financial interests, but termination of the utilities does no harm to the person no longer living there, so the abuser has them cut off to punish or control the victim. Again, the abuser often ignores the fact that the children will also suffer from lack of electricity and telephone.

The'Wissink'court may have been especially attuned to the question of whether Mr. Wissink's behavior constituted economic abuse because of his obvious use of his economic resources to buy his daughter's loyalty. The court noted: 'He provides her with material benefits ' a television set, clothing, a horse, a trip to Europe ' She is his 'princess,' his 'best girl.” This tactic is also a form of economic abuse, and it unfortunately often works very well on children, especially teenagers.

An Expanded Definition of Domestic Violence?

Although the Appellate Division did not specifically label Mr. Wissink's acts as economic abuse and domestic violence, but simply mandated that the trial court must consider them in determining the best interests of the child, the court may have been signaling its recognition that economic abuse should be recognized as a form of domestic abuse, along with the many other acts of power and control that constitute domestic violence. This would bring the New York courts into line with current definitions and understandings of domestic violence.

Courts must then take the next, most important, step, which is to apply this knowledge to specific cases, using it to recognize domestic violence and to demonstrate to abusers that there are consequences for the use of economic abuse. For example, in the Wissink case itself, the father's failure to pay child support and his termination of the utilities in the former marital home undoubtedly had consequences ' possibly devastating and long-lasting consequences ' on the mother and child.

Typically, custodial parents in these situations must charge their expenses on high-interest credit cards, scramble to get loans or apply for public benefits, go to charities to beg for assistance, and do whatever else they can to keep afloat. Their anxiety cannot be hidden from the children, who generally also become anxious and fearful. Parent and child sometimes lose their homes, their cars, and any sense of hope and security. Yet, rarely are any painful consequences meted out to the abusive parent in this situation. At most, after litigation (usually pro se), the custodial parent may be reimbursed for the amounts withheld, without any interest or penalty. The abuser is rarely held in contempt or punished in any way for the wrongdoing. Sometimes the court even fails to take the economic abuser's actions into consideration when making its order for custody and visitation, although such actions are selfish and damaging to the children.

What courts should do is to specifically make it clear in their custody and visitation decisions that any form of abuse ' including economic abuse ' is evidence that the abuser is not a fit parent. Courts should also do everything within their power ' whether by decreasing the abuser's share of the marital property, increasing maintenance or child support, or any other means ' to make sure that the abuser's pocketbook is affected, because often that is the only way abusers learn the right lesson. The statutes governing both maintenance and child support have lists of factors to consider, including a catchall factor that could be used in situations such as this.'See, e.g., NY FAM. CT ACT Section 413 (1)(f)(10): 'Any other factors the court determines are relevant in each case.'

Conclusion

Abuse is motivated by a desire for power and control, and when the court strips abusers of power and control, it sends a strong message that may be effective in preventing further abuse.

Nancy S. Erickson, J.D., LL.M., M.A.'(Forensic Psychology), is a member of this newsletter's board of editors and a consultant on issues relating to law and forensic psychology. She was a professor of law for many years and has published several books and articles on family law issues.

In last month's issue, we introduced the case of'Wissink v. Wissink, 301 AD2d 36 (2d Dept. 2002) in which the Appellate Division, Second Department, quoted New York Domestic Relations Law (DRL) Section 240 (1)(a), in telling the trial courts it expected them to pay careful attention to the legislature's mandate that in custody and visitation cases 'the court must consider the effect of ' domestic violence upon the best interest of the child.' It went on to tell the trial court that it should have considered evidence of certain economically abusive behavior that was relevant in the Wissink custody case.

What Is 'Domestic Violence'?

'Domestic violence' is not defined in the statute that mandates consideration of domestic violence in custody and visitation cases. Thus, the courts must define it. Financial abuse is a type of domestic violence. Experts now understand this to be the case, although initially only physical violence was recognized as domestic violence. Domestic violence is now recognized to be coercive control, whether that control is exercised by physical violence, psychological abuse, or some other type of coercive act.'See, e.g., Evan Stark, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (NY: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Some noted experts have stated: '[D]omestic violence is now viewed as a cluster or pattern of interrelated behaviors, which can not only impact another person's freedom and rights but also affect various aspects of physical health and emotional well-being. A comprehensive definition of domestic violence now includes all behaviors that exert physical force to injure, control, or abuse an intimate or family member, forced or coerced sexual activity, destruction of property, acts which threaten or abuse family pets, as well as nonphysical acts that threaten, terrorize, personally denigrate, or restrict freedom.' Roland Maiuro, 'Preface: Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Names Will Also Hurt Me: Psychological Abuse in Domestically Violent Relationships' ix-x, in Daniel O'Leary & Roland Maiuro, eds., Psychological Abuse in Violent Domestic Relations (NY: Springer Publishing Co., 2001). These authors categorize economic abuse as a form of psychological abuse that restricts the victim's personal freedom.'Id. at xi.

Economic abuse has long been recognized as a form of domestic violence. For example, the well-known 'Power and Control Wheel,' used to illustrate the many different aspects of domestic violence, also includes not only physical and sexual violence but also coercion, threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, and economic abuse.

Similarly, the Council of Europe's Domestic Violence Campaign states that a 'typical pattern of violence may also involve economic abuse by denying financial independence and controlling economic decisions.'(http://www.coe.int/t/dg2/equality/domesticviolencecampaign/Aboutdomesticvio_en.asp'(last visited on Aug. 2, 2008).)

How is an economic abuser able to wield control over the abuse victim? An author who worked with thousands of abusive men as a counselor, evaluator, and investigator, starting with the men in Emerge ' a program for abusive men in Massachusetts ' points out that the abuser may, in fact, be the sole owner of all the family property. He states, 'One of the most common tactics I hear about ' [i]s that the abuser manages to finagle dealings so that his name is on his partner's belongings ' such as her house or her car ' along with, or instead of, her name. In fact, I have had clients whose abuse was almost entirely economically based and who managed to take many thousands of dollars away from their partners, either openly or through playing financial tricks.' Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (NY: Berkley Publishing Group, 2002).

Some other examples of economic abuse are: preventing the partner from going to work or school; controlling the partner's money; stealing property from the partner; destroying the partner's property; and withholding information and access to family resources, such as credit cards or a car. The common abuser tactic of filing repeated, frivolous or unnecessary petitions and motions is also economic abuse. It has the foreseeable, and often desired, effect of preventing the partner from working or going to school, and it depletes the partner's financial resources, often to the point where the abuse victim is forced tinto an unconscionable settlement because she can no longer afford to litigate. Many courts fail to see this for the abusive maneuver that it frequently is. Economic abuse is extremely prevalent. One study of substance abusers who killed their partners found that in all cases, their physical violence was accompanied by economic abuse. David Adams, Why Do They Kill? 64 (Nashville: Vanderbilt U. Press, 2007).

In the'Wissink'case, the Appellate Division referred to two acts it considered would 'clearly be relevant to the court's custody determination' ' the father's violation of the trial court's child support order and his termination of utilities in the marital home after he had been ordered to stay away. The Appellate Division did not specifically label these acts as economic domestic violence; it simply pointed out that both statutes and case law require courts to order support for children and to consider the financial circumstances of the parents. However, these acts happen to be two of the most common types of economic abuse.

Failure to pay child support is not limited to parents who have perpetrated other types of abuse, of course. Many non-custodial parents fail to pay child support. However, attorneys who represent domestic violence victims would probably agree that a greater percentage of financially solvent abusers fail to pay child support than financially solvent non-abusers. One such advocate has written: '[A]busive spouses have a strong tendency to use the withholding of payment as a way to punish and/or control their victims.' Barry Goldstein, Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths From Family Violence to Safety 197 (San Francisco: Robert D. Reed Publishers, 2002); Susan Weitzman, 'Not to People Like Us,' Hidden Abuse in Upscale Marriages 149 (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

Abusers' motivations to withhold child support are sometimes expressly stated. For example, one abuser stated to his children, 'When I get through with her, she'll be living on the street like a dog.' He ignored the fact that the children would also end up on the street if the mother lost her home because of his failure to pay support.

The second act of economic abuse referred to in'Wissink” termination of utilities in the abused spouse's home ' is also a common form of economic abuse. Typically the abuser is the owner or a co-owner of the home, so he or she continues to pay the mortgage on the home to protect his or her own financial interests, but termination of the utilities does no harm to the person no longer living there, so the abuser has them cut off to punish or control the victim. Again, the abuser often ignores the fact that the children will also suffer from lack of electricity and telephone.

The'Wissink'court may have been especially attuned to the question of whether Mr. Wissink's behavior constituted economic abuse because of his obvious use of his economic resources to buy his daughter's loyalty. The court noted: 'He provides her with material benefits ' a television set, clothing, a horse, a trip to Europe ' She is his 'princess,' his 'best girl.” This tactic is also a form of economic abuse, and it unfortunately often works very well on children, especially teenagers.

An Expanded Definition of Domestic Violence?

Although the Appellate Division did not specifically label Mr. Wissink's acts as economic abuse and domestic violence, but simply mandated that the trial court must consider them in determining the best interests of the child, the court may have been signaling its recognition that economic abuse should be recognized as a form of domestic abuse, along with the many other acts of power and control that constitute domestic violence. This would bring the New York courts into line with current definitions and understandings of domestic violence.

Courts must then take the next, most important, step, which is to apply this knowledge to specific cases, using it to recognize domestic violence and to demonstrate to abusers that there are consequences for the use of economic abuse. For example, in the Wissink case itself, the father's failure to pay child support and his termination of the utilities in the former marital home undoubtedly had consequences ' possibly devastating and long-lasting consequences ' on the mother and child.

Typically, custodial parents in these situations must charge their expenses on high-interest credit cards, scramble to get loans or apply for public benefits, go to charities to beg for assistance, and do whatever else they can to keep afloat. Their anxiety cannot be hidden from the children, who generally also become anxious and fearful. Parent and child sometimes lose their homes, their cars, and any sense of hope and security. Yet, rarely are any painful consequences meted out to the abusive parent in this situation. At most, after litigation (usually pro se), the custodial parent may be reimbursed for the amounts withheld, without any interest or penalty. The abuser is rarely held in contempt or punished in any way for the wrongdoing. Sometimes the court even fails to take the economic abuser's actions into consideration when making its order for custody and visitation, although such actions are selfish and damaging to the children.

What courts should do is to specifically make it clear in their custody and visitation decisions that any form of abuse ' including economic abuse ' is evidence that the abuser is not a fit parent. Courts should also do everything within their power ' whether by decreasing the abuser's share of the marital property, increasing maintenance or child support, or any other means ' to make sure that the abuser's pocketbook is affected, because often that is the only way abusers learn the right lesson. The statutes governing both maintenance and child support have lists of factors to consider, including a catchall factor that could be used in situations such as this.'See, e.g., NY FAM. CT ACT Section 413 (1)(f)(10): 'Any other factors the court determines are relevant in each case.'

Conclusion

Abuse is motivated by a desire for power and control, and when the court strips abusers of power and control, it sends a strong message that may be effective in preventing further abuse.

Nancy S. Erickson, J.D., LL.M., M.A.'(Forensic Psychology), is a member of this newsletter's board of editors and a consultant on issues relating to law and forensic psychology. She was a professor of law for many years and has published several books and articles on family law issues.