Couple therapy can be a transformative tool for addressing relationship difficulties, but what happens when violence enters the picture? A new study conducted by researchers at VID Specialized University in Norway has explored how therapists make the challenging decision of whether to continue couple therapy when violence becomes a factor. The findings, based on interviews with 12 experienced couple therapists, shed light on the nuanced and complex nature of these decisions. The results were published in the journal Behavioral Sciences.
Therapists face a critical choice when violence is disclosed during therapy sessions: should they proceed with joint sessions or separate the partners for individual therapy? The study reveals that the decision-making process revolves around two key questions. First, is it safe enough to continue joint sessions? Second, do both partners share a mutual commitment to healing and rebuilding the relationship?
The issue of safety is paramount. Therapists must weigh the risks associated with continuing joint therapy against the potential benefits. This involves assessing the forms and frequency of violence, determining whether coercive control is present, and evaluating the severity and impact of the violence on both partners. For some couples, the presence of coercive control – a dynamic in which one partner dominates the other through violence – may render joint therapy unsafe and inappropriate. In these cases, therapists may opt to work with the partners separately or refer them to other services better equipped to address the violence.
But violence does not always lead to an automatic halt in joint therapy. The study highlights that, in cases of situational violence – where conflicts escalate into violence without a pattern of control – therapists may continue joint sessions, provided they believe both partners are genuinely committed to change. In such cases, therapy can help de-escalate conflict and address the underlying causes of violence, such as unmet emotional needs or communication breakdowns.
Beyond the immediate risk of harm, therapists also consider whether the couple has a shared goal of rebuilding their relationship. The study found that therapists often encounter couples who are ambivalent about their future together. For therapy to succeed, both partners must demonstrate a willingness to reflect on their behaviour, take responsibility, and actively engage in the therapeutic process. Without this mutual commitment, therapy may be ineffective or even counterproductive.
Children’s well-being also plays a significant role in therapists’ decisions. When violence is present, therapists must consider how the couple’s dynamics affect their children. Exposure to violence, even indirectly, can have long-lasting negative effects on children’s mental health and development. As a result, therapists often weigh the needs of the children when deciding whether to continue joint sessions or recommend alternative interventions.
The study offers valuable insights into how therapists navigate these difficult situations. By focusing on safety, commitment, and the broader impact on the family, therapists aim to make decisions that protect all parties involved while offering the possibility of healing and change. But the challenges they face are significant, and the need for ongoing assessment and professional support is crucial.
