Psychosocial separation and women’s disengagement from prosecutions against abusive intimate partners in Spain

García-Jiménez, M., Durfee, A., Cala-Carrillo, M. J., & Trigo, M. E. (2022). Psychosocial Separation and Women’s Disengagement From Prosecutions Against Abusive Intimate Partners in Spain. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11-12), NP9953-NP9980. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520984424 The article is protected by copyright and reuse is restricted to non-commercial and no derivative uses. 1 Psychosocial Separation and Women’s Disengagement from Prosecutions against Abusive Intimate Partners in Spain María García-Jiménez1, Alesha Durfee2, María Jesús Cala-Carrillo1, M. Eva Trigo1 1University of Seville, Department of Experimental Psychology 2Arizona State University, School of Social Transformation Contact Author María García-Jiménez, [email protected]; Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Seville, Calle Camilo José Cela, sn, 41018, Sevilla, España Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interests. Funding and aknowledgements This research has been funded by the Ministry of Education and Professional Training of the Government of Spain: Grant number FPU15/00373 and EST18/00133 to the first author. Abstract In order to end and “liberate” themselves from an abusive relationship, female survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) usually face a complex process. Although women may decide to seek help through the criminal justice system, some refuse to participate in legal proceedings against their abusers. While many studies have focused in exploring variables explaining disengagement from legal proceedings, the aim of this paper is to study the impact of the process of liberation from an abusive relationship on the likelihood of disengagement from legal proceedings. Liberation was measured through the psychosocial separation overall score and the likelihood of disengagement (LoD) was predicted by a logistic regression model developed in a previous study in Spain. A sample of eighty women involved in legal proceedings for IPV against their ex-partners in Andalusia (Spain) participated in this study. 2 Exploratory analyses were conducted using ANOVA and Chi-square; multiple linear regression analyses were used to study the relationship between psychosocial separation and LoD. Results showed that victims who had higher psychosocial separation from their abusers were less likely to disengage from legal proceedings against the abuser. We discuss the results in terms of practical implications like detection of women's need for specific psychological support to ease a comprehensive recovery. Training programs for legal professionals and judges in the judicial arena should use the results of this study to increase professionals’ understanding of IPV and survivors’ decision-making processes. This would lead to decrease secondary victimization, as well as decrease the frustration of legal professionals when victims disengage from legal proceedings. Keywords: intimate partner violence, female victims, liberation, participation, criminal justice system. Introduction Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women continues to pose a social and political concern for which legislation and policies have led to new challenges. One aspect that generates concern worldwide has to do with an IPV survivor’s choice to not participate in the prosecution of their batterer, file for protection orders, or otherwise engage with the criminal justice system (CJS) (Sleath & Smith, 2017). Although this sometimes leads to positive outcomes for them, including decreased anxiety, decreased costs, and not having to attend or testify at court hearings, it also can result in police and other legal actors becoming frustrated (Gauthier, 2010; Goodman, Bennett, & Dutton, 1999) and prosecutors considering themselves “helpless” when IPV victims withdraw the complaint (Cretney & Davis, 1997, p. 83). In addition, victim withdrawal from prosecution often ends any legal proceedings against their abuser (Hoyle & Saunders, 2000; Messing, 2014), especially in those cases where she is the only witness and her testimony provides unique evidence (Robinson & Cook, 2006; 3 Sleath & Smith, 2017). The end result can be that abusers become empowered and that abusive power dynamics in the relationship are reinforced (Gauthier, 2010). At 13%, Spain has one of the lowest rates in the EU for women’s physical or sexual victimization by an intimate partner (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014). This may be due to Spain’s implementation of the Organic Act 1/2004 of 28 December on Integrated Protection Measures against Gender-based Violence, one of the most comprehensive and progressive pieces of IPV legislation worldwide (Goicolea et al., 2013). This act has led to an increase in the total of complaints, court sentences, and protective measures against IPV each year in Spain (Bodelón, 2014). The Act’s recognition of IPV as a public offense is also partly responsible for recent increases in legal help-seeking by survivors. Approximately 1 in 4 women who experience IPV seek legal help, according to the Government Office of Gender-based Violence (GOGV, 2015). However, female victims in Spain are withdrawing from IPV legal proceedings at a high rate. Twenty-one percent of all who file complaints in Spain withdraw from legal proceedings (GOGV, 2015). Several studies have explored the reasons why these women withdraw their participation from legal proceedings (e.g., Bennett, Goodman, & Dutton, 1999; Cala, Trigo, & Saavedra, 2016; García-Jiménez, Cala, Trigo, & de la Mata, 2019b; Robinson & Cook, 2006; Sleath & Smith, 2017). Although some research has shown the importance of emotional detachment from the partner in their decision to withdraw (e.g., Erez & Belknap, 1998; Hare, 2010), the resulting analyses and models have failed to consider the impact of the process of leaving, breaking free, and recovering from the violent relationship on disengagement from the CJS. This is particularly surprising given that some variables related to a lack of participation in the CJS have also been identified as obstacles when it comes to leaving an abuser (García-Jiménez, Cala, Trigo, & Barberá, 2020), such as emotional and economic dependence on the partner (e.g., Anderson & Saunders, 2003). Both 4 aspects are essential to achieve a final state of psychosocial liberation (Roca-Cortés et al., 2015). To get to this final stage requires a long and complex process (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), and at the same time, many of these women have to deal with an arduous, dynamic, and complex decision-making process regarding participation in legal proceedings (Barata, 2007; Boivin & Leclerc, 2016; Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004). Although victims’ legal help-seeking has been shown to be determined by the stage of their process of recovery (Shearson, 2017; García-Jiménez et al., 2020), there is a gap regarding survivors’ recovery and their subsequent decision-making process of legal disengagement. Currently, there is no previous research that directly explores the interaction between both processes: psychosocial liberation and CJS participation. Furthermore, existing studies about the process of leaving do not show to what extent emotional attachment or detachment to the abuser predicts disengagement from the CJS. This article addresses this gap in the literature by investigating whether the process of liberation from a violent relationship impacts the likelihood of victim disengagement from the CJS. Literature Review When analyzing disengagement from legal proceedings against abusive partners or ex-partners, the terminology used is critically important in understanding the framing of the research. First, we use the terminology of participating or engaging with the CJS rather than cooperating, as the former recognizes victim agency and prevents a pathologizing and victim-blaming approach, which is more likely when using cooperation (even though this term is commonly used in the literature). This is in line with previous research such as Bermea, Khaw, Hardesty, Rosenbloom, & Salerno (2017) and Merrit-Gray & Wuest (1995) and is an adaptation of agency as proposed by Greeson and Campbell (2011) for women who are survivors of sexual abuse. We consider women who experience or have experienced IPV 5 as active agents in their own liberation and recovery process (Gondolf & Fisher, 1988) and in their choices regarding their engagement in the CJS. According to this perspective, we will use the term survivor to reflect these women within their journey toward recovery and liberation or psychosocial separation from the abusive relationship. Along with survivor, we also use the term victim, even though we recognize that it is often associated with negative stereotypes about people who have experienced IPV and connotes a lack of agency (Berns, 2004; Goodmark, 2008)—neither of which we wish to convey. Nevertheless, victim is the more accurate term when discussing the CJS (Burk, 2004). Furthermore, Spain uses the Organic Act 4/2015, of 27th April on the standing of victims of crime, for which any person who had suffered from a crime is legally recognized as a victim and has specific rights in the legal arena. For these reasons, we use victim(s) specifically to refer to a criminal case, when women are involved in the legal proceedings against their abusers as the complainant or the represented at court. Additionally, we use the word women to reflect both previous scholarship (which has focused on women), our sample (which includes only women), and the fact that the Organic Act 1/2004 was designed to be applied in Spain only to women suffering from IPV. However, we recognize that men and non-binary individuals may also be IPV victims. The Process Of Liberation And Recovery From A Violent Relationship From the classic models that studied the process of leaving and recovering from IPV (e.g., Landenburger, 1989) to more recent ones (e.g., Flasch, Murray, & Crowe, 2017), several stages of leaving and recovery have been identified that do not necessarily occur linearly (Bermea et al., 2017), but are instead dynamic and fluid (Campbell, Rose, Kub, & Nedd, 1998; Khaw & Hardesty, 2015). Additionally, there may be several attempts to leave the relationship before a definitive end occurs (Cala, Godoy, & Rebollo, 2009; Lacey, Saunders, & Zhang, 2011; Merritt-Gray & Wuest, 1995; Messing, Mohr, & Durfee, 2015). 6 However, the end of the relationship does not ensure survivor safety—in fact, survivors are often at higher risk once they leave, and post-separation violence can be more severe than the violence experienced in the relationship (Campbell, 2004; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000; Shearson, 2017). Ending the relationship is a process that often involves previously emotionally detaching from the relationship (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), as well as experiencing grief at the loss of the relationship (Landenburger, 1998; Messing, et al. 2015). Grieving for the lost relationship is often harsh (Messing et al., 2015), which means that separation is one of the hardest steps in the process of leaving. Landenburger (1989) proposes a four-stage model of leaving and recovery. In the binding phase, the woman is committed to the relationship and does not recognize herself as a victim. She tries to avoid stigmatization by blocking and covering up the abuse consciously. In the enduring phase, she also tends to blame herself for what is happening to her. As she is still committed to the relationship, she may use several strategies to improve it, though she will finally recognize the situation as unsustainable, and eventually try to end the relationship during the disengagement phase. The different changes on personal and external resources through these stages determines the advance toward the definite end of the relationship, and they also constitute the starting point of the recovery stage in Landenburger’s model. The concept of recovery was expanded to the liberation of the survivor from the violent relationship by Roca-Cortés et al. (2015). They provide an integrative seven-stage model which expands Landenburger’s model to incorporate a gendered perspective in which the final stage of psychosocial liberation and recovery for the survivor means that they do not experience any violence from their abusive partner or other people close to the partner. According to Roca-Cortés et al., at this stage, the woman rebuilds and takes control over her life in a good state of wellbeing, with the ability to detect future situations which may be violent (Roca-Cortés et al. 2015). Thus, one of the main dimensions in this model is what 7 they call psychosocial separation, which includes both economic independence and taking control of her own life (Roca-Cortés et al., 2015). Although we do not use this seven-stage model, we adopt their notions of recovery and liberation throughout this work. In their process of leaving, survivors implement many strategies—including mental and/or action plans—to keep themselves safe (Bermea et al., 2017; Cala et al., 2009; Landenburger, 1989). These can include calling the police and initiating legal proceedings against the abuser. In many occasions, women seek legal aid just after having tried to improve the relationship exhaustively by other means (Shearson, 2017). Help-seeking behaviors also frequently depend on the stage of recovery. Shearson (2017) found that during the binding and enduring stages, women most often call the police and seek legal help to stop a one-time episode of violence, while those at the disengaging and recovery stage were trying to get long-term safety and a life free of violence. Predicting Disengagement From Legal Proceedings The reasons why survivors of IPV decide to not participate in the legal system have been internationally studied (e.g., Bennett et al., 1999; Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001; Erez & Belknap, 1998; Goodman et al., 1999; Robinson & Cook, 2006; Sleath & Smith, 2017; Vázquez, Rivas, Suárez, & Panadero, 2018). Literature shows that disengagement from legal proceedings might be related to the severity of the violence (Goodman et al., 1999); fear of retaliation by the aggressor, and an escalation of the violence (Buzawa, Buzawa, & Stark, 2017; Sleath & Smith, 2017); economic dependence from the partner (Goodman et al., 1999), feelings of guilt and shame (Vázquez et al., 2018); or positive feelings toward the defendant and reconciliation (Malecha et al., 2003; Sleath & Smith, 2017; Vázquez et al., 2018), among other factors. Seeking help through the police or the CJS may also be difficult for survivors, as it may lead to secondary victimization by the CJS and associated professionals (Bodelón, 2014; Laing, 2017). Mistrust (Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2001) and a lack of information about 8 the legal system (Bennett et al., 1999) have also been shown as relevant in victims’ decisions to drop charges, as has the complexity and slowness of the legal procedures (Bell, Perez, Goodman, & Dutton, 2011). Others have identified that victims evaluate costs and benefits (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004) and make rationally use of justice in order to manage their situation (Ford, 1983; Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). While this is not an exhaustive review of all the variables that have been found to be relevant to the decision to participate in judicial proceedings, it does give a general overview of reasons to not participate. However, all of these studies were conducted outside of Spain. As a consequence, during the last few years, some projects in Southern Spain have addressed this gap (Cala et al., 2016; García-Jiménez et al., 2019a, 2019b; García-Jiménez & Trigo, 2019). Not only did this body of research reveal which variables were related to disengagement from legal proceedings (identifying similarities and differences with research from abroad), they also suggested variables that predict the decision to drop charges. These include being denied a protective order, maintaining contact with the defendant, or feeling guilty for having used the CJS. These projects used quantitative analyses similar to previous research (e.g., Dawson & Dinovitzer, 2011; Robinson & Cook, 2006), but they included psychological, emotional, and motivational variables (e.g., Cala et al., 2016; García-Jiménez, Cala, & Trigo, 2019a) in addition to variables related to the judicial process (García-Jiménez et al., 2019b). Of the research in Spain, it is worth highlighting the findings of García-Jiménez, Cala, and Trigo (under review; see also García-Jiménez & Trigo, 2019), who developed a sixvariable model to predict the likelihood of disengagement (LoD) from legal proceedings by women who were IPV victims by using logistic regression analyses similar to Robinson and Cook (2006) and Kingsnorth and Macintosh (2004). García-Jiménez et al. (under review) included psychosocial variables and legal variables simultaneously instead of in separate 15 variables relationships (1 – β = .60), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used for quantitative-quantitative variable relationships (1 – β = .79). In accordance with Cohen (1988), we considered R2 and r as effect size indexes, respectively, as small (R2 = .01; r = .10), medium (R2 = .06; r = .30), and large (R2 = .14; r = .50) effect sizes. Subsequently, we tested whether the six variables to predict LoD by García-Jiménez et al. (under review) showed covariation between them. We used ANOVA models, as well as Pearson's Chisquare tests to study the relationships between categorical variables (1 – β = .67), considering φ as the index for a small (φ = .10), medium (φ = .30), and large (φ = .50) effect size (Cohen, 1988). Second, the SPS-VP and any variable with a relevant relationship from the exploratory analyses were included in a multiple linear regression model to analyze their relationship with the predicted LoD. We previously conducted ANCOVA tests to determine the interaction effects between relevant variables from the exploratory findings. We took ∆R2 as the effect size index for each variable in the multiple linear regression (1 – β = .87). For this analysis, the categorical variables were coded dichotomously (0/1). Results The average LoD predicted for the 80 women was .13 (SD = .17), and the overall average SPS-VP score for the 80 women was 120.05 (SD = 12.39), indicating that the women were above the cut-off point established by Roca-Cortés et al. (2015) at 90 to be considered as women with low liberation from the relationship. As is shown in Table 1, few women (13%) said that they made decisions during the legal proceedings alone, had thought about getting back together with the abuser (18%), or had occasional or frequent contact with the defendant (29%). Only a third of the women had a protection order granted, and their feelings of guilt were relatively low (M = 3.15, SD = 3.92). On average, the women had been separated from their abuser for more than two years at the time of the survey, though there 16 was a great deal of variability in the number of months since the relationship ended (M = 28.33 months, SD = 32.24). About half were separated when charges were filed against the defendant (53.8%). Exploratory Analysis: Variables Related to SPS-VP We first conducted exploratory analyses that examined whether each of the variables shown in Table 1 were related to the psychosocial separation overall score. These analyses determined which variables would be included in subsequent analyses. As Table 2 shows (SPS-VP column), only three variables achieved a statistically significant relationship with the SPS-VP overall score and reached at least a medium effect size. First, women who had filed at least one previous complaint had higher SPS-VP overall scores (M = 126.24; SD = 8.53) than women whose current complaint was the first one they had filed (M = 116.35; SD = 12.92). Second, women who admitted they had thought about restarting the relationship after filing the complaint had lower SPS-VP overall scores (M = 110.85; SD = 14.93) than women who had not (M = 122.02; SD = 10.95). Finally, the lower the feelings of guilt about filing the complaint, the higher the SPS-VP overall score. These last two variables are also factors from the predictive model by García-Jiménez et al. (under review), so they were not included in the final multiple linear regression model. The psychosocial separation was also related to the elapsed time (in months) since the breakup of the relationship. The greater the number of months since the breakup, the greater the SPS-VP overall score. However, the effect size was small, so it was excluded from the final model. <<TABLE 2 AROUND HERE>> Exploratory Analysis: Variables Related to Predicted LOD We next conducted the same analyses to explore the relationship between all the variables in Table 1 and the predicted LoD from legal proceedings, omitting the six variables that allowed us to predict LoD. Only two variables showed statistically significant 17 relationships (see Table 2, predicted LoD column). The more months that women had been involved in the current legal proceedings, the lower the predicted LoD. At the same time, those women who had not applied for a protective order also had a lower predicted LoD (M = .04; SD = .06) than those women who did (M = .11; SD = .13). However, these relationships did not reach medium effect sizes, so they were not included in the final model. We also tested the relationships between the six variables that made it possible to obtain the predicted LoD from the predictive model by García-Jiménez et al. (under review). Of all the relationships tested, only being granted the protective order showed a statistically significant relationship with the frequency of contact, with women who were not granted the protective order having more frequent contact with their (ex)partner χ2 (2, N = 70) = 8.37, p = .015, φ = .33. The analyses of the standardized residuals showed that within the group of women whose protective order petitions were denied (n = 23), the percentage of women that had occasional and frequent contact with the (ex)partner after filing the complaint was higher than expected, 53.3% and 67.7% respectively, compared to women without contact (22.4%). No other variables in the model showed a statistical relationship between them (non-relevant results are not shown here). Linear Regression Model Predicting LoD Finally, we conducted two multiple linear regression models analyzing how psychosocial separation is related to and predicts women’s predicted LoD from legal proceedings. Apart from SPS-VP overall score, only having filed a previous complaint(s) was entered in the model, as it was the only one with a statistically significant relationship with psychosocial separation and at least a medium effect size. Prior to the regression analysis, we conducted ANCOVA analyses, which did not show an interaction between having filed a previous complaint(s) and women’s SPS-VP overall score, controlling for the predicted LoD (p > .05). 18 We conducted a two-step hierarchical linear regression to introduce both independent variables separately. The first included the SPS-VP overall score while having filed a previous complaint(s) was entered in the second step. Although results showed that the second model was statistically significant, the ∆R2 < .02 was not (p = .870; see Table 3). For this reason, and based on the parsimony principle, we took the first model, which allowed to predict the LoD from the SPS-VP overall score. Thus, women with higher levels of psychosocial separation (more liberated) from the abusive partner are less likely to withdraw their participation in prosecution. <<TABLE 3 AROUND HERE>> Discussion This research sheds light on the impact that the process of liberation for women who are IPV survivors has on their decision to withdraw from the criminal prosecution of their abusers. Our analysis indicates that the LoD decreased as the survivor’s degree of psychosocial separation from the defendant increased. These results complement the findings in previous scholarship that attachment to a partner or ex-partner—as measured by indicators of emotional attachment including the presence of positive feelings for the partner or expartner, desire for reconciliation, and feelings of guilt (e.g., Erez & Belknap, 1998; Cala et al., 2016; Hare, 2010; Malecha et al., 2003; Vázquez et al., 2018), as well as indicators of economic dependence (e.g., Hare, 2010; Goodman et al., 1999)—lead some victims to discontinue participating with the CJS in prosecuting their abusive partners or ex-partners. As expected, we found a significant relationship between the SPS-VP overall score and two of the variables from the model by García-Jiménez et al. (under review) to predict LoD: feelings of guilt and the idea of returning to the defendant after filing the complaint. Both are psychological and emotional responses to leaving and could be interpreted as indicators of progress in the journey to liberation. The desire for and the commitment to the 19 relationship are expressed in the initial stages in the process of leaving, and this might denote that women are still engaging in efforts to maintain the relationship as in the binding and enduring stages as described by Landenburger (1989). Some survivors may seek social service and/or legal help, and even file a complaint, expecting that this serves as a warning to the partner to change his violent behavior (Hoyle & Saunders, 2000). It may not be surprising that when a survivor believes there has been a slight improvement in her abuser’s behavior, she stops using social and legal services and withdraws her complaint(s) (Cala et al., 2016). It may be that for those women who want to continue the relationship, the CJS can function as a tool to gain some control in the relationship, but not to put an end to it (Ford, 1983). Additionally, guilt is more commonly present in IPV victims than in other types of victims involved in the CJS (Buzawa et al., 2017). Guilt tends to only be overcome in advanced stages of the process of leaving and recovery after the survivor has grieved the lost relationship (Landenburger, 1998; Messing et al., 2015). The frameworks we used here defined several stages in the process of leaving and recovery. These stages include a phase prior to complete liberation in which survivors strive to detach from the relationship and make several attempts to break up and live independently (e.g., Cala et al., 2009; Campbell et al., 1998; Lacey et al., 2011; Landenburger, 1989; Merritt-Gray & Wuest, 1995; Roca-Cortés et al., 2015). Therefore, it is understandable that participants in our sample with high SPS-VP scores had previously filed at least one complaint against their partner. Previous complaints could be interpreted as indicators of the transition to a complete detachment from the relationship (Campbell et al., 1998). In addition, during the disengagement phase, women’s interest in using the CJS is often motivated by seeking formal protection, long-term safety, and ending the relationship (Shearson, 2017). The frequency of contact with the ex-partner was also expected to be related to SPSVP overall score, which is an indicator of commitment to the relationship and/or a way to 20 ease the abuser’s attempts to maintain control over her through his constant requests for forgiveness (Landenburger, 1989). However, there was not a statistically significant relationship between the frequency of contact and the SVS-VP overall score. This relationship may have been mediated by receiving a protective order, as compliance with the order would decrease contact and communication between the victim and the defendant. In any case, the fact that the predictive model developed by García-Jiménez et al. (under review) included these variables led us to think more about the importance of the process of liberation. Yet their analysis did not include psychosocial separation as a whole, a dimension within the process of liberation that covers a broader set of aspects regarding the emotional separation and the economic independence from the aggressor (Roca-Cortés et al., 2015). Acknowledging this dimension is important given the complexity of the decisionmaking process regarding participation in the CJS (Kingsnorth & Macintosh, 2004; Boivin & Leclerc, 2016). This participation is based on multiple internal and external factors (Barata, 2007). While some survivors need external support to file a complaint, others may not be ready to separate, and seek help from police or other forms of legal assistance to manage the violence in their intimate relationships (Boivin & Leclerc, 2016). The main contribution of this work lies not so much in being able to prevent women’s withdrawals from legal proceedings but in the possibility of an adequate assessment of survivors by specialized services available through the CJS system. Whether to participate in prosecution should be a survivor’s decision, and their autonomy and agency need to be respected (Hoyle & Sanders, 2000). However, they could be referred when necessary to psychological support services when there are clear signs of an incipient process of liberation that still require hard work and external support in terms of ending the relationship (Messing et al., 2015). Likewise, other research has shown that institutional support is a key factor in 21 ending a violent relationship (Anderson & Saunders, 2003), which means that the CJS can be helpful if a survivor desires separation and prosecution (García-Jiménez et al., 2020). The practical implications of our results go beyond including psychosocial separation as a predictive factor of dropping charges in the model by García-Jiménez et al. (under review). One application of this analysis is developing training programs targeting police, legal actors, and other professionals that demystifies IPV; explains the processes of entrapment and recovery; teaches professionals how to listen to and respect women’s agency and decision-making, linking women’s decision-making explicitly to their own priorities, contexts, and available resources; and gives information about the emotional and cognitive processes often associated with women’s recovery. This training should be oriented to significantly lessen stereotypes and the acceptance of myths about IPV and survivors. These tend to be associated with negative attitudes and victim-blaming and usually lead to negative practices, secondary victimization of IPV survivors that is still frequent in the CJS (e.g., Bodelón, 2014; Laing, 2017). These can decrease women’s credibility if they return to the CJS (Bodelón, 2014). These trainings would also help police and legal actors better understand why survivors of IPV are reluctant to participate in the CJS and increase their awareness of the complexities of leaving a violent relationship. Trainings should include that women often use strategies other than participating in the CJS to become safe (Khaw & Hardesty, 2015). Survivors’ decisions about abusive relationships should not be classified as “right” or “wrong”, especially without considering their social contexts, knowledge, and perspectives (Mannell, Jackson, & Umutoni, 2016). Instead, they should respect survivors’ agency and decision-making (Greeson & Campbell, 2011). This is fundamentally important in the legal arena, especially as the CJS itself has an impact on survivors’ recovery from IPV (Bell et al., 2011). When survivors’ needs are considered by the CJS, they are less likely to experience 22 secondary victimization and more likely to participate in prosecution (Boivin & Leclerc, 2016). Similarly, professionals becoming aware that leaving is a process, that survivors have agency, and gaining respect for their decisions would improve relationships between professionals and clients and decrease feelings of frustration when victims disengage (e.g., Gauthier, 2010; Goodman et al., 1999). This awareness would even decrease professionals’ reluctance to serve survivors who are not yet totally detached from their partner (Shearson, 2017). Limitations and Future Research This research has several limitations that must be taken into consideration when interpreting the results presented here. First, we could not use probability sampling given the realities of conducting IPV research, so our results may not be generalizable to the population of IPV survivors in Spain. Second, most women in the sample were in the investigation stage of their criminal case (66.3%), so we cannot know accurately how SPS-VP is related to LoD for women at other phases of prosecution. Additionally, the sample was obtained by contacting professionals at public aid services (MICWs) which involuntarily excluded women with fewer opportunities to access these resources in Spain, such as migrant women (Briones-Vozmediano, La Parra, & Vives-Cases, 2015). Finally, the SPS-VP instrument used here was not validated in different languages other than Spanish and Catalan. Hence, the participants of this work had specific situations that must be considered when interpreting the results. Moreover, all the participants in this study were women, so we cannot know whether the process of liberation is associated with disengagement for male victims. However, worldwide most IPV is experienced by women and 38% of femicides are committed by male intimate partners (García-Moreno et al., 2013). In Spain, more than 1,000 women have been murdered by their partners or ex-partners since 2003, with 60 women murdered on average 23 per year (GOGV, 2018). The Organic Act 1/2004—considered an example for many international laws on violence against women— (Goicolea et al., 2013) was designed to be applied in Spain only for women who are victims of IPV. Thus, the restriction of the law to women reflects the seriousness of violence against women and gendered nature of IPV. Another methodological limitation has to do with the use of the predicted LoD instead of a final decision to withdraw that remained unknown at the time of data collection. This means that there are likely some false negatives and false positives. Future research should analyze how the predicted risk ultimately corresponded to the final decision of dropping the charges. Even so, we must point out that the logistic model used to calculate LoD classifies correctly more than 80% of the cases (García-Jiménez et al., under review; García-Jiménez & Trigo, 2019), and this model was developed with a sample with similar characteristics to the participants of this work –the same cultural and legislative context of southern Spain. Future research should clarify whether the variables found to be significant here with regard to predicting victim disengagement are replicable in other cultural and legislative contexts. An intersectionality perspective is needed when dealing with female survivors of IPV and diversity must be addressed before generalizing our results. Replication studies including diverse samples must be carried out. We must acknowledge that survivors’ strategies and rhythms of recovery, response to victimization, and help-seeking behaviors vary across cultures and ethnic groups and are shaped by cultural values, religion, acculturation processes, and economic stratification (García-Moreno et al., 2013; Kasturirangan, Krishnan, & Riger, 2004; Satyen, Rogic, & Supol, 2019). The acceptance of patriarchal norms constitutes one of the bases of the gendered nature of IPV against women, which is predominant in Spain. However, the complexity of social relationships does not place gender as the only category to bear in mind but also others intersecting with it, such as ethnicity (McCall, 2005). For instance, in the case of Spain, Roma women may face greater obstacles 24 to ending the abusive relationship. This is sometimes explained by the normalization of violence and stronger gender norms within Roma communities, which may hinder women’s empowerment and freedom (Vives-Cases, Espinar-Ruiz, Castellanos-Torres, & Coe, 2017). Furthermore, culture also affects women’s engagement with prosecution (Epstein & Goodman, 2013). In this regard, migrant women may experience additional barriers to seek help. Evidence has shown that not being fluent in Spanish, not having enough information about available resources, and fearing consequences in their legal status or deportation are common obstacles both in Spain (Briones-Vozmediano, et al. 2015; GOGV, 2015) and internationally (Satyen et al., 2019). Despite these limitations, this analysis is a pioneering work in exploring the liberation of the relationship from IPV as a process affecting female survivors’ decision to participate in the CJS. In addition, it addresses gaps in the literature such as Shearson’s (2017) call for using quantitative methodologies to complement qualitative findings. This helps to better understand the relationship between the stages of the leaving and recovery process from abusive relationships and women seeking legal help behaviors. In this regard, our results confirm the complexity involving the decision-making process whether to participate in prosecution and are shown to be essential content in professionals’ training. Specific training is aimed at giving adjusted responses to survivors’ needs based on the comprehension of the psychological processes involved in recovery from violence that may explain women’s disengagement from prosecution. On this basis, there is a call for the CJS to give responses that take into consideration survivors’ agency and facilitate women to take control over their own lives in the aftermath of IPV. 31 McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1771–1800. Merritt-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse and breaking free: the process of leaving revealed through women’s voices. Health Care for Women International, 16 399–412. Messing, J. T. (2014). Evidence-based prosecution of intimate partner violence in the post- Crawford Era: A single-city study of the factors leading to prosecution. Crime & Delinquency, 60(2), 238–260. Messing, J. T., Mohr, R., & Durfee, A. (2015). Intimate partner violence and women’s experiences of grief. Child & Family Social Work, 20, 30–39. Robinson, A. L., & Cook, D. (2006). Understanding victim retraction in cases of domestic violence: Specialist courts, government policy, and victim-centered justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 9, 189–213. Roca-Cortés, N., Porrúa, C., Yepes, M., & M, Martínez, M., Codina, N., Fernández, A., Ruiz, S. & Cremades, M. (2015). Recovery of women in a situation of male chauvinist intimate partner violence. Description and instrumentation. Ajuntament de Barcelona (Original in Catalan, 2013). Satyen, L., Rogic, A. C., & Supol, M. (2019). Intimate partner violence and help-seeking behaviour: A systematic review of cross-cultural differences. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 21, 879–892. Shearson, K. M. (2017). Seeking help from police for intimate partner violence: Applying a relationship phase framework to the exploration of victims’ evolving needs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 32 Sleath, E., & Smith, L. L. (2017). Understanding the factors that predict victim retraction in police reported allegations of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 140–149. Vázquez, J. J., Rivas, E., Suarez, A. C., & Panadero, S. (2018). Retraction of complaints among female victims of intimate partner violence living in poverty in Nicaragua. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 3151– 3167. Vives-Cases, C., Espinar-Ruiz, E., Castellanos-Torres, E., & Coe, A.-B. (2017). Multiple struggles in fighting violence against women: implications among Romani women leaders in Spain. Global Health Action, 10, 1317084. 33 Author Biographies María García-Jiménez, PhD. Researcher at the Department of Experimental Psychology of the University of Seville. Her research focuses on women’s process of liberation from intimate partner violence and their experiences in the legal system. She held a grant to develop this research funded by the Ministry of Education and Professional Training of the government of Spain (FPU15/00373). Alesha Durfee, PhD. Associate professor in the School of Social Transformation at Arizona State University. She received her PhD in sociology and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in the School of Social Work at the University of Washington. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, civil protection orders, mandatory arrest policies, the social construction of victimization, and the ways in which gender, race, and class influence how narratives of violence are constructed and interpreted in the justice system. María Jesús Cala-Carrillo, PhD. Associate professor at the Department of Experimental Psychology of the University of Seville. From 2012–2016, she was Delegate of the Chancellor for Equality at the same university. She received the Meridiana Award by the Andalusian Regional Government for her initiatives against gender-based violence. She led some projects on intimate partner violence survivors’ recovery process and the reasons why women disengage from the legal proceedings. M. Eva Trigo, PhD. Associate professor at the Department of Experimental Psychology of the University of Seville. Her research interests include methodological issues, innovation in teaching, and gender studies. She is member of the Spanish Association of Methodology of the Behavioral Sciences (AEMCCO) and the Interdisciplinary Seminar on Women’s Studies of the University of Seville (SIEMUS). Since 2016, she has served as the Director of the Development Cooperation Office of the University of Seville. 34 Table 1. Coding and descriptives for dependent and independent variables. Variables related to the intimate relationship M (SD)/ % Time (months) since the breakup 28.33 (32.24) Relationship when pressing charges (partner/ ex-partner) Partner 46.30 Variables to predict the likelihood of disengagement Who made the decisions (she alone/ the lawyer(s)/ she together with her lawyer) She alone 13.80 She together with her lawyer 61.30 Thought of going back with the abuser (yes/ no) Yes 17.50 Protective Order granted (yes/ no) Yes 32.90 Frequency of contact with the defendant (none/ occasional/ frequent) Occasional 18.80 Frequent 10.00 Received Psychological support (none/ from social services/ from health services) None 15.00 From Social Services 81.30 Feelings of guilt (0 – 10) 3.15 (3.92) Other variables related to the legal proceedings Complaint filed (victim’s independent and considered decision/ By her, in response to traumatic event/ by another person) Victim’s independent and considered decision 30.00 By her in response to traumatic event 58.80 Expected protection when filed the complaint (yes/ no) Yes 74.00 Applied for a protection order (yes/ no) Yes 82.60 Moment of the procedure (First hearing/ Investigation phase/ Oral Trial) First hearing 17.50 Investigation phase 66.30 Previous complaint(s) (yes/ no) Yes 37.50 Time in the legal system (months) 25.47 (34.64) Time in the current legal procedure (months) 13.59 (15.70) Withdrew from previous complaint (yes/ no) Yes 56.50 Protection she felt after filing the complaint (0 – 10) 4.85 (4.10) Perception of life in danger (self-rated 0 – 10) 4.77 (4.09) Overall satisfaction with the CJS (0 – 10) 5.43 (3.61) Lawyer (public/private) Public 74.20 How tired she was of the legal procedure (0 – 10) 6.60 (3.67) Note: Means and standard deviations for quantitative variables and percentages for the categorical; Missing values not imputed, and sample characteristics are for N = 80. 35 Table 2. Results for the exploratory analyses for the Psychosocial Separation overall score (SPS-VP) and for the predicted likelihood of disengagement (LoD). SPS-VP Predicted LoD Variables F/ Welch’s F df p R 2 F/ Welch’s F df p R 2 Partner or ex-partner when pressing charges 1.36 1,78 .246 .02 2.63 1,52.81 .111 .04 Who made the decisions (she/lawyer/together) 0.87 2,77 .422 .02 Thought of going back with the abuser (yes/no) 10.51** 1,78 .002 .12 PO granted (yes/no) 0.11 1,68 .743 .00 Contact with him (none/occasional/frequent) 2.94 2,13.86 .086 .13 Psychological support (none/social/health services) 2.52 2,77 .087 .06 Decision to file the complaint (victim’s independent and considered decision/traumatic event/by another person) 0.38 2,77 .686 .01 1.14 2,77 .326 .03 Expect protection (yes/no) 0.29 1,25.11 .593 .01 0.09 1,75 .765 .00 Applied for a PO (yes/no) 0.02 1,67 .887 .00 8.79** 1,34.45 .005 .05 Moment of the procedure (First hearing/investigation/oral trial) 0.76 2,77 .472 .02 1.39 2,77 .256 .03 Previous complaint (yes/no) 13.89*** 1,78 < .001 .15 3.01 1,78 .087 .04 Withdrew from previous complaint (yes/no) 0.14 1,21 .710 .01 1.10 1,21 .306 .05 Lawyer (public/private) 0.27 1,64 .605 .04 0.82 1,64 .368 .01 N p r N p r Time (months) since the breakup 77 .034 .24 * 77 .057 -.22 Feelings of guilt (0 – 10) 80 < .001 -.42*** Time in the CJS (months) 64 .380 .11 64 .466 -.09 Months in the current legal procedure 72 .053 .23 72 .040 -.24* Protection felt after complaining (0 – 10) 33 .976 -.05 33 .815 .04 Perception of life in danger (0 – 10) 77 .121 .18 77 .059 -.22 Satisfaction with the CJS (0 – 10) 54 .713 .05 54 .980 .00 Tiredness of the legal procedure (0 – 10) 65 .153 .18 65 .121 -.19 Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001 36 Table 3. Results for the models from the Multiple Linear Regression analysis using a two-step hierarchical method to introduce the variables to predict the likelihood of disengagement. b Type Error β df t p R 2 / ΔR 2 Model 1 .21 SPS-VP -.006 .00 -.46 78 -4.53* < .001 .46 Model 2 .21 SPS-VP -.006 .00 -.45 78 -4.09* < .001 .42 Previous complaint -.006 .04 -.02 77 -0.16 .870 .02 Note: * p < .001 R2 for the complete model and ΔR2 for each predictive variable within the model. 37