The Nightmare of Abuse

In March of last year, Gina Wood, a 20-year-old District of Columbia government worker, went to the police claiming that her former boyfriend, James Jerome Sims, had harassed and assaulted her. Referring Wood to the city's Citizen Complaint Center for a civil restraining order against Sims, the police did not arrest him. A few weeks later, Wood's charred body, bearing several stab wounds, was found in the debris of Sims' burned apartment. Sims was charged with second-degree murder.

The year before, Leedonyell Williams reported to police that her ex-boyfriend, Michael Anthony Scott, had broken into her apartment, held her at gunpoint, and threatened to kill her. Scott was arrested, but charges were dropped because the case was considered "domestic violence," according to D.C. prosecutors. The next day Williams was fatally shot in the stairwell of her apartment building, and Scott was charged with first-degree murder.

Police and prosecutors historically have preferred to view cases of domestic abuse as private matters to be worked out among the conflicting parties rather than criminal offenses. But a 1983 study by the Washington, D.C.-based Police Foundation, with the cooperation of the Minneapolis Police Department, concluded that the "mediation and referral" approach to domestic violence is a much less effective deterrent than the arrest of abusers. Slowly, the advice of the study is being taken to heart.

Last summer the D.C. police department began instructing officers to make arrests when witnesses confirmed an attack or when a situation showed indications of violence such as visible injury to one of the parties, need for medical treatment, presence of weapons, furniture in disarray, or threats made in an officer's presence. The new directive states that offenses occurring in domestic situations "shall be reported and investigated as would any other criminal offense, regardless of the relationship of the victim and the offender." The order put the District of Columbia in the company of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, and Baltimore in issuing aggressive domestic violence guidelines or mandatory arrest policies.

The changing attitude toward domestic abuse offers new hope for its many victims, the vast majority of whom are women. Estimates vary on the number of victims nationwide. A Time magazine article in late-1983 estimated that six million women are abused by their partners in any one year, and that between 2,000 and 4,000 women are beaten to death annually. Battery is the single major cause of injury to women, more significant than automobile accidents, rapes, or muggings. The article also stated that the nation's police spend one-third of their time responding to domestic violence calls.

MANY WOMEN IN ABUSIVE home situations feel trapped in an economic and emotional dependency, fearing retribution from the abuser if they leave. Knowing that police would not arrest the abuser in most situations, many are afraid to call for help, not wanting to put themselves at the mercy of a battering spouse who becomes further enraged because they dared to call the police.

Changing police guidelines is a step toward protection and empowerment of women otherwise trapped in such situations. In addition, the growth in the number of services and shelters for battered women indicates the seriousness with which this national shame is being treated.

But changing attitudes will take longer than changing guidelines. In the midst of the good news came a bad decision that indicated just how much work is yet to be done.

Last October a divorce court master in Montgomery County, Maryland, awarded John Fedders a 25 percent share of the royalties from Charlotte Fedders' new book, Shattered Dreams. The book is the story of Charlotte's 19 years of marriage to [John, chief of enforcement at the] government Securities and Exchange Commission who resigned in 1985 amid widely publicized allegations about his repeated abuse of his wife.

John Fedders admitted during 1985 divorce proceedings that he had battered Charlotte, but stated that she should share the blame for his violent outbursts because she had denied him emotional support. Circuit Court Judge James S. McAuliffe ruled that "excessive vicious and cruel conduct" by John had caused the breakup of the marriage. Court-appointed Domestic Relations Master John S. McInerney in effect overruled the judge by the award of book royalties.

The ruling was widely criticized by domestic violence experts and feminist groups. Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory compared the decision to awarding royalties to Adolf Hitler for The Diary of Anne Frank.

Charlotte Fedders has been hailed as the woman who blew the whistle on white-collar wife abuse. In telling her own story, she has given many women the courage to come forward and tell theirs.

She has considered making advocacy for the abused her life's work but sees it as a troublesome choice: "He [John Fedders] made me a battered wife. I don't want to feel that the only reason I have made a significant contribution to society is because of what he made me."

Like every abused woman, Charlotte Fedders lives with the shattered dreams and the nightmares. She also knows that the publicity and book royalties will help her with a new future. She worries about the women with dismal economic options who might hear of her and say, "I'm not going to be able to write a book. The only way she's getting out of it is she's writing a book."

There are many women out there who will not write books, who will suffer quietly and try to build a new life from the broken and damaged pieces. It is up to all of us to support and advocate for them, as we try to unravel the roots of domestic violence and heal the rifts between women and men that make such abuse inevitable.

Joyce Hollyday was associate editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.