#2: The Victim Advocate (with Hannah Fordice)

Season 1Multidisciplinary Team
Written By Coursing Justice

Content note: This episode includes discussion of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, child abuse, sexual assault, and spiritual abuse. Subscribe on Spotify | View full transcript

What does it actually mean to be a victim advocate — and who shouldn't be one? In this episode, Robert sits down with Hannah Fordice, Development Manager at GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) and founder of House of Faith and Freedom, to unpack the principles, pitfalls, and boundaries of advocacy work.

Hannah brings a rare combination of experience: victim witness coordination in the court system, running a domestic violence crisis line, and training faith communities on intimate partner violence. She and Robert dig into what makes someone well-suited (or poorly suited) for advocacy, why "savior complex" and codependency can quietly sabotage the people advocates are trying to help, and the concrete boundary lines every advocate should hold — from personal phone numbers to off-hours emails.

The conversation also turns to domestic violence investigation and prosecution, where Hannah and Robert compare notes from opposite ends of the system. They talk through why DV cases are so often under-investigated and under-prosecuted despite massive caseloads, the myth of "pressing charges," high recantation rates, and how patterns of coercive control — not just single incidents — should drive investigative and charging decisions. Hannah also shares how her marriage to a law enforcement officer shapes her perspective on the tension (and partnership) between advocacy and law enforcement.

Whether you're a current advocate, an MDT member who works alongside advocates, or considering a move into the field, this episode offers hard-won, practical wisdom on doing the work sustainably — without losing yourself in it.

About our guest

Hannah Fordice is Development Manager for GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment). She has experience in both non-profit advocacy and government victim/witness work around domestic violence, general crime victim services, and community outreach and education. She holds a Master's degree in Human Services Forensic Behavioral Health from Concordia University, St. Paul, and a Bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of Minnesota Duluth. Prior to her work with GRACE, Hannah founded House of Faith and Freedom, an LLC that delivers training to individuals, churches, and ministries on intimate partner violence advocacy in faith settings. She currently lives in Minnesota with her husband, son, and dog.

Key moments

  • 03:40 — How a crisis line internship changed Hannah's career trajectory

  • 13:30 — Who's cut out for advocacy work, and who isn't

  • 22:10 — Boundaries: what advocates need to avoid

  • 29:30 — Codependency, savior complex, and the advocate who has to be the helper

  • 36:30 — Unhealthy nonprofit environments, funding competition, and burnout

  • 49:50 — Advocacy and law enforcement: different training, different mandates

  • 55:40 — Why DV cases are under-investigated and under-prosecuted

  • 1:00:30 — The "press charges" myth, recantation, and no-drop policies

  • 1:08:40 — Autonomy vs. accountability

Mentioned in this episode

Want to learn more?

Episode Transcript

*** Please note that this transcript is AI-generated and may contain errors.

[00:00:00] Advocacy is helping someone reclaim their voice. don't unintentionally mirror the harmful dynamics that you're seeking to empower them to address. When you have a savior complex, you are not empowering someone. You're keeping them dependent. You're keeping them dependent on you now.

Welcome to Coursing Justice, the podcast. I'm your host Robert Peters, a former prosecutor and the founder of Coursing Justice. We are a consortium of former and current child abuse multidisciplinary team members committed to equipping you to seek justice in the cases that matter most. To partner with us and upgrade your skills, including through our free monthly webinar series, Justice in 30. Sign up and join us at coursingjustice.com.

My guest today is Hannah Fordice. Hannah's the development Manager for [00:01:00] Grace, a nonprofit and an acronym that stands for Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian environment.

Hannah has experience in both nonprofit advocacy and government victim witness work around domestic violence. General Crime, victim services, and community outreach and education. She also holds a master's degree in Human Services, forensic Behavioral Health from Concordia University at St. Paul, and a Bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Before working at Grace Hannah founded the House of Faith and Freedom and LLC that delivers trainings to individuals, churches, and ministries on intimate partner violence, advocacy in faith settings. Hannah currently lives in Minnesota with her husband and son, and Hannah is one of my favorite colleagues.

I had the privilege of working with her at Grace, and she brings just a rare blend of practical skill and in-depth insights. She also gets things done. That's something I've greatly enjoyed from our time together. Just her catalytic effects just on the a.

And other endeavors at Grace, the organization. [00:02:00] And so, was excited to have Hannah on to adjust a couple complicated topics within her expertise. Wanted to talk to her about victim advocacy. What are some of the principles of victim advocacy that both current victim advocates should consider, as well as others who may be.

Are considering a career in victim advocacy or just wanna understand a bit more about victim advocates who are other members of the MDT. And so we talk a little bit about those principles. We talk a little bit about the connection of victim advocates to other multidisciplinary team members.

Hannah brings unique insight in a variety of ways, one of which is that she's actually married to a law enforcement officer. We're also gonna spend some time talking today about boundaries. What are some boundaries that we need to be aware of anyone engaging in victim advocacy, whether that's informal victim advocacy or formal within a, within a particular MDT role.

And also provocative question of who should not engage in victim advocacy. We'll also talk about domestic violence, drawing [00:03:00] on Hannah's expertise there, and the tension we often see between. Victim empowerment from the advocacy lens on the one hand. And then on the other hand, offender accountability and public safety from the law enforcement and prosecutorial lens and how those may intersect and be intention with each other.

Without further ado, let's step into our conversation with Hannah Fordice.

 Hannah, thank you for joining one of the very early episodes. Perhaps the earliest episode, we'll see how the release schedule goes of coursing justice, the podcast

Hannah, could you tell us a little bit just about what you do these days and how you got here? Sure. So, my background is predominantly in the victim advocacy world which I started out in, in college. I studied psychology. The most general thing to study of all time outside of maybe communications.

But I, I studied communications, it's alright. I started in psychology and during [00:04:00] my undergrad I had the opportunity to do an internship and that happened to end up being a domestic violence crisis line and resource center. And so I stepped into that internship, extremely naive. I stepped into it just with no idea really about domestic violence.

And throughout that process I think I was just so, surprised about how common it was, about how many calls we were getting in a day. In my, I'm, I'm from Minnesota and I grew up in a town that was not teeny tiny, but not huge. And just like the number, the, the sheer volume of cases that we were getting on a day-to-day basis was astounding.

It was something that I had no concept of and was happening all the time. And that was just people who were willing to call a crisis line for help. That was just people who were willing to call 9 1 1 for help, [00:05:00] right? Like the, the amount that was actually going on was so much more than that. So that was my first introduction into the world of domestic violence, which is what I ended up focusing on because I just, once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Right. You know, you can't stop caring all of a sudden once you've seen people's lives just getting demolished inside of relationships. Yep. So I went on to do a master's degree in something called human services with a focus on forensic behavioral health. And that was basically looking at the intersection between behavioral and mental health and the law.

I took a victim advocacy sort of track on that and really focused a lot on offenders and recidivism, especially in the world of domestic violence and c child abuse. And then did my thesis looking at system failures in cases of childhood sexual abuse. Because we know domestic violence is not always just intimate partners, it does often bleed over into.

Parent to child abuse, it bleeds generationally. It's a risk [00:06:00] factor for lots of other forms of trauma. So, you know, in the nonprofit world, we tend to sort of segment ourselves off into these silos, which is to a degree, you know, necessary. Because you specialize in something, you tend to have knowledge in something.

But often our I think our nonprofits tend to. Work alone, they almost treat each other as competitors. Right. And that was something I found very frustrating. As I continued on in the work of nonprofit advocacy. I wanted to run a crisis line for domestic violence survivors and, and to work in the court system as a victim witness coordinator.

But so often I saw, because we were competing for like the same victim grants, because we were competing for the same types of donors. So often that competition mentality crossed over into our caseloads. It crossed over into not wanting to share information, not wanting to share trainings, not wanting to work together, which really.

Is that the detriment of the individuals going through the trauma? [00:07:00] Because they're not just suffering most likely from just intimate partner violence. They're not suffering from maybe just, you know, their kid having a child abuse situation or you know, just trafficking or just sexual assault, whatever it was.

Right. They were often experiencing the whole range or host of traumas. Yes. But we were treating them one at a time and we were treating them totally separated out from other traumas. So this was very frustrating for me. Sorry, there, there's a rabbit trail that had nothing to I love it. I into what I was there, but we're return to, to the rabbit trail for sure.

'cause I wanna mine a lot of that. And I'm sure a lot of that resonating certainly with our, our listeners who endure similar dynamics. I, I think one, one piece that jumps out to me is just how often. And we, we plug individuals into our systems and versus vice instead of vice versa, instead of building systems around individuals.

And so you see just the many, many ways that that's a problematic for a variety of reasons. But [00:08:00] after you have this thesis which feels remarkably practical, practical as thesis goes, so kudos for that. What's your entry point in, in terms of your first full-time positions in the realm of that? Yeah.

Yeah. So I immediately after graduating, pretty close after graduating I went and started working on a 40 hour sexual assault advocacy training, which you have to do in Minnesota to be a sexual assault advocate. And I did an internship as a victim witness coordinator for our court system after I graduated and really enjoyed that work.

Ended up applying for a full-time job to run a crisis line for a domestic violence agency that was covering a two county area. Did that for a while. And then went and actually worked back for the county that I had worked for previously in their attorney's office as a victim witness coordinator.

So I did that as well as some community outreach and education. And then eventually I left that and branched off. Here's another little [00:09:00] avenue of, of I don't know the bizarre ways that your career path leads you, but throughout my work in both the court system and in victim advocacy, one of the.

Repeated systems that I was seeing that was failing institutionally was the church was faith communities. This was something that was just a repeated issue that I saw coming up over and over again is individuals who were experiencing some form of abuse or trauma, disclosing that within a faith community because that was a safe place for them or perceived as a safe place for them.

And then being told to go back to submit to their spouse more if they were being abused by a spouse. To pray harder to forgive and forget to forgive and forget to suffer like Jesus suffered to, you know, take up their cross and bear it. Like a lot of religious language that was being tossed around. I don't know necessarily with mal intent always as much as just ignorance.

Ignorance. Yeah. And and I grew up, full disclosure, I grew up as a pastor's kid. [00:10:00] As a church. Same. Yeah, same. Have we bonded over our, our, I dunno. That we have. Oh man. Oh man. Well, that, that explains a lot about both of us

Yeah. But I, I grew up in, in, in faith communities and I actually had the rare benefit of seeing that done really well. Mm-hmm. And so it was really. Just like decimating for me to watch Faith being weaponized and to watch a place that should be a supportive community.

And, and if you've been in the world of advocacy very long or, or really any of these sort of mental health fields, you know, that like community is a really key aspect to healing from trauma, right? It's necessary. And we live in a world that is increasingly individualistic and increasingly isolated. And so we're losing that healing modality of community.

Mm-hmm. And so the church is one of the rare places people are still going, like in person to try to find community, to try to be with people who aren't always like who you would [00:11:00] pick as your one friend, you know? So to see that space being misused and, and becoming a place of harm was just breaking my heart.

And so I thought, surely I can take the knowledge that I've garnered over the years and, you know. S say that and teach that in a way that helps people in faith communities understand how it, not just how it applies to them as a member of a community, but how it applies to them as a, as a base part of their faith, as a base part of that, that religion.

And so that I branched off and did my own thing. I started an LLCA training, LLC, kind of like coursing justice called House of Faith and Freedom that did training for church leadership amazing around intimate partner violence specifically. And I was doing that for a couple years and happened to intersect with Grace.

While I was doing that work, they invited me on to come and do a a webinar on intimate partner violence. And then now I'm working for [00:12:00] Grace doing. Development management and that's how you and I got connected. Yes. And Hannah has been definitely a catalytic presence at Grace, which is deeply appreciated.

I wanna walk a little bit back to, just within you, within that career journey, as you think back on the different choices you made and, and the transition you made, how do those hold up?

Are there any that you would do differently? You don't have to confess to any of these or does it feel like Yeah. That it was, you know, with the information you had, those were all sound moves. You know, I think they were all good. They all contributed to, to where I ended up and to the experiences that I've had.

You know, I would not say that every place that I worked or interned was always like the, in the healthiest space as an organization. Not naming any names, but I think that that left me with a little bit of a bitter taste around, especially like, nope, both of 'em, both nonprofit and government. I had the opportunity to see the pitfalls in both pieces of that system.[00:13:00]

Mm-hmm. You know, which hindsight is great. It's important to see, to see those holes because that's part of how we start fixing it. Yeah. Do I wanna relive those experiences? Not necessarily. So mixed bag there.

We will return to the topic of unhealthy environments and we'll, we'll try very hard to, to continue the convention of not naming names.

We'll see, we'll see if I succeed on that. In terms of just victim advocacy as a profession if you're someone who either you know, you're newly entering the professional field or maybe you're a a different multidisciplinary team member what would you say are some of the benefits of victim advocacy?

Why should someone join that type of work? Gosh, it's rewarding. It's a really, it's as tiring as it is, it's purposeful. Hmm. And I just think, I mean, you know, thyself would be one of my pieces of advice. Know thyself. There are certain [00:14:00] people who are really cut out for the work of advocacy and they will thrive in this environment because I could never do a job that I didn't feel deeply, purposefully connected to.

I've been there, you know, and like random side jobs that I did through like college and stuff, and I died a little bit like soul crushing. Yeah. It was soul crushing for me. Like I didn't want a job that I just went to and then hated my life and then came home and di and I didn't care about it. I didn't care about the work.

I didn't see how it was impacting people. In the world of advocacy, you will see a direct impact immediately, right? Mm-hmm. Like you will have the opportunity to walk alongside people in the hardest, most devastating points of their life. And that's incredible. Like it is such a privilege at the same time.

If you don't have good internal boundaries, that can be a decimating experience. And it is a very weird line to walk. And I find this often with people in the, the who end up sort of in the world of advocacy or who [00:15:00] leave it, is you need a very measured degree of empathy. Hmm. Like you need to be able to have enough empathy to care about these people, to care about their messy situations, to step into it with them, to not become impatient with the fact that they are not going to heal immediately.

They're not gonna be better immediately. You're unlike, you're walking long term with someone, but at the same time you can't have so much empathy that you carry it home with you every day. And so it's, it's sort of an interesting realm and I think there are very, yeah, very specific individuals that are cut out for it.

What would be, we'll go with the negative, the negative inverse. Who shouldn't do advocacy? Hyper empathetic people. That sounds bad because you might be drawn to it, right? Like I think hyper empathetic people, especially individuals who have lived experience, are often drawn to advocacy because they've been there, they know what it's like.

And that's not to say everyone with [00:16:00] lived experience shouldn't move into being an advocate, right? It's just to say like, be very cautious. Be very cognizant of the fact that it may be triggering for your own trauma. And also like, again, learn those boundaries, learn that it's where someone else ends and where you begin.

That is very critical because advocacy is never about you. It's always about the other person. And as soon as you start carrying those emotions like they're yours, you should no longer be an advocate. Hmm. What, just to give the example, you know, if there's any sort of, of past trauma that's relevant to advocacy, what might or, or what should you perhaps do before entering the advocacy realm?

Take a lot of time. Take a lot of time. Hmm. I previously, I think one of the, the, or I don't think I know, one of the organizations I previously worked with had a policy that you had to have been out of an abusive relationship for one year before you could be an [00:17:00] advocate. I don't think that's long enough.

I think that abuse specifically, this is getting a little more into the minutiae, I guess, of, of an abuse survivor. But really any trauma like it takes it can have such a lasting impact. You wanna make sure that you take the time to heal from that, that you give yourself that grace, that ability re widen your window of tolerance if you're familiar with that concept.

To reground yourself, to get as healthy as possible, to have really good supports in your own life that are around you, that can uphold you as you uphold others. So take a lot of time. Make sure you're not rushing yourself. I would say make sure you go through therapy if you have lived experience, especially if you're gonna go and do advocacy for, you know, someone in the same vein of trauma as what you experience so that it's not triggering every time you hear someone's story.

And make sure you have that therapy. I would suggest personally, ongoing, so that you have somewhere to process your [00:18:00] stuff that is not processing it with someone who's going through it currently. 'cause sometimes the temptation is to cross that professional boundary and say like, oh my gosh, yeah, I experienced something really similar in a, in a desire to be empathetic, but inadvertently you're making it about you, right?

Mm-hmm. You're not making it about the person anymore. Now it's about, it's about your experience and them comforting you. That's a friendship that is not advocacy. So. Those would be my, my top thing is just give yourself time for healing. Get into therapy, make sure you have really good support systems and places to communicate an ongoing process that's not gonna be with the people that you're working with.

I think even just in defensive of a significant period of time between sort of actively being in an abusive scenario and then doing advocacy work. Yeah, I think listeners of this podcast would be familiar with the term grooming. And of course grooming is a very almo, almost holistic process, if that's, if that's a word for it, [00:19:00] you know, it's not just the physical dimensions of it, though, that's, that's of course part of it.

But I think oftentimes you really have to be out of harmful situations for a hot minute before you can even recognize. What was harmful and what wasn't. Mm-hmm. And so I think if you, if you haven't done the work on that in terms of identifying what those things were, it's very easy to take those patterns that you've learned and that you've, you've integrated and then deploy those against someone else unknowingly, if you haven't put in the time

Yeah, I mean, I think, yes. Yes. And I would say like, yes, I think there are unhealthy elements that we often draw into ourselves. Unhealthy relationship dynamics that we use, that we can inadvertently reuse especially if we're uncomfortable about something. Hmm. I guess it would probably depend on the type of trauma, right?

Like. I don't know that it would hold as well for all traumas, but certainly for like longer relationship form, like intimate partner violence, [00:20:00] child abuse, things like that. I think if it's like sexual assault, it probably depends on, was that in the context of a relationship? Was it like Right. A one-off?

But yeah, I mean, generally overarchingly agree. Yeah. Would you I, I know one thing that I've benefited from a great deal just in, in my different career paths has been mentorship. Has that been a thing for you or have you more forged, forged your own path? Or both? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I guess yes and no.

I would say in the world of advocacy, I've forged my own path. I don't think I've had a ton of mentors in the world of advocacy and part of that is the byproduct of burnout in the world of advocacy. I think most of the nonprofits I've been a part of the turnover is extensive. Yeah. So there I have not had as much of it in victim witness work which is doing advocacy to a degree within the court system.

You're really representing like the prosecutor's office at that point. So you're just helping victims through the court process. You're not an advocate in the full like emotional sense of being an advocate. It's more like walking them [00:21:00] through what the legal process is. I would say it's the bedside manner of a prosecutor.

In that, yeah, I had a, I had a super great manager 'cause I interned and worked at the same county attorney's office and I had the same manager both times and she was fantastic. So in that realm, yes, I would say I had a mentor. I know that's, that's something that's extremely beneficial, of course. And, and I think especially in this field where you can, you can make so many terrible mistakes many of which are avoidable if, if you're able to have access to those individuals.

That, that I echo what you said. The turnover in the field can certainly be a barrier there. I feel for folks that have entered the field within the last five years, especially, 'cause the, the field turnover has just been bonkers across law enforcement prosecution. So mentors I imagine are a bit bit harder to, to acquire these days.

Yeah. I think pe people are probably saying like, don't go into it. Like, just don't go into the field. You know, just don't do it. Just don't do it. Just don't do it. Don't do it. Which we need good people. That's a [00:22:00] sign we need good people. Well, you know, from hearing me rant extensively that I agree with all the statements you made a moment ago regarding boundaries and particularly in the realm of, of, of the advocacy role, especially.

Drilling down into that a little bit what would be some behaviors that, that advocates need to avoid in order to, to have appropriate boundaries? Oh, there's like so many, there's so many. Because it, advocacy is so much, it's, it's a looser profession. Like there are different degrees of advocates that work in different areas, right?

Even in this, I've mentioned in my career path, right? I've done advocacy within the court system, which had a lot of very specific boundary lines that you could not cross. You were not there for emotional support. You were there to help them understand what was happening. You were there to help them communicate their wishes to a prosecutor.

It was very specific. It was [00:23:00] very, very strong lines of what you could and could not do legally. And then there's, you know, nonprofit advocates where it gets a little fuzzier. And then there's like informal advocates that are, you know, advocating for a friend or something like that. And so there's these, it can get really wishy-washy really fast.

I think a lot of times when people think, advocate, they think I'm speaking on behalf of, I'm speaking for, I'm helping someone to speak who doesn't have a voice. I'm using my position of you know, out being outside of the situation or of some form of power or authority in order to speak on behalf of someone.

I would argue that's not advocacy. Advocacy is helping someone reclaim their voice. Hmm. So it's not your job to speak on their behalf. It is your job to help them find their voice and then speak. And those are different because a lot of times I'll give intimate partner violence as a, as an example here.

So a lot of the individuals that I [00:24:00] worked with they would leave a relationship, they would come and get help, and then they would be back in it. Within a month or two. Right, right. And this cycle would go on and on. There's sort of this statistic that's like tossed around, but nobody knows where it originates.

It's actually driven me up a wall. I've tried to find where this stat comes from and everyone just quotes everyone else on it. Have you asked? It's like a t Nobody should. Yes, I should. But the stat is that, you know, on average it takes seven times for a victim to leave their abuser. I've used that stat too.

I have no idea where it comes. Great. No one knows where it comes from. Like ev literally, I've tried to follow the rabbit trail and it's just everybody quoting everybody else in a big circle. Here's what I will say, although I cannot tell you where that data originates. It holds true in my experience.

It's got, yeah, same. Right, same. So I. It's interesting because it's when you're an advocate and you see the same person coming back in for the fifth time, you're like, oh my [00:25:00] gosh, leave. Like, you need to stay out. Here are the specific things you need to do to stay out, right? You want to just hand them a checklist and be like, these are the things you want to tell them what they should do.

Here's the problem that is never gonna stick. It won't stick you telling them what to do is just you moving the power from the person abusing them to you. You have not taught them independence. You have not taught them how to make choices. They need to own their life and they have to own their decisions.

And your job is to help them feel empowered enough to do that. And you might not always like their choices. You might not always agree with their choices. Now, this gets a little different in child advocacy, right? Where you're dealing with legal things, but like, and child protection and you know, on and on.

But when you're dealing with an adult, it's. What I'm getting at is like, you don't have to personally agree with the person that you're doing advocacy with. You need to help them see all of the doors that are open to them, and then let them walk through whatever door they wanna walk [00:26:00] through. Hmm. And then you need to be there.

If they walk through a door you don't agree with, if they go back, can you still be there when they come back around again? Can you be a stable presence in their life with good enough boundaries? That, A, you are not carrying it, you're not carrying around the weight of this person's life and decisions personally.

B, that you are not holding it against them when they come back because they're caught in a very, you know, cyclical form of abuse and see, can you continue to allow them to develop and create and grow in their independence and autonomy. While holding a safe space for them. And it can so, so quickly you can get enmeshed in someone's situation, especially when it's complicated like that.

And this is sort of going down another path, but still on the topic of boundaries. Like when someone is going through a trauma, especially like intimate partner violence or maybe a family where they have a kid going [00:27:00] through child abuse or something like that. This goes back to the topic of silos. Like their lives are complicated, they're messy, they've probably been messy and complicated for years.

Mm-hmm. And it's mixed into a bag of a thousand other traumas and a thousand other issues. And they have housing problems and job problems and relationship problems and lack of stability and mental health issues. And it goes on and on and on. It's this big, messy snowball of problems. And they will have a desire because it's human to want you to come in and fix it for them.

Right. Like. They, they have infinite need. And they would love for you to be the answer to that infinite need. And as an advocate, it's very challenging to learn where, what your role is and what your role isn't, and then to very clearly define that, which is kind right. Clear is kind to be clear on the front end about what you can offer, what you can [00:28:00] realistically offer both as a human, like these are my internal emotional boundaries, especially if you're sort of in that like.

Un formalized form of advocacy. So maybe you're like a friend who's walking alongside to a degree or an advocate in a faith community or something like in those settings, you need to know like, how much time do you have to dedicate to this? Realistically, what are the things you're unwilling to bend on?

Like maybe you're not willing to give up time that you've already committed to your kids or to your family. Great example of this. My mom missed me buying my wedding dress because she was with someone who was going through a trauma. Mm. Right? And like, she regrets that now at the time, she just didn't know how to like navigate that.

Hmm. And so it's an interesting thing to try to think through on the front end, like what are my non-negotiables? And then to communicate that to the person you're working with. 'cause it's important, you know? Gosh, I just feel like I went down a big ramly hole. I don't even know what I'm saying anymore.

This is gold. [00:29:00] This is gold. There are lots of very helpful practical pointers. I think what the, this rabbit trail, we'll call it that ties back to, to some of the other pieces that you just mentioned in terms of like, who should and shouldn't do this type of work. Because there are some that that ability just to, to set those boundaries is gonna be really difficult if you have an individual who's saying, these are the needs, fix all the needs.

There are some even, you know, personality types that would say Absolutely. Mm-hmm. You know, please. And so I think that's one danger. I think there's maybe an even more problematic twist on that, that I've absolutely seen in, in my career in prosecution and, and subsequently, the individual who they're happy to be, you know, the helper, which is great, but it morphs into they need to be the helper.

For some, it may be a challenge to let others come in and be part of the solution. And in fact, it may even be, dare I say, an existential threat for others to come in and be part of the solution. [00:30:00] And so rather than embracing that there may be a hostility and I, and I've seen hostility in some advocates to others being a part of that solution.

And so in, in extreme cases, I've seen even where there's a further isolation, like a further isolation of the victim from other resources because of the existential need to be the help for that individual. Yeah. I mean, I think this gets in, like you said, to who should and shouldn't be an advocate to me, that smacks of codependency Yes.

And savior complex. Yes. Right. And I think you gotta be really careful again, because I would say that the key, if I were to list like what is the, the number one thing in Advocate does, I would say empowers. Hmm. Right. Like advocates empower, they empower the individual to take control of their life, to make decisions, to be informed, to take the next step towards safety or healing, whatever that looks like.

They empower them to pursue justice in whatever form that looks like for them. [00:31:00] So you should always be as an advocate, reflecting back to the person, right? You are a mirror to a degree. When you have a savior complex, you are not empowering someone. You're keeping them dependent. You're keeping them dependent on you now, which is not healthy for them, and it's not healthy for you, and you're going to burn out and, and you're also like, you're just not gonna be helpful.

You're not doing the fundamental thing an advocate should do. Hmm. Yeah, so you mentioned that some of these formal advocacy roles have, you know, fairly firm guidelines, policy guidelines around boundaries. And so obviously those are things that should be followed just from a, an ethical perspective.

Let's assume that maybe they're less cleanly delineated. So we don't have, you know, necessarily detailed breakdown of what's appropriate or inappropriate boundaries to set within advocacy. What should some of those [00:32:00] be? Oh gosh. I feel like that just depends so much on the situation. Like, so much on the context.

I would say on a very fundamental level, like you should not be giving your personal phone number out.

To survivors. It's tempting because they're, again, they're gonna be in crisis at random times, often, many times of the, the course that you're working with them. And I've seen people fall into that in the nonprofit world of someone they really connect with, someone whose story they really resonate with, and they give out their personal cell number to be like, Hey, you know, if you don't wanna call the crisis line at this time, you know, try, just call me or call me for a, a ride or something.

And that leads down a really slippery slope of like, fudging all of the professional lines of how involved you are in that individual's life. So I'd say don't give out your personal information. I'd say stick really strongly to the, I only work during business hours. Which kind of goes right along with [00:33:00] that is like, if they send you an email because they have your work, email, stop checking your work email on your off time.

I'm super guilty of this, but when you work in direct, I feel called out here, Hannah, but continue. I, well, me too, but, but we're colleagues. Yes. I'm just like, I, you know, I don't, I don't have an issue with like answering a work email that's to someone else within my organization in my off time personally.

You might have a different policy about that, but like, when you do that with a client mm-hmm. Again, it's a slippery slope because it starts becoming something where they might need things in other times of the day. And very quickly you start finding yourself over involved or feeling really guilty if you can't help them, you know, at 6:00 PM on a Saturday.

So that's another good boundary line. I would also say like understand your job position and what context that is. So even. There's, there's even, I mean, there were different types of [00:34:00] advocacy that I worked with in, in domestic violence resource centers. One of them was a crisis line. My job for that role was specifically like, I'll listen to you on the crisis line.

I will give you referrals. You can call me back and follow up about those things when I'm running the crisis line. You know, there's a very specific thing that was happening. There was also legal advocacy, you know, that I did within a nonprofit setting before I worked in the court system. And that was like, I will attend court with you.

I will help walk you through what this process is gonna look like. I'll call you after there's a nine one one, you know, report or call. So there also is like, understand what your job is and stay within the boundaries of that, and then get yourself really well connected to other professionals. In other positions that you can connect to that individual to, you cannot do it all again.

You're not a savior. You shouldn't be, you can't have knowledge in every single one of these niche areas. So stop trying, [00:35:00] you know, connect to the other people who are in this field, who do this work, who are also passionate about helping people. We work so much more effectively as a team than we do as individuals.

So I'd say a big part of having healthy boundaries is realizing you're not leaving people out in outer space, floating around with all of their needs. You're connecting them to other people who can also help meet their needs probably more effectively than you. Hmm. Well said. I have some obvious examples that are more extreme, but they have actually happened.

So I suppose I should actually say them. I think it's very problematic and I think you'll agree with me to have clients refer to you with some sort of familial nickname, I have seen that, and that strikes me as deeply problematic in terms of the forme boundaries, some of the codependency stuff that you were mentioning a second ago.

I think this, this should also be very obvious, but again, I've seen it sharing rooms. Mm-hmm. Sharing rooms with a client I think is [00:36:00] problematic for a variety of reasons. It wouldn't fly in a variety of professions. I don't think it should fly in advocacy. Oh my gosh. Don't give them money.

Money, yes. That's a big one. That's a huge boundary violation is like they need to apply for money through the programs that already exist. Yeah. I think maybe one overarching principle, not, not of everything we've discussed, but certainly of some of the elements, is don't unintentionally mirror the harmful dynamics that you're seeking to empower them to address.

Yep. Absolutely. All right. Well, I, I definitely want to pick your brain more about domestic violence more broadly. 'cause I think that's an area where there's a lot of room for improvement. I think we can agree on the systems front whether that be law enforcement. Or my colleagues in prosecution or elsewhere.

But before we do that you had a few irresistible morsels early on about the unhealthy environments in nonprofits. Are there unhealthy environments in nonprofit organizations or governmental organizations? Are there, [00:37:00] are there, are there, yes, indeed. There are. Robert, there's a, I forget the exact title of the book, something like Unmasking the Elephants or something like that, but it's about common problems in nonprofit organizations.

And it was saying one of the myths. You know, for people to know before entering into nonprofit work is this myth of, oh, no nonprofit. It's not like this cutthroat corporate environment. It's nice. It's all, you know, it is just a much different environment. And I disagree. My, our current environment of course, is wonderful, but we're speaking broadly about nonprofit organizations.

What, what should people know about the nonprofit realm specifically before entering into it? Yeah, I mean, I think as a disclaimer, I would just say like every system is flawed. Yes. Because humans are flawed. So we bring our flaws with us into the system. We do. And certain systems, I think are, have tendencies towards [00:38:00] certain flaws because of the ways they're designed.

Mm-hmm. Certain pitfalls. So with nonprofits, there are several that I've, big pitfalls that I've seen. One of the big ones I think is. The idea of having an executive director and a board. I think the intent behind that was to avoid a vortex of power. Right. Right. With sort of a checks and balances thing.

But I find that usually the executive director, especially if it's a newer or smaller nonprofit, chooses the board. Correct. And they tend to choose based on the type of person. They are right. So like if you have someone who's really domineering, they may choose a board that's full of a lot of people who are sort of just patting their resumes.

So not very involved board, in which case the board's not serving it's checks and balances process. And that can be very frustrating. You may see a, a nonprofit culture get hijacked by the person who's the executive director. You know, there can also be situations where [00:39:00] there's a board that's maybe made up of either on one side of the spectrum, individuals who are very strongly opinionated, who end up in gridlock, frequently over decisions because they can't agree on things.

And then you get stuck as a nonprofit, not moving forward with your mission. Or you may get a bunch of people who are really deliberative, really intellectual, who then sit and debate things on a fundamental level and you never get action. You don't move forward. Mm-hmm. So like. Those can gum up the nonprofit system.

I also think nonprofits, because they are usually reliant on outside sources of funding, so donors, grants, things like that. Occasionally fee for service, but a lot of them not so much. They tend to pay really poorly, so like they pay poorly for the hardest work you are doing, incredibly emotionally, mentally taxing work and.

There is a large reputation of nonprofits, sort of just chewing people up and then spitting them out. They have them work really [00:40:00] long hours. They bet on the fact that the people coming in care. Mm-hmm. Right? And they go, oh, they're passionate people. They wanna make a difference. Right. As soon as I was like, yeah, you people who wanna purpose go into nonprofit work, going to advocacy, right.

Except that can also be be, it can betray you, right? Mm-hmm. Because you can get so caught on the purpose, on the good work that you're willing to lose your personal boundaries with your job, which is also a problem. Mm-hmm. And that's when you're, you know, you're working overtime and not getting paid for it.

You are doing really difficult work or doing the work of four positions as one person, right. Because they don't have the funding to add more people. And so I think inadvertently nonprofits can take advantage and that's why there's the super high turnover rates. So I would just say as a young person, if you're looking to get into the world of advocacy or into nonprofit work.

Be cognizant of that. And again, take the time on the front end to really consider what your internal [00:41:00] boundaries are. And if you do take a position that you love, but you find out like, oh no, this is really gonna burn me out. You need to consider where your line is before you hit it. Like what is your non-negotiable line where you go like, okay, maybe I'm willing to work overtime without pay, or I shouldn't say that overtime without pay, but you're willing to work extra hard or take on extra tasks or whatever for six months.

And if at six months nothing has shifted, they still are just like unable to come to a better balance for you. They're unable to redistribute tasks in a healthy way. They're unable to shave down the jobs that are being done, know in advance when it's time to move on, or what your internal signs are that maybe you, you're done, you need, you can't stay in this position.

It's not tenable long term because otherwise you will burn out. And then. And then you're either stuck continuing to work something that you now hate, or you're gonna go work a job that's gonna kill your soul because you just need something that you can leave at [00:42:00] work.

I think adding to that, you know, this is a particularly difficult time in the nonprofit sector for a variety of reasons that we don't need to get into between, you know, grants being slashed and then the impact that that has on, you know, the donor pieces and, you know, fewer, fewer sources of revenue that are all sort of being clawed for.

So all of these dynamics go double, I think. Yeah. And clawed for is the perfect term there. I mean, I totally skipped over what I said earlier too, which is comp, there's a lot of competition in nonprofits. It is cutthroat because they're all competing for funding that they need to survive. So it's sort of like.

The Hunger Games. This sounds terrible, but it is like we can't all live, there's not enough resources for everybody. Yeah. So like you don't wanna partner up with an agency doing a similar service to your agency, even though there are more than enough people going through whatever issue it is your nonprofit deals with.

Be that correct. You know, limited food resources [00:43:00] or, you know, victim advocacy or whatever it is. There's, there's more than enough people going through it for all of us to survive. We're not short on work. You know, it's the funding, it's the funding piece. And they don't wanna split the pie because all of them need the resources.

I learned this the hard way a few times because I, similarly entering the space naive, I have a, I had a bizarre entry point in terms of starting out in more of the criminal justice realm, but then started non-profit in West Virginia several years ago at this point. And then have done more nonprofit work with different organizations since then.

But I started off very naive because I knew a lot of the relevant actors and nonprofit organizations on the criminal justice side of things. So I had a certain view of them, collegial relationships, all of that where there wasn't that tension. 'cause I'm in government agency side and, and a much more involved prosecutor than is typical in sort of the nonprofit landscape.

So had more goodwill. And then I quickly [00:44:00] learned, I wasn't envisioning that cutthroat element to it. I wasn't envisioning that, oh, someone can be speaking very supportively here, and actually they're going, you know, behind and talking to some foundation and putting a knife in our funding so their organization can take it.

And I mean, these are literally things that have happened. So it's, it's sad, frankly. And I think, I think this is just a broader cultural piece. You know, I think, I think your values aren't demonstrated by your press releases or by your website. Your values are demonstrated by what you do, and the chips are down and things are messy and ugly.

And so, you know, in nonprofit land, I think people have shown themselves in a good way, in a bad way and oftentimes in good ways. But I think they have shown themselves a great deal this year during the COVID era in these sort of, in intensifying points, both in good and bad ways about what their values are.

And what the priorities are in this work. Well, and not to, again, not to go down another rabbit trail. There's so many [00:45:00] of them in this conversation. There's so many places to go. But I think, and you and I have talked about this in the past, there's, I think there's a justification that happens for people Yes.

When they feel like they're doing it for an air quotes greater good. Right. So it, it feels like, okay, well, atrocity in history. Yeah. Yeah. Right. And they, I think nonprofits can especially fall into that lie. Yes. Because they feel they are doing good work. And because if you ended up at a certain nonprofit dealing with a certain issue, you probably are passionate about that specific issue.

And so you're gonna justify, like you see how bad it is on the front lines every day. You see the numbers coming in, you deal with the stories personally, so you see it upfront and that makes it urgent to you. Hmm. And it makes it easier to dismiss the other nonprofits dealing with their things because those are further away.

So it's easier to be like, oh, well we're gonna screw them because they get X, Y, or Z [00:46:00] funding, or because, you know, I don't think they deal with as many of those issues as we deal with this issue. So you can find a way to justify it for the air, quote, greater good that you're working on, and to be like, we have to exist.

And so we're willing to play dirty to keep existing. Yes. Well, that's a good transition. Or it's a transition. I dunno if it's a good transit. It's, it's a transition to Yeah. Picking your brain about advice for change makers, either current change makers, MDT members, or aspiring or future ones. I think one picking up what we just said is living into your values, including when the chips are down.

If you have an MOU going into a grant cycle, you don't abandon the sub-grantee once you get the award. Mm-hmm. And just easy things like that live into your values, have integrity. And I think I, I view, you know, I, our, I suppose he's both of our mentors in some way. Victor Vith grace Board member, Victor Vith many of you familiar with Victor Vith from Zero Abuse Project and [00:47:00] elsewhere.

He very much refuses to view things as a competition with, or, or organizations that are doing this work. And I do think that's a critical mindset that more need to develop and maybe that sounds very naive, but I, it, it is possible. And I think Victor has shown that it's possible to have that posture in a realistic way while still, okay, we've gotta submit for grants. Okay. But there's a way that you can interact with other people.

That has integrity. And that acknowledges that we should all be in this together to some extent, even if, we're all seeking for, resources in a scarce timeframe. Yeah. Yeah. Love that. Live. Live and dear values. I said this earlier, I'll reiterate it. Know thyself.

Mm-hmm. Know your strengths, know your weaknesses. Know what you can and can't handle. Know your boundaries. Like know yourself, you know, even, even a good example. And you'll learn about yourself as you step into this work too. So be willing to pivot according to [00:48:00] that. You know, crisis line work. I did it.

I, it was not. Something I sustainably could have done long term, like realistically, it was making me start to hate humanity. That sounds terrible, but it's true. There's a reason I didn't go down the counseling pathway and it's just like I, I knew that there was gonna come a time, I didn't have the patience to continue to do crisis line work.

I was much more fitted for training, for legal advocacy, for things that did have very particular roles that were more delineated. And that was something that I took away after working in crisis line work was like, okay, I, I did it, I did it well, I, and then I was done with it, needed to move into something different and look specifically for positions that were gonna fit my personality and my demeanor better.

So know thyself. The other thing I'd say is like get curious. Hmm. Get curious about other people's work, about other nonprofits work. And this is part of that multidisciplinary idea and the, and the [00:49:00] avoiding of the savior complex is like, see other people's giftings and personalities that are different from yours as a strike, right?

It may be frustrating to you 'cause they're not the same way that you are, but there are ways that we can team up with individuals who are different than us that will ultimately strengthen the advocacy that we can give to other people, right? We can refer people for different processes to other people.

There are individuals who are better listeners than I am that they should go and have, you know, those longer running conversations with, there are, you know, agencies that are gonna be specifically gifted or talented or specialized in something that maybe the agency I'm working for isn't. Don't be afraid to refer to them.

You know, be curious, make connections, talk with as many people as humanly possible. Get as many perspectives as humanly possible. You don't have to agree with all of them, but it will broaden your perspective to be curious.

Can you talk about victim advocacy as it [00:50:00] relates to other MDT partners? Like, say law enforcement especially? Mm-hmm. Like what are some of the, the challenges and opportunities there?

This is a fun one because I'm married to a law enforcement officer, so they're just the worst, aren't they? Yeah. Gosh, they're awful. So it is funny because I live this balance, like we actually have really interesting conversations at home because especially like my, my grad work centered on a lot of like rehabilitative work in the criminal justice system.

So coming from that restore almost restorative justice background and then, you know, being married to someone who's in the very traditional justice system, like we have really interesting conversations I'm sure. But yeah, the reality is all of these systems intersect. They often intersect. So I think one of the things to realize is that you, because you play different roles, you're also engaging with an individual at very specific and different moments [00:51:00] of their trauma, right?

So like. Law enforcement is intersecting with someone in the moment often that they're going through something like where it is still dangerous, where it is still unpredictable. And because of that, they can have a different demeanor sometimes than like an advocate would, right? Like a mental health professional may sit down and wanna have like a, a slow question asking conversation with you.

Whereas like law enforcement's gonna give more direct orders, they're gonna be more clipped, they're trying to make sure everything is safe and nailed down. And they also have a very specific subset of legal requirements that they're trying to reach. And because of that, they're gonna ask really specific pointed questions.

They're going to, you know, do things that maybe from an advocacy perspective, you would be like, Ooh, I don't know that I would necessarily ask that, that way. Or there's probably a softer way to do it. So I think looking at it as these things should be, instead of. Butting heads, they should be like shaking [00:52:00] hands.

So in, in the state of Minnesota right now, we actually have a really great partnership with our law enforcement where every time they go to a domestic call, they have to call the nonprofit crisis line that deals with domestic violence.

So they, I mean, they ha they call the crisis line with the victim on scene if they're willing, if the victim isn't willing, they don't force it. They usually say like, you're gonna get a call tomorrow. And then they'll get a call in the morning from us and they can choose whether or not they would like to pick up.

But it sort of. Is a win for both sides because it gives law enforcement the opportunity on scene to connect them to someone who can have the empathy, who can walk through the let down after a really tense experience, after an assault. So that gives them the opportunity to connect 'em with someone safe, someone who can do those slower conversations. It gives us the opportunity to connect them to resources immediately if they need them.

And it also sort of removes [00:53:00] this like, tension of feeling like somehow you know, advocacy and law enforcement don't play well together or work well together. So I think they're, they're both parts of a system that's necessary. And, and a lot of times victims have questions after they've called 9 1 1.

And depending on if you're in a state too that has a thou shall arrest or may arrest, like is there discretion for a law enforcement officer on an arrest or not? Makes a difference? And it makes a difference to how urgently they may need resources.

Do you have any advice for victim advocates on better intersections or more productive intersections with law enforcement? Mm, I think I would say understand that they are coming from a different perspective than you and they're beholden to different.

Boundaries and lines than you are. So one of the most frequent tensions I see is, a lot of times a victim may have called 9 1 1 not wanting their significant other to be arrested. They may have just wanted them to [00:54:00] stop. Right. Right. They just wanted to be safe. They don't want air quotes. They don't wanna press charges. Also, again, this is all state dependent, state of Minnesota where I am.

You don't press charges. The state does. Right. Like, you don't get that choice, right? The state is gonna press charges if they think they have enough evidence to press charges. So like frequently we would run into issues with, you know, advocates not understanding why law enforcement arrested against the will of the victim.

And an advocate may be like, why would they do that? Why would they, they just made this victim's life more complicated. How are they gonna pay the rent? Who's gonna watch their kid when they're at work?

All these things that are fall out of an arrest. But on the law enforcement side, it's like we have a legal obligation to arrest if we believe that there was an assault, or if we believe that there was, you know, something that stands to the, the understanding of what a domestic assault is in the state.

And also like our job is to make sure there's [00:55:00] safety. In this exact moment, you know, they're not necessarily considering the fallout of that individual's life through all these other, you know, things. So I think that can be a real tension is advocates are trained to care about the autonomy of the victim.

Law enforcement is trained to care about the perceived guilt of the offender. So you are dealing with two things that, that are, were different considerations. Yeah, that's well put. And I think that's, that is a great illustration of how important that multidisciplinary team approach is. 'cause those are both important, the victim's empowerment and accountability for offenders are both extremely important.

And it takes different skill sets, different individuals to inter intersect effectively on both ends.

I'd love to pick your brain a little bit more on domestic violence more broadly particularly as it relates to DV investigation slash prosecution.

So [00:56:00] my general perspective is that DV tends to not be investigated well and it tends to be prosecuted worse than it's investigated. Have you had different experiences? No. I also think, okay, so hear me out in, in a magic world where I can, in a world, in a world where I could create systems in my own image typically the call load or caseload of domestics is like, it is the second highest type of case that law enforcement deals with outside of drug cases.

Right. So it's super common. I mean, like really common. We're talking multiple times a shift. You're gonna have a domestic That's right. And so it's like, I don't understand why there is not more training mm-hmm. For law enforcement and prosecutors. Mm-hmm. Because it's, when I say law enforcement, it's the second highest caseload is domestics.

That translates [00:57:00] into prosecution as well. Outside of drug cases, domestics are the, the next highest prosecution too, or, or cases coming across the prosecutorial desk, if you will. I would say there is not a lot of specific training, and this would probably be another tension point between advocates and law enforcement or prosecutors, is advocates are trained to understand sort of the nuance or the, underlying relational factors that are playing into a cycle of violence in the relationship, physical or otherwise. Prosecutors in law enforcement are trained to recognize very particular instances of assault that hit a particular legal level. And so they don't necessarily care or have the time or are trained on some of those underlying factors, right?

So there may be a relationship that has a very, very long history of abuse going on, very controlling lots of other smaller air quote, smaller versions of violence that are happening within that relationship control that's happening within that [00:58:00] relationship. And domestic violence is a habitual type of crime, like.

It, it's an ongoing thing that's happening. It's the way that the abusive person engages in life. Like it is, it is not a one-off. It is never a one-off. Right. And so when you deal with caseloads that are that high, like that many calls of them, they often get pled down because there's not time mm-hmm.

You have someone who. Manipulates every day in their relationship. Guess what they're gonna be great at? When they get into the court system manipulating like, yes, they're great at manipulating. They do it all the time. And so they're very good at lying.

They're good at getting their way. They've traumatized a victim into looking unreliable, into looking mentally unstable. You know, there's a million things that go into it. It's not well prosecuted. They're good at intimidating and scaring, especially because, [00:59:00] again, habitual, long, long term cycles of abuse have been happening often in a relationship.

By the time law enforcement gets there, like the victim is terrified. Yep. You know, a lot of times they don't wanna talk about it. They don't wanna press charge. Air quotes, press charges, because they're afraid. They're afraid of what's gonna happen in their relationship afterwards. So they may lie about, you know, what happened?

They may not. Cooperate with prosecution when it comes to testifying. So there's just so they're complex cases. They're complex cases and they're almost never cut and dry

I think though, this goes back to the distinction between pattern and incident.

Mm-hmm. There overwhelmingly is evidence of patterns, you know, patterns of control, patterns of behavior. Also and this is, this goes back to the poor investigative piece in the year 2026.

There's digital evidence everywhere is the other bit of this. So communications information, location information vehicles, mobile [01:00:00] devices, et cetera. There's a ton of stuff. It just requires creativity and focusing more on the pattern than, than a particular incident. Though obviously you wanna focus on the particular incident as well.

I, I have a very negative view of how these things tend to be investigated and prosecuted. And like you, I am. Confused as to why there's not as much of an emphasis on this.

I've got a host of horror stories and obviously I, I've changed details. But there's just a host of horror stories in terms of poor investigations I've seen in practice as a prosecutor. And then just di dynamics I've intersected with, you've, you've mentioned at some point, you know, the, the quote unquote press charges element of this from a, from a practice perspective.

I'm curious your take from a best practice perspective. I don't believe in that at all. I don't believe in require, whether it's child abuse, domestic violence, any sort of, you know, violent act or vulnerable victim case. I think it's absurd to put the onus on that individual for whether you move forward or not, because all that's doing is putting a great big [01:01:00] blinky bullseye on the victim.

Yep. And, and it's not, it's an unfair ask. Like, they're not in a position to make the determination of whether it should be investigated or prosecuted. You are as the MDT member. So that's just something I've never understood. Oh, the victim didn't. Oh, I agree. Press charges. Well, you know, welcome to all cases.

Like, this is where we do our jobs as investigators and prosecutors. Yeah. And I get it. You know, you're not the, I, I'm twisted enough to enjoy prosecuting these types of cases because it's. You go into these courtrooms, right? And the judge isn't happy you're there. The defense attorney isn't happy you're there, the offender's not happy.

You're there. And most of the time the victim's not happy You're there. And yet you do it because it's the right thing to do and everybody hates you and it doesn't matter, you know, do your job. It is what it is. So I, I think these are just, I enjoy these cases because they're more challenging. But also because it's just a worthy fight and just so few people are willing, are willing to fight it.

But yeah. And it makes a super practical difference too. I mean, it's [01:02:00] again, purposeful. Yes. But painful. Yes. It's a good fight. If you want a good fight going into domestic violence, investigation and prosecution, it's a good time. Yeah. If you are an Enneagram eight, if you're an Enneagram eight, this, this is, this is your moment.

This is what, this is what you were built for. Well, I think even what one of the things I had to struggle with a good bit and I didn't do these, this wasn't my caseload for very long. But one of the things I struggled with is oftentimes the investigating officer. Was a hostile witness for my purposes.

So I had cases where, you know, the, the investigator would be ques or cross-examined, you know, what do you think about the victim doing X, Y, and Z? Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? Yeah, it was weird. I couldn't believe she did that. That was ridiculous. I thought if this were legitimate, she wouldn't have done that.

That's almost a direct quote from one of the trials. I'm not gonna quote my, you know, my examination after that, but it wasn't friendly. Is, [01:03:00] is the spoiler alert there. But that was a challenge as well, you know, not, you know, officers not understanding dynamics of trauma. And oftentimes that would be an, an additional barrier.

Yeah. Okay. So like different, but this, I like to talk about this example because I think it's a really interesting one and it's, it's culturally relevant and available to you if you are curious. So the Gabby Petito case. Mm-hmm. This was, the body cam footage was super interesting on that. Because. It was a really great example of the victim being out of her window of tolerance, right?

Like she was like sobbing uncontrollably. She was like, yeah, I'm, I'm unstable. I have terrible anxiety. I, you know, she's blaming herself. She's doing a lot of self blaming. She looks erratic. She looks unstable, you know, and then you have Brian, I can't remember his last name right now, her boyfriend who later murdered her.

But on this body cam [01:04:00] footage, when they were stopped on the interstate, if you're not familiar with the story, they're stopped in the interstate from someone calling them in for having a domestic in their van. He's like. Super chill. Mm-hmm. He's making jokes with the officers. He looks very stable. Very.

Mm-hmm. Cool. As a cucumber. He's like laughing about her being mentally unstable and having really terrible anxiety and Right. Like it's the, from a, from an advocacy perspective, as someone who works in the world of domestic violence, everything about it is a red flag to me. Mm-hmm. Right? Like I look at that and I'm like, oh my gosh, big giant blinking sign of like, she's being abused and he's controlling everything, including this situation.

Mm-hmm. You know, from someone who has not necessarily been trained in like the underpinnings of what that nuance looks like. Again, at face value, he seems like the rational one and she seems like she is irrational, and that's often how that goes [01:05:00] at. These calls is like a victim has been pushed for so long, has been abused for so long, has been prodded for so long, they don't look stable.

They don't seem like they're acting the best. They may not be making the best choices. They may be acting out, you know, because they're experiencing this grading away over time that just like by the time they've called 9 1 1, they're falling apart, you know? Yep. And the abuser who always loves to be in power and control is good at looking in control.

And that's not always the case. Obviously. There are plenty of times where there are really not bright abusers who are super belligerent and you know, sort of the caricature of what you think an abuser would be. But there are the insidious ones and, and I think in those situations, law enforcement is like very specifically trained to deal in black and white and to just.

Like state what they see in that moment without thinking [01:06:00] necessarily about the underpinning relational culture. So, right. Yeah. I had a call I. Remember, I, so I was dealing with all the, all the domestic violence cases in a single county at one point in my career. Good times fun. And we had a, no, we had essentially a no drop policy where unless it was pretty clear, you know, we, we just weren't going to drop them for, for whatever reason.

If there wasn't probable cause, then obviously we would drop 'em. But other, other than that and so I remember we were moving forward with one case. I hadn't even reviewed the file yet, but it was already, you know, set for the next hearing. And I got this, you know, enraging call or enraging and enraged, I suppose, call at the prosecutor's office.

And it was, you know, the victim of, of one of these DB cases, sort of demanding to know, you know, why we are moving forward and that she wanted to drop everything and it was all a big misunderstanding, et cetera, et cetera. Which as an aside. Recantation DV cases. What about, what's, what's the stat on that?

Do you have a stat on that? I [01:07:00] don't have a stat, but it's a lot. It's a lot. It's most of them. It's most of, again, you're like, what's gonna happen when the abuser gets out of jail? Correct. And it, and like, not only the fear perspective, but also like your lives are entwined. Yes. So it's like, who, who's gonna pay the rent?

Who's gonna help with childcare? It's, you know, there's a million things. There's a million things. And so we're navigating this and I, I couldn't even remember which case it was. 'cause again, all the DV in a single county, and it was a rural county, but still a ton of dv. And so I, I'm, like I said, hang on, lemme pull the file.

So I pulled up the file and reacquainted with what was going on. And it was, you know, and my answer is no, we're not going to drop this case. He played Russian roulette with her, with a loaded gun multiple bullets, so kind of an especially loaded Russian roulette. And, and yet there was this insistence to drop it.

Now, in that case, almost certainly, he had put her up to it. I don't even think that's necessarily the case, but yeah, I say that to say, you know, for, for investigators and [01:08:00] prosecutors out there. To me, a recantation in a DV context or a victim demand aggressive or otherwise to drop a case had had no impact on how I managed those cases.

None. And I don't think it should. And I'm not saying ignore victims of course, but I am saying, you know, just because someone is traumatized, another human being to the point where they're an ally in the legal process doesn't mean they should get impunity, you know, for terrorizing another human being.

And it certainly shouldn't dictate your decisions either from investigative or prosecutor stance. And I think this, I, we don't need to get into this 'cause it would be a whole nother podcast, but I mean, I think that gets into the tension between autonomy and accountability. Correct. And that's always gonna be a tension when you're working in a victim services field.

Yes. Is like it is. And, and this is something I remember actually, I very specifically remember explaining to. In that first internship I had that, that changed my career trajectory from generalized psychology to going down this [01:09:00] pathway. It was a very specific conversation I had with a woman who had been beat within an inch of her life and then thrown down a set of stairs.

She was in the ICU for a while when she was released. Her ex was being you know, prosecuted. She, of course didn't want him to be prosecuted for this assault. And and there was a no contact order in place that the judge had put in place and she wanted to have that dropped and was gonna, you know, ask the judge for it to be dropped, which he wasn't gonna drop, but she can ask.

And one of the requirements he had before she could even ask, and this was just blanket across the county at the time, was like, you have to go to the victim Advocacy center and sit down and go through a safety plan. Before you can even request to have an order for protection dropped. So I'm sitting with her, we're doing a safety plan.

One of the questions is, why do you wanna have this dropped? Mm-hmm. Her answer, and this actually led me down the faith pathway, also the intersection of faith and advocacy, was because she believed that God would want her to reconcile with her husband. [01:10:00] Right. And one of the conversations that I had with her was like I and I, and I think it moves beyond even the aspect of faith, but frame in this context, it was framed for faith because that was what her objection was framed as is like, I think God believes in boundaries.

Right? And also like your husband violated a boundary by harming you physically. Mm-hmm. This is the consequence of that. And it would not be loving for you to enable him to continue to do this. Right? Like that is not caring for him. What it's caring for him is allowing him to have accountability, allowing him to go through the justice process to understand consequences.

So hopefully it breeds change. Right? And I think that is something that you have to learn how to balance in an advocacy context is empowerment, but also like, yes, accountability does need to exist. Justice needs to exist. This is part of how we [01:11:00] also interrupt that ongoing cycle of harm. Good stuff. Well, I'm certain we could talk about it much more.

We'll have to save that for part two. Thank you, Hannah. Absolutely. Thank you.

We're grateful to Hannah for coming on and talking about all of those important topics with us. For more information, I encourage you to check out our free Justice in 30 webinar series. That is live at least once a month, sometimes several times a month. With myself and other Cosing justice instructors.

Again, did I say. Free, a free half hour bite-sized training for busy multidisciplinary team professionals, and you can register right now at www.coursingjustice.com. For training specifically addressing domestic violence, which we've talked about a bit today., encourage you to check out our course or workshop at coursing justice, investigating and prosecuting domestic violence and child abuse.

And [01:12:00] so this is a course that walks through a a few different pieces of DV investigation, prosecution, including how would you conduct effective suspect, third party and victim interviews when we see a co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse, which certainly is often the case. It will also teach individuals to recognize and document power and control dynamics.

That are going to inform our investigative decisions and strengthen prosecutions. And we'll also learn how to apply investigative and prosecutorial strategies that account for the high recantation rates that we see in domestic violence cases using trauma-informed. Principles. So reach out to us and visit, coursingjustice.com for both of those trainings.

If you enjoyed hearing from Hannah and would like to train more with Hannah, netgrace.org which is grace the organization that we've talked about a little bit. In this episode, they have a safe church training center, and you can learn from [01:13:00] Hannah directly.

Hannah's one of the instructors also, Hannah already has an online and on-demand course at the organization. She, she mentioned the House of Faith and Freedom, and so we'll put the link to that in the show notes. That course is called Godly Response to Intimate Partner Violence and it focuses on advocacy within a faith community context to appropriately address situations of intimate.

Partner violence. I encourage you to take advantage of those resources. Thank you for listening to Coursing Justice. Sign up for our newsletter at coursingjustice.com and join us as we continue charting away forward for justice in the cases that matter most.

Coursing Justice
Previous

Emergency Episode: Anderegg, Ashcroft & AI CSAM (with Debbie Garner)
Next

#1: The Detective (with Brandon Poor)