This looks like a pretty standard case of domestic violence (York Record, 10/27/09).  Oh, don't get me wrong, the article doesn't call it domestic violence, and you can guess why that is - a woman stabbed a man and to call that domestic violence would violate a cardinal rule of DV reporting.

It seems that Josh Denenberg, of York, Pennsylvania, went over to his girlfriend's house.  Christine Spillane is also the mother of Denenberg's nine-month-old daughter.  The two tell conflicting stories, but, while he was holding the baby, she stabbed him with a kitchen knife at least twice.  Depending on who you believe, he either did or did not push her before she stabbed him. 

Whatever the case, the police arrested her and charged her with aggravated battery.  A York County judge let her out of jail on $5,000 bond and issued an order of no contact against her, meaning that she's to stay away from Denenberg.  And that of course raises an issue - who's got the baby?  If she has her, the no-contact order means Denenberg can't see his child.

Denenberg's injuries are described as "serious," and he's in the hospital for treatment.

One interesting sidelight is that, according to the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women, the incident might actually not be domestic violence.  How could that be possible?  Here's the lead-in to its definition of domestic violence.

Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.

Of course saying it "can be defined" is slightly odd in what is in fact the Office's definition.  Is it, or isn't it?  But nowhere does the definition refer to anything but a "pattern."  So if there's no pattern, there's no DV?  If Spillane had never been violent or abusive before, would the OVW say it's not DV?

I bring this up mostly to highlight the surpassing weirdness of what masquerades as rational discourse on domestic violence.  I mean, when a government Office, that takes who knows how much money to maintain, can't figure out that a one-shot (perhaps literally) incident can constitute DV, there's something seriously wrong.   And notice too that the OVW relies on the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the national Center for Victims of Crime and WomensLaw.org as its sources for the definition.  So it's not just one organization but several that have come up with this gem.

Undermining your partner's "sense of self-worth?"  Making repeated attempts to get your wife to stop buying so many pairs of shoes?  Putting to sleep a terminally-ill pet?  Yep, each of those constitutes violent behavior under the OVW definition.  Shooting your husband in the head with a shotgun while he sleeps?  Not necessarily. 

I suggest that these people have been marinating in their own bile too long.  Someone needs to stage an intervention.

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 14th, 2009 at 7:51 pm and is filed under Domestic Violence/DV System. You can trackback from your own site.