Domestic Violence Victimization Study ELIZABETH HOLMES, DOB 05/14/1989 AND SON DAX, DOB 05/01/2016

Kathy Jones | DVSur5r Network | October 17, 2018

DVSur5r Network independently and routinely screens all persons accessing in-person services to determine if they are the primary victim in an abusive relationship, and that is the primary issue for which they are seeking services. During the screening process, the person seeking services is screened for all forms of abuse, including emotional, medical, spiritual, economic, legal, sexual, psychological and , as well as monitoring and behaviors. Expert screening is done: 1) to ensure that services are provided only to victims/survivors of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual assault; 2) because not all victims of domestic abuse are female; and 3) to assess and assist victims who have been arrested, charged or even convicted of acts of domestic assault.

DVSur5r Network does not provide in-person services to anyone outside the scope of our stated target clientele, as neither resources, time, nor funding requirements permit us to do so. The screening process is continual, in that, if an identified victim seeking our services demonstrates through further screening that her/his primary issue is beyond our scope of service provision (i.e.— , mental health, etc.), we will limit or terminate services. “In-person services” include: support group, legal advocacy and social services advocacy.

Preparation for this report included interviewing the subject, reviewing various assessment tools and reviewing any and all documents made available regarding Elizabeth Holmes and Brandon Markowitz, the father of Dax. Documents were obtained through Ms. Holmes.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

I, Kathy Jones, am a Family Violence Response, Intervention and Prevention Specialist and founder of DVSur5r Network. I have been a victim advocate since 1998, and have attended well over 800 hours of ongoing training and education specific to domestic violence, sexual assault, child maltreatment and stalking; combined with my professional and personal experience, I am uniquely qualified to expertly screen for domestic abuse. My professional experiences include:

• As Domestic Violence Specialist with A Safe Place, providing consultation and education services for 12 years regarding domestic violence to the Southern NH District Office of the Division of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), as well as crisis and support services to more than 1700 adult and child victims of domestic violence; • Independent Consultant to the State of Colorado for my expertise in drafting Colorado’s Department of Child Welfare’s Domestic Violence Practice Guide for Child Protection Services; • Independent Consultant to the University of New Hampshire, Center for Professional Excellence in Child Welfare, to provide statewide trainings to child protection service workers regarding the impact of domestic violence on the family. • Co-host and collaborator with Lundy Bancroft (author of “Why Does He Do That,” the best- selling book on domestic violence), to develop Family Violence Response Innovations, a program to improve the community’s response to families targeted by abusers.

PAGE 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EVALUATION TOOLS

For purposes of this written report, the tools used in screening Ms. Holmes are nationally recognized tools used extensively to educate professionals and the general public about intimate partner violence. The tools were used by the reporter to help in recall of spontaneous disclosures for the purpose of continued screening, and then cycle-mapping the nature of the relationship between the litigating parties. These tools include:

• The Lethality Assessment Protocol, developed by Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell • “When Domestic Violence and Child Protection Merge: Best Practice Series for CPSWs” tools, developed through the Grafton County Greenbook Project, funded by the Office of , US Department of Justice grant #2004-WE-AX-KO35, such as: o Shades of Grey o Why Doesn’t She Just Leave?!? o Batterer as Partner, Batterer as Parent o Children Who Live Domestic Violence • The Maze of Coercive Control, found on the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence website: http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Wheel_MazeOfCoerciveControl.pdf

SERVICE HISTORY

Ms. Holmes requested services with DVSur5r Network at the end of July 2018. Since then, the ongoing screening process for Ms. Holmes has included conversations to solicit her account and nature of her relationship with Brandon Markowitz, the father of the couple’s child, Dax. Ms. Holmes has always been encouraged to recount her testimony with as little interruption as possible to allow for spontaneous disclosure; questions are strategically asked only for clarification of chronology or concept. Ms. Holmes’s accounts are consistent and typical of domestic violence survivors; at times she has difficulty with chronology, “verbal vomiting,” and “rabbit-holing,” making interviewing techniques commonly used by child protection, law enforcement and judicial systems ineffective and potentially re-traumatizing. Comparing recollection of Ms. Holmes’s spontaneous and numerous disclosures with domestic violence assessment tools, the results are:

• Emotional Abuse: 20/20, indicating that Mr. Markowitz was and is significantly verbally and emotionally abusive to Ms. Holmes, as well as Dax. It is typical for victims experiencing this level of emotional abuse to have depleted self-esteem and a pervasive sense of failure. This can lead to issues such as , anxiety, and an increased use of mechanisms (i.e.—self-medicating, exercise, emotional withdrawal, etc.). • Exploiting of Male (Privileged) Status: 9/9, indicating that Mr. Markowitz sets himself up within the relationship as the dominant partner due to his beliefs of entitlement and superiority. It is typical for victims experiencing this abuse tactic consistently to feel inferior and fearful of questioning her partner’s supremacy. • Medical : 4/8, indicating that Mr. Markowitz is willing to utilize coercive and controlling tactics to limit the mother’s and child’s access to appropriate medical help. This puts the child especially at risk, as the father is likely to ignore or contradict recommend-

PAGE 2 dations of medical/dental/mental health providers, or use the child’s medical issues to demonstrate his continued control over mother, as he has most recently demonstrated in the incident of Dax’s split lip. • Deprivation and Isolation: 6/8, indicating that Mr. Markowitz actively engages in a pattern of cutting Ms. Holmes and Dax off from critical social, familial and utilitarian supports. Typically, this has the effect of forcing the victim to become solely reliant on the perpetrator for basic necessities as well as perspective (while together), or pushes the targeted family into constant state of survival chaos (after separation). • Economic Control: 8/13, indicating that Mr. Markowitz has significant impact over Ms. Holmes’s financial independence and well-being. Post-separation, it is common for perpetrators of domestic abuse to deplete the victim’s resources by extensive litigation, using the legal system to further punish the victim or retaliate against her for seeking financial support. The extensive court filings in this case support this finding. • Monitoring and Stalking: 8/10, indicating that Mr. Markowitz has an oppressive and persistent need to know Ms. Holmes’s day-to-day whereabouts and activities, as illustrated in his texts regarding the location of a certain Toyota Rav4. This constant surveillance often leaves victims feeling hyper-vigilant or paranoid, with a sense that their life is not their own to control. • Spiritual Abuse: 2/8, tied to Mr. Markowitz’ pushing at Ms. Holmes’s sense of right and wrong, and creating situations to test her beliefs and values. This often has the effect of making a victim feel intense and moral confusion. • Legal : 8/11, indicating that Mr. Markowitz is actively using the legal system to continue to punish and demoralize Ms. Holmes. Because of the legal system’s response— factors such as: does the victim find the police helpful in times of danger (“no”), has the perpetrator escaped accountability for his own crimes (“yes”), does the court enforce its own orders regarding Mr. Markowitz (“no”)—Ms. Holmes perceives Mr. Markowitz as more powerful than the Court. Victims in this position often despair of ever achieving justice or safety for themselves or their children, potentially leading to risk-taking measures meant to keep themselves/loved ones safe, but which may—in fact—put them at greater risk legally, socially, economically and otherwise. • Psychological Torment: 13/13, demonstrating that Mr. Markowitz engages in a level of psychological warfare on Ms. Holmes designed specifically to distress, agitate and “program” her. This often has the impact of making victims feel like they are “going crazy” (in fact, the process is often called “crazy-making” or “”) and often can lead to more severe and chronic forms of depression, anxiety and other mental illness. • Sexual Coercion and Force: 9/14, which indicates that Mr. Markowitz—while the couple were together—used sexual violation as a way to exert his dominance over Ms. Holmes to ensure her complete submission. A perpetrator using his victim’s body in such manner often leaves the victim with feelings of worthlessness and self-loathing. Studies show that an abuser that sexually assaults his partner is 7 TIMES more likely than other abusers to kill his intimate partner. • Physical Assault: 9/13, showing Mr. Markowitz’ strategy in physically dominating Ms. Holmes, using strategic violence at both ends of the continuum. Smothering or

PAGE 3 strangulation is known to be most terrorizing to victims, as the perpetrator can maintain clear eye contact with the victim to experience close-up how terrorized the victim feels. In totality, these behaviors, left unchecked, causes the victim to believe that the world is not safe, and often generates pervasive feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. • Luring and Grooming: 6/8, demonstrating Mr. Markowitz’s historical use of conciliatory behaviors to lure Ms. Holmes back into the relationship, if her reactions indicated he had gone too far. This leaves victims with a false sense of hope that the perpetrator can change, and often leads to confusion, ambivalence, anger, or traumatic bonding known as “The .”

Although Ms. Holmes will likely find it next to impossible to relate events in any kind of chronology because of how traumatic memory is stored, when she is questioned using trauma-informed interview techniques, her accounts are consistent and far too detailed to be a figment of her imagination or outright lies. Studies show that knowingly false reports of abuse are uncommon, and that perpetrators of abuse are far more likely to lie (especially in family court-related settings) than their targets. Additionally, markers of an abuser found in extensive documentation indicates that Ms. Holmes should be believed; if Mr. Markowitz is allowed to go unchecked, he will treat future partners (and their children) in the same manner. His behavior is predictable and quantifiable, such as his working hard to maintain Ms. Holmes’ isolation by hostile confrontation with persons who would assist her in any way (such as the domestic violence advocate he confronted at court). His level of violence is on par with “serial batterers” (as described by Michael Groetsch in his book, “He Promised He’d Stop), and it is unlikely that he will be able to maintain any kind of long-term relationship in the future, without significant change in his attitudes and beliefs about women.

LETHALITY ASSESSMENT

A Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) screen was also completed with Ms. Holmes, by asking her a series of 12 “Yes or No” questions. She was not explained ahead of time the purpose of the questions. This assessment found that:

• Mr. Markowitz had used a weapon to menace or threaten Ms. Holmes; • Mr. Markowitz’s threats to her, and actual violence towards animals, causes Ms. Holmes to believe that he could easily kill her; and • Ms. Holmes believes that Mr. Markowitz may try to kill her.

According to the LAP protocol, designed and tested by Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell of John Hopkins University and utilized by police departments across the country, an affirmative answer to any one of the three above questions automatically triggers a police response to immediately call a local crisis center for safety planning, as research has shown that persons answering “yes” to those questions are at much greater risk for death or serious physical harm at the hands of their intimate partner, based on factors associated with lethal violence by a current or former intimate partner. In completing the LAP screen, Ms. Holmes’s testimony also generated answers to the following:

PAGE 4 • Mr. Markowitz reportedly has access to firearms; • Mr. Markowitz is reported to have attempted to suffocate or smother Ms. Holmes; • Mr. Markowitz is reported to have controlled most of Ms. Holmes’s daily activities while they were together, and significantly continues to interfere with her daily functioning despite their separation, through the parenting and child issues; • Mr. Markowitz is reported to have engaged Ms. Holmes in non-consensual sexual acts; • The parties reportedly have separated after living together; • Mr. Markowitz is unemployed; • Mr. Markowitz has reportedly not ever attempted ; • Mr. Markowitz is the father of Dax, so an unrelated child is not a risk factor; • Mr. Markowitz is reported to have followed, spied on and/or left threatening messages to Ms. Holmes.

Ms. Holmes indicated a negative answer for two questions, inferring that she was not answering “yes” because that was the expected answer. According to the LAP protocol, an affirmative answer for at least four of the remaining nine questions triggers the same police response, for the same reasons; Ms. Holmes expressed “yes” for seven of the remaining nine questions. This screen confirms what Ms. Holmes already instinctively believes: Mr. Markowitz was (and continues to be) a serious risk to her life if she is non-compliant to his expectations or wishes.

LIFE-GENERATED BARRIERS

Further screening discovered major life-generated barriers to Ms. Holmes’s safely and successfully co-parenting with Mr. Markowitz, including ongoing monitoring, stalking and harassment by Mr. Markowitz, significant employment and legal barriers, diminishing resources, isolation from family and friends, and multiple other factors. It is accurate to say that Ms. Holmes, although determined to be as self-sufficient as possible, is entrapped in Mr. Markowitz’ grip.

One of the most significant life-generated barriers for Ms. Holmes is her family of origin, and the lack of support—emotional or otherwise—she receives from them. Connection to community, and breaking abuser-imposed isolation that has driven away personal connections, is imperative to the safety and wellbeing of Ms. Holmes and the parties’ son, Dax. If her own family has aligned with Mr. Markowitz (which is, sadly, very common in family violence dynamics), Ms. Holmes will need to find other sources of connection for her and their son.

COMMUNITY-GENERATED BARRIERS

Unfortunately, Ms. Holmes’s community-generated barriers may be greater, and less easily resolvable, than her personal barriers in order to successfully and safely co-parent with Mr. Markowitz. They include, but are not limited to:

PAGE 5 • A police force who have arrested Ms. Holmes even though she called for assistance, causing her distrust and anxiety in accessing the police for future help. They seem to tolerate Mr. Markowitz’s aggressive behaviors, and have been reluctant to hold him accountable when he falsifies statements to them. They also demonstrate bias in unequal enforcement of the court’s orders regarding child custody matters. Mr. Markowitz has told Ms. Holmes, “my brothers in blue will shed blood to find you.” • A court system that has either ignored, minimized or misapprehended the nature of the parties’ relationship, giving Mr. Markowitz unlimited power to utilize its processes to continuously harass, threaten and intimidate Ms. Holmes. This “high conflict” monster is of the court’s own making, by giving power over a child to a perpetrator of domestic abuse. It is now to the point where Ms. Holmes believes it may be best for her—Dax’s primary attachment parent—to walk away in the hopes that Mr. Markowitz will finally allow his child peace and safety. That is unlikely; unless the Court takes drastic steps to eliminate one party from Dax’s life entirely (i.e.--termination of parental rights), this family will be in the CT family court system until Dax turns 18, as this is Mr. Markowitz’s primary means to continue to batter Ms. Holmes. If the Court chooses the wrong parent, then Dax will be in CT’s criminal court system after that, as Mr. Markowitz’s behavior is likely to be passed down to his son (as already demonstrated by Dax’s interactions with his mother, as witnessed by this reporter). • A child protection system that demonstrates ignorance in believing that because the parties are not married or living together, that Ms. Holmes cannot be a victim of domestic violence. This is absolutely contrary to ANY accepted work on the subject, including the works of Lundy Bancroft, one of the country’s foremost experts on domestic violence; and David Mandel, one of Connecticut’s foremost experts contracted by CT in his “Safe and Together” model of domestic violence/ response. In fact, Mr. Markowitz becomes more dangerous to the targeted family after separation, as multiple studies on domestic violence demonstrate. This lack of education on domestic violence WILL CONTINUE TO PUT DAX AT FURTHER RISK FOR INJURY, AND EVEN DEATH, because the child protection system will fail to properly assess the danger of Mr. Markowitz, and will generate inadequate safety plans to address the risk to his son. Worse yet, they will likely Ms. Holmes for Mr. Markowitz’s behaviors, and either do “nothing,” or charge her with “failure to protect”—as if she has any capacity to change the father’s behaviors.

IMPACT ON CHILD

The child, too, exhibits indicators of exposure to domestic violence:

Type of Indicator (examples specific to child) DAX, age 2

Academically (*child not yet in school) 0/0

PAGE 6 Behaviorally: child slaps mother across the face, hard, without warning 11/22 (observed by reporter 09/24/2018) and tries to “choke” her; aggressive with other children; cries, whines; defiant, throws temper tantrums; has nightmares; uses violence to resolve conflicts with peers and mother

Emotionally: anger, rage, explosive feelings; conflicted feelings towards 6/24 parents; of and going to sleep

Developmentally: has regressed, and has an inability to communicate his 2/12 needs

Cognitively: has developed a tolerance for violence; understands that 2/20 using violence gets his needs met

Physically: failure to thrive 1/15

Socially: abusive towards mother; acts out violently; towards 7/32 peers; anxious attachment to mother (comfort breastfeeding); destroys property; explosive interpersonal behavior

The above list is extremely sobering, especially in light of Dax being a two-year-old child. The above issues are likely to become more severe as Dax continues to be deprived the daily connection of his primary attachment parent. Without immediate intervention to reverse this disturbing trend, Dax will likely grow up to be a very troubled, dysfunctional young boy and man. His capacity as a wholly functioning, emotionally healthy and productive citizen will be negatively impacted. He will likely demonstrate truant, delinquent or criminal behaviors, and will have a high likelihood of being diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, ODD, or other disorder. His future looks grim, especially, while he mirrors and mimics his father’s attitudes and actions towards his mother.

Dax’s Adverse Childhood Experiences (A.C.E.) Score is at best a two, and at worst a six, meaning he will likely suffer life-long emotional, relational and physical consequences due to trauma. He is at great risk to require ongoing medical and mental health support, well into his adult life, for issues such as substance use, mental illness, and chronic disease—all related to his continuous exposure to a perpetrator of domestic abuse. He will also be at increased risk (6 times greater than a child not exposed to abuse) for committing suicide.

Mr. Markowitz’ court filings and behaviors with community professionals demonstrate that he intends to completely strip Ms. Holmes of her position of mother to Dax (as evidenced by the fact that he will not permit her access to school documents, or communicate important medical issues to her in Dax’s interest—or allow medical providers to do so). It is important to note that he engages in “counter-parenting,” meaning that he is willing to harm his child, or parent in harmful

PAGE 7 ways, if it means that he can further hurt Ms. Holmes. Willfully making Dax collateral damage in his campaign to remove his mother is not in Dax’s best interests.

SERVICE ELIGIBILITY

On the basis of the above information, it is accurate to classify Ms. Holmes as a victim/survivor of domestic violence (intimate partner violence). Ms. Holmes requires assistance from legal professionals, and will be referred to domestic violence services local to her, both in her home location and within the court’s jurisdiction, in order to increase her chances of accessing necessary legal supports. Unless the community systems change their responses to this family, the outlook for them, collectively and individually, is poor. Steps need to be taken immediately to restore Ms. Holmes as Dax’s primary care parent (she is already the primary attachment parent), give her sole legal decision-making, and put Mr. Markowitz under supervised time with Dax until he can get his hostility towards the mother under control and stop utilizing Dax to punish her, if this child is to have a better future.

It is anticipated that the courts will be more interested in preserving the father’s right to access his property (the child, Dax) than it will be in ensuring that Dax has a happy, healthy and functional future. This will not be without consequence, either for Dax or the community around him.

Extensive training is urgently needed by all systems that engage with this family. Their complete lack of understanding of domestic and family violence means that multiple families within the greater Windham County of Connecticut are at great risk for ongoing harm by domestic violence perpetrators because of inadequate system response.

Submitted: October 17, 2018

Kathy Jones Family Violence Response, Intervention and Prevention Specialist DVSur5r Network, PO Box 604, Plaistow, NH 03865 978.378.0611 [email protected] www.dvsur5r.com

This report is the property of Elizabeth Holmes.

PAGE 8