Marcus, 34: A Mandated Group Member, a Missed Session, and a Partner Who Calls
You facilitate a 12-week court-mandated anger management group at a nonprofit. Marcus, 34, was ordered to attend after a domestic violence conviction involving his partner. He has missed 2 of the first 4 sessions and arrives 15 to 20 minutes late when he comes. In group he describes how 'she provokes me' and 'the system is rigged.' Two members told you privately they no longer feel safe talking around him. Yesterday his partner left a voicemail asking whether he is 'actually showing up' and saying she is afraid of what he will do when he finds out she called. Your agency's contract with the court requires you to report attendance.
1. How do you handle the partner's voicemail-what do you say, and what do you not do?
Read the worked answer
This is the highest-risk decision in the case, and the wrong move is the intuitive one: telling Marcus that his partner called.
What you may not do: confirm attendance, confirm he is a client, or relay anything he has said in group. She is not your client and has no release. And you must not use her call to confront him, because doing so may directly precipitate the danger she is describing. That is the error that gets people hurt.
What you should do: return the call. Listening to a concerned third party is not a confidentiality breach. In that call:
- Do not confirm or deny his attendance.
- Do listen, and assess her immediate danger: current threats, weapons access, escalation pattern, whether she has somewhere safe to go tonight.
- Give her the domestic violence advocacy resources directly-local program, national hotline-and safety-plan with her as her own agent, not as an extension of his treatment.
- Do not advise her whether to stay or leave; directive advice about leaving is both clinically and literally dangerous.
- Tell her, honestly, which of her questions you cannot answer and why.
Duty to warn/protect: this varies by jurisdiction and by whether the threat is specific and identifiable. Do not guess from memory. Consult your supervisor and, if the agency has one, legal counsel the same day, and document that consultation.
One more thing to notice: she asked whether he is 'actually showing up.' That question implies she is monitoring his compliance, which is its own coercion dynamic and worth exploring with her.
2. What do you do about the missed sessions and lateness, given your court reporting obligation?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two functions, then be transparent about both.
The reporting function is administrative and factual: sessions attended, dates, arrival times. Report accurately. Do not editorialize, do not use the report as a threat ('you'll go back to jail if you miss another'), and do not withhold a report to preserve the therapeutic alliance. Using a court report as leverage is coercive and will not survive review.
The clinical function requires you to find out why he is late. In mandated groups the ordinary causes are concrete: a shift schedule, no transportation, childcare, a parole curfew. If it is logistical, a schedule shift or a second group section may convert a 'noncompliant' client into a compliant one. If it is resistance, name it without hostility.
You should also question the referral itself. Marcus describes being provoked and frames the system as rigged-that is a victim-stance presentation that a general anger management group is not designed to treat. A domestic violence intervention program using a structured curriculum that addresses power and control is the indicated modality for a DV conviction, and 'anger management' is a known mismatch. Documenting that you raised-in writing-a modality concern with the court or the referring agency is both good practice and protective of the partner.
Do not let attendance become the whole conversation; compliance is not the outcome anyone is actually trying to buy.
3. Two group members say they don't feel safe talking around him. How do you address the group, and what is your threshold for removing him?
Read the worked answer
The group first. Two quiet disclosures mean a larger number are simply not telling you. Do not identify the two. Restate norms concretely, not as abstractions: no detailed accounts of a partner's behavior; speak in the first person about your own choices ('what I did,' not 'what she made me do'); no interrupting or cross-talk on others' disclosures.
Then redirect him in the moment. When he describes being provoked, redirect without humiliating him: 'What did you do next? What were your options?' Humiliation in front of peers produces the retaliation you are trying to prevent.
Then check in individually with each member who spoke to you-quietly, briefly, and without making it their job to manage him.
Threshold for removal. This is a screening failure as much as a group problem: a member with an active victim-blaming stance and an open DV conviction should have been triaged before admission. Weigh the competing goods honestly-his need for intervention against the group's capacity to be a place of safety-and consult your supervisor rather than deciding alone. Removal is not the same as abandonment: refer to a DV intervention program, document the sequence of your attempts (norms, redirection, individual conversation, consultation), and notify the court factually.
Premature removal teaches the group that the facilitator cannot protect them, which silences everyone further. Keeping him past the point where the group cannot function teaches them the same thing. The work is in the sequencing, not in the choice.