Domestic Violence: Why ‘No Visible Abuse’ Doesn’t Mean You’re Safe

The narrative around domestic violence often centers on physical abuse – bruises, broken bones, visible injuries. But what happens when the danger isn’t marked by those signs? A recent Australian study published in the Journal of Family Violence highlights a disturbing reality: some of the most lethal cases of intimate partner violence are those where official systems witness very little, or nothing at all. This finding, while initially appearing reassuring – suggesting that cases flagged by police as domestic violence are less likely to end in homicide than other violent incidents – actually underscores how inconsistently domestic violence is recorded and understood, and the limitations of relying solely on reported physical harm.

The study’s nuance is critical. It doesn’t mean intimate partner violence is less dangerous. Instead, it reveals a blind spot in how we assess risk, particularly when the abuse is subtle, insidious, and doesn’t leave visible marks. The cases that escalate to murder are often characterized by coercive control, a pattern of domination that can be difficult for outsiders – and even the victim – to recognize as a prelude to lethal violence.

The Invisible Threat: Coercive Control and the Hannah Clarke Case

The 2020 murder-suicide in Brisbane, Australia, involving Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah, and Trey, serves as a harrowing example. A coroner’s inquest revealed that Rowan Baxter, Clarke’s estranged husband, was a “master of manipulation.” Despite a Domestic Violence Protection Order and contact with police and a domestic violence caseworker, Baxter’s escalating control and threats were not fully recognized as the extreme risk they posed. Clarke had even confided in a colleague that she feared Baxter would kill her, and reported being strangled – a significant predictor of future lethal violence.

The inquest concluded that the failure to prevent the tragedy stemmed from Baxter “not having been violent and [having] no relevant criminal history.” This highlights a critical flaw in current risk assessment models: they often prioritize physical violence over patterns of coercive control – monitoring, isolation, controlling behavior, and threats – which are frequently present in cases that end in homicide. As the inquest determined, Baxter’s murderous plans could not have been stopped by any further action from police or service providers.

Beyond Physical Violence: The Brendan Banfield Case

The case of Christine Banfield, murdered in Herndon, Virginia, in 2023, presents a different, equally chilling scenario. Her husband, Brendan Banfield, a former IRS criminal investigation agent, meticulously planned her murder to avoid a financially devastating divorce. He created a fake profile on a fetish website, lured a stranger to their home, and staged the scene to resemble a home invasion. Banfield was convicted of aggravated murder on February 2, 2026. ABC News covered the details of the elaborate scheme.

Unlike the Clarke case, Banfield’s violence wasn’t rooted in possessiveness or rage. It was a cold, calculated decision driven by financial motives. Banfield’s danger was invisible, not because of a lack of visible abuse, but because it existed entirely within a web of deception and planning. Banfield was not reported to have been violent towards his wife, and she did not appear to fear for her life. This case underscores that intimate partner homicide isn’t always preceded by escalating conflict or visible signs of abuse.

What the Research Reveals About Risk Factors

Jacquelyn Campbell’s landmark study of intimate partner femicide, which informed the development of the Danger Assessment tool, found that roughly 80% of women killed by their intimate partners had experienced prior physical abuse or stalking. The study, published in 1995, remains a foundational piece of research in the field. However, it likewise identified key factors that distinguish women who are killed from those who survive abuse: access to firearms and estrangement from a controlling partner. Prior strangulation, threats to kill, and forced sex were also significant predictors.

A separate study of men convicted of killing their intimate partners found that in half the cases, no physical or sexual assaults had been reported in the year leading up to the homicide. This reinforces the importance of recognizing coercive control and psychological domination as warning signs, even in the absence of physical violence. The research highlights that the absence of reported physical violence does not equate to safety.

The Danger Assessment: A Tool with Limitations

The Danger Assessment was designed to address the limitations of relying solely on police calls and reported physical violence. It assesses factors like gun access, controlling behavior, strangulation, threats, and separation – elements that predict death rather than simply generating incident reports. However, even this tool isn’t foolproof. The cases of Hannah Clarke and Christine Banfield demonstrate that even when warning signs are present, they can be missed or misinterpreted by the systems designed to protect victims.

Understanding the Different Faces of Danger

Rowan Baxter and Brendan Banfield represent two distinct types of perpetrators. Baxter’s violence stemmed from possessiveness and a refusal to accept the end of the relationship, while Banfield’s was driven by a cold calculation and a desire to avoid financial consequences. Baxter’s danger was palpable to those around Clarke, while Banfield’s remained hidden, even from his wife.

While physical violence remains a significant risk factor, the absence of such violence doesn’t guarantee safety. A partner who owns guns, exhibits controlling behavior, or responds to the possibility of loss with cold detachment warrants careful attention, even without a history of reported abuse. The warning signs of intimate partner homicide are not always loud or obvious; sometimes, they are subtle and easily overlooked.

What comes next: Recognizing the limitations of current risk assessment models is crucial. Further research is needed to develop more effective tools for identifying and responding to coercive control and other forms of non-physical abuse. Training for law enforcement, healthcare professionals, and social service providers should emphasize the importance of recognizing these subtle warning signs. Preventing intimate partner homicide requires a shift in focus from solely addressing physical violence to understanding the complex dynamics of power and control that often underlie these tragedies.