Partnered with a Survivor: David Mandel and Ruth Reymundo Mandel
These podcasts are a reflection of Ruth & David’s ongoing conversations, which are both intimate and professional and touch on complex topics like how systems fail victims and children, how victims experience those systems, and how children are impacted by those failures. Their discussions delve into how society views masculinity and violence and how intersectionalities such as cultural beliefs, religious beliefs and unique vulnerabilities impact how we respond to abuse and violence. These far-ranging discussions offer an insider look into how we navigate the world as professionals, as parents and as partners. During these podcasts, David & Ruth challenge the notions that keep all of us from moving forward collectively as systems, as cultures and as families into safety, nurturance and healing. Note: Some of the topics discussed in the episodes are deeply personal and sensitive, which may be difficult for some people. We occasionally use mature language. We often use gender pronouns like “he” when discussing perpetrators and “she” for victims. While both men and women can be abusive and controlling, and domestic abuse happens in straight and same-sex relationships, the most common situation when it comes to coercive control is a male perpetrator and a female victim. Men's abuse toward women is more closely associated with physical injury, fear and control. Similarly, very different expectations of men and women as parents and the focus of Safe & Together on children in the context of domestic abuse make it impossible to make generic references to gender when it comes to parenting. The Model, through its behavioral focus on patterns of behavior, is useful in identifying and responding to abuse in all situations, including same-sex couples and women's use of violence. We think our listeners are sophisticated enough to understand these distinctions.
Have an idea for a podcast? Tell about it here: https://share.hsforms.com/1l329DGB1TH6AFndCFfB7aA3a1w1
Partnered with a Survivor: David Mandel and Ruth Reymundo Mandel
Season 6 Episode 1: "Just Leave": Examining Displacement-Based Responses to Domestic Violence
In this thought-provoking first episode of 2025, David and Ruth explore how displacement-based responses to domestic violence reflect and reinforce gender double standards while often creating additional vulnerabilities for survivors and their children. Recording from the Azores, they examine how the expectation that victims must leave their homes to find safety places unfair burdens on survivors while failing to hold perpetrators accountable.
Key discussion points include:
- How displacement-based responses arose historically when women had limited legal and economic rights
- Why forcing survivors to leave their homes, financial assets, and support networks creates new vulnerabilities
- How displacement can enable post-separation coercive control and increase risks to children
- The limitations of defining "safety" only in terms of immediate physical danger or lethality
- Why systems need to expand their definition of safety to include stability, wellbeing, and survivor autonomy
- How child protection and other systems can inadvertently punish survivors who don't leave while failing to hold perpetrators accountable for creating unsafe conditions
David and Ruth discuss concrete ways to move beyond displacement-based practices, including:
- Centering survivor choice, autonomy and definitions of safety/wellbeing
- Holding perpetrators accountable for how their behavior disrupts family stability
- Creating a fuller range of intervention options beyond emergency shelter
- Reframing "failure to protect" to focus on perpetrators' choices that endanger children
Check out these related episodes
Season 5 Episode 12: Challenging the Gospel of Sacrifice: Faith, Domestic Abuse, and Institutional Transformation
Season 5 Episode 9: Partnering vs. Practicing: The Hidden Bias in Professional Crisis Work
Season 5 Episode 8: The Myth of the Domestic Violence Incident
Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator’s Pattern: A Practitioner’s Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model’s critical concepts and principles to their current case load in real
Check out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence."
Visit the Safe & Together Institute website
Start taking Safe & Together Institute courses
Check out Safe & Together Institute upcoming events
And we're back, and we're back, hello there.
David Mandel:Hi there, how are you? I'm good. Welcome to our first episode of 2025 of Partner with a Survivor, and I'm David Mandel.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:And I'm Ruth Ramunda Mandel.
David Mandel:And we are joining you from where.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:We are joining you from the island of San Miguel in the Azores and I'm going to do a little land acknowledgement.
David Mandel:Great.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:So I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land, who we do not know who they are, because when the Portuguese came they said there was nobody here. But my family has lived on these islands for as long as the records were kept.
David Mandel:Like 500 years Over. Okay, over 500 years, yeah.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:And we are on volcanic island soil out in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
David Mandel:Sitting between the European and the North American geological regions. So we're like in liminal space. Yes, in liminal space.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Truly liminal space. And it is a gorgeous day. It is sunny, it is almost neon green outside because of the nutrients and the seawater that the island provides all of us, and you may be able to hear the wind, which has a true presence on this island, and the birds. So we are joining you from my father's family's volcanic island lands and it's so good to be here.
David Mandel:It is Okay. So, in that vein, felice Anonovo, happy New Year, yes, okay to everyone wherever you are, nice, portuguese. Good for Felice Anonovo, do you like that?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I hope all of our Portuguese listeners appreciate that David and I are stumbling through learning Portuguese, which I did not learn as a child growing up in an institution in California because I was not connected to my Azorean family, but I did learn how to speak Spanish, which breaks your brain for Portuguese is my opinion. Yeah, it's hard to move between one and the other it really does.
David Mandel:So we've been talking behind the scenes, you and I, about this.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:We talk behind the scenes all the time we do.
David Mandel:We do. We do talk all the time. We live together, work together, raise children together. But we've been talking behind the scenes about partnering and ideas about responsive systems and the big thing, that kind of rose to the top that you've been talking to me a lot about, is sort of talking to you or at you a lot about with me with me. It's been mostly a conversation. I don't know you, you know sometimes I just vent, but yes, that's okay too.
David Mandel:Um, and you've been you've been talking about displacement based responses. Yeah, and use that word displacement, I think I want to center that word and sort of the kind of inherent unfairness. Gender, double standards and the gender double standards embedded in this idea that well, why don't you explain it? Why don't you talk?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:about it.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I fully recognize and I want to acknowledge the need for displacement-based responses for physical safety, and there is a real need to have places for victims of domestic abuse, particularly women and children, where they can be safe from a perpetrator. But the reason that that necessity arises is fundamentally out of our system of gender double standards, in a context where women did not have the ability to own access and have access to financial and housing and property resources. And so, once women started to gain ownership and not be viewed simply as wards of men or property of men or under the care of men, that we then were operating in a system that was demanding us to abandon access to our housing, to our education, to our financial assets, to our safety networks, to our resources, in order for us to find physical safety from a person who is choosing or using criminal violence. It's the only crime where we focus on the victim and we force them to be displaced. And now, in a context where, in certain cultures, women have more ownership of property, of financial assets they're equal co-owners, they're co-responsible for those assets.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:We know that displacement-based responses cause a tremendous amount of vulnerability. Their primary drivers domestic violence and the assumption that victims must leave their own homes is a primary driver of unhousedness, and unhousedness is a crisis in every single country that we are operating in and, in fact, many victims cannot get refuge spaces because there is a lack of housing. So continuing to operate under a gender double standard assumption, where women are not co-owners of property, do not have access to financial bank resources, and forcing them to abandon their homes and assets in order to find physical safety from a person who is using criminal violence, who should be addressed by the law and by every single system, is not okay. It's dangerous, it causes tremendous vulnerability. It does not guard or safeguard against post-separation coercive control. It is extremely time limited.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:It is displacement based victims to delay trying to find interventions because the only way that they see forward is leaving their homes that they worked hard for, leaving their financial and bank assets, and we know that once a victim leaves, that, that pressure actually increases with coercive control and oftentimes that perpetrator then takes those assets those assets which are co-owned and leverages them, uses them, wastes them, robs their children of those resources in order to continue their post-separation control and abuse in financial ways, in legal ways, in housed ways, by controlling housing or getting them kicked out of housing or having people evicted. So this is not a system that would have arose had men been the primary victims of domestic abuse, with their male privilege. We would have said what, what crazy, crazy to ask a man to lose his rights, to lose access to his financial assets, to leave their hard-earned home.
David Mandel:Well, man's a man's home is his castle.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Ah, there we go. That's exactly it.
David Mandel:A man's home is his castle kind of summarizes a lot of that for me.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:And women just live in it.
David Mandel:Well, I think you really I mean to me I've got so many thoughts. I love the way your brain works. I always want people to. You can't see us, but just you know, the way you put things together and the way you think about things is always exciting for me and challenging sometimes, which is okay, you know. But I love the way you're connecting the dots here, you know. One of the things I'm thinking about is, you know, the refuge movement, which is really the seeds of this idea that leaving is the answer. You know.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Well, you know, I want to give a real nod to the refuge yeah, yeah you know I don't talk a lot about it, but some of on my mother's side, some of my people, are very well-known abolitionists and they ran the underground railroad and it's not similar to this, because this is not chattel slavery like. I just want to say that up front. So I understand that in extreme conditions the need for displacement can be very real, but by making that a primary quote, unquote intervention strategy, we're actually destabilizing people further.
David Mandel:Well, the thing you know, the connection I make is one is that that refuge movement, that crisis response movement arose and that's all you're talking about. Women didn't have credit cards.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:It was a context, it was contextual, and there's some places that are still like that. That's right. That's right.
David Mandel:And what's happened is and my take on this has been that we often look at a survivor who goes to refuge or leaves a relationship. We see her as taking the necessary steps to protect herself and her kids, and then often criticize her if she doesn't right.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Worse than that. Worse than that, we take her children. If she doesn't, that's right. If somebody gets hurt by the perpetrator, we charge her double the crime.
David Mandel:Or she ends up in a house, she goes to jail two times longer, or she ends up in.
David Mandel:She goes to jail two times longer, or she ends up in an unhoused situation, she may lose her kids. But I think we forget and this is what, and even for me I've had to really question myself and kind of land in saying wait a second. We can see refuges as necessary evils. We can see refuges as important steps to somebody getting away from violence, if that's what they need and that's important. And there is somebody who is forcing that and then a system that is in many cases actually enabling that or expecting that of her.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Okay, so I'm going to give you an example, and not holding him accountable for that, I'm going to give you an example anonymized.
David Mandel:Okay.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Somebody recently contacted me who is a frontline practitioner who works with domestic violence victims and child protection and had talked about how frustrated they were Because, as a victim survivor they knew that what the organization they were working for was asking was wrong, Right. And they were frustrated because they had these cases that they needed to work through and there was their supervisor and manager saying pressure her to leave and if she doesn't leave, do domestic abuse training where she understands how bad domestic abuse is for her and her kids. That was their solution and this person that was the magic.
David Mandel:I write about that in my book. I write about the magic of insight. The magic of insight. If we could just make her aware, she'll do the right thing.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I never knew. So she was very frustrated as a worker, as a lived experience person. She was feeling that she was doing destructive things Because it is destructive, and so she started to engage in the training, particularly around working with men as parents, and she wrote and she said thank you so much. I felt like I had no direction, no skills, no actual concrete training from my organization beyond. Go tell the survivor how bad domestic abuse is for her and I was doing things that was pressurizing her and she was starting to not you know whatever, just it's not effective.
David Mandel:Well, and you told me about this, which is, this was a survivor who wanted, wanted and this, to me, is really important, I know it's important to you too wanted to stay, wanted to stay, yes, wants to do this, and wanted and I think even wanted to be in the relationship that wanted to stay, wanted to stay and wanted and I think even wanted to be in the relationship, but wanted to be better, and I think this is for me.
David Mandel:It's the autonomy thing, the the autonomy part, which is, um, that survivors have the right to make a decision, to say you know, this is my partner, I deserve to be safe, I want to, I want to see if this can continue, and the message that I remember that was being told was we don't work with perpetrators. You've got to get her to leave and this is the message I've been hearing for you know for different systems.
David Mandel:And again, remember, this is layered because that's coming from a domestic abuse service. But that message is often picked up by a child protection service or a family court service, where in the child protection system that survivor who won't leave a seat into failure to protect, or in the family court system, where they take it as well. Once you're out, the issue's over. It's historic, irrelevant to the family matter.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Well, it's even worse than that. In the family court, people who have fled to refuge have been charged with parental alienation by their perpetrators. Okay Right, let's just be super clear Right, that's right. Fleeing is not necessarily safe.
David Mandel:That's right.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Now, in a system which defines safety as mere immediate lethality.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Right maybe we've contrived a very temporary type of safety, but to me, safety is not just about if I'm dead or not and if that's the way that most professionals view safety. We have a bigger conversation that we need to have Right, Because it is unsafe for children and victim survivors to be unhoused. We know this. It is unsafe for children and victim survivors to lack financial resources to feed themselves to feed themselves. Our definition of safety as being merely whether or not a perpetrator is immediately going to murder somebody is a poor definition of safety, which comes about in a system that's incident-based right and that doesn't have any other strategies for assisting people or focusing on the person who's choosing harm so there's power in my mind to this idea of referring to this as displacement-based strategies or policies, because it helps label it, I think, in some ways as the disruptive nature of it.
David Mandel:I guess is thinking about the disruptive nature of it. It's disrupting Right we made it very friendly, just leave. Oh just leave.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:It sounds like you're going on vacation, just leave. What refugees, refugees?
David Mandel:refugees right, we look at refugees as being victims of a circumstance or situation war. Right, you know natural disasters, you know um uh, famine, whatever. People become refugees from their own homes yes and they, they. In my limited understanding, I really haven't thought about this before, but as refugees they hold a right of return that you know in theory.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:In theory. In theory okay.
David Mandel:But I think in some sense again, we are talking about the framework. I know you and I had this discussion behind the scenes about what is practice and what's the theory Right. But I think the theory is important because the theory is the language and the language is is kind of helps shape out what is legitimate and what's not. And I think the language of refugees really brings with it as failed as the response globally is to refugees, let's kind of just say that is this idea that these people have the right to that homeland, to that place they came from, from where they started. That is, even as failure is kind of at the center of some international tensions right.
David Mandel:So I think it's this idea that using displacement language builds in this sort of tension, which is saying wait a second, I've been displaced.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Yeah.
David Mandel:When we make it sound like, oh, we've created safety for you.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:No, I'm so sorry. We've created safety for you. No, by giving you this refuge, right, but I think that's where thank you for creating a space where I wasn't immediately going to die, but that is not actually creating safety and we know with and we know with refugees.
David Mandel:I guess kind of to kind of go with this, this kind of analogy or this kind of which is refugees lose connection to land, right to the, the places that hold their traditions and their customs. They may bring some of that with them, obviously, food and spirituality, but they may to sacred places.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Access to their financial resources, their financial resources. Their homes are off and their land is off, and that's right.
David Mandel:All these things and we know this, and I think the same things can be said about many survivors, which is that in them moving and it's not just say First Nation people who have a strong connection to land, but anybody who's embedded in community homes, kids who like their rooms, who are familiar or comforted by a room or a neighborhood, or friends down the street or a teacher they love, or are known by the doctors I mean, all these things are the cost of displacement-based practices which, again, might be necessary in some circumstances but shouldn't be held up as, oh look, we've created safety for you.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:They should not be held up as the measure of best practice. This is the worst case scenario. This should be the worst case scenario. This should not be. The bar that we are shooting for Is removal of people from their homes because we won't, we refuse to deal with the person who's causing the problem.
David Mandel:Right, so this is the gender bias piece you're talking about, which is it covers up and makes it harder, and this is part of what the model talks about To deal with the perpetrator, the perpetrator. It makes their responsibility harder to pin down, because their behavior is creating the disruption in combination with our failure to find ways to address them.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:If, in my opinion as a lived experience expert, if a perpetrator causes children and their partner to be unhoused, they should be charged with failure to protect their children. Right, they should be charged, as parents, with endangering their children. If a parent is so violent and dysfunctional that they cause instability in the family, that they unhouse their own family, that they cause poverty to the point where children are starving, they should be charged with failure to protect.
David Mandel:That's right. So this is what we try to do with the multiple pathways to harm framework in the model. So one of the things to pivot, know to pivot. So we kind of naming this um displacement idea right. I I think one of the ways that I and I'm actually working on a um, uh linkedin article about this right now, which is about about sort of what does it mean to really shift the conversation. You were having a you and I were having a discussion about the word safety and how do you change the meaning, and I think we're on the same page. Well, I think safety means different things to different systems.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I mean in child protection safety means one thing, in law enforcement safety means another. I don't even think law enforcement is more concerned about just the minutia of the legality of the law rather than safety. I think people who operate under the assumption more concerned about just the minutiae of the legality of the law rather than safety Right. I think people who operate under the assumption that law enforcement officers are trying to keep people safe don't understand how the law works.
David Mandel:No, and I think a lot of people would agree with you, because you have to have something have happened to you already in many cases that's correct. So I was talking about and thinking about this child protection expert who said something that stuck with me for 25 years and he said child protection is getting it wrong when they're talking about abuse and neglect of children by centering physical safety as the driver of their policies and their services and their tools and everything else they said. This person said we should be centering well-being.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I don't, I don't. Actually, I think that when you say child protection is focused as centering physical safety, yes you're, that definition of physical safety is an extremely narrow definition that really truly doesn't include what most people would consider physical safety. It really truly is about immediate lethality period.
David Mandel:Yeah, an absence of physical violence right now. And I mean, and really you know, look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, safety is like the second thing after breathing, but really breathing. When you talk about physical safety, strangulation, other stuff, they're actually right there together. What he was saying that I really hold on to I think that may offer some of the way forward with this is that if you center well-being, physical safety is a given in the sense of you have to address it but, you actually prioritize people thriving, not just surviving.
David Mandel:You prioritize stability, safety, emotional connection, and you can't have emotional connection if you're in danger, if you're busy figuring out how to stay safe physically in the moment right If you're in crisis mode. And his thought was if you center your policy and your response system around well-being and saying children deserve to thrive, and then you're going to kind of line up everything the right way and I think with the shift to kind of focus on coercive control, the time is ripe, because coercive control tells time is ripe yeah, because course control tells us we we shouldn't just be focused about physical injury or danger of lethality, but entrapment and control over social.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:I gotta I gotta tell you that when you talk about this, though I agree with you what I see in my head is like a train conductor who has a system and a track that they need to go down, saying, yeah, that's great man, but how do we do it? Because the whole system has been set up in a really specific way to very much focus only on lethality. And when you say well-being and quality of life and all that stuff, a lot of us agree with you. But ultimately, at the end of the day, when you get into some of these huge systems, these huge health social care systems, and they're very much focused on efficiency, that's where we start to have a divergence of practice.
David Mandel:So this is a big conversation, and we discussed keeping our episodes a little bit shorter.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:We're going to try, we're going to try.
David Mandel:We'll see how we do. So let me see if I can land this concept and land this, because I'd really like for people who are in, for example. We're going to try, we're going to try.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:We'll see how we do. So let me see if I can land this concept and land this. Maybe this Because I would, no, because I'd really like for people who are in, for example, child protection systems, which are really specific law enforcement, family law, to really understand. I don't believe that debating whether or not safety means just immediate physical lethality or demise is a good way for us to concretize this type of practice.
David Mandel:I agree with you, but I think I think one of the ways to concretize it in my mind is that we really approach safety, these situations, with a really deep listening and partnering mentality. I think systems often come at these situations with how do we triage risk of severe violence and lethality and that's what's built into tools.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Add one more thing to that.
David Mandel:Okay.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:How do we mitigate risk and lethality so that we reduce our liability if we're engaged with this family and potentially somebody might die?
David Mandel:Yes, I mean, I love cranky survivors who are being like. Let's name this driving force of reducing liability, and I agree with you about that. I think that's many decisions are made with a CYA mentality, both at the individual level but also at the system level, policy level as well. Yeah, but what I want to say is, what would it look like to concretize this the way you're saying it, if we really valued what survivors say is important to them?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:To their safety and well-being.
David Mandel:To their safety and well-being and the well-being and safety of their kids. Which could be about? I just want my kids to finish this year up in high school.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:At their school.
David Mandel:At their school and go to university. Yeah, that's what's important to me right now. I've been living with this for 15 years. You know you've got involved as a professional. This is your crisis, not mine. You know you've got involved as a professional. This is your crisis, not mine. My crisis quote unquote is my objective is to get my kid launched into the world.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Safely.
David Mandel:Safely, with a chance that they'll have a successful life. What can you do for me to help me and, yeah, help me be as physically safe as possible, help me make my situation better and better to me looks like maybe my physical safety and my kid getting to university. What can you do for me that gives me both those things? Don't make me choose between the two. And I think that's a concretization of that in my mind. At least one possible way is are we really listening and valuing survivors choice making autonomy prior to their prioritization, their way of understanding well-being and safety, and are we listening to that and this goes to children survivors as well, but but anyway, I I think it's just sort of an it's, it's one concrete way keep going back to that word to kind of respond to well, what do we do instead of displacement-based practice?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Right.
David Mandel:Okay, so that's my thought about what we can do differently, right?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:well, one of my thoughts about what we can do differently and I'm going to use child protection as an example because they're the largest in my mind conflict with real, true well-being and safety for adult and child victim survivors. Once we're in that system and the system is focused on us as parents rather than focusing on the perpetrator, we are actually in greater danger in multiple ways from multiple pathways. We're in danger from the system itself removing our children. We're also in danger greatly from the perpetrator who leverages the fact that we're in child protection involved. You know contact against us.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:So one of the ways that we can really shift this is to change the way that we think about safety. To just continue to say things like if you unhous your children, you are creating unsafety. And I understand that we have to operate as practitioners with very specific mandates. Right, that say, you know if a child dies, that we have to review our practices and understand what went wrong from the system's standpoint. Right, what did we not do? What could we have done?
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:But at the same time, if you're setting such a low bar for safety, you are missing so much information about the patterns that are causing that unsafety. You are not engaging in conversation, assessment, assessment, assessment, basic assessment of what it is that may be causing unsafety. And we know that child protection will take our children if our perpetrator unhouses us. We know this. So many many survivors are forced to stay in their homes with a perpetrator and then, if something happens, be charged with a crime. So if we know that the way that we are operating in this space is pressurizing people into behaviors and actions which lead to unsafety, which lead to those things, we have a responsibility as practitioners, as professionals and as systems to say how can we do this better?
David Mandel:So I think, to move us to wrapping up, one of the things that you're hearing you say is let's widen and deepen our definition of safety and who we hold responsible for disrupting safety If a perpetrator creates a scenario where a kid is more vulnerable to drugs or loses housing, that kind of thing.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Or loses contact with their school.
David Mandel:That's right and I'm saying, you know, let's add in and prioritize and this is additive, these are not in opposition, you know really deepen our commitment to listening to survivors and autonomy and their choice making, and also talk more about well-being, talk more about those things.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:And create a range of options for survivors and victims of domestic abuse, from the most critical, the most urgent, where we have to offer somebody displacement-based responses, just for them to be safe.
David Mandel:Offer somebody displacement-based responses just for them to be safe, and don't judge them when they resist or they don't want to take those steps, or don't make them the problem. And I think that's where I think you and I are very much on the same page, which is, these systems make survivors the problem. When they won't leave, they'll judge them as failing to protect, they'll judge them as being in denial, and that's what we're really speaking about. So I think we did it.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Did we do it? Yeah, I think so.
David Mandel:I think it's close to just oh, it's just over. It's 31 minutes.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:It's just over.
David Mandel:We were so close. This is my challenge to myself, and we did well, I think. So you have been listening to Partner with a Survivor, and if you want to learn more about the Safer Together Institute, go to safertogetherinstitutecom. If you want to take any of our e-courses, go to academysafertogetherinstitutecom. If you want to, I reference my book.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Go to amazoncom, amazoncom.
David Mandel:And the book is called Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignore Fathers how to Transform the Way we Keep Children Safe from Domestic Violence and we are out.
Ruth Reymundo Mandel:Feliz Ano Novo, thank you.