Module 4 “Specializing” — Lesson 30 · Reading time approx. 12 min
A genogram is never more important than the safety of the person sitting in front of it. This lesson describes when genogram work fails in cases of domestic violence, how it can be made safe when it does take place — and why the question “Who might see this sheet later?” comes before every other question.
The Guiding Principle
Systemic methods thrive on making connections visible. With domestic violence, that is exactly what can become dangerous. A sheet of paper with names, relationship lines, and notes is a document — and documents get read, copied, filed, submitted in proceedings, and sometimes found by people they were never meant for.
For this reason, one principle governs this lesson above everything else: safety before completeness. Not as a slogan, but as a decision rule for every single step — from whether to draw anything at all, to where the finished sheet ends up. Wherever these two goals come into conflict, safety wins. Always.
This does not mean that genogram work is fundamentally wrong in cases of domestic violence. It can make resources visible that get lost in an acute conversation. But it is never the purpose of the encounter — it remains a means, and one that must also be possible to set aside.
A Brief Check Before the First Line
Before a pen is even picked up, a brief, quiet self-check is worthwhile: Is the person safe right now, here and today? Does no one know about this conversation who should not know about it? Can the affected person interrupt the setting at any time without having to explain why?
These questions can be answered within seconds, and they decide whether genogram work is even an option on this particular day. They do not replace a thorough risk assessment, as many institutions require anyway — they come before it, as a first, quick filter.
When Genogram Work Does Not Take Place
There are situations in which the correct professional decision is: not today, and perhaps not for a while.
Acute danger. When a person is sitting in conversation immediately before or after an incident of violence, they need safety, orientation, and, where necessary, protective measures — not a worksheet. Genogram work requires a minimum of calm that is not present in an acute crisis. Anyone who insists on structured data collection in this phase confuses fidelity to the method with care for the person.
The person who commits the violence is part of the setting. If they are in the same room, audible from the next room, or able to join by video, everything that is said and drawn changes. An affected person cannot report freely under these conditions — every piece of information carries the risk of later being noticed and punished.
Joint genogram work by the affected person and the person who commits the violence. A clear professional position is worth taking here, because the temptation toward an apparently neutral couple session is real: wherever an existing dynamic of violence exists within the system, no joint genogram work between the affected person and the person who commits the violence takes place. A jointly created picture suggests symmetry between two positions that are not symmetrical. It can pressure the affected person into concessions of tone, out of concern about the other person's reaction in the room. And it hands the person who commits the violence information — about the affected person's support system, protective contacts, escape routes — that they would not otherwise have.
This is not a statement against couple or family settings in general. It is a statement against joint data collection specifically when violence exists, or is reasonably suspected, between those involved. The professional clarification of this question belongs at the beginning of the process, not at its margin.
In all three cases, “not now” is a complete, professional answer. It does not need to be disguised by an evasive maneuver — it may be stated openly.
How to Record Violence, When You Do
The McGoldrick standard has its own notation for abuse and violence in relationship lines — usually a zigzag line between the affected positions, alongside the symbols for conflict or estrangement. Professionally, this is a sensible notation. It makes visible what would otherwise disappear into running text.
But any written record of violence is first a safety question, and only then a notation question. Before a symbol goes onto the sheet, this question needs to be settled: Who might see this document later?
This is not a rhetorical question. Case files are disclosed under rights of file access. Court proceedings — custody, contact, criminal trials — can request documents that were originally created for an entirely different purpose. In some constellations, family members, including the person who commits the violence, also have a legally recognized interest in inspection. A genogram that was marked with an unambiguous symbol for violence during a confidential counseling conversation can, by this route, end up in the hands of exactly the person the affected person was meant to be protected from.
This consideration is not a reason to conceal violence as a matter of principle. It is a reason to choose the form of documentation deliberately — depending on where the sheet ends up and who could access it in a worst-case scenario.
Practical Alternatives
Three approaches have proven useful, depending on context:
Neutral codes instead of unambiguous symbols. Instead of the standard zigzag line for violence, use an abbreviation known only to the documenting practitioner (and, within an agreed framework, to the client), with its meaning kept separately from the genogram — for instance in a separately, more securely protected legend. A glance at the genogram alone then reveals nothing.
Separate documentation. The genogram stays at the structural level — who belongs to the system, who is positioned where, which relationships exist. The information about violence itself is documented in a separately maintained, more tightly protected note, subject to its own access rules. Two documents instead of one mean two levels of protection instead of a single one that would have to cover both kinds of information.
Deliberate omission with a private memory note. In some settings, the most sustainable solution is not to include the information in the genogram at all — but only to note for oneself, outside the file, that something was deliberately not documented at this point, and why. That may look incomplete. It is. But a deliberately incomplete document is more honest and safer than one that carries sensitive information without anyone having thought through how to protect it.
Which approach fits depends on the setting — on the institution's record-keeping, on the affected person's need for safety, on the likelihood of later proceedings. Wherever possible, the decision belongs in discussion with the affected person: they know their own risk situation better than any outside practitioner.
This includes a very practical question that is easily overlooked: what happens to the sheet if the person wants to take it home — for instance, to keep working on it? A genogram kept in a home shared with the person who commits the violence, or to which they have access, is not a safe place to store it, even if it is coded or incomplete. This question belongs settled before the person leaves the room, not afterward.
What the Genogram Can Contribute
For all the caution required: the genogram is not only a risk. It can also contribute something that easily gets lost in an acute conversation.
Making resources and protective contacts visible. Someone sitting in a crisis often sees mainly what is missing or threatened. A genogram can direct attention to relationships that carry weight — the sister who is always reachable, the neighbor whose home offers a place to stay, the colleague who has already helped once before. These people often already exist in the system; in the moment of crisis, they simply are not being thought of. Made visible, they become a concrete option for action.
Placing violence in one's own family history — without reversing blame. Some affected people also carry experiences of violence from their own childhood. This can help explain why certain patterns — such as remaining in a dangerous relationship — feel obvious, almost self-evident, to the person. The order matters here: this placement serves to understand the current situation, not to explain or excuse the behavior of the person who commits the violence. Responsibility for violence lies with the person who commits it — regardless of what lies in the affected person's own history.
Not losing sight of children in the system. Where children are part of the household, the genogram makes them visible, even when they are not the focus of the conversation. This can prompt a separate look at their situation — regardless of whether they are directly affected themselves or witness the violence between the adults. The safety principle applies here too: children are documented in the genogram with the same restraint as the affected adult, not with less.
Cross-Generational Patterns — With the Greatest Caution
Genogram work naturally asks across generations. With violence, this is a field that calls for particular caution, because a certain simplification is tempting and nonetheless wrong: the assumption that violence is automatically “inherited” — that whoever experienced violence as a child will themselves become violent later.
Treating this continuity thesis as an automatism is professionally untenable. The majority of people who experienced violence as children do not themselves become violent in adulthood. Anyone who assumes the opposite does two things wrong at once: they relieve the person who commits violence of their current responsibility by portraying their behavior as biographically predetermined. And they burden people with experiences of violence in their own past with a suspicion that most of them never fulfill.
What a genogram can achieve instead: making patterns in a family visible without condensing them into predictions. That violence occurred across several generations of a family is an observable fact and can be useful in conversation — as an occasion to ask what could change in this generation, not as a prediction of what will inevitably happen. The practitioner carries a particular duty of care in how this is phrased: “In this family, this has occurred across several generations” is a different statement from “This will continue” — and only the first is professionally sound.
Hypothetical case example: At a counseling center, a client reports that both his father and his grandfather were violent toward their partners. He himself fears becoming “just the same” in conflict situations. In the genogram, the pattern across three generations becomes visible — but the counselor also makes clear that this history is not fate, but a pattern he has already begun to break, simply by asking the question himself and seeking support. Here, the picture serves relief, not confirmation of his fear.
Legal and Organizational Framework
Three points deserve brief mention, without this lesson being able or intended to replace legal advice.
Duty of confidentiality. Most practitioners in the psychosocial field are bound by a professional duty of confidentiality that also applies to genogram notes on domestic violence. It protects the affected person — but does not rule out exceptions, for instance in cases of acute danger to third parties, particularly children. Exactly where this boundary lies depends on the institution and the applicable legal system, and should be clarified in advance with collegial or legal consultation where in doubt.
Documentation obligations. Many institutions are required to document, regardless of how sensitive the content is. This obligation does not contradict this lesson's safety principle — it merely shifts the question from “whether to document” to “how and where to document,” which is exactly what the alternatives above are meant for.
The support system. Genogram work does not replace access to specialized help. Where acute danger exists, referral to the existing support system belongs at the beginning of the conversation, not at its end.
Summary
Genogram work with domestic violence does not begin with the question of how to record violence most accurately. It begins with the question of whether and when to draw at all — and ends with the question of who will eventually hold the finished sheet.
In between lies a great deal of professional skill: a feel for when an acute crisis rules out any data collection, a clear stance against joint sessions where a dynamic of violence exists, care in notation, and restraint toward any pattern that sounds like an automatism. Anyone who keeps to this order uses the genogram for what it is meant to be — a tool that serves the safety of the person, not their case file.
If you or someone you are working with is affected by domestic violence: contact your national domestic violence helpline — most countries operate a free, around-the-clock service, and local counseling centers can provide the number. Domestic violence can affect people of any gender; specialized counseling services also exist for male and non-binary survivors, and local counseling centers can refer to them.