When Violence Comes from Those We Love: The Complexities of Using Self-Defence in Families with Special Needs

This week I led a thought-provoking self-defence session alongside individuals who have experienced violence from a family member. It was a conversation that challenged assumptions and highlighted the complex emotions involved when someone close to us, especially a loved one, acts out in ways that are harmful.

Ethical Dilemmas with the Use of Force

My work often involves supporting survivors of familial abuse in the case of domestic violence. In these cases, the perpetrator typically maintains control over their actions—even though substances like alcohol and drugs are sometimes cited as excuses for losing control (this is a myth – responsibility for one’s behaviour remains their own). In reality, the underlying motive for domestic abuse in all its hideous forms is the desire for power over the victim.

However, what if the family member causing harm has special needs, and their violent episodes stem from an inability to self-regulate their emotions? There is no malice, no realisation of the pain caused, and only limited control over their actions when emotionally charged.

This situation raises profound ethical questions, especially around the use of force: how much, if any, is appropriate when your own safety is at risk from a loved one?

Legally, these moments are judged by two criteria and err very much on the side of the victim: Was the use of force necessary? Was it proportionate? Yet, in practice, these questions are much harder to answer when the person in question is someone you love, someone you've cared for since infancy, and someone who never intended to hurt you in the first place.

Identifying and Minimising Triggers

In situations where the violent episode is caused by a family member with special needs, it is vital to start by identifying the potential triggers that might precede an outburst. What was the context behind the outburst - what happened in the run-up to the incident? Sometimes, the root cause is an inability to communicate needs or feelings effectively. For example, if hunger is a common trigger, you could establish routine mealtimes. Planning strategies to mitigate these triggers can reduce the likelihood of an outburst.

Secondly, what purpose does the behaviour serve? Is it a vengeful desire to hurt the victim? In which case, was it a response to a perceived hurt or frustration? Or did it occur because of sensory overload? If that is the case, how can we reduce the noise, lights or other aspects of the environment, in order to minimise the sensory overwhelm?

Thirdly, what tends to happen in a typical attack? For example, does he grab the wrists or arms? Maybe he likes to rush towards the victim first, or perhaps he will look for something to bite. The severity and type of attack will determine the level and type of response needed.

And finally, how did the individual calm down afterwards? Did he ‘snap out’ of it immediately? Or did it take some time to regulate his emotions again? Assessing this helps families determine their risk level—do they need exit strategies if the violence is sustained, or is the danger over once the immediate threat has passed?

These questions need to be fully answered because determining the "why" behind the behaviour is crucial to reducing the likelihood of it happening again. It also helps to assess where the individual is at a given point in terms of risk to others. Some families like to use a simple traffic light system to decide what response is needed. For example, a green light situation, where everything is calm, might first progress to an amber light scenario, where the individual is noticeably aggrieved or frustrated – responding at this point with a tried-and-tested technique to calm him down can avoid the situation turning red. This might be soft music, a favourite telly programme or a calm ‘escape’ room with soft lighting and textures.

Traditionally, self-defence emphasises using one's voice to deter an attacker and attract attention. However, in these circumstances, loud shouts may only escalate the behaviour. It’s worth considering whether a calm voice—or even the singing of instructions, which tunes into a different part of our brains—might be more effective in de-escalating the situation.

Practical Safety Measures

If a situation has gone to amber, it is advisable to move away from rooms containing potential weapons (such as kitchens) and objects that can be thrown. If possible, place obstacles like furniture between oneself and the individual to slow him down. Even simple measures, like moving to the other side of a table, can be effective and buy some time for the individual to calm himself down. It is also crucial to identify exits and stay near one if a quick departure becomes necessary.

Physical Self-Defence: Acceptable Techniques

It’s not always necessary to use physical strikes to disrupt an attack; if a perpetrator grabs hold of you, there are some alternative, softer techniques that can be used in place of a strike to the face.

If a hand is free, try ‘washing the face’ – meaning rub your palm all over the individual’s face (in the manner of ‘washing’). Nobody likes their face being touched in this way, and combined with the flinch mechanism we all have when an object gets close to our eyes, this might be enough to loosen the grip.

Other ideas include blowing in the individual’s face, though this and the previous technique should be considered carefully if the individual has sensory needs – this could aggravate rather than distract.

It’s possible to pinch (particularly to any pressure points that can be reached, such as the triceps, the back of thigh or the ear lobe), or use ‘knuggies’ (rubbing between two ribs with an extended knuckle) for a low-impact response that might ‘shock’ him out of his current state of mind.

If the softer techniques are not working to loosen the grip, a physical strike of some sort may have to be considered. But retaliatory strikes also have a scale of force: there are ‘nicer’ strikes to try first, and my go-to in these situations would be a strike to the solar-plexus or to the groin. Both, if applied correctly, will cause some pain, or at least wind the individual, but not cause any lasting damage such as a broken bone.

In particular, a 2-handed strike to the solar-plexus can be useful in creating distance before a grab has even locked hold, and feels far more acceptable than the traditionally-taught palm heel strike to the face.

Of course, breakaway techniques for grabs are crucial to cover if that tends to be the individual’s preferred method of attack. Grabs might be applied to wrists (one hand or both), the upper arms, the hair, clothes or neck, and simple, effective techniques to break free do not require the individual to get hurt in the process. Far better to break free of the grip and move to safety, using strikes only as a last resort in these cases.

By using role play to replicate previous attack scenarios, it’s possible to slowly work through precise options for dealing with future outbursts. By replacing the original outcome with a positive alternative (say, by escaping the grab), we can instil confidence in the victims and aid with the recovery from any trauma arising from a particular incident.

Conclusion: Building Confidence and Reducing Harm

Having delivered sessions for families with members who struggle to regulate their behaviour, it is important to give them strategies to reduce the likelihood of an attack from occurring in the first place, as well as practice appropriate retaliatory force should they need to use it in self-defence.

Release techniques for grabs have proved particularly valuable for these families, with the understanding that if violence escalated, they have further options using a variety of strikes to protect themselves.

Sometimes I am asked about restraint techniques, and if violence continues to be a regular problem, it may be that families consider specialist restraint training. However, these types of techniques are generally reserved for specialists within hospital or security settings and require rigorous training to apply properly and in the correct circumstances. I feel it’s a fine line between self-protection and causing unnecessary distress as restraints rely upon the use of pain to control the aggressor, and it seems unethical to do this to a loved one. The outbursts are never malicious or unduly intentional, and it would be wrong if by using restraints it instils fear and distrust between the individual and his family.

Using self-defence against a family member with special needs is a difficult topic, but one that deserves more awareness and sensitivity as so many families navigate these challenges silently. If you or someone you know is struggling with similar issues, please remember—support is available, and you are not alone.

Tamsin Davis is the lead facilitator and instructor at Defence4Women, which specialises in teaching evidence-based and trauma-informed self-protection skills encompassing the broad spectrum of violence.