The problem with all of the signs of abuse is that they can be indicative of a variety of problems, absent some of the physical abuse pathologies. For example, a patient who doesn't engage the therapist's eyes could be abused, a substance abuser, have other mental health issues, not like the therapist, feel guilty about stealing some bubble gum when he was a kid, or just be disengaged with the entire process, or a whole raft of other problems. Further, if he admits to himself that he is abused, he'll feel guilty about it, and be actively working to hide the problem. If he doesn't admit to himself that he is abused, he might not even display any signs since there is no problem.
Absent physical signs, and absent a statement by the patient, in fifteen minutes all the therapist is going to come up with is a concern that there may be something going on, but no idea what it is. This is assuming that the therapist doesn't have any history to work from. History is absolutely critical here, and without it, the therapist isn't going to get much to work from.
However, if the therapist has been talking with the abuser, the abuser might be showing additional signs that she is an abuser. This would cause the therapist to be more focused in his/her approach and could result in the therapist using more specific questions.
This also assumes that the therapist is unbiased. Many therapists allow their personal opinions and professional biases enter into the picture. Alcohol counselors will find virtually everyone has alcoholic tendencies, domestic abuse counselors will find signs of domestic abuse, and so on and so forth. This is part of finding what you expect to find.
Ignoring the issues I've discussed so far, I have serious reservations about your premise.
First is that an abuser is the last person to want a divorce. These are the people who fight the unfightable. I've seen them argue with a judge as to whether the judge has the authority to divorce them. I can't see a scenario in which an abuser would seek a divorce. Among other things, abusers tend to be highly resistant to change.
Second is the legal loophole to get around something. For a divorce, nearly every jurisdiction in the English speaking world uses a no fault standard. Basically, one party goes into court and says they don't want to be married. Getting divorce is only marginally harder than getting married.
Third is the fact that the therapist has met with the wife several times. The therapist, if at all competent, would have been picking up signs that the wife was an abuser. These people are controlling, and that comes through quickly. She would go into the meeting with the husband already realizing he was likely to have been abused.
Fourth, is because of the realization in three, the therapist would not meet with the husband. This meeting sounds like it has the strong potential of supporting the abuse, and a therapist would be guilty of unethical conduct, with the strong potential of being suspended. This is a situation in which the therapist would be recommending a meeting with a different therapist.
Fifth is an abuser would not allow her husband to meet with a therapist. I've never, ever heard of this happening. Abusers are the type of people who follow their victim everywhere, sometimes even into the bathroom. They want to control EVERY aspect of their victim's life. They'll resist the police separating them.
I'm sorry, but the question as you presented it was unbelievable to me. At this point I went and looked at the scene from your manuscript this is from. Although well written, it doesn't seem real to me. I can't see either the therapist or the victim acting in the ways you're presenting.
Sorry.
Best of luck,
Jim Clark-Dawe
