That was precisely what TD wrote they got away with all the time. Just of course not amongst educated or middle-class people. Underclass woman gets admitted to the hospital with a broken arm, docs find it unlikely it was an accident, arrange a meeting with the local psychiatrist i.e. TD. Yeah, it was the boyfriend in a fit of jealousy. Police, testimony? Nope. Why not? She's making up all kinds of excuses for the guy. OK maybe she is scared, explain about the battered women shelter where nothing bad can come to her. Still not, and does not look scared or dependent or something. Finally the reason becomes clear: the "bad boy" is sexually exciting. And according to TD this happened all the time. 16 years old boy taken in to psychiatric treatment, suicidial. Mom's latest boyfriend was beating the boys head in the concrete. Why mom won't call the police? She said "he is a good shag" and rather the boy should try not be too much at home to avoid him. And so on, endless such stories. Get that book...

I was actually getting a weird impression from that book. The primary reason laws and institutions are indeed increasingly aware of and trying to deal with spousal abuse is not that it gets more noticed today, but because it actually does happen more than in the past where communal pressure could have worked against it. TD seems to imply that people's behavior got worse faster than the laws or police procedures evolved, so it is a net negative.