HOW DO WE KNOW CUSTODY COURTS ARE SENDING CHILDREN TO LIVE WITH ABUSERS?

The Civic Research Institute  From: Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody-

TEN WAYS TO KNOW THE CUSTODY COURT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

by Barry Goldstein

Download PDF HERE

 

Mothers and domestic violence advocates have been complaining for many years
about problems in the custody court system that have resulted in large numbers of
children being sent to live with abusive fathers while safe, protective mothers are denied
any meaningful relationship with their children. Courts have tended to dismiss the
complaints by referring to the mothers as “disgruntled litigants.” As more concern about
the problem has been expressed and more research performed, the mothers’ complaints
have been confirmed. Early in 2010, a new book co-edited by Dr. Maureen T. Hannah
and Barry Goldstein, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY will be
published and end any doubts that there is a pattern of mistakes made in the custody court
system. These mistakes have caused thousands of cases to be mishandled and placed the
lives and well being of battered women and their children in jeopardy. The book includes
chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the United States and Canada including
judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic
violence advocates. Although these experts come from different disciplines and
approached the issue from different directions, there is a remarkable consensus about the
problem and the solution. The up-to-date research and information now available makes
it clear that the present practices can no longer be justified and the custody court system
must create the necessary reforms to protect the safety of children and protective mothers
in domestic violence custody cases. This article will discuss ten reasons we know the
custody court system is broken and must be reformed.

 

• 1. Mothers’ Complaints: The problem this article seeks to discuss are cases in
  which a mother who has been the primary caregiver and makes allegations of
  domestic violence and/or child abuse loses custody to the alleged abuser and
  receives supervised visitation or no contact with her children. These cases have
  increased since federal laws designed to increase enforcement of child support
  orders were passed. Male supremacist groups have encouraged abusive fathers to
  seek custody as a way to avoid paying child support, to pressure his partner to
  stay or punish her for leaving. The courts and the often inadequately trained
  professionals they rely on, glad to see the involvement of fathers in children’s
  lives often fail to recognize the tactic and motivation. Courts tend to look at each
  case separately and so fail to see the patterns of mistakes in these cases.
  Demonizing their victim is a common strategy employed by abusers so a court
  could believe there was something profoundly wrong with an individual mother to
  justify the extreme outcome. When experts look at the pattern of these cases it is
  evident that the unusual circumstances needed to justify a particular outcome
  cannot be as common as the results would suggest. Women and children make
  deliberately false allegations of abuse between one and two percent of the time,
  but the court decisions support the myth that such deliberate false allegations are common. Furthermore, domestic violence allegations are painful and embarrassing to make and require the victims to speak about uncomfortable issues and questions. Research demonstrates that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse make women less likely to obtain custody. We can’t know that an individual case was improperly decided without careful review of the case, but we know the frequency of outcomes that give custody to alleged abusers cannot
  possibly be based on objective facts.

 

• 2. Available Research: The modern movement against domestic violence is only
  about thirty years old and there was little research available when it started. We
  now have extensive research to demonstrate common mistakes courts and the
  often-unqualified professionals they rely on use in domestic violence custody
  cases. Studies show that while evaluators believe they are considering domestic
  violence in their investigation of the family, in fact most fail to do so. We have
  many studies proving widespread gender bias against women in the approaches
  used by the courts. Evaluators regularly use psychological testing that has little or
  no relevance to the issues before the court and is gender biased. Psychologists
  testifying before the courts rarely inform the judges that their results are based
  upon probabilities so that factors in the case that would reduce those probabilities
  can be considered. Most important to the present topic is research that considers
  the accuracy of the actual court decisions. Most custody cases (over 95%) are
  settled more or less amicably. The problem is with the minority of terrible cases
  that continue to trial and beyond. Courts often think of them as “high conflict”
  cases, but in reality these are mostly domestic violence cases. Research studies
  vary somewhat on the percentage of these cases that involve abusive fathers, but
  all agree the majority of such cases involve domestic violence. I believe the
  studies that found 90% of these contested custody cases are caused by abusive
  fathers because unqualified professionals frequently miss domestic violence. In
  any event, contested custody cases should be being decided overwhelmingly in
  favor of protective mothers because most of the fathers are abusive, but 70% of
  the cases result in custody or joint custody to the father. This does not tell us an
  individual case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate that a large
  percentage of cases are being decided in a way that is harmful for the children.

 

• 3. Battered Mothers Testimony Project and Research: Several states including
  Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and New York City have done
  studies based on questionnaires filled out by protective mothers. These surveys
  have demonstrated widespread problems in the custody court system, many
  common mistakes and outcomes that fail to protect battered women and their
  children. This is admittedly not scientific research as the participants are
  volunteers rather than randomly selected (much of the “research” cited by male
  supremacist groups comes from interviews with alleged abusers, but is often
  treated as if it were valid research). Sociologists, Sharon Araji and Rebecca L.
  Bosek went several steps further for their chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
  ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. They performed a similar study in Alaska and
  then compared the results from the various states that interviewed protective mothers. The authors found the responses similar across the several state surveys. They then compared the results of the surveys filled out by protective mothers to scientific research performed by a variety of researchers using accepted scientific methods. Significantly the findings from the protective mothers are strongly
  supported by the scientific research. In other words, the complaints by protective mothers that have been so often dismissed as coming from “disgruntled litigants” actually have substantial validity.

 

• 4. Courageous Kids: If a court system wanted to determine the validity and value
  of psychological evaluations, it would look for research that examined how the
  recommendations and approaches used by the evaluators worked out in the lives
  of the children. Without such research there is no way to determine if the time,
  money and results for evaluations are useful. In fact there is no such research and
  I would certainly recommend obtaining such research if evaluations were to
  continue to be used in child custody cases. The closest we have to such research
  is the Courageous Kids Network. The Courageous Kids are young adults who
  were forced to live with abusers by the decisions of the custody court. They are
  now old enough to have escaped their abusers and are speaking out about their
  experiences. The stories are painful to hear because they had to survive such
  awful abuse, but life affirming as they overcame the obstacles to support each
  other and help change the broken system. These heroes have spoken at judicial
  trainings, legislative hearings and domestic violence conferences. Their
  presentations are effective because it is all too easy to discredit protective
  mothers, but hard to discredit the children for whom the courts and the
  professionals are supposedly trying to help. Remember these children were
  forced to live with and be influenced by the abuser. In most cases they had to
  endure “therapy” designed to support the abuser and discredit the protective
  mother. There are many psychological, safety and other reasons to discourage
  such children from coming forward and speaking out. The fact so many
  Courageous Kids have spoken out demonstrates the courts are getting large
  numbers of cases tragically wrong.

 

• 5. Review of Bad Cases: The authors of the 25 chapters in the book have carefully
  reviewed hundreds if not thousands of these cases. In their book, FROM
  MADNESS TO MUTINY, Dr. Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher reviewed over
  1000 cases. The Truth Commission listened to the testimony of 16 women and
  reviewed records from their cases. Many other experts have studied domestic
  violence cases where the alleged abuser received custody and the protective
  mother received little or no contact with her children. In these cases we have
  found widespread mistakes, bad practices, use of myths and stereotypes, the
  failure to use up-to-date research, gender bias and outcomes that place children at
  risk. The legal system works on the assumption that once a case is decided or
  facts determined that the findings are established and any further consideration
  should be based upon the assumption the court decided the case properly. This
  assumption will lead to misinformation and inaccurate research because there is
  strong evidence that most contested domestic violence custody cases and certainly those that result in custody to the alleged abuser are wrongly decided. We are
  particularly concerned with the growing court practice of retaliating against
  protective mothers and professionals trying to help them for exposing court
  mistakes in these cases. Frequently a mother’s refusal to believe an abuser is safe
  after the court fails to recognize his abuse is used to justify severe and extreme
  limitations on her access to her children without regard to the harm such rulings
  have on the children.

 

• 6. Parental Alienation Syndrome: PAS is a bogus theory created based on the personal biases of Dr. Richard Gardner. His books were self-published and never
  peer reviewed. It is used only in domestic violence custody cases to prevent or
  shorten investigations of the father’s abuse. PAS assumes that if a child expresses
  negative feelings about the father or doesn’t want visitation, the only possible
  explanation is that the mother alienated the child and the solution is to force the
  child to live with the abuser and have at most supervised visitation with the
  protective mother who has been the primary attachment figure for the child. PAS
  is not recognized by any reputable professional organization and does not appear
  in DSM IV, which contains recognized diagnosis. Dr. Paul Fink, past president of
  the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter for the book in which he
  demonstrates the invalidity of PAS. Dr. Fink points out that Richard Gardner
  made numerous statements complaining that society takes child sexual abuse too
  seriously and that sex between adults and children can be appropriate. This
  explains why PAS is so often used to give custody to fathers who have sexually
  abused their children. Dr. Fink points out that psychologists are starting to lose
  their licenses for using PAS in evaluations. They are, in effect diagnosing
  something that does not exist. Thousands of the cases in which alleged abusers
  won custody was based upon the discredited PAS or PAS by a different name.
  Any case in which “evidence” of PAS was allowed was likely wrongly decided.

 

• 7. Gender Bias: The Truth Commission recommended that rather than training professionals with general domestic violence information, all professionals should
  have training in Gender Bias, Recognizing Domestic Violence and the Effects of
  Domestic Violence on Children. This is because they found that many of the
  mistakes made in these cases were caused by a lack of understanding of these
  basic concepts. At least 40 states and many other districts and communities have
  created court-sponsored gender bias committees. They have found widespread
  gender bias and particularly in domestic violence custody cases. Among the
  common problems were blaming victims for their abuser’s behavior, burdening
  women with higher standards of proof and giving fathers more credibility than
  mothers. Other research, including the chapter in the book by Molly Dragiewicz
  has made similar findings. In one New York case the court gave custody to an
  abuser and denied the protective mother any contact with the children after the
  evaluator used and the judge supported a certainty standard for the mother and
  probability standard for the father. Few litigants could win a case when faced
  with a certainty standard. At least 15-20 different judges were asked to review
  this clear example of gender bias (the different standards were stated in the  evaluator’s report and repeatedly challenged in the transcript), but every judge
  failed to correct this obvious error. Lynn Hecht Schafran wrote a brilliant article
  “Evaluating the Evaluators” that illustrates the problem. The article describes a
  new psychologist asked to perform an evaluation on a young family. She went to
  the father’s apartment and found it a complete mess with no food in the
  refrigerator. She wrote the father lives in a typical bachelor apartment. She went
  to the mother’s apartment and found it to be somewhat messy, but not as bad as
  the father’s. She had food in the refrigerator, but not as much as preferable. The
  evaluator wrote the mother lives in a messy apartment with inadequate food. The
  evaluator had a supervisor because she was new and the supervisor asked if she
  saw what she had done. The evaluator could not believe she had engaged in
  gender bias and quickly corrected the report. The article is valuable because it
  demonstrates that professionals acting in good faith (including women) can easily
  engage in gender bias without realizing it because of the sexism and stereotypes
  so prevalent in our society. How can anyone reasonably believe the courts are
  reaching fair decisions in domestic violence custody cases when gender bias is so
  common?

 

• 8. Failure to Recognize Domestic Violence: Many of the mistakes custody courts
  make have to do with failing to recognize domestic violence. In fairness some of
  the problem is caused because victims or their attorneys fail to present the
  necessary evidence. Unqualified professionals often discount allegations of abuse
  based upon information that represents a normal and reasonable response to his
  abuse. In the book, Judge Mike Brigner writes about training judges in domestic
  violence. They often ask him how to respond to all the cases where women are
  lying about domestic violence. When he asks what they mean, they cite cases
  where women go back to their abuser, withdraw petitions for a protective order,
  fail to file police complaints or don’t seek medical care. In reality there are safety
  and other explanations for women’s response to domestic violence and none of
  these examples should be used to assume her complaints are false. At the same
  time they use information of limited value to discount domestic violence,
  professionals fail to use helpful and relevant information to understand the pattern
  of domestic violence tactics. Too often the professionals are interested only in
  physical abuse. They fail to consider a variety of controlling and coercive tactics.
  They don’t understand the significance of a woman’s fear of her partner.
  Domestic violence advocates are the only professionals that work full time on
  domestic violence issues. The advocates receive more training and have more
  knowledge of domestic violence then the professionals relied on by the courts.
  Domestic violence agencies have very limited resources so they are forced to
  screen clients before providing services. Accordingly when a woman is receiving
  services from a domestic violence agency, it is a strong indication that she is a
  battered woman, but many professionals fail to consider this information.
  Although seeking custody to pressure a mother to return or punish her for leaving
  is a common abuser tactic, few courts consider why a father with limited
  involvement with the children prior to separation suddenly demands full custody.
  Similarly unqualified professionals often fail to consider evidence that a man believes his partner has no right to leave is a strong indication of his motivation in seeking custody. How can courts be expected to decide domestic violence
  custody cases appropriately if they don’t know what to look for when determining the validity of domestic violence allegations?

 

• 9. Effect of Domestic Violence on Children: Every state has passed laws designed
  to promote greater consideration of the effects of domestic violence on children.
  Some states require domestic violence to be considered in making custody and
  visitation decisions and others create a presumption against custody for abusers
  (although often the laws or the courts require a level of proof or create other
  restrictions that limit the effectiveness of these laws). Prior to these laws, when a
  protective mother asked to limit the father’s contact with the children because of
  domestic violence, the judge would ask some version of “Does he also abuse the
  child?” If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as
  appropriate for custody and visitation as the mother. The change in laws was
  based on overwhelming research that children witnessing domestic violence were
  harmed as much as children directly abused. The research found these children to
  be at substantially greater risk of a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors when
  they were older. In other words, domestic violence is a serious form of child
  abuse. We have found, however that courts frequently place greater reliance on
  other custody factors that have far less consequences to the safety and well being
  of children. In fairness, the courts are not solely to blame as legislatures have
  passed laws like “friendly parent” factors and failed to make domestic violence
  and safety the primary factors in custody determination. There is no research that
  “alienating” statements or attitudes by one parent to the children has the kind of
  serious long-term harm of domestic violence and yet many of the cases reviewed
  focus far more attention on alleged alienation. When mothers respond normally
  to their partner’s abuse with fear or attempts to protect the children, courts
  frequently treat this as the most important issue in deciding custody. This is a
  common example of what was discussed in gender bias reports in that the mother
  is held responsible for her reaction to the father’s abuse instead of holding the
  father responsible for his abuse. This type of mistake is at the heart of the
  common mistakes made by custody courts and does not serve the best interests of
  the children. If children are having problems as a result of the father’s abuse,
  unqualified professionals often blame the divorce and separation instead of his
  abuse. They often recommend cooperation and interaction between abuser and
  victim that is the opposite of what is healthy for children, but often benefit the
  fathers’ cases. When children appear to be doing well, inadequately trained
  professionals mistakenly assume this means the abuse allegations are false. Some
  children respond to abuse by trying to be perfect and take on adult
  responsibilities. Many years later the harm of the father’s abuse comes out in
  debilitating ways. Similarly children will often behave well with abusers and act
  out with their mothers because they know she is the safe parent. This is often
  misunderstood and courts reach the false conclusion that the father is the better
  parent. As long as the courts fail to understand the long-term harm to children of placing them with abusers, the courts will continue to make decisions that ruin children’s lives.

 

• 10. Extreme Results: If a court were to give custody to a protective mother and limit
  the father to supervised visitation because of his domestic violence, it would be
  following the recommendations of up-to-date research. In other words there is a
  scientific basis for such an outcome. The researchers weigh the harm of
  restricting the children’s contact with their father and the harm the father is likely
  to cause with unrestricted visitation and the message sent to the children by
  awarding normal visitation with someone they know abused their mother.
  Instead what we are seeing is alleged abusers receiving custody and protective
  mothers having supervised or no visitation. Obviously, in these cases the courts
  are assuming the mother’s allegations of abuse are false. They justify the
  visitation restrictions by their concern the mother will continue to believe she was
  abused and say negative things about the father. Where is the research that the
  harm to the children of hearing such statements is greater than the harm of being
  denied a normal relationship with their mother? Even in intact families the
  children often hear negative comments about the other parent. In other words,
  these extreme court decisions are based upon the belief systems and biases of
  court professionals and not up-to-date research. Many children have been denied
  any contact with their mothers in these cases. Ironically fathers are often granted
  custody based on the belief they are the friendlier parent and will promote the
  relationship between the mother and children, but he proceeds to terminate all
  contact once he has control. Many courts that jumped all over mothers for
  requesting the court restrict the father’s access have done nothing in the face of
  the father preventing visitation or other contact between mother and children.
  Rapists and even murderers frequently receive some supervised visitation and yet
  mothers who sought to protect their children from an abuser are completely cut
  off from their children. The extreme outcomes faced by protective mothers are
  unsupported by any research, but demonstrate serious flaws in the custody
  system.

Now That We Know the Custody Court System Is Broken

• Now is not the time for blame or attacks. As the Schafran article demonstrates, it is all
  too easy for good and caring people to fail to understand and recognize gender bias and
  domestic violence. In the book, Judge Hornsby writes that in his 19^th year on the bench
  he finally understood the proper way to handle requests for protective orders. The
  judge’s humility, integrity and openness should serve as a model to the legal community
  as it responds to the clear information and research that the present court practices are
  mistreating protective mothers and their children. I was recently at a domestic violence
  conference in Hawaii where a court official was asked a question implying serious
  problems in the court system. She responded by saying if someone didn’t like a decision
  they could appeal. To her credit she later acknowledged that many people don’t have the
  money for such an appeal. This official fell into the trap of responding defensively to
  criticism. The challenge for the custody court system is to be open to the up-to-date research even though it finds the courts have made widespread mistakes in its handling of
  domestic violence custody cases. The medical community faced a similar situation in
  responding to research that found avoidable mistakes were responsible for 100,000 deaths
  each year in our nation’s hospitals. For years, fear of lawsuits, discipline and damaged
  reputation caused the medical profession to ignore, deny and seek to place blame on
  others. Finally they realized this was a losing strategy. Doctors, nurses and hospitals
  have now come together to correct the problems with more openness and accountability.
  Lives have already been saved from implementation of this approach and the campaign to
  prevent such avoidable errors. Rather than harm the medical community’s reputation,
  this campaign has increased the respect for the medical community. I believe if the legal
  community makes a similar effort to apply the latest research and create a campaign to
  avoid the kinds of tragic mistakes that have ruined the lives of so many women and
  children, the campaign will improve the reputation of the legal system. The promotion of
  the safety of battered mothers and their children is not and should not be considered a
  partisan issue.

Every state and every court system has rules and laws against domestic violence.

• Although some fringe male supremacist groups object to these laws, society has spoken
  and there is no longer any legitimate dispute about whether domestic violence should be
  tolerated. If a community had a rash of arson fires and the courts and legislature wanted
  to figure out how to respond they would seek the expertise of the experts. The experts
  are the firefighting community because they know best how to recognize arson, prevent it
  and respond to arson. No one would ever accuse the firefighters of being partisan because they are always against arson. In responding to domestic violence the experts are the domestic violence community. They are the only profession working full time on
  domestic violence issues and know how to recognize domestic violence, the best ways to
  prevent it and the harm it causes. Too often the courts have failed to take advantage of
  this community resource because they viewed domestic violence advocates as partisans.
  The validity for this claim ended when society determined it would no longer tolerate
  domestic violence and passed laws to enforce this determination. The crimes of arson
  and domestic violence are treated differently because arson has always been a crime and
  domestic violence is a relatively new crime and most firefighters are men and most
  domestic violence advocates are women. In this still sexist society what women say is
  not treated with the respect and value that what men say is. The domestic violence
  community is an important and valuable resource that the court system can benefit from
  as it applies the up-to-date research to practices that are now discredited. The legal
  system must use this research to launch a re-evaluation of its response to domestic
  violence custody cases so that custody courts become a safe place for battered mothers
  and their children. We are ready to work with them to help accomplish society’s goal of
  ending domestic violence.

Barry Goldstein is the author of SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY. He has been an instructor and supervisor in a NY Model Batterer Program for 10 years. He was an attorney representing victims of domestic violence for 30 years. He now provides workshops, judicial and other trainings regarding domestic violence particularly related to custody issues. He also serves as a consultant and expert witness. His new book,

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, co edited with Dr. Maureen T. Hannah will be published early in 2010. For more information, visit his web site at Barrygoldstein.net

WordPress Tags: CUSTODY,COURTS,CHILDREN,LIVE,ABUSERS,Civic,Research,Institute,From,Domestic,Violence,Abuse,Child,WAYS,COURT,SYSTEM,BROKEN,Barry,Goldstein,Download,HERE,problems,numbers,relationship,Hannah,doubts,cases,jeopardy,Canada,judges,journalists,Although,consensus,solution,article,abuser,orders,Male,involvement,tactic,motivation,victim,strategy,outcome,results,Women,myth,victims,frequency,Available,movement,investigation,fact,gender,bias,Evaluators,relevance,Psychologists,Most,topic,accuracy,percentage,event,result,father,Testimony,Project,Several,Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,California,Arizona,York,Sociologists,Sharon,Araji,Rebecca,Bosek,steps,chapter,Alaska,findings,words,Courageous,Kids,money,Network,life,Remember,therapy,Review,MUTINY,Neustein,Michael,Lesher,Truth,Commission,records,Many,myths,failure,assumption,misinformation,refusal,limitations,Parental,Alienation,Syndrome,theory,Richard,Gardner,self,feelings,explanation,attachment,organization,diagnosis,Paul,Fink,president,American,Psychiatric,Association,Thousands,Effects,Among,behavior,Dragiewicz,evaluator,example,transcript,error,Lynn,Hecht,Schafran,evaluation,apartment,food,supervisor,faith,sexism,Recognize,response,Judge,Mike,Brigner,significance,woman,knowledge,clients,services,agency,indication,separation,demands,Effect,Some,presumption,restrictions,Prior,version,reliance,consequences,parent,determination,attention,reports,reaction,heart,interests,cooperation,interaction,responsibilities,conclusion,Extreme,basis,message,Instead,Where,comments,belief,Rapists,Hornsby,bench,requests,conference,Hawaii,decision,criticism,situation,nation,reputation,profession,Doctors,implementation,Rather,effort,promotion,rules,legislature,expertise,advantage,resource,crime,sexist,goal,author,LEAVE,AFRAID,STAY,instructor,Model,Batterer,Program,attorney,consultant,Barrygoldstein,fathers,complaints,chapters,lawyers,psychiatrists,allegations,decisions,outcomes,factors,questionnaires,participants,authors,responses,methods,evaluations,recommendations,obstacles,heroes,conferences,presentations,biases,investigations,statements,concepts,committees,explanations,examples,agencies,legislatures,attitudes,systems,murderers,flaws,deaths,hospitals,lawsuits,errors,crimes,litigants,longer,visitation,supremacist,researchers,adults,trainings,refrigerator,firefighters

The Batterer As Parent

Published March 27, 2006 by Synergy 6(1) P 6-8 Ncjfcj Newsletter

 

The Batterer As Parent

by Lundy Bancroft

 

Research on children's exposure to domestic violence has tended to focus primarily on two aspects of their experience: the trauma of witnessing physical assaults against their mother, and the tension produced by living with a high level of conflict between their parents.1 However, these are just two elements of a much deeper problem pervading these children's daily life, which is that they are living with a batterer. The parenting of men who batterer exposes children to multiple potential sources of emotional and physical injury, most of which have not been recognized widely.

This article looks at the characteristics of men who batter and identifies ways in which these characteristics also influence their ability to parent appropriately. Additionally, the article will address the implications of such parenting for child protective and custody determinations.

Characteristics of Men Who Batter

Most of the characteristics that are typical of men who batter have potential ramifications for children in the home. Batterers often tend toward authoritarian, neglectful, and verbally abusive child-rearing.2 The effects on the children of these and other parenting weaknesses may be intensified by the children's prior traumatic experience of witnessing violence.3 Consider the following selected examples of characteristics of men who batter:

Control: Coerciveness is widely recognized as a central quality of battering men,4 and one of the areas of life heavily controlled by many men who batterer is the mother's parenting. A man who batters may cause or forbid his partner to terminate a pregnancy, overrule her parenting decisions, or assault her when he is angry over the children's behavior. Battered women are far more likely than other mothers to feel that they have to alter their parenting styles when their partners are present.5

Entitlement: A man who batters considers himself entitled to a special status within the family, with the right to use violence when he deems it necessary.6 This outlook of entitlement can lead to selfish and self-centered behavior on his part. For example, he may become irate or violent when he feels that his partner is paying more attention to the children than to him. It is difficult for children to have their needs met in such an atmosphere and they are vulnerable to role-reversal, where they are made to feel responsible to take care of the battering parent.

Possessiveness: Men who batter often have been observed to perceive their partners as owned objects.7 This possessive outlook can sometimes extend to their children, partly accounting for the dramatically elevated rates of physical abuse8 and sexual abuse9 of children perpetrated by batterers, and for the fact that these men seek custody of their children more often than non-battering fathers do.10

Other characteristics that can have an important impact on children include manipulativeness, denial and minimization of the abuse, battering in multiple relationships, and resistance to change.

Influence of Battering on Parenting

The characteristics discussed above influence the parenting of men who batter and have a negative impact on the children by:

• creating role models that perpetuate the violence
• undermining the mother's authority
• retaliating against the mother for her efforts to protect the children
• sowing divisions within the family
• using the children as weapons against the mother

Creating role models that perpetuate the violence:
Boys who are exposed to domestic violence show dramatically elevated rates of battering their own partners as adolescents or adults.11 Research suggests that this connection is a product more of the values and attitudes that boys learn from witnessing battering behavior than of the emotional trauma of being exposed to such abuse.12 Daughters of battered women show increased difficulty in escaping partner abuse in their adult relationships.13 Both boys and girls have been observed to accept various aspects of the batterer's belief-system,14 including the view that victims of violence are to blame, that women exaggerate hysterically when they report abuse, and that males are superior to females.

Undermining the mother's authority: Domestic violence is inherently destructive to maternal authority because the batterer's verbal abuse and violence provide a model for children of contemptuous and aggressive behavior toward their mother. The predictable result, confirmed by many studies, is that children of battered women have increased rates of violence and disobedience toward their mothers.15 Some battered mothers make reports of being prevented from picking up a crying infant or from assisting a frightened or injured child and of being barred from providing other basic physical, emotional, or even medical care. Interference of this kind can cause the children to feel that their mother does not care about them or is unreliable. The batterer may reinforce those feelings by verbally conditioning the children through statements such as, "Your mother doesn't love you," or, "Mommy only cares about herself."

Retaliating against her for her efforts to protect the children: A mother may find that she is assaulted or intimidated if she attempts to prevent the batterer from mistreating the children, or may find that he harms the children more seriously to punish her for standing up for them. Therefore, she may be forced over time to stop intervening on her children's behalf. This dynamic can lead children to perceive their mother as uncaring about the batterer's mistreatment of them, and can contribute to her being labeled by child protective services as "failing to protect."

Sowing divisions with the family: Some batterers use favoritism to build a special relationship with one child in the family. As some researchers have noted, the favored child is particularly likely to be a boy, and the batterer may bond with him partly through encouraging a sense of superiority to females.16 Batterers also may create or feed familial tensions deliberately. These manipulative behaviors are a likely factor in the high rate of inter-sibling conflict and violence observed in families exposed to battering behavior.17

Using the children as weapons: Many men who batter use children as a vehicle to harm or control the mother18 through such tactics as destroying the children's belongings to punish the mother, requiring the children to monitor and report on their mother's activities, or threatening to kidnap or take custody of the children if the mother attempts to end the relationship. These parenting behaviors draw the children into the abuser's behavior pattern. Post-separation, many batterers use unsupervised visitation as an opportunity to further abuse the mother through the children.19

Implications for Child Protective and Custody Determinations

Determinations regarding child protection, custody, and visitation in the context of domestic violence need to be informed by an awareness of the destructive parenting behaviors exhibited by many men who batter, and their effects on children and their mothers. These behaviors have especially important implications for children who are struggling with two sets of psychological injuries, one from exposure to the battering behavior and the other from their parents' divorce or separation. Some elements to examine closely when crafting interventions for families include:

Addressing the healing needs of children: There is a wide consensus that children's recovery from exposure to domestic violence (and from divorce) depends largely on the quality of their relationship with the non-battering parent and with their siblings.20 Therefore, in addition to safety consideration, court determinations should take into account whether the batterer is likely, based on his past and current behavior, to continue to undermine the mother's authority, interfere with mother-child relationships, or cause tensions between siblings. Because children need a sense of safety in order to heal,21 juvenile and family court decisions may not want to include leaving the children in the unsupervised care of a man whose violent tendencies they have witnessed, even if they feel a strong bond of affection for him.

Making appropriate assessments, especially in custody determinations: A batterer's history of abusive behavior, and how such abuse reflects on his parenting, needs to be investigated carefully, assessing for the presence of any of the common problems described above and paying particular attention to that children may become a vehicle for continued abuse of the mother.22 Courts need to ensure that custody evaluators have extensive training on the multiple sources of risk to children from custody or unsupervised contact with the abusive parent.

Safely fostering father-child relationships: Except in cases where the children are terrified of the battering parent or have been abused by him directly, children tend to desire some degree of ongoing contact with their fathers. Such contact can be beneficial as long as adequate safety measures are provided for the mother and children and the abuser is not given the opportunity to cause set-backs to the children's emotional recovery. These goals can be fostered through custody arrangements that take into full consideration the violence in the home caused by the battering parent and through the use of professionally supervised visitation, ideally based in a visitation center. Where unsupervised visitation is found to be safe, the use of relatively short visits that do not include overnight visits can reduce the batterer's ability to damage mother-child relationship, limit his negative influence on the children's behavior and value-systems, and ensure that the children feel safe and secure—while still allowing them to feel a continued connection to their father.

ORDER THE BOOK! 
The Batterer As Parent,  by Lundy Bancroft
http://www.volcanopress.com/pages/catalog.cgi?mrchcatid=4&mrchid=81&#top

NOTES

1. See for example, Rossman, R., Hughes, H., & Rosenberg, M. (2000). Children and interparental violence: The impact of exposure. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

2. Bancroft, L. & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

3. Margolin, G., John, R., Ghosh, C., & Gordis, E. (1996). Family interaction process: An essential tool for exploring abusive relationships. In D. Cahn & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 37-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

4. Lloyd, S., & Emery, B. (2000). The dark side of courtship: Physical and sexual aggression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5. Holden, G. & Ritchie, K. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development, 62, 311-327.

6. Silverman, J., & Williamson, G. (1997). Social ecology and entitlements involved in battering by heterosexual college males: Contributions of family and peers. Violence and Victims, 12(2), 147-164.

7. Adams, D. (1991). Empathy and entitlement: A comparison of battering and nonbattering husbands. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (Available from Emerge, 2380 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA, 02140.); Lloyd & Emery, op. cit.

8. E.g. Straus, M. (1990). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife-beating: What do they have in common? In M. Straus & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical Violence in American Families (pp. 403-424). New Brunswick: Transition; Suh, E., & Abel, E.M. (1990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of the abused. Journal of Independent Social Work, 4(4), 27-34; and several other studies.

9. E.g. McCloskey, L.A., Figueredo, A.J., & Koss, M. (1995). The effect of systemic family violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261; Paveza, G. (1988). Risk factors in father-daughter child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(3), 290-306; and several other studies.

10. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996). Violence and the family. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

11. Hotaling, G., & Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 101-124; Silverman & Williamson, op. cit.

12. Silverman & Williamson, op. cit.

13. Doyne, S., Bowermaster, J., Meloy, R., Dutton, D., Jaffe, P., Temko, S., & Mones, P. (1999). Custody disputes involving domestic violence: Making children's needs a priority. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(2), 1-12; Hotaling & Sugarman, op. cit.

14. Hurley, D.J., & Jaffe, P. (1990). Children's observations of violence: II. Clinical implications for children's mental health professionals. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 35(6), 471-476.

15. Jaffe, P., & Geffner, R. (1998). Child custody disputes and domestic violence: Critical issues for mental health, social service, and legal professionals. In G. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 371-408). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Dutton, M.A. (1992). Empowering and healing the battered woman. New York: Springer.

16. See for example Johnston, J., & Campbell, L. (1993b). Parent-child relationships in domestic violence families disputing custody. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 31(3), 282-298. (Johnston & Campbell seem to overlook the implications of many of their own observations - see Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit., for an extended discussion.)

17. op. cit.

18. Erickson, J., & Henderson, A. (1998). "Diverging realities: Abused women and their children. In J. Campbell (Ed.), Empowering survivors of abuse: Health care for battered women and their children (pp. 138-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19. Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit.

20. See review of studies in Heller, S., Larrieu, J., D'Imperio, R., & Boris, N. (1998). Research on resilience to child maltreatment: Empirical considerations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(4) 321-338.

21. van der Kolk, B., & McFarlane, A. (1996). The black hole of trauma. In B. van der Kolk, A. McFarlane, & L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 3-23). New York: Guilford.

22. For a detailed assessment guide, see Chapter 7 of Bancroft & Silverman, op. cit.

WordPress Tags: Batterer,Parent,March,Synergy,Ncjfcj,Newsletter,Lundy,Bancroft,Research,children,exposure,violence,trauma,tension,life,injury,article,characteristics,custody,Batter,Most,Batterers,Consider,Control,behavior,partners,Entitlement,status,outlook,self,example,attention,needs,atmosphere,role,reversal,objects,rates,fact,impact,denial,relationships,resistance,Influence,efforts,weapons,adolescents,connection,product,Daughters,Both,belief,system,victims,Domestic,result,disobedience,Some,reports,infant,Interference,feelings,Mommy,harms,mistreatment,services,favoritism,relationship,factor,Many,vehicle,belongings,activities,abuser,Post,separation,Child,Protective,Determinations,protection,context,consensus,recovery,addition,account,affection,history,problems,Courts,father,Except,cases,degree,measures,arrangements,Where,ORDER,BOOK,catalog,NOTES,Rossman,Hughes,Rosenberg,Philadelphia,Brunner,Mazel,Silverman,Thousand,Oaks,Sage,Margolin,John,Ghosh,Gordis,interaction,tool,Cahn,Lloyd,communication,perspective,Emery,Physical,aggression,Holden,Ritchie,discord,Evidence,Development,Williamson,Social,ecology,college,Contributions,Adams,Empathy,comparison,dissertation,Available,Emerge,Massachusetts,Cambridge,Straus,Ordinary,wife,Gelles,American,Brunswick,Transition,Abel,Journal,Independent,Work,McCloskey,Figueredo,Koss,health,Paveza,Risk,daughter,Interpersonal,Psychological,Association,Presidential,Task,Force,Washington,Sugarman,analysis,husband,knowledge,Doyne,Bowermaster,Meloy,Dutton,Jaffe,Temko,Mones,Juvenile,Court,Hurley,observations,Clinical,Canadian,Psychiatry,Geffner,Critical,Jouriles,Theory,woman,York,Springer,Johnston,Campbell,Conciliation,Review,discussion,Erickson,Henderson,Heller,Larrieu,Imperio,Boris,resilience,maltreatment,Empirical,Abuse,Neglect,Kolk,McFarlane,Weisaeth,Traumatic,Guilford,assessment,Chapter,aspects,exposes,implications,ramifications,examples,areas,decisions,fathers,attitudes,statements,tensions,injuries,interventions,tendencies,assessments,goals,systems,factors,markers,parents,women,sexual,males,females,behaviors,visitation,siblings

Talking Points DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY

Talking Points

The Civic Research Institute  From: Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody-

 

These talking points were designed for domestic violence advocates and other allies of protective mothers to speak with administrative judges in the hopes of
convincing them to use the research contained in the new book to train judges and
other court professionals and reform custody practices to improve the safety and
potential of children in domestic violence custody cases. Feel free to use any part of
the material in any order that makes sense to support your efforts. Use your own
knowledge and concerns and focus the discussion based upon the local circumstances and situations the domestic violence community is concerned with. If you have any
questions, you are welcome to contact Barry Goldstein at BarryG78@aol.com The
information in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph are the authors of chapters in the book that provide the information in the paragraph.

• 1. In recent years, the court system has developed many practices that are designed to help parents work together. These ideas include mediation, shared parenting, parenting coordinators, parenting classes, friendly parent approaches and programs to promote communication skills and compromise. These may work well in other cases, but are harmful in domestic violence cases (see Zorza, Fields)

 

• 2. Over 95% of cases eventually settle more or less amicably. Some of these involve
  domestic violence and could be handled better with domestic violence knowledge, but
  the real problem are the less than 5% of the cases that cannot be settled and will
  require a trial and often much more. Courts usually refer to these as "high conflict"
  cases and literally they are, but 90% of these cases are actually domestic violence
  cases that can't be settled because it reflects an abusive father's tactic of using the
  children as a way to get access to his victim or punish her for leaving. The court system has been very slow to recognize this tactic and instead frequently use approaches that
  collude with abusers to help them maintain control over their ex-partners. Frequent
  mistakes in these cases have resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with
  abusers. (see Zorza, Fields and Goldstein)

 

• 3. If there was a scientific basis for the custody evaluations regularly relied on by the
  custody courts, the evaluators could tell the courts how their recommendations have
  worked out for children based upon outcome studies. In fact they have no such
  research. This flaw is obscured in part by the assumption that once a court makes a
  decision, the findings are confirmed. Many of these decisions have been discredited by
  later convictions of abusers found to be safe, poor outcomes for children and reports by
  children of horrific abuse after they age out of court orders giving custody to abusers.
  This is not surprising because the research demonstrates the custody court system regularly uses flawed methods that make it difficult for judges to recognize domestic violence and child abuse or understand the consequences proposed orders are likely to have on the children. (see Yeamans, Anderson and Waller)

 

• 4. The Truth Commission and the research in the book, recommends that court professionals receive not just generalized training in domestic violence, but specific
  training in Recognizing Domestic Violence, Gender Bias and The Effects of Domestic
  Violence on Children. It is hard to imagine any objection to these recommendations.
  The courts can't protect battered mothers and children if they miss the signs of domestic
  violence. Gender bias is particularly difficult because professionals acting in good faith
  often engage in gender bias without realizing they are doing so. The problem is
  compounded because some good professionals have suffered retaliation for pointing
  out examples of gender bias. Children who witness domestic violence, including non-
  physical abuse can face long-term harm as a result, but courts can't protect the children
  if they don't understand the risk. (see Hannah, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Schwaeber, Dragiewicz and THE BATTERER AS PARENT).

 

• 5. Judge Mike Brigner writes that when he trains judges about domestic violence he
  often is asked what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean
  they refer to women who return to their abuser, withdraw petitions for restraining orders,
  fail to make police reports or seek hospital treatment and the myth (obviously they don't
  realize it is a myth) that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse.
  All of these actions are normal responses by women partnered with abusers for safety
  and other reasons. In no way do they support the assumption that the woman is lying.
  Nevertheless the widespread belief by judges, lawyers and inadequately trained mental
  health professionals that it does, results in thousands of valid claims of abuse to be
  disbelieved and other evidence ignored. Similarly, unqualified professionals often look
  only to evidence of physical abuse and in doing so miss a lot of other evidence of
  controlling behavior courts could use to confirm abuse allegations. (see Araji and
  Bosek, Brigner, Schwaeber and Goldstein)

 

• 6. One of the ways we know there is a problem in the custody court system is the frequent finding of circumstances that are rare. It is certainly possible for a woman to
  make a false allegation of abuse, an abuser to commit one act or a few acts and then
  stop without any intervention or for a mother to suffer from Munchausen by Proxy.
  Accordingly, we can't tell if an individual case was wrongly decided without substantial
  investigation, but when researchers look at hundreds and thousands of cases it is easy
  to see patterns of results that cannot possibly be accurate. The improper practices
  confirm how courts get so many cases wrong. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek, Dragiewicz
  and Goldstein)

 

• 7. Most abusers do not beat their victims frequently. Instead they commit one or a few physical assaults and then use other coercive and intimidating tactics to maintain their control. Their purpose is not to enjoy beating their partners but rather to maintain
  control and exercise what they believe is their right to make the major decisions in the relationship. Inadequately trained professionals fail to see the abuser's use of
  excessive litigation, strategies that bankrupt his victim and use of the children to gain access to her as a continuation of his pattern of abuse. When a woman seeks to limit contact with her abuser because she understands his tactics she is labeled as
  uncooperative or unfriendly when better practice would be for courts to use their
  authority to discourage abusive men from intimidating and scaring their ex-partners.
  (see Schwaeber, Fields, Goldstein and Araji and Bosek).

 

• 8. Many professionals in the custody court system believe they have the ability to determine who is telling the truth just from observing them. There is no research to support this belief and only a very few elite CIA and FBI agents have demonstrated this ability. In the context of domestic violence custody cases this is particularly dangerous because abusers are very manipulative and plan out their tactics to fool the
  professionals. At the same time women's normal reaction to their partners' abuse tends to be anger and emotion and this is used to discredit their concerns. The false belief by professionals that they can tell who is truthful, just from watching them creates a false sense of confidence in these wrong judgments and favors abusers. ( see Schwaeber, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Washington Post article).

 

• 9. Over forty states and many other judicial districts have created court-appointed gender bias commissions. These commissions have found widespread gender bias particularly against women litigants. They have found the courts give women less credibility than men, blame victims for her abuser's actions and create higher standards of proof for women. We see this when courts punish women for seeking to limit contact with abusers instead of pressuring abusers to stop their intimidating tactics. We see it when they expect mothers to provide better care of children but don't reward them for their care or punish women more severely than men for extramarital affairs. (see
  Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek and Zorza).

 

• 10. In one case, the trial court used a certainty standard for the mother and a probability standard for the father. Even a first year law student would know this was a
  fundamental violation of due process and equal protection that demands reversal. The
  use of the higher standard for the mother was in writing in the evaluator's report and the
  transcript of her testimony. Using a the proper probability standard she admitted the
  father abused the mother physically, emotionally and verbally throughout the marriage,
  did so in front of the children and abused her so badly as to cause PTSD. Accordingly
  the court could not claim the mistake did not affect the outcome. In the two related
  cases between 15 and 20 different judges reviewed the case but failed to object to the biased approach. Clearly the judges were smart enough to recognize the mistake and it
  is not possible they were all corrupt or in favor of abusers. The problem is that for thirty
  years the court system has been using invalid practices and the often inadequately
  trained professionals they rely on have reinforced misinformation so that the judges
  could not imagine a trial judge could be so unfair to a battered mother. They permitted
  a decision where a safe mother was denied any contact with her children and the
  abuser received custody. Only in a broken custody court system could so many judges
  make such an obvious mistake. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Fields)

 

• 11. More commonly, the higher standard of proof for mothers is not put in writing, but is demonstrated by the many double standards women face. Frequently protective
  mothers are punished because they seek to restrict the father's contact because he is abusive. Courts give custody to the alleged abuser on the grounds that he is more
  likely to encourage the relationship between the mother and children. Once he receives custody, abusive fathers interfere with visitation and take mothers out of their children's lives, but the same courts fail to require the father to facilitate visitation. (see
  Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Hannah)

 

• 12. In a typical domestic violence case, the protective mother claims to be the primary
  attachment figure to the children and that the father abused her and/or the children.
  The father claims alienation. Primary attachment refers to the parent who provided
  most of the child care for the first couple of years of the child's life. Children who lose
  their primary attachment figure are significantly more likely to commit suicide, suffer
  depression, low-self-esteem and other problems. Accordingly it doesn't make sense to
  separate a child from their primary attachment figure unless the parent is unsafe.
  Children affected by domestic violence are as likely as children directly abused to
  engage in a wide range of dysfunctional behavior. There is no research that children
  who hear negative remarks about the other parent (as occurs in most intact families) or
  have mothers who seek to protect them by limiting contact with an allegedly abusive
  father experience any long-term harm as a result. At the same time almost all children
  have a primary attachment figure which is usually the mother because in this still sexist
  society, mothers continue to perform most of the child care. Despite the myths, mothers
  rarely (1-2% of the time) make deliberately false allegations of abuse. False or
  exaggerated complaints of alienation by fathers are very common and is taught by male
  supremacist groups as a tactic to obtain custody. Although the mothers' complaints are
  more likely to be true and significantly affect the safety and potential of the children,
  courts are granting custody or joint custody to the fathers in these cases between 70
  and 83% of the time. (see Sussman, Erickson, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and
  Bosek).

 

• 13. Courts tend to emphasize the belief that children do better with both parents in their lives. This belief is supported by research, but not if one of the parents is abusive. "Fathers' rights" groups have sought to promote and courts have accepted the idea that
  when the parents come to court they should have equal rights to the children. On the
  surface this sounds reasonable, but only if their history of parenting supports this
  practice. There is no reason to treat the parents the same if one has performed
  significantly more child care, has better parenting skills or if one parent has been
  abusive. The best predictor of future parenting is past parenting, but courts often treat
  mothers based on past parenting and fathers on expectations of future parenting.
  These kinds of gender biased practices place an unfair burden on mothers and more
  importantly result in decisions harmful to children. (see Zorza, Erickson, Araji and Bosek)

 

• 14. The widespread use of mental health professionals for evaluations and expertise
  developed at a time when it was widely believed domestic violence was caused by
  mental illness, substance abuse or the victim's behavior. Courts assumed that the
  mental health professionals had expertise in domestic violence. At the time there was
  no specialized body of knowledge about domestic violence. Mental health professionals
  can help custody courts understand the circumstances when there is credible
  information that one of the parties or the children suffer from a mental impairment that
  significantly affects the ability to parent. There are a few mental health professionals
  who also have substantial knowledge and experience in domestic violence and are
  familiar with up-to-date research. The problem is that most mental health professionals
  relied on by custody courts have at most a few hours of domestic violence training and
  are unfamiliar with the up-to-date research. The research demonstrates they often fail
  to recognize domestic violence because they don't know what to look for and tend to
  minimize its significance. This is particularly harmful because they provide a false
  confidence that there is a scientific basis for their recommendations. (see Yeamans,
  Erickson, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Fields)

 

• 15. Best practices are for mental health professionals to consult with domestic violence
  experts when handling a case involving allegations of domestic violence. There have
  been several demonstration projects including Rockland County, New York where child
  protective agencies work with the local domestic violence shelter on cases involving
  suspected domestic violence. The agencies cross-train each other and when
  caseworkers have a potential domestic violence case they consult with a domestic
  violence advocate. This practice has proven effective in helping caseworkers recognize
  and respond appropriately to domestic violence cases. Psychologists and psychiatrists
  are ethically required to consult with experts when they are handling a case that
  involves a subject they are not expert in. It should be a standard practice for evaluators
  to consult with domestic violence experts when they respond to domestic violence
  cases. Unfortunately, these professionals, often with only a couple of hours of training
  in domestic violence and unfamiliar with the specialized body of research about domestic violence wrongly believe they don't need to consult with a genuine expert. Many lawyers don't know to raise this issue when questioning evaluators, but even when the issue is raised, judges rarely discredit an evaluators testimony for failing to consult a domestic violence expert or have familiarity with up-to-date research. (see Zorza, Fields, Goldstein and Hannah)

 

• 16. The use of psychological tests increases costs, delays cases and creates a false
  assumption that there is a scientific basis for recommendations. Psychological tests
  were developed for populations very different than those engaged in custody disputes.
  They cannot determine issues like domestic violence or parenting skills. They were
  designed to determine mental illness. Psychologists rarely tell the courts that the
  findings are based on probabilities and most tests reach conclusions accurate in 55 to
  65% of the cases. Other factors such as not being part of the intended population for
  the test, domestic violence or the stress of litigation further reduce the percentage of
  accuracy. Mothers' normal response to their partners' domestic violence is often
  misinterpreted as paranoia or delusion. This is particularly a problem where
  inadequately trained evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and then pathologize
  the victim for believing she was abused. (see Yeamans, Zorza, Erickson and Fields)

 

• 17. Mental health professionals relied on in custody cases often use a family systems
  approach which is not appropriate and in fact is dangerous in domestic violence cases.
  The approach seeks to have the parties forget past problems and develop new ways to
  work together in the future. This does nothing to change the belief system of abusers
  who are skilled at manipulating professionals who use such an approach. The
  professionals are usually unfamiliar with scientific research including the fact that only
  accountability and monitoring have been shown to change abusers' behavior. At the
  same time protective mothers are punished because they couldn't overcome their fear
  caused by a long history of their partner's abuse. This is another example of blaming
  the victim for her normal reaction to the father's abuse. (see Fields, Zorza and Crooks,
  Jaffe and Bala).

 

• 18. Context is particularly important in understanding and recognizing domestic violence. Repeatedly we have seen cases in which the court initially determines a mother's domestic violence allegations are false. When the father commits new abusive
  tactics (such as limiting contact between the mother and children after he gets custody
  or using the visitation exchanges to harass his victim, the courts usually refuse to
  consider the new information in the context of prior evidence of abuse on the ground
  that the court already denied the abuse. Courts often miss that the same acts should
  be treated very differently depending on motivation. There may be evidence that each
  party hit the other, but they may not be equivalent. One party may hit harder, one party
  may hit in self defense or to stop his abuse and the other to maintain control, and
  particularly important only one party may fear the other. Both parties may file complaints about professionals in the case. While they both would claim they have
  valid objections it is important to see the context of whether one of the parties had
  previously sought to isolate their partner from friends and family. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Zorza)

 

• 19. Not all children react the same to domestic violence and child abuse. Inadequately
  trained professionals expect abused children to have serious social or academic
  problems as a result of the abuse. Some children react by taking on adult roles, being
  the good child or zoning out. On the surface it appears the children are doing well, but
  the problems play out years later. Such unexpected reactions often lead to courts
  assuming valid abuse complaints are false. (see Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and
  Bosek)

 

• 20. We are particularly concerned with cases involving retaliation against protective mothers and extreme results that give custody to alleged abusers and supervised visits
  or no contact with children to the mothers. Unless the mother is unsafe (drug addict,
  beats the children) such extreme results are virtually always harmful to children. Many
  mothers have been punished for continuing to believe the father is dangerous after the
  court fails to find he committed abuse. Fathers are not similarly punished when they
  continue to deny their abuse after the court finds against him. Given the frequency in
  which courts fail to confirm valid claims of abuse, courts should be extremely reluctant to penalize mothers who continue to complain of their partner's abuse. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek)

 

• 21. Surprisingly there have been some judges who object to training about up-to-date
  research in domestic violence based on the belief that somehow neutrality requires
  judges to stay ignorant of this information. In reality such ignorance is not neutral as the myths, stereotypes and misinformation used instead of scientific research strongly
  favors abusive fathers.

The training of judges and other court personnel in domestic violence should be
conducted by domestic violence advocates and other experts familiar with the kind of
up-to-date research contained in this book. It is important that administrative judges
foster an attitude that the present system has resulted in thousands of children being
sent to live with abusers so judges must be open to the likelihood that many of the
beliefs and practices they have long used have been wrong. Courts should consider
holding an evidentiary hearing about domestic violence early in custody proceedings. If
the allegations of domestic violence are true and the other parent is safe (alienation
allegations are not about safety), the non-abusive parent should receive custody and
the abusive parent held accountable. This procedure would save courts time and
money while achieving results that benefit children. Courts should consider not
appointing an evaluator unless there is substantial reason to believe one of the parties or the children have a mental condition that would significantly interfere with parenting.
If an evaluator is used judges should seek experts with substantial domestic violence
training or at least have the evaluator consult with such an expert. Mediation and joint
counseling are always inappropriate in cases with abuse allegations. The safety of the
parties and the children must always be the first priority. Research demonstrates that
the best way to prevent domestic violence is to hold the abuser accountable and monitor his behavior. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and court professionals must be careful to avoid colluding with an abuser. Most important, we are not seeking to challenge or criticize judges, but rather to work together to support the policy and laws of every state which is to prevent domestic violence.

Domestic Violence 20/20 News