Meier, J. S., & Sankaran, V. (2021). Breaking down the silos that harm children: A call to child welfare, domestic violence and family court professionals. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. 1553. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/1553/
Abstract The intersection of domestic violence and child maltreatment has been the subject of research and reform efforts focused on the need to integrate a better understanding of domestic violence into child welfare system practice. But a similar effort at integration of domestic violence and child maltreatment concerns has never been directed at family courts adjudicating private custody litigation. And while such courts’ responses to domestic violence have been analyzed and discussed extensively in the literature, legal discussions of custody courts’ responses to child maltreatment are few and far between. At the same time, there has been an explosion of traumatic narratives on social media and in the literature describing family courts’ refusals to keep children safe from a parent alleged to be dangerous. This article examines the legal system’s siloed responses to domestic violence and child maltreatment, with a focus on family courts in custody cases. Newly published data have affirmed the growing outcry about family courts frequently rejecting child maltreatment allegations and removing custody from mothers who make such allegations. Custody court judges’ resistance to adjudicating child maltreatment is widespread and helps explain these patterns. Yet child welfare agencies, as well as reformers seeking to reduce reliance on foster care, trust family courts to protect children that come before them. We argue that systemic changes are needed to break down the silos between family courts and child welfare agencies to better protect children. We propose three practicable, concrete reforms to achieve this. We hope that this article will awaken those who care about children’s safety to the real dangers in family court adjudications, and encourage specialists in domestic violence, family court, and child maltreatment to collaborate in effectuating these much-needed changes. Obtain a full copy here: "Breaking Down the Silos that Harm Children: A Call to Child Welfare, " by Joan S. Meier and Vivek Sankaran (gwu.edu)
0 Comments
Ellis, D., Lewis,. T., & Nepon, T. (2021). Effects of historical coercive control, historical violence, and lawyer representation on post-separation male partner violence against mother litigants who participated in adversarial family court proceedings. Violence Against Women, 27(9), 1191-1210. DOI: 10.117/10780122921939
Abstract The primary objective of this study was to test the effects of historical male partner violence and lawyer representation on post-separation male partner violence and coercive control against mother litigants participating in adversarial family court proceedings. Toward this end, staff at two women’s shelters administered a questionnaire to 40 former residents who met the sample selection criteria. Two findings are noteworthy. First, there was a decrease in mother litigant reports of post-separation physical violence requiring a visit to a hospital. Second, post-separation male partner coercive control “most/some of the time” was reported by 97.5% of all 40 separated mother litigants who also reported experiencing historical coercive control by their male partners. Recommendations and limitations are described in the final two pages. Obtain a full copy of the article here: www.researchgate.net/publication/342375380_Effects_of_Historical_Coercive_Control_Historical_Violence_and_Lawyer_Representation_on_Post-Separation_Male_Partner_Violence_Against_Mother_Litigants_Who_Participated_in_Adversarial_Family_Court_Proc Brinig, M. F., Frederick, L. M., & Drozd, L. M. (2014). Presumptions on joint custody presumptions as applied to domestic violence cases
Abstract Despite the trend toward statutory presumptions in favor of joint legal and physical custody, practitioners increasingly recognize that domestic violence has serious implications for the efficacy and safety of parenting and shared care. This article explores the implications of domestic violence for shared parenting and for the statutory legal and physical custody presumptions and exceptions which are triggered by or are applicable to domestic violence. This article proposes that a better framework for addressing intimate partner violence–related custody cases is one that guides practitioners toward fact-based determinations of the implications of the violence for parenting and co-parenting in individual cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community: • Parents who are coercive controlling abusers frequently exhibit the types of problematic parenting behaviors which make shared parenting unrealistic. • Instead of applying blanket joint custody presumptions, all family court practitioners, including judges, should: (1) be alert to signs that domestic violence may be an issue; (2) understand the nature and context of any abuse; (3) determine the implications, if any, of the abuse for parenting and co-parenting; and (4) account for the violence and its implications in their handling of cases. • Exceptions for domestic violence cases fail to prevent the inappropriate application of joint custody presumptions to many families for whom domestic violence is a significant issue because: (1) abuse is often not detected by the system, (2) victims have problems proving that the abuse occurred, and (3) many practitioners are disinclined to believe that the abuse occurred. Obtain a full copy of the article here: (PDF) Perspectives on Joint Custody Presumptions as Applied to Domestic Violence Cases (researchgate.net) Khaw, L., Bermea, A. M., Hardesty, J. L., Saunders, D., & Whittaker, A. M. (2021). “The system had choked me too”: Abused mothers’ perceptions of the custody determination process that resulted in negative custody outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4310-4334. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518791226Click
Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem that continues to affect abused mothers after separation from an abusive partner. In addition to the risk of ongoing control and violence by abusers, the custody determination process may present challenges for mothers who end up with negative custody outcomes (e.g., share custody with abusers or lose custody). Using constructivist grounded theory techniques, we conducted a qualitative analysis of interviews with 24 abused mothers with negative custody outcomes to understand how they perceive and make sense of the process as a whole, and how they cope with these outcomes. The custody determination process was reportedly complex and stressful, and most mothers did not anticipate a negative custody outcome. Mothers’ perceptions and experiences followed three phases: “trusting “the system” to protect them and their children, adapting to “the system” in search of positive outcomes, and, once custody decisions were determined, coping with the aftermath of the judicial system process, either by accepting or resisting the outcome. This study echoes previous calls for further training and policies that make the custody determination process less burdensome and harmful for survivors and their children. Request a copy of the full article here: “The System Had Choked Me Too”: Abused Mothers’ Perceptions of the Custody Determination Process That Resulted in Negative Custody Outcomes | Request PDF (researchgate.net) Gutowski, E. & Goodman, L. A. (2020). “Like I’m invisible”: IPV survivor-mothers’ perceptions of seeking child custody through the family court system. Journal of Family Violence, 35, 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-00063-1
Abstract This qualitative descriptive study examines the perspectives of 19 mothers who survived intimate partner violence (IPV) and sought custody of one or more children through the family court system. We explored these mothers’ perceptions of the nature of court processes from start to finish, their understandings of the impact of court processes and outcomes on their well-being, and their recommendations for improvements to facilitate a process that is sensitive to survivors’ experiences with IPV. Mothers interviewed in this study described an experience that was largely invalidating and distressing, compounding the adverse effects of IPV on their well-being. Qualitative content analysis yielded six clusters: 1) survivors must enter into a court environment that implicitly presumes the absence of trauma, 2) survivors face obstacles to getting their stories of abuse across and heard, 3) survivors experience harmful and helpful interactions with court professionals, 4) survivors endure distress in the courtroom, 5) survivors suffer psychosocial consequences outside of the courtroom, and 6) survivors make recommendations for an improved custody process that is sensitive to experiences of IPV. Results paint a picture of a family court system that has the potential to cause grave, lasting harms to survivor-mothers who are separating from abusive partners. Obtain a full copy of the article here: (PDF) “Like I’m Invisible”: IPV Survivor-Mothers’ Perceptions of Seeking Child Custody through the Family Court System (researchgate.net) Cross, P. (2013). When Shared Parenting and the Safety of Women and Children Collide. Luke’s Place Support and Resource Centre
Introduction This paper explores this topic from an experience-based perspective: my work as a family law lawyer representing women who had experienced abuse and my work at the systemic level as a community researcher, educator and advocate, working with frontline workers who support women involved with family court after leaving abusive relationships. It reflects the stories and lived experiences of hundreds of women that I have encountered either directly or through their legal support workers. Read the full report here: Microsoft Word - FINAL - Shared Parenting - September 2016.docx (lukesplace.ca) Birnbaum, R. (2019). "Virtual parenting" after separation and divorce. The Vanier Institute of the Family.
Introduction The rapid increase in the use of communication technologies, such as text messages, instant messaging, email, social networking sites, Skype, FaceTime and webcams, has provided a variety of new ways for parents to maintain their relationships with their children and manage family responsibilities after separation and divorce. At the same time, the increased use of these methods has also created a new area of discussion and debate about the risks and benefits of this type of “virtual parenting.” Issues such as safety and vulnerability, the ability to use technology, and privacy and confidentiality for the child and each parent are only some of the considerations both for the family justice professionals who recommend virtual contact and for the courts that decide on these types of parent–child contact orders. Retrieve the report here: “Virtual Parenting” After Separation and Divorce – The Vanier Institute of the Family / L’Institut Vanier de la famille Jaffe, P. (2014). A presumption against shared parenting for family court litigants. Family Court Review, 52(2), 187-192. Abstract Shared parenting is the most beneficial model for planning the future of many separating parents and their children. Shared parenting needs to be crafted, for appropriate cases, by willing parents on their own or through coaching by responsible lawyers, counsellors, or mediators. Shared parenting is not an outcome that should be forced on high‐conflict parents against their will as a compromise in the hopes that they will grow into the plan. Separating parents with a history of domestic violence need to receive appropriate screening and assessment on the nature of the violence, the impact of the violence on the adult victim and children, and the interventions required by the perpetrator before a safe parenting plan can be designed. The Think Tank Report on shared parenting is to be commended for its work. The Report acknowledges some of the limitations of shared parenting in situations that pose risks to children and/or inadvertently promote ongoing conflicts between parents. My concern is that domestic violence victims will be forced into shared parenting or fear being labelled as “hostile” and “unfriendly parents” or accused of alienation. There continues to be a need for much more professional education on the ongoing risks of domestic violence and the implications for differentiated parenting plans. Request a copy of the article here: A Presumption Against Shared Parenting for Family Court Litigants (researchgate.net) Gender politics and child custody: The puzzling persistence of the best-interests standard9/21/2020 E. S. Scott & R. E. Emery (2014). Gender politics and child custody: The puzzling persistence of the best-interests standards. Law and Contemporary Problems, 77(1), 69-108.
"There appear to be two different perspectives on the presumption of shared time parenting, one expressing concern about domestic violence or safety and responsibility, and the other concern about parental alienation from children, or the rights of parents; both are perceived to be problematic to policy reform toward shared parenting (Scott & Emery, 2014).” Read the full article here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288688063_Gender_Politics_and_Child_Custody_The_Puzzling_Persistence_of_the_Best-Interests_Standard Judith Hughes & S. Chau (2012). In Critical Social Policy, 32(3), 1-19.
Abstract This article summarizes the findings of a project investigating women’s experiences with the Canadian child protection (CPS) and family law (FLS) systems. We examine both service systems together here because although both privilege children’s best interests as their primary consideration and define the concept similarly, the two systems diverge in their expectations of women relative to child custody. While FLS requires women to accept custody arrangements that provide close and continued contact between themselves and their former abusive partners, CPS expects women to leave these same abusive partners or risk removal of their children. The results of thirty-five qualitative interviews with women demonstrate their struggles, firstly, in having their experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) recognized by professionals in the FLS, and, secondly, in becoming caught between the opposing expectations of CPS and FLS while not receiving help from either. Recommendations for change to improve these services are included in this article. Request a copy of the article here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264918689_Children%27s_Best_Interests_and_Intimate_Partner_Violence_in_the_Canadian_Family_Law_and_Child_Protection_Systems |
Archives
May 2022
|