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)
0 Comments
Drozd, L. M., Deustch, R. M., Robin, M., & Donner, D. A. (2020). Parenting coordination in cases involving intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, 58(3), 774-792. DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12512
Abstract Parenting Coordination is a “hybrid legal‐mental health role that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management, dispute resolution and, often times, decision‐making functions (AFCC, 2019, https://www.afccnet.org/Portals/0/PublicDocuments/Guidelines%20for%20PC%20with%20Appendex.pdf?ver=2020-01-30-190220-990). This article addresses issues that arise when the case has allegations or findings of intimate partner violence (IPV). Considerations of the type of IPV, the severity, timing, perpetrator and effects on coparenting are discussed in the context of the parenting coordinator's role. Through screening and assessment, we differentiate the kinds of cases with the presence of IPV where a PC may be effective as opposed to other IPV cases that may not predict success for retaining a PC. Request a full-text copy of the article here: Parenting Coordination In Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence (researchgate.net) Koshan, J., Mosher, J., & Wiegers, W. (2020). COVID-19, the shadow pandemic, and access to justice for survivors of domestic violence. Osgood Hall Law Journal, Osgood Legal Studies Research Paper.
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has co-existed alongside a far less visible “shadow pandemic” of violence against women, with COVID-19 impacting the number and complexity of domestic violence cases and enabling new tactics for coercive control. This article provides a preliminary assessment of the extent to which Canada’s responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have prioritized the safety of women and children, with a focus on the courts and women’s access to justice. We examine court directives and judicial decisions triaging which cases would be heard as “urgent,” as well as courts’ decisions on the merits in cases involving domestic violence and COVID-19, spanning the areas of family, child welfare, criminal law, and civil protection orders. In the sixty-seven reported decisions in our sample, we find very little awareness overall of the heightened risks for survivors during COVID-19, in keeping with the pre-pandemic tendency of decision makers to focus on incident-based physical violence instead of patterns of coercive control. Our analysis also suggests that survivors’ ability to prove domestic violence and secure court orders that would help to ensure their safety was hampered not only by procedural complexity but also by the reduced availability of a range of services—health, counselling, housing, and supervised access centres, for example— as a result of COVID-19. The cases further reveal significant differences in judicial interpretation of the risks of COVID-19 relative to the risks of domestic violence, often depending on the area of law in question. This again aligns with observations of the judicial treatment of domestic violence prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, with different and sometimes conflicting norms and assumptions prevailing in different legal contexts. We conclude that despite some positive government responses and judicial decisions, COVID-19 has further exposed many of the gaps in knowledge about domestic violence and in the supports and resources necessary to make women and children safe that long pre-dated COVID19. In addressing the ongoing pandemic of violence against women, we offer some suggestions of measures to improve access to justice during this and future disasters. Obtain the full report here: COVID-19, the Shadow Pandemic, and Access to Justice for Survivors of Domestic Violence by Jennifer Koshan, Janet Eaton Mosher, Wanda Anne Wiegers :: SSRN 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) Campo, M., Fehlberg, B., Natalier, K., & Smyth, B. (2020). Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2020.1796218
ABSTRACT This paper explores 68 Australian children and young people’s understandings of what ‘home’ means for them after their parents’ separation. Home – a familiar yet complex concept of great personal and social significance – has been a research focus for many other disciplines but not family law. We found that home, as an idea and lived experience, was complex. Children and young people’s descriptions of home conveyed an interaction of tangible and intangible dimensions. Home was rarely defined by children and young people solely in terms of a physical residence; rather it was a fundamentally relational idea and experience, largely created through everyday interactions with significant others. Our study suggests that home is not simply the outcome of conforming to a defined list of ‘good’ post-separation parenting practices, or dependent on the amount of time spent at each parent’s residence: it has an existential significance for children and young people that matters deeply to them. Request a copy here: THE MEANING OF 'HOME' TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE AFTER PARENTAL SEPARATION | Bruce M Smyth | 7 updates | 1 publications | Research Project (researchgate.net) Sheehy, E., & Boyd, S. B. (2020). Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42(1), 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1701940 Abstract
This paper explores Canadian family law cases involving claims of parental alienation and of family violence from 2014–2018, reporting the data on these claims, their resolution, and their impacts upon custody and access. A close reading of those cases where both alienation and intimate partner violence claims are made reveals troubling patterns in how intimate partner violence is discounted in this context. We suggest that the rise of shared parenting as a dominant norm assists in understanding why alienation has achieved such unquestioned status, and call for greater focus on safety and women’s and children’s voices. Request a full-copy here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339328203_Penalizing_women%27s_fear_intimate_partner_violence_and_parental_alienation_in_Canadian_child_custody_cases 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 (2008). Problèmes Sociaux et Intervention Sociales (Social Problems and Social Interventions and Responses) (pp. 315-332) in S. Arcand, D. Damant, S. Gravel, E. Harper (eds.), Saint Foy, Quebec, Canada: Presse de l’Université du Quebec.
Beth Archer-Kuhn (2018). In the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2018.1444446
Abstract: In child custody decision-making experiences of domestic violence and high conflict are not the same. Legislative reform has not yet been guided by the parent voice to inform differentiated responses that keep women and children safe. Available literature in child custody decision-making focuses on outcome research regarding children’s adjustment and well-being. Debates about types of post-separation arrangements have yet to find agreement in three under-researched areas: (a) high conflict, (b) domestic violence; and (c) children under four. Yet, Canadian legislation supports shared parenting arrangements that privilege the dominant, powerful parent in situations of domestic violence. Based on a Canadian study that explores the parent perspectives and experiences of child custody decision-making, this paper privileges a sub-group of participants; five women, all survivors of domestic violence; defined here as both physical violence and coercive control. Data collection includes one-on-one tape-recorded interviews. Thematic analysis reveals that shared parenting is neither the goal, nor does it meet the needs of these women. The findings illuminate the importance of differentiating parent experience as distinct groups, and reinforces the notion of the state’s role in the reproduction of gendered power. Legislative reform and collaborative community practices are critical to facilitate healthy differentiated responses. Read the article here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323531277_Domestic_violence_and_high_conflict_are_not_the_same_a_gendered_analysis |
Archives
May 2022
|