Bala, N., & Ebsim, Y. (2022, March). The 2021 Canadian parenting reforms: Is shared parenting the new normal? Queen's Law Research Paper Series, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4058375
0 Comments
Cross, P. (2016). When shared parenting and the safety of women and children collide. Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre.
Introduction Women who have left abusive partners need and deserve a legal system that is able to adequately assess and address the violence they have experienced in its decision-making about child custody and access. Outcomes of family court decisions about custody and access should contribute to the safety of women and children, not detract from it. Yet many of us who provide family court support to women leaving abusive relationships observe that family court systems in Canada do not understand the ongoing impact of intimate partner abuse on women, many of whom are dealing with post-separation abuse, with the result that custody and access outcomes too often force women and children into unsafe – even lethal – contact with their abuser for many years (Harrison, 2008; Hardesty, Khaw, Chung, & Martin, 2008; Holt, 2015). 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. Download a copy of the article here: Microsoft Word - FINAL - Shared Parenting - September 2016.docx (lukesplace.ca) 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) Lux, G., & Gill, S. (2021). Identifying coercive control in Canadian family law: A required analysis in determining the best interests of the child. Family Court Review, 59(4), 810-827. DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12540
Abstract Amendments to the Canadian Divorce Act have required that family violence, specifically coercive controlling behaviour, be considered when making best interest determinations for children. This paper (1) outlines how this concealed, patterned, and harmful behaviour presents in family law disputes and (2) sets out considerations for parenting arrangements. It identifies the perils of subjective impressions as well as where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse. Children in families where coercive control is occurring are at risk of harm. The lack of intentional analysis of coercive control does not serve the best interests of the child. Practitioner’s Key Points: - Coercive Controlling violence is generally the most serious type of violence in family law. - Children are directly impacted by coercive control even after separation. - The subjective perceptions made by Family law and mental health professionals about family violence impacts the identification of this harmful conduct. - Family Law and allied professionals need to identify and understand how the subtle and often concealed patterns of coercive controlling behaviour can present in their files. - Family Law and allied professionals need to understand where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse by a perpetrator of coercive control. - Best Interest Determinations require an intentional analysis of the presence of coercive controlling behaviours on the part of a parent. Request a full copy of the article here: www.researchgate.net/publication/354781515_Identifying_Coercive_Control_in_Canadian_Family_Law_A_Required_Analysis_in_Determining_the_Best_Interests_of_the_Child 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 Morton, M., Samardzic, T., Cross, P., Johnstone, S., Vesely, L., & Choubak, M. (2021). The degendering of male perpetrated intimate partner violence against female partners in Ontario family law courts. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 43(1), 104-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2021.1917711
Abstract n this paper, we conducted a critical community-engaged Ontario family law case review of 46 cases from 2019 where intimate partner violence was identified. We explored the extent to which judges identified and addressed intimate partner violence and whether the gender of judges impacted on trial outcomes and judges’ parental assessments. We found that judges de-gendered the language of violence, which impacted trial outcomes (e.g., more rulings of unsupervised access for fathers despite them having been violent) and a mutualisation of responsibility by referring to the violence as ‘conflict.’ We also found that male judges were more likely to negatively assess the mothers as both parents and witnesses. We call for more research that explores whether the changes to the Canadian federal Divorce Act (which includes ‘family violence’) will have an impact on the manner in which intimate partner violence is identified and/or referred to by family law judges, and if and how this influences the weighting of salient outcomes in Ontario family court cases. Request a full-copy of the article here: The degendering of male perpetrated intimate partner violence Against female partners in Ontario family law courts | Request PDF (researchgate.net) Post-Separation Contact and Domestic Violence: our 7-Point Plan for Safe[r] Contact for Children10/11/2021 James-Hanman, D., & Holt, S. (2021). Post-separation contact and domestic violence: Our 7-point plan for safe[r] contact for children. Journal of Family Violence, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00256-7
Abstract The impact of living with domestic violence and abuse has been recognised in policy and law in many jurisdictions as reaching the threshold of ‘significant harm’, with children’s exposure included in definitions of abuse and neglect that require mandatory reporting, alongside an emerging recognition of coercive control as central to both the perpetration of domestic violence and abuse, and how children experience it. Far from separation providing an end to this exposure, over two decades of research on child contact arrangements highlights how it can provide legitimate opportunities for abuse to continue. While the empirical evidence demonstrates that using violence against a partner impacts on men’s ability to parent their children pre-separation, and a burgeoning knowledge base and improved professional acumen appreciates the risk to children and mothers of ongoing and escalating abuse post-separation, the international practice of the presumption of contact continues to trump this empirical evidence in the overwhelming majority of cases. This not only fails to consider the risk that domestic violence and abuse poses to child safety, but serves further to marginalise children’s safety. Motivated by our collective experience across the domains of research, policy and practice, this commentary poses some difficult questions, challenging a conversation about both the risks and benefits of contact in the context of a history of domestic violence and abuse. In no particular order, this paper outlines our seven point plan, which, based on the evidence, we believe could make a significant difference to safe(r) post-separation contact for children To download a copy of the full article: www.researchgate.net/publication/349425541_Post-Separation_Contact_and_Domestic_Violence_our_7-Point_Plan_for_Safer_Contact_for_Children 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) Laing, L. (2017). Secondary victimization: Domestic violence survivors navigating the family law system. Violence Against Women, 23(11), 1314-1335. DOI: 10.1177/1077801216659942
Abstract This qualitative study explored the experiences of 22 domestic violence survivors attempting to negotiate safe post-separation parenting arrangements through the Australian family law system. Their allegations of violence put them at odds with a system that values mediated settlements and shared parenting. Skeptical responses, accusations of parental alienation, and pressure to agree to unsafe arrangements exacerbated the effects of post-separation violence. Core themes in the women's narratives of engagement with the family law system-silencing, control, and undermining the mother-child relationship-mirrored domestic violence dynamics, suggesting the concept of secondary victimization as a useful lens for understanding their experiences. Request a copy of the full-text here: Secondary Victimization: Domestic Violence Survivors Navigating the Family Law System | Request PDF (researchgate.net) Archer-Kuhn, B., Beltrano, N. B., Hughes, J., Saini, M., & Tam, D. (2021). Recruitment in response to a pandemic. Pivoting a community-based recruitment strategy to facebook for hard-to-reach populations during COVID-19. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2021.1941647
Abstract COVID-19 has required researchers to change methods to better reflect the new realities of social distancing, sheltering in place, and the use of extended quarantines to isolate from the community. The paper illustrates the implications of shifting recruitment strategies midstream with populations that are already normally considered ‘hard-to-reach’. The population in this illustration involves mothers with young children in shared parenting arrangements across three Canadian provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario) who have experienced domestic violence. Due to public health protocols that required social distancing, strategies typically used to engage vulnerable populations in research, including collaborating with community service providers and face-to-face contact were no longer possible. With limited knowledge and resources, we pivoted our recruitment strategy from the use of posters in agencies to a paid Facebook advertisement strategy. Prior to our social media campaign, our time-intensive recruitment efforts had produced very few responses to our online survey. Our advertisement ran from March 13 to 12 July 2020 and Facebook reported that it ‘reached’ an approximate 42,488 viewers Through Facebook, we discovered a number of support groups for mothers with young children that only exist online. Rather than putting up posters in their settings, community service providers became online recruiters through their ‘tweets’, ‘likes’, and ‘sharing’ of our study. The impact of COVID-19 on our research has taught us about the power of social media as a recruitment strategy. Facebook is a useful tool to enhance research awareness and engagement with hard-to-reach populations even post COVID-19. Request a copy of the full article here: International Journal of Social Research Methodology ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsrm20 Recruitment in response to a pandemic: pivoting a community-based recruitment strategy to facebook for hard-to-reach populations during COVID-19 | Request PDF (researchgate.net) |
Archives
May 2022
|