Thursday, September 16, 2010

A Cancer Spreading in the Custody Court System

By Barry Goldstein

The concept of Custody-Visitation Scandal Cases was developed because of the frequency of extreme results in custody cases in which children are endangered, safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children and the results appear to be the opposite of what the evidence and the well being of the children would require. The Battered Mothers Custody Conference was started in response to what we believed were too many of these tragic cases to be viewed as exceptions.

When we look at an individual case, it is hard to be sure the decision is wrong without a careful review of the record. In most cases mothers are pathologized or demonized in order to create the appearance of a justification for the extreme actions taken. When the bad decisions backfire in a way that demonstrates even to the courts that the wrong decision was made, the defenders of the courts like to believe these cases constitute the exceptions to the usual good job done by courts. There is now a large body of research about these cases that show there are too many cases with extreme results and flawed practices to be conveniently dismissed as exceptions. To illustrate the problem, I want to look at four of these extreme cases not because they are exceptions, but because they represent the kinds of mistakes the court system routinely makes and will continue to make until it changes practices that were developed at a time when no research was available and have proven to be detrimental to the children the courts are supposed to protect.

In one New Jersey case I have consulted on, the father has a long history of domestic violence and after the separation, the children disclosed sexual abuse. In this as in all the cases I will be discussing, the mother was unquestionably the primary attachment figure for the children. DYFS, the New Jersey child protective agency, investigated the allegations, but failed to confirm them. As a result, the father was given custody and as the protective mother continued to believe the father was dangerous, and challenge the professionals who failed to protect her children, she has been limited to supervised visitation.

In a well known Kansas case that I have discussed with the protective mother, the father has numerous convictions for domestic violence and other crimes and a poor relationship with the daughter. Despite this, the court gave custody to the father and imposed ever greater restrictions on the mother's access to the daughter. The mother has been active in exposing the broken court system and the court has wasted large amounts of time and money seeking to remove information from the Internet and silence the mother's concerns. The court has retaliated against the mother with reductions in visitation and a variety of sanctions.

In a California case, the mother left the father because of his abusiveness to the mother. Initially, the mother agreed to give the father unsupervised visitation, but as he continued his abuse and threatened to kill the baby, she sought to restrict him to supervised visitation. The judge decided she was a liar, awarded the father unsupervised visitation and threatened further action against the mother if the judge's belief she was lying was confirmed.

In a Maryland case the protective mother also sought to leave her abuser and when he made threats to hurt the children sought a protective order. Shortly before the mother appeared in court, she had sex with her husband. The judge, not understanding that it would not have been safe for the mother to refuse, assumed this meant the father could not possibly be dangerous and granted unsupervised visitation for the father.

One of the problems we have seen repeatedly is that when a court makes a mistake and fails to recognize or respond to danger caused by domestic violence, they will rarely admit to these mistakes. Instead we see the kind of retaliation and punitive measures harmful to children that was used in the New Jersey and Kansas cases. Nevertheless, the courts in California and Maryland would now admit they made the wrong decision. The case in California involved Katie Tagle as the protective mother. The father used the access given him by the judge to kill Baby Wyatt and then himself. Similarly, in Maryland, the mother was Dr. Amy Castillo and the father used the access provided by the judge to kill their three children and then himself.

The judges in California and Maryland are deeply disturbed by the outcome and genuinely sorry for their mistake. At the same time, they have defended their decisions saying they couldn't have known of the father's danger based upon the evidence in front of them. In one sense they are correct. The judges in these four cases all used the same outdated and discredited practices including the popular myth that women often make false allegations in order to gain an advantage in litigation. This contributes to the widespread inability of custody courts to recognize domestic violence and in turn led to the mistakes in these four cases and other cases endangering over 58,000 children every year.

If all or even a larger portion of the bad decisions led to an immediate and recognizable tragedy like the cases in California and Maryland, the needed reforms would have been adopted long ago and children controlled by custody courts would be protected. Most of the time, however, the cases are more like New Jersey and Kansas where the harm is better hidden and not as dramatic for the public. The children grow up without their primary attachment figure, often suffer private but horrible abuse and many become involved in a wide range of harmful behaviors in response to the direct and indirect abuse inflicted by their abusers. Most will never reach their potential as a result of the mistakes made in the custody courts.

Many communities have developed a practice in which child protective agencies team with the local domestic violence shelter. They cross-train staff and when a possible domestic violence case develops, child protective caseworkers consult with domestic violence advocates. This has resulted in child protective agencies being able to better recognize domestic violence and respond in ways that benefit the children. This should be considered best practices. DYFS recently adopted these best practices, but the New Jersey case was first investigated under the old flawed methods. The protective mother has asked DYFS and the court to take a fresh look at the original findings based upon better practices and the new research, but they adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that they made a mistake while using the old discredited practices. The judge has refused to consider any new evidence based on the up-to-date research and insists on proceeding with the case based on the unlikely conclusion that the mother's allegations are false.

As with many mistaken decisions, the mother has been pathologized by the unqualified professionals involved in the case. DYFS regularly uses the same mental health professionals who intuitively understand they are more likely to continue to be used by DYFS if they reach conclusions that support DYFS' findings. There is substantial evidence of confirmation bias in the work of the "neutral" professionals relied on by DYFS and the court. Since they "know" the mother's allegations are false and she continues to believe them, she must be "delusional" and therefore unfit for anything but supervised visitation. If she were delusional, it would stand to reason that this would present a problem in the rest of her life. These professionals have never stopped to consider how she can be successful professionally, academically and in all other phases of her life. Perhaps the DSM should include a new condition "delusional in the custody courts."

At this point, the concern is that because she continues to believe the father abused the children (based on substantial evidence) and so if she had unsupervised visitation would say negative things to the children. This is the beginning and the end of the discussion by the unqualified professionals relied on by the courts. The mother is the primary attachment figure to her children, so separating her from the children creates a higher risk of depression, low-self-esteem and suicide. Where is the research that establishes what harm would be caused to the children if she made these statements and they were false? There is no such research, it is just assumed by professionals unused to looking for research to justify their beliefs and recommendations. How can we know if the alleged harm of the mother making statements about the father is greater than the established harm of taking children away from their primary attachment figure?

The Kansas case is similar in that they have long since ignored or minimized the very real danger the abusive father poses to the child and instead concentrate all their attention on the supposed harm the mother can cause by continuing to believe the father is unsafe and posting information on the Internet that helps to expose a broken court system. Judges are ethically required to avoid actions that create the appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest. Although they phrase the demand to remove material as if it benefitted the child, in reality the real purpose is to hide the history of abuse of the father and the failure of the court to act in the child's best interests. Given the clear conflict of interest (they are seeking to remove materials that criticize the court), at the very least they would need convincing evidence that the mother's beliefs would create a long-term harm to the child. Similarly, the removal of the mother from the child's life, although she is the primary attachment figure creates a serious risk of harm to the child that the court has failed to address. Until the court can cite evidence or research to support its assumptions, the extreme actions present at least an appearance of impropriety. Ironically in both cases the courts put a high priority on placing the children with the parent it viewed as most likely to promote a relationship with the other parent, but when the abusive fathers sought to deny the children a meaningful relationship with the parent the children most need (the primary attachment figure), the same priority of keeping both parents in the children's lives was no longer paramount. This is a common mistake in the custody courts and is one example of the widespread gender bias faced by mothers. In fairness, court professionals are often oblivious to the gender biased approaches they use, but tend to get angry and retaliatory when it is pointed out to them.

I believe it is outrageous that the custody courts have not made children's safety the first priority. In the California and Maryland cases where there was evidence of a history of domestic violence and threats to kill the children, the court had time for only a brief hearing and refused to protect the children's safety resulting in their deaths at the hands of their fathers. At the same time, In the New Jersey and Kansas cases the courts seem to have unlimited time and resources to investigate the "danger" the children might hear their mothers' concern for their safety and well being.

Certainly there are mothers whose contact with the children needs to be limited. This would be in cases where there is a genuine safety risk such as a mother who is a drug addict, physically abuses the children or has a mental illness so severe as to make her unsafe to care of the children. In the absence of such safety issues it is virtually always wrong for courts to take the extreme action of barring unsupervised visitation. This is certainly true when it is done in the context of mothers trying to protect their children from fathers they believe are unsafe. The research establishes that because of the outdated and discredited practices court professionals routinely use, a large majority of findings denying the mothers' allegations are mistaken. Even when her allegations are untrue, it is unlikely the risk she will make negative comments about the father is more significant than the harm of taking a primary attachment figure out of the children's lives. In other words the harm to the children of these visitation restrictions is almost always greater than the harm the court thinks it is avoiding.

This was explained by Joan Zorza in her chapter in our book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, chapter 14 page 26. "Otherwise as shown in many parts of this book, courts often make mistakes that place the lives and safety of protective mothers and their children in jeopardy. In this context, it is important for courts that rule against alleged victims of DV to be open to the possibility that they made a mistake. Courts should be reluctant to take punitive or retaliatory actions against mothers who continue to believe their partners abused them." The courts in Kansas and New Jersey could have saved the children a lot of harm (and still can) by following this advice based on the most up-to-date research available.

The elephant in the room is the issue of corruption. Every time courts make decisions that appear to have no relationship to the evidence presented and make orders that cannot possibly benefit the children involved, they create the appearance of corruption. When courts seek to silence protective mothers and retaliate for criticism of the court or their abuser, they are promoting the belief that only corruption could explain these extreme and harmful decisions.

There are cases decided by corruption. The Judge Garson case in Brooklyn, New York is a prime example and his early release from jail after conviction further harmed the courts' reputation. More commonly mental health professionals and some attorneys have adopted beliefs and practices that favor abusers because that is where the money is. Nevertheless, I believe the research establishes that most of these bad decisions are caused by outdated and discredited practices that are deeply ingrained after all these years. In my career, I have seen many good people who I like and respect use these practices and come to extremely harmful conclusions. It is important, however that the legal system open its eyes to this problem, review the new research and stop acting defensively to the justified criticism.

In the summer of Watergate, John Dean testified that he told Nixon about a cancer on the presidency. His assumption was that the illegal and unethical practices were committed only by Nixon's aides. It turned out that Nixon himself was the cancer on the presidency and had to be removed. Today there is a cancer on the custody court system. Some children are dying and others have their lives ruined by unjustified and extreme decisions. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence wrote in her Afterward to our new book that once the book is published anyone who continues to use the old practices must be understood to be committing malpractice. The four cases discussed in this article were originally decided based upon the old discredited practices. It is too late to save the children in California and Maryland. This is what happens when inadequately trained professionals rely on the myth that women frequently make false allegations. We can still help the children in New Jersey and Kansas by taking a fresh look at the cases based on the up-to-date research now available. The court system is at a crossroads. It now has the research to reform its training and practices so that they can better protect all the children. I hope they will treat the research as a gift and not an attack and use it to remove the cancer on the court system. In doing so the court system can support my view that the mistaken decisions are not based on corruption.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. 

Enhanced by Zemanta


  1. Once again, thank you Mr. Goldstein.

    ~Veronique Wyvell

    1. This is happening at this very moment to my daughter...I just contacted my state reps and they won't get involved saying they don't get involved in "custody issues". I explained this situation goes way beyond "custody" and is a legal issue and they don't want to hear it. Thank you so much for your insight. I continue to pray for my grandchildren who were taken by the system in February (a week after the death of their great grandmother).

  2. Brilliant Article. Thanks so much Barry.

  3. The cancer has to stop spreading and justice to kids must be granted..otherwise the costs is going to be too high one day...if not what already is...evidence clearly shows this Barry. Thank you.

  4. Thankyou so much for standing up for Women and Children.
    This is the resistance movement of the modern day.
    Resisting Injustice and Speaking up for Women who have been persecuted and maligned by the Society we live in.

  5. I first found Veronique Wyvell's website in 2007. Writing to tell her how my nightmare began in 2006 was an attempt to figure out how a loving Mother of two young babies could be TDO'd, handcuffed in front of her children, and then shackled to be taken to a mental hospital. The controlling and vicious man who set all that up had a plan. One thing he didn't plan on is what a strong woman I am, and how far or how long I will fight for my children. From 2006 to 2008, when we FINALLY went to court for divorce/custody - we had 5 and a half days of court...murder trials don't last that long - I'd been accused of everything under the sun, including being a lesbian, and all unfounded. Our court ordered custody evaluator, a Forensic Psychologist, recommended in his final report that I have full physical custody due to my (now) Ex's inability to coparent, and that "in his (my Ex's) mission to prove me as a bad Mother, he lost focus of the children. He is rigid and controlling". However, on the 6th day of court, when JUDGE BRUCE KUSHNER made his final ruling he said "the court usually sides heavily with the custody evaluator, however, the court is going to grant custody to remain the same, joint. Which dooms you all to work together, to the detriment of these children God forbid." The finalized documents were not signed until July of 2009! And you guessed Ex is still doing the DV by proxy. I have continually attempted to coparent, and have tolerated the unilateral decisions he has made for both of our children as if he were the primary custodial parent. I recently stood up for my 4 year old NOT to be in preschool from 7:30am-3:15pm Monday-Friday, (he changed her schedule to F/T from the M-W-F half days as we agreed, and notified me by email at the last minute), I told him I didn't agree with his unilateral last minute change, and also stated as I have for 2 years, I am available to care for our daughter, but he refuses and will never let me care for our children when he is unavailable or working. Within 3 days, HE AND HIS "DO ANYTHING TO WIN" LAWYER filed for full physical custody AGAIN. Scheduled to go for round two on January 19th. Oh, did I mention that the last fight he insisted on took 3 years and left this stay-at-home Mom (and former Military wife of 12 and a half years) $106,000.00 in debt and bankrupt? How long will this one take? How much? Or is this the one where he thinks he will finally "buy full custody"...IS THERE ANYONE - a legitimate lawyer - IN VIRGINIA WHO IS WILLING TO STAND UP FOR TRULY GOOD MOTHERS AND THE BEST INTEREST OF CHILDREN? I was told recently by Legal Aid of Eastern Virgiia that "The courtroom is no place for the truth" and that "To a Judge, if a 4 year old is better off with a parent or a babysitter, that's a parenting choice...they don't want to get involved in parenting choices." Tell me I'm still in the Good Ole US of A. After all I've been through, I still believe in justice, I still believe in good people - and I will always believe in myself, and my ablility as a wonderful, loving Mother. "I'm teaching my children that my presence is more important than my presents" ~ LadyJB

  6. Your situation is so very similar to mine. My X abused me before and during marriage. He got jealous when I purchased a nice home for me and my son and started his plan. First he stopped child support and then accused me of not allowing him to see his son and then he tried to lie and file a false protective order to get custody. That PO got denied so he tried again that January. His attorney wrote that one and lied on it and signed as if he was a relative writing it! Well the stupid judge believed the nonsense and then the attorney in front of me brain washed and coached my son of 14 so I had not other option but to sign a consent order due to my incompetent representation. I knew at that point my son's life and mine was over. Well a month later my straight A son was expelled from school and placed into a psychiatric program and then a few months later the dad and step mom pressed assault charges on my son. Incredible and they did it 3 times over and put my son in jail. The arrest days correspond to the trial dates of the custody trial in Maryland, interesting coincidence!!!!
    The judges are conveniently blind and deaf aren't they.
    Well my child's life has been ruined they dad will not relinquish custody to me and a week later in the Virginia courts abandons him! He is now at 16 in foster care. At 16 and so bright and they do not care what my son has to say nor will they listen to any facts substantiated by documents. DFS has now abused and neglected him and did not even register him for school and the judge is OK with that.
    OH by the way I am a teacher of 15 years also!
    amazing is it not. My X was found guilty of physical and emotional abuse as well and the courts continue to try to find fault with me and will not stop even though I am a victim in this as well. All the issues with me son happened in his father's care. I live 60 miles away in Maryland! But I am the one getting blamed I am doing everything the court as requested and more and it still is not acceptable. I presented a pscyh assessment as asked and they would not even look at it They accuse me of fraud and said they have to check with the therapist!!!!!! Amazing!
    When will this stop. To destroy a child's life just to appease their own sense of control and power. All the adults have their own agenda and no one has THE BEST INTEREST OF MY CHILD JUST AS THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IS SUPPOSE TO BE.
    Also i cannot find an advocate for my son. He also has a disability and cannot get assistance for him. The court discriminated also in regard to his disability also! and denied him FAPE.
    If anyone can help it is appreciated. I am going through a nightmare and do not know how much more I can take of this farce of a courtroom. What a drama. I should sell tickets.

  7. I am going thru something so very similar It is incredible. The court is blind to the truth and will do whatever they want to do in spite of the facts presented. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD


  9. We have similar experiences in Ireland and UK

  10. I'm in a lesbian relationship and I have been for 11 years. My girlfriend's sister had given birth to a baby she couldn't take care of and she knew the state would take the child anyway, so she asked her sister to raise the child. He was four weeks old, my girlfriend and i agreed to take in this child. Docs NSW put him in our care, his name is Ty and when Ty turned seven he asked me if he could go on holidays to stay with his Nan for two weeks in the school holidays. We made the decision for him to be allowed to and took him to Qld for him to stay with his Nan for the school holidays, while he was there, his aunty and i were back in Sydney, his biological mum came to Ty's Nan's house and assaulted her and took Ty not knowing what to do but to get Ty safe. I rang child safety services and told them what had happened and they went and got Ty within 25 minutes of my call. Ty's aunty and i then flew to Qld to take Ty home, only to find out he was in court and they were deciding his custody. Asking everybody, I tried to get someone to tell the judge we were there and we are the only parents Ty knows and we have come to take him home but Maroochydore child safety said "after interviewing both of you our decision is that we can't give Ty back to you because you are lesbians", its been two years since then and i fight for my son every day but it falls on deaf ears. I found out three months after child safety had him that they had placed him with a paedophile. My baby is in such danger of being molestered and no one wants to help. I believe that the lord will return him to his family but when? My faith is fading and now god carries me to strive harder everyday to keep my son safe. Thank you and god bless.
    Jo-anne Beckhouse.

  11. Thanks, Barry, for yet-again words of wisdom. It is mind-boggling that after so many years of activism, we see so little progress in the understanding of the vicissitudes and capriciousness of family courts across the nation. Judges continue to place abused children in the hands of their molesters.

    You've made a strong point to the "appearance of corruption," which--if humanity and compassion fail--may resonate with judges.

    Keep up the good work!
    Talia Carner, author PUPPET CHILD

  12. Our postcard project needs your help

    We are a group of Eastern Kentucky College students working on a project to raise awareness as well as advocate for women who have lost custody of their children to their alleged abuser after alleging and/or proving domestic abuse. We are hoping to create a traveling postcard display for use at various events to raise awareness.
    You may use any postcard that you desire. This will be for public view, so we do not require your name. We would like to know:
    • the state your case is in
    • the number of children involved and how often you see them
    • if child protective services was involved (DHS, DYFUS, CPS etc.)
    • how long your case has been going on
    • if you have a gag order
    Please give us a few sentences in your own words, write legibly and large. Suggested topics include:
    • Your regrets as they have gone through the process (hindsight)
    • What you would say if your gag order was lifted
    • What you would like to say to their judge, abuser, or their children
    • What you wish they had as far as help
    • What you would like to see changed in the laws.
    We do NOT want your real name or any identifying information for your own protection. Please mail your postcards by November 1, 2010, to:
    EKU Safe & WGS
    Keith 121, Attn Julie Jones:
    521 Lancaster Ave
    Richmond, KY 40475
    Questions? Email us at:;;;;

  13. This is for LadyJB in response to her comment dated September 20. Please be in Richmond with your "sisters" this fall for Judicial Interviews. Watch the top section of the Mommy Go Bye Bye blog for event information. Or you can contact Mary Kate Felch by phone and email; Mary Kate is chief administrator for our judicial selection process. Her offices are in the General Assembly Building in downtown Richmond. ~Veronique (Send me a facebook message if you need to reach me)

  14. LadyJB , I am there too. Unfortunately I was told I can't EVEN file bankruptcy because the way the law is written , the GAL's get their fees thru a court order, which can not be bankrupted on. I have nothing left either but have been told I go to jail if I don't pay . I am beginning to think there is no hope for any of us mothers, and I like others fear for the future of children being raised in this Court/Money dominated system. Of course if our children end up in jail , they will blame it on of course " the mother"

  15. the courts are incompetent and make all kinds of painful if not deadly mistakes.... don't forget that good parenting is not sex linked, it is linked to intelligence and case just 12 years ago is well documented but a rape victim mom, refusing to out her rapist ex-husband who is a homosexual who sodomized her, made her a basket case yet she was given total supervision of custody of our child, I speak with her daily on the phone and she is now 16 & Valedictorian, but it is impossible for me to have visitation with my daughter, so we are both enabling this mentally ill woman who does not work at a job & my child & I spend most of our meager earnings to support this "mom" ....she just can not admit her mistakes nor learn from them ....843-926-1750 Larry and of course when we are re-united every year or so, the conditions are that we meet at a hotel & my ex demands sex, since no one will go near her romantically

  16. No blood no story
    Let me start by saying:
    As a natural born citizen of the United States with a family history dating back to pre-revolutionary war, James Town, Virginia, a patriot that loves this country, and Viet Nam Viet who has given 12 years of military service (1965 to 1977), I am dumbfounded how a Herndon County, Virginia judge The Honorable Judge Tenna Grodner case # JJ415939-01-00 without reviewing all the facts, and based on here say, can by court order, force a breast feeding, recovering mother who had an emergency cesarean less than three weeks ago, and gave birth to a five week premature baby, because her and the babies lives were at risk from a condition called preeclampsia, a mother who has no criminal record, is not a drug addict, or alcoholic. A mother who had to flee her house for her own safety on March 15th after her drunk and abusive boyfriend of sixteen years accosted me her father had became physically and verbally abusive to me and my daughter and sent me to the hospital to get twelve stitches in my head. How can a court give custody to this man? A man with a violent, abusive history who is a flight risk who holds two passports under two different names, one US Andreas Giannis and One Greek Andreas Gianoplois. Mark my words if she surrenders the baby Andreas will do what has threatened to do even before the baby was born he and the baby will return to Greece and we will never see him again. Our judicial system is horrible broken. This may be our only chance to tell our side of the story. We feel like a victim twice, a victim of Andreas and a victim of the system. It appears to me the one question that this judge should be asking is “Why is she fleeing?”

    There is a Fairfax County court order to take the baby from Stephanie.
    Please help.

    Phillip Thompson. e-mail Cell +1 551 497 1453.


Thank you for your comment. It will be added shortly.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


The opinions and information expressed in the individual posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of each contributor of "Time's Up!" nor the opinion of the blog owner and administrator. The comments are the opinion and property of the individuals who leave them on the posts and do not express the opinion of the authors, contributors or the blog owner and administrator.