Lies of the Fathers (Rights Groups)

by Barry Goldstein

The United States Department of Justice offered some good news to long suffering protective mothers and their children when it announced grants to courts in Illinois, Delaware, Minnesota and Oregon to develop improved practices to protect battered women and their children. Incredibly, the abusers’ lobby objects to any possible reforms to promote children’s safety out of concern the improved practices might undermine the privilege of abusive fathers to maintain strict control over their victims. The National Parents Association, formerly Fathers and Families wrote a distorted article attacking the Office on Violence Against Women and the Battered Mothers Justice Project, which is one of the organizations working to help the courts create effective reforms.

I normally try not to pay much attention to these male supremacist groups because I witness enough traumas without listening to their attempted justifications and they tend to live in a reality deprived world. My friend Eileen King, the founder and director of Child Justice asked me to write an article to correct the misinformation that permeates the article from the National Parents Association. In reading their article I was reminded of a friendly disagreement I sometimes have with Joan Meier of DVLEAP. I am a strong supporter of the use of current scientific research because the use of good research would inform the courts and create better outcomes for children. Joan often expresses concerns that the abuser groups will use their bogus research to justify continued harm to our children. This is exactly the kind of material relied on in their article. Joan is, of course, right that flawed research can and is used to mislead the courts and they do not always recognize the difference.

While I regularly discuss research that comes from the Department of Justice and Center for Disease Control, the abuser rights groups rely on “research” based only on the personal beliefs and biases of a man who made many public statements to the effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. It is hard to imagine that judges could not appreciate the difference if the lawyers present the information effectively. Nevertheless we have seen all too many cases where bogus studies are the ones relied on by the courts.

In deep appreciation of the wonderful work Eileen does, I will go through some of the false claims made in their article and then discuss the more encouraging topic about the impact of the grants to the four court systems.

What about Male Victims?

There are men who are assaulted and seriously mistreated by their female partners. This is a horrendous situation and should not be tolerated, period. There are sincere people working on this issue and it is a worthy cause. Unfortunately many abusive fathers use and exaggerate this issue as a way to nullify and negate the work to end men’s violence against women.

One of the first articles I wrote for this blog demonstrated the falsity of articles and “research” claiming that women abuse men about as often as men abuse women. Some of this propaganda such as those cited by the abuser lobby is produced by professionals who are part of the cottage industry that makes its money helping abusive fathers gain custody from safe, protective mothers. Some of this research is produced by sincere but unqualified researchers who do not understand domestic violence dynamics and fail to consult with genuine experts. These researchers like the court professionals we see in custody cases possess a false sense of competence about domestic violence and so don’t seek the help and expertise they need.

A good example of this came in a workshop I attended at an IVAT conference in Hawaii. Two young female psychologists who had been students of the conference organizer presented their findings based on a grant they had received. They claimed their research proved that abuse by men and women was roughly equal and described their methodology. It turned out they got their information from questionnaires filled out by men they found on web sites. Most of the men came from “fathers’ rights” organizations. This was hardly a neutral or reliable source, but they accepted everything the men said uncritically. At one point they said that the police refused to bring charges against the men’s alleged abusers because of the bias against men who claim to be assaulted. It never occurred to the psychologists that the police did not bring charges after investigating the claims and finding a lack of evidence.

There are many common mistakes unqualified researchers make that lead to the mistaken results. This “research” is often based on phone calls to the general population and reliance on the discredited conflict tactics scales. Results from phone calls to the general public distort the results because it will usually be safe for the men but not the women to reveal assaults. It would also focus on less serious assaults than would be found in a survey from emergency rooms or shelters. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that abusive men are more likely to make false allegations and women routinely minimize the abuse committed by their partners. The researchers’ lack of familiarity with domestic violence dynamics means they are not even aware of the inevitable distortions in their data.

The conflict tactics scales are designed to just count the hits. No distinction is made based on the fact that in general men are bigger and stronger than women, hit harder and cause more serious injuries. The findings by the unqualified researchers are belied by good research that demonstrates women are far more likely to need treatment in the emergency room and are at least three times more likely to be murdered. Research based on murders is particularly reliable because there is a body so no one can claim she is lying about his abuse. Another problem with these methods is that men and women hit their partners for very different reasons. Men usually do this to maintain control while women assault men in self-defense and out of frustration at his abuse. The researchers do not understand and so make no effort to differentiate the pattern of coercive and controlling behavior; most of which does not involve physical abuse. Perhaps the most important difference is that it is common for women to be so afraid that her partner will kill or seriously injure her that she will give in and do whatever he wants just to protect her safety. This is rarely true of men. This is the essence of domestic violence and no accurate analysis is possible without taking this into consideration. These studies also do not include rape which in heterosexual relationships is something overwhelmingly done by men to women.

One of the fundamental problems both with the abuser rights perspective and of the courts is that they want to treat people and groups the same even though they are very different. There is a long history of husbands being entitled and even encouraged to assault their wives, control them and make the decisions for the family. The first law in the United States about what we would now call domestic violence said that husbands may not beat their wives ON SUNDAY. In other words beating her any other time was acceptable. There was never the equivalent expectation or permission for wives to assault their husbands. Although the laws have changed, this history means there are still many men who feel entitled to control their partners and use abusive tactics to do so. An individual woman might repeatedly assault her male partner but it is not based and supported by beliefs that wives are entitled to control their husbands.

My friend, Molly Dragiewicz wrote an important book, Equality with a Vengeance that includes a ton of good research that disproves the frivolous claims coming from abuser groups. The research is clear that men commit most violent crime both in this country and throughout the world. Well over ninety percent of familicides, crimes in which an individual kills the spouse and children are committed by men. As I write this article there have been more than one hundred mass murders in the year since the Newtown tragedy and all but one were committed by males.

The research about batterer narratives helps us understand how abusive men can appear so sincere when they confidently repeat their misinformation. Many will say that it is wrong for a man to assault a woman EXCEPT if she does something he defines as improper or she is a (insert the slur). They then view their attack on her as justified and even self-defense. Again there is nothing remotely similar for women.

Mothers Make False Claims

The “fathers’ rights” movement and cottage industry that supports abusive fathers are permeated with the belief that most abuse allegations made by mothers are false. This is really based on ideology and assumption because there is no valid research to support it. PAS is based on this assumption. Significantly, the Saunders’ study (from the U.S. Department of Justice) found that professionals with inadequate training tended to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations and unscientific alienation theories. So when their propagandists encourage courts to disbelieve mothers’ complaints they are demonstrated their lack of training and qualifications.

Nicholas Bala led one of the leading studies about false allegations in the context of custody and in fact it was a study that looked at many other studies. He found that mothers make deliberately false allegations less than two percent of the time. Any “research” with significantly higher numbers reflects the frequency that true allegations of abuse are disbelieved. Interestingly the Bala study found that fathers involved in contested custody are 16 times more likely than mothers to make deliberately false allegations. The common abuser tactics of claiming alienation and claiming mothers lie about their abuse are examples of these false allegations by abusive fathers. In fairness the Bala study is not saying that all men are this dishonest. The study applies only to contested custody and a large majority of these cases involve abusive fathers who feel entitled to use any tactic including false allegations to regain the control over their partner they believe had no right to leave.

At least 40 states and many districts created court-sponsored gender bias commissions. They found that there is widespread gender bias against women and particular woman litigants. Common examples are that mothers are given less credibility than fathers, are held to a higher standard of proof and blamed for the actions of their abuser. These findings help explain why so many true allegations of abuse are disbelieved by the courts.

Shared Parenting Benefits Children

Shared parenting is another ideological belief of abuser groups that is not supported by valid research and is not beneficial to children. Many of us can remember when shared parenting was either not permitted or strongly discouraged. An initial study based on a small population and short time period found that shared parenting could be beneficial to children under the best of circumstances. This encouraged courts to promote shared parenting as a way to resolve difficult and contentious cases. Abusers have promoted shared parenting as a way for fathers to gain control when they otherwise would have difficulty winning custody because of their abuse and the mother provided most of the children care.

Later research based on a larger population and a longer period of time found that shared parenting is actually harmful to children. Constantly going back and forth is disruptive, having two homes is really having none and needed items are often in the wrong home.

There is legitimate research that shared parenting can benefit children under the best of circumstances. This would include a voluntary desire by both parents to share parenting, an ability of the parents to cooperate and living nearby. There is other good research that found shared parenting is never a good idea for children. Indeed most cases in which shared parenting are initially tried are quickly changed because of the problems it creates. There is no need to reconcile this dispute in the context of contested custody and domestic violence as these cases are not close to the best of circumstances.

Shared parenting laws usually include exceptions for domestic violence, but this does not protect the children when courts have difficulty recognizing true allegations of abuse. The courts are littered with cases in which mothers are pressured to accept shared parenting with their abuser and often severely punished if they object. The Saunders’ study found that abusers use decision making authority to control the mother and hurt the children. They use the exchanges to harass the mothers and although contradictory to try to resume the relationship. If the court is not inclined to limit an abuser to supervised visitation, parallel parenting would work far better for the children. Until the courts create the necessary training and reforms to improve its response to domestic violence consideration of shared parenting is a particularly bad idea that causes enormous mischief.

Children Need Both Parents Equally

This statement is effective in misleading people because it sounds so reasonable and fair. It is really based on an ideological belief in treating individuals the same even when they are very different. This approach is designed to treat the mother and father the same REGARDLESS OF PAST PARENTING. This is not in a child’s best interests. The truth is that children do not need both parents equally. They need their primary attachment figure more than the other parent and the safe parent more than the abusive one. In domestic violence cases courts should stop pressuring the victim to cooperate with the abuser and instead force the abuser to stop the abuse in order to gain time with the children.

The reach and harm of this misleading statement is illustrated by a statement by one of the leading family court judges in the United Kingdom. In a speech to an abuser rights group he said that the worst thing that can happen to children is for the mother to bad mouth the father. We have heard judges in the United States make similar statements. It is hard to imagine that this is meant literally. I would hope the judge realizes that assaulting, killing or sexually abusing a child and many other abusive actions are far more harmful. The ACES (Adverse Childhood Experiences) studies demonstrate the profound harm to children’s health caused by trauma which is not true about negative statements. Indeed some negative statements are beneficial for children to learn. When children see an abusive father mistreat them or their mother it is important for the mother to tell them that such behavior is not acceptable in our society.

The misuse of the belief that mothers should not make negative statements about the father was taken to the extreme in a notorious case in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. The court found the mother to have engaged in alienating behavior because she encouraged the children to eat healthy foods, dress appropriately for the weather and avoid adult oriented television programs. This was considered alienation because the father encouraged all of these harmful activities. In the world outside of family courts this would just be considered good advice that any parent would be expected to give their children. As a result of widespread gender bias in the courts more serious negative comments by fathers are routinely ignored or minimized.

Mothers Most Often Already Receive Custody

This is a statement we often hear from those supporting abusive fathers. It is literally true, but highly misleading. Over 95% of custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Some involve abusive fathers who love their children enough that they would not deliberately hurt them by separating them from their mothers. Accordingly these cases tend to be settled with the mother giving up economic benefits she and the children deserve in order to retain custody. In the more common cases that do not involve domestic violence the parents work out a truly voluntary arrangement they believe will benefit their children. In this still sexist society, mothers continue to provide most of the child care and loving fathers sacrifice their personal interests for their children to create arrangements where the children live with the mother and spend significant time with the father. This is why mothers receive custody far more than fathers, but it is based on voluntary agreements and not favoritism from the courts.

The problem in the custody court system is the less than 5% of cases that cannot be settled and continue to trial and usually far beyond. Most of these cases involve abusive fathers who seek custody as a tactic to regain control over their victims. These are the most dangerous abusers because they believe the mother has no right to leave them. This is why three-fourths of all women killed by their male partners are killed after they have left. It is why in a recent two year period we found news stories about 175 children murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody. More commonly the abusers seek custody as a way to regain control and punish the mothers for leaving. The abusive fathers understand that the best way to hurt a mother is to hurt the children, but the courts routinely just assume the father is seeking custody out of love for the children.

Although contested custody cases overwhelmingly involve true complaints of domestic violence by mothers, most of the time the dangerous abuser receives custody or joint custody. One troubling finding is that abusive fathers are more likely to win custody than safe fathers. The flawed practices, gender bias, and reliance on unqualified professionals, result in 58,000 children being sent for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers every year. Although mothers rarely make false allegations of abuse, the courts routinely disbelieve or minimize their complaints.

The significance of the Saunders’ study is that it explains why the courts so frequently mishandle domestic violence cases and give control to dangerous abusers. Saunders found that we now have substantial scientific research that courts could use to inform their decisions about domestic violence allegations. Unfortunately judges never developed the practice of looking to this research because it was not available when courts were first creating responses to domestic violence. Saunders specifically found that the standard and required training for evaluators, judges and lawyers does not provide them with the specific information needed to respond effectively to domestic violence cases. This is the worst of all possible situations because the training received does not make these professionals qualified to recognize and respond to domestic violence but gives them a false sense of competence so they refuse to consult with genuine experts.

Saunders recommends that evaluators and other professionals receive training in screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, post-separation violence and the impact of domestic violence on children. Most of the evaluators claimed to have training in these subjects, but when tested with vignettes they demonstrated they did not have the needed understanding. Most of the evaluators claimed they screened for domestic violence by using standard psychological tests that tell them nothing about domestic violence. This means they are not screening for domestic violence and routinely disbelieve true allegations because they don’t know what to look for. This failing undermines the entire court system because lawyers and judges look to psychologists and other mental health professionals for expertise in cases and training. The misinformation they receive in one case poisons many other cases. After hearing the outdated and discredited claims throughout their careers it becomes deeply ingrained so that many judges and lawyers are resistant to accurate information. It sounds so different from what they constantly hear from the “experts.”

Saunders found that evaluators and other professionals without the needed training tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations, unscientific alienation theories and the mistaken assumption that attempts to protect children from dangerous abusers are harmful to the children. These false beliefs lead to outcomes that hurt children.

The problem is compounded by the development of a cottage industry of psychologists and attorneys who make their living promoting approaches biased in favor of abusive fathers. Domestic violence are tactics men use to coerce and control partners. Economic control is a common form of domestic violence and this means that in most contested custody cases (which are really domestic violence cases) the abusive father controls most of the family’s resources. Accordingly the best way to earn a large income is to support practices that help abusers. Unfortunately courts do not tend to be skeptical of these biased professionals and in many cases we see courts appoint “fathers’ rights” attorneys and psychologists for neutral roles such as GAL and evaluator. Good mothers have no chance to win the support of professionals who are part of the cottage industry.

The Saunders’ report found that domestic violence advocates possess exactly the training and expertise needed to help courts on domestic violence cases. They knew more about the specific topics recommended by Saunders than evaluators, judges and lawyers. Nevertheless we repeatedly see courts refuse to listen or minimize the testimony of genuine experts claiming they are biased because “they always oppose domestic violence.” The courts also place great weight on academic degrees that provide no domestic violence training. The cottage industry seeks to undermine domestic violence laws while advocates try to support them. And yet it is the advocates who are treated as if they were biased.

The research suggests that a multi-disciplinary approach works best in domestic violence custody cases. Mental health professionals have expertise in psychology and mental illness. Lawyers and judges are experts in the law. Doctors can be used for medical issues and other experts for substance abuse and sexual abuse. Domestic violence advocates are the experts in domestic violence. The Saunders study demonstrated support for a multi-disciplinary approach by favorably citing many of the chapters in my book co-edited with Dr. Mo Therese Hannah.

The findings about inadequate training, flawed and outdated practices and gender bias are incompatible with any view that the courts are responding properly to domestic violence cases much less the abuser fantasy that mothers are favored. Judges cannot do their job of protecting children while they continue to be burdened by outdated and discredited practices.

Mothers Commit Child Abuse More than Fathers

This is another example of the National Parents Association taking information out of context in order to distort the circumstances. It is true that mothers commit more child abuse and neglect than fathers, but that is because they provide so much more of the child care. If the statistics were adjusted based on the amount of child care provided, it would be clear that fathers are far more dangerous to children. The problem is further compounded by the tendency of child protective agencies to always focus on the mother because moms are easier to find and far more compliant.

Courts Receive Grants to Reform Practices

Those of us who work to protect children from abuse are reminded every day of the enormous pain and ruined lives caused by the failure of the court system to recognize and respond effectively to domestic violence and child abuse allegations. When our book, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody came out, I wrote an article about the ten ways we knew the custody court system was broken. This was based on the frequency of harmful outcomes, denials of true allegations and deeply flawed practices that undermine the ability of courts to get it right.

It seems obvious that what we need to do is meet with court administrators; present the overwhelming research and work together to create the needed reforms. So far the courts have been resistant, if not hostile to considering the adoption of best practices based on new research that was not available when the courts created the present practices. Each time important new research came out whether it was our book, The Batterer as Parent, the Saunders’ study or the new ACES research; we have hoped that it would create the impetus for courts to discuss the needed reforms.

One problem is that fundamental to our jurisprudence is the doctrine of res judicata which requires that once a decision and finding is made, it can no longer be challenged (aside from appeals) and it is assumed to be right. This is an important and valuable principle because otherwise you would have to constantly relitigate the same issues over and over and just imagine what wealthy abusers could do with that. This is working particularly badly in domestic violence cases both because courts frequently fail to recognize true allegations of abuse and often refuse to look at new evidence of the pattern of abuse in the context of the previous evidence that was rejected. Context is critical to understanding domestic violence, but many of the court practices and abuser strategies prevent courts from understanding the facts in context. I have seen many cases in which the court disbelieved allegations of abuse and forced children not only to live with the abuser but to engage in therapy based on that assumption. When new information comes out demonstrating the initial decision was a mistake the professionals believe they must ignore it and silence the children.

In the next volume of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody which we hope to submit to the publisher this month, we have a chapter following up on the 175 children murdered by abusive fathers involved in custody disputes. We asked judges and court administrators in the communities where the tragedies occurred what reforms they had created in response in order to safeguard other children. The judges interviewed were the best and most knowledgeable which is why they agreed to be interviewed. Nevertheless the answer was that they created no reforms because they assumed the murder was an exception. Domestic violence experts recognize the problems in the court because we look at the patterns both within a case and over many cases. The courts seem never to look for patterns and thus have not been open to research that proves the present practices routinely place children at risk.

Some of the judges interviewed said that they regularly participated in meetings that included domestic violence advocates and these experts helped with training judges and other professionals. These are good practices that promote a multi-disciplinary approach and would tend to lead to better results. The problem is that these good practices are rare in the court system.

More common is for courts to rely on the same small group of psychologists and other mental health professionals for expertise in domestic violence cases. They are expert in mental illness and psychology but not domestic violence. Hearing from the same often unqualified experts creates an insularity in the custody courts that contributes to their satisfaction with the failed practices. Other courts, government agencies and civilian organizations look to a much wider group of experts with knowledge of current research. This is why other parts of society respond more effectively to domestic violence and are less likely to repeat the myths that are so prevalent in family court.

So the problem is how do we create a dialogue with court leaders and encourage them to be open to considering how the new research impacts old practices that have been shown to hurt children. This is why the grants to courts in four states is such an encouraging sign and why the National Parents Organization was so aggressive and unreasonable in attacking the Justice Department, Battered Women’s Justice Project and the grants to state courts.

The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) conducted an impressive and lengthy investigation about concerns the custody courts are failing children. Every day I hear stories of children’s lives ruined I wish they could have moved more quickly. But I recognize that by doing a thorough job they could make sure their findings are correct and they will not be vulnerable to the unreasoned attacks from abuser groups and the professionals who make their money off the misery of children.

OVW reviewed much of the newest research including the Saunders’ study. I know that staffers read our book. They created roundtable discussions with leading experts to present current research and experience. Significantly, the experts they listened to are very different from the mental health professionals relied on by the courts who know little about domestic violence. The courts rarely hear from a professional who would be considered one of the nation’s leading experts and indeed in some cases the courts refuse to consider testimony from genuine experts without irrelevant mental health degrees or people they are used to seeing in their courts.

I know something of the process because I had the honor of being selected as one of the experts to participate in the roundtable discussions. My colleagues on the panel are the very best experts in this nation and provided a wealth of information for OVW to study. I believe the quality and quantity of research and information made it easy for OVW to make findings that the present practices in custody courts are failing to protect children. I greatly appreciate my colleagues at the Battered Women’s Justice Project who are knowledgeable and caring. I often turn to them for research for the books I am working on. I am sure they will do a wonderful job in implementing this grant project.

The four states are being asked to create models for responding to domestic violence cases based on current scientific research and the widespread problems caused by the present flawed approaches. It is extremely valuable to include court systems in the process of creating needed reforms. Inevitably the new practices tried in these four states will work far better than what we have now. Coming from state court systems, other courts will be more open to adopting these reforms. Accordingly this is an encouraging development and one we hope will lead all courts to finally make the safety of children the first priority.

I am deeply grateful for the work of the staff at OVW, the National Institute of Justice, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the Battered Women’s Justice Project and the experts and victims who participated in the discussions that led to this potential breakthrough. They deserve praise and encouragement because work to prevent domestic violence and child abuse must never again be viewed as an attack on fathers. Good men and good fathers want all children to live in a world without trauma. I hope that this project will be an important step in bringing the custody courts into a coalition of people and organizations working together to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Ending domestic violence is not a biased position---IT’S THE LAW.




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. Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co- authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and was released in April of 2013. Barry can be reached by email at Barryg78@aol.com 

For more information about the new book, including access to the first approximately 50 pages or to purchase the book go to the publisher’s web site at http://civicresearchinstitute.com/rdv.html Elizabeth Liu and I have convinced our publisher to make available the last section of our chapter about GALs that lists and explains the best practices for GALs in domestic violence cases. You can now download and print this information and share it with your GAL. Everyone is welcome to share this information. I also hope you will check out my new Face book page, Barry Goldsteins Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor. Barry’s web site, www.Barrygoldstein.net is back up and running with new material.

The Broken Custody Court System: Is there Reason for Hope?

by Barry Goldstein

Every day I hear horrific stories of courts using deeply flawed and outdated practices that ruin the lives of protective mothers and their children. I learn about the unspeakable pain and anguish caused by the bias and unwillingness to consider new research that demonstrates the standard practices are hurting children. I hate these stories with a passion while feeling deeply honored that protective mothers trust me enough to share them with me. Surprisingly, I am going to provide information that suggests that there is hope. I think this is important psychologically because we are all inevitably worn down by the catastrophic stories we experience so we need reason to hope. It also may be that in projecting a sense of confidence it will encourage better results and coverage. In fact, in recent months I have started to see signs that maybe something good is happening and this long national nightmare might eventually end.

When we are in the middle of what Dr. Daniel Saunders referred to as “harmful outcome” cases it is hard to consider the context. But ten years ago when Mo Therese Hannah and Liliane Heller Miller started the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, so many of the encouraging events I will discuss in this article could not have been imagined. At that time we had a small group of protective moms delighted to find each other and an even smaller group of professionals wanting to help them. Although the bad outcomes have continued unabated, many encouraging developments should give us some reason to hope.

Coverage in the Media

Garland Waller wrote an important chapter in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody about the failure of the media to expose the child custody scandal. She explained some of the reasons the media was reluctant to cover these cases, but also said that at some point there would be sufficient awareness of the courts’ failure to protect children that we would reach the “tipping point” and the public would no longer tolerate the mistreatment of battered mothers and their children. Since the publication of the book, we have started to see some important media coverage that is moving us towards the “tipping point.”

The best coverage has been on the Fox station in Los Angeles. They have done a series of stories about the failures of the court system and child protective agency to protect children. I want to specifically mention the work of Kathleen Russell, Tammi Stefano and Connie Valentine in helping to encourage and promote these stories, but I am sure there are others I am missing.

One of the most compelling stories involves a young man named Damon. He revealed his father’s sexual abuse, but as happens all too often in the broken system the courts refused to listen and gave custody to the abuser. His mother, Cindy Dumas has fought hard to protect Damon, but the court disbelieved her and retaliated against her. The Fox station included several news segments about Damon including an interview that was taped at a secret location after he ran away from his father and remained in hiding for over a year. The station also interviewed the father who denied his abuse and could not explain why he would force the teen to stay on the run rather than agree for him to live with his mother. The court refused to respond to why they continued to keep Damon at risk. This story had a relatively happy ending in that Damon learned that if he married, the law would make him emancipated so that the custody order would no longer be valid. At sixteen he was allowed to marry in Nevada and thus earn his freedom from his abusive father.

The series of reports also followed demonstrations at the courthouse by protective mothers who complained they were mistreated and the courts failed to protect their children. Several of the moms were interviewed for the news reports. Significantly, looking at many different cases helped to demonstrate that this is a widespread problem and not based on an unusual mistake.

One of the most revealing pieces involved an interview with former Judge DeAnn Salcido. She explained that as part of their judicial trainings, a senior judge told them to be skeptical of mother’s abuse allegations. This helps to explain why so many true allegations of domestic violence and child abuse made by mothers are disbelieved. Significantly, many of the gender bias committees appointed by courts around the country have found that men are given more credibility than women and this kind of misinformation certainly contributes to this bias and to court errors. The Saunders’ study found that court professionals without adequate training in domestic violence tended to believe the myth that mothers frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. It is truly outrageous that court sponsored trainings would include statements by judges encouraging other judges to use biased beliefs that put children in danger.

This series of stories is ongoing and has created a powerful response. I think the station has found that as they investigated mothers’ complaints, the complaints are reliable and the courts are routinely placing children at risk. This can only encourage more stories on Fox and other media outlets. FoxLA is to be commended for helping to expose a scandal that has destroyed so many children’s lives and undermined the work to prevent domestic violence.

The Dr. Phil program provided two programs that helped expose the crisis in the custody court system to a national audience. Dr. Phil promised to follow-up to help create the needed changes but thus far this has not happened. The show featured several victims of the court system including Katie Tagle who had pleaded with the judge to protect her nine-month old baby, Wyatt. As would be suggested by following the judicial training in California to disbelieve mothers, the judge repeatedly said he thought Ms. Tagle was lying when she said the father threatened to kill their baby. The father used the access provided by the court to murder Wyatt and himself. Kathleen Russell was instrumental in creating these shows and appeared on the first one.

Two heartbreaking tragedies in the Washington, D.C. area and effective advocacy work by Eileen King led to some really valuable coverage in the Washington Post. In one case, Dr. Amy Castillo sought to protect her three children from their abusive father. Right before appearing in court on her application for a protective order she had marital relations with her husband. The judge learned of this and assumed this meant the father could not be too dangerous. This was a good illustration of the problem of relying on court professionals who do not understand domestic violence dynamics and so never considered it might not have been safe for the mother to refuse the father’s sexual demands. The father used the access provided by the court to murder the children.

Joaquin Rams had a long history of dangerous criminal activity and was suspected in at least two other murders. As a result he was initially limited to supervised visitation. We have seen repeatedly that courts create an urgency to restore normal visitation to fathers even in the face of serious safety risks. The judge had little experience in domestic relations cases and openly stated that he did not like responding to these cases. He decided to give the father unsupervised visits over the objections of the mother. This decision led to the death of Prince McLeod Rams before he could reach his second birthday. The father is in jail awaiting trial for murder.

The disparity in how supervised visitation is handled between mothers and fathers is illustrated by the case of Natalie Khawam. This was a case that was in the news after her twin sister, Jill Kelly filed a complaint against the woman who had an affair with General Petraeus. General Allen and General Petraeus sent letters to the judge accurately describing what a good mother Ms. Khawam is. The mother always took good care of the child and is the primary attachment figure. This means that continuing supervised visits increases the child’s risk for depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older. She was limited to supervised visits based on the court’s failure to provide a hearing for the evidence of domestic violence, evaluation by a notorious psychologist who is part of the cottage industry supporting abusive fathers and claims of alienation. In other words there were no issues related to the safety of the child. Nevertheless the courts that couldn’t wait to resume visitation with a dangerous father are willing to delay years before resuming normal visitation with a safe mother.

These and other cases created an interest by the Washington Post about the custody court system. Eileen King cultivated a relationship with an editor on the editorial board and provided research and other information. This led to a meeting between the Washington Post Editorial Board and a small group of domestic violence experts. We provided information about the Rams case and the context of the problem. On the Saturday of the Battered Mothers Custody Conference we were excited to see a Washington Post editorial supporting the conference.

One of the highlights of the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference was the presentation of awards to Els Lucas, the attorney who so ably represented Holly Collins and helped her win asylum. The Kingdom of the Netherlands also received an award and the Dutch Embassy put out a press release about the awards ceremony that drew more attention to the court system’s failure to protect children. Quenby Wilcox also attended the conference and received plenty of material for her newsletter that responds to the custody issue as an international problem. Claire O’Toole was also at the conference and has been writing for the Washington Times.com including a three part article about Damon.

Cara Tabachnick wrote an important article for The Crime Report that discussed the problem of abusive fathers in contested custody cases killing their children. A shorter version of the article appeared in the Daily Beast. She followed up with a report about the judge in the Katie Tagle case who lost re-election because of his failure to protect Baby Wyatt.

Garland Waller produced a brilliant documentary film about the Holly Collins story entitled No Way Out But One. The film has won numerous awards, played at several conferences and film festivals and on television. It is available on DVD and can be used to help the public become more aware of the child custody scandal. Indeed it is a dramatic way to discuss these issues.

There have been other stories, particularly about individual cases and tragedies. I am aware of a few other potential stories and investigations that I cannot discuss at this time but have the potential to make a big difference. Each story has the potential of getting us closer to the tipping point and forcing court administrators to do out of embarrassment what they should be doing out of concern for the safety of children.

Compelling Scientific Research

One of the many causes for the widespread tragedy in the courts’ response to domestic violence custody cases was that there was no research available when domestic violence first became a public issue and the courts had to create a process for responding. This led to the use of popular assumptions that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. Courts turned to mental health professionals for advice. They are experts in mental illness and psychology, but not domestic violence. When scientific research became available which demonstrated the original assumptions were wrong, the courts never modified their approach or required experts to reference valid research to support their beliefs. This has led to evaluations that are completely subjective and tell us more about the beliefs and biases of the evaluator than the circumstances in the family. Many protective mothers have been pathologized because the evaluators did not know how to recognize or investigate domestic violence allegations. These mistakes have been compounded by the development of a cottage industry of lawyers and psychologists who learned they could make a large income by supporting approaches that favor abusive fathers. This is because most contested custody involves domestic violence and the abusers usually control the family finances as part of their controlling tactics. The courts have treated these unqualified and biased professionals as if they were neutral and treat their misinformation as if it were accurate thus poisoning still other cases.

In April of 2012, the U. S. Department of Justice released a groundbreaking study by Dr. Daniel Saunders. Since then, and even before, I have been repeatedly referencing this study for two important reasons. The findings by Dr. Saunders are incompatible with assumptions that the court system’s response to domestic violence is working for children. The fact that it comes from the U.S. Justice Department means that it has the authority and neutrality that makes it hard for judges to dismiss this research as they have sometimes sought to do with other studies.

Saunders found that the standard and required training received by judges, lawyers and evaluators does not qualify these professionals to handle domestic violence cases. These professionals need specific training in topics that include screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, post-separation violence and the impact of domestic violence on children. Those professionals without this training tend to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations, support unscientific alienation theories and believe mothers’ attempts to protect their children are actually harmful to the children. These findings are incredibly valuable because most of the bad outcomes we see are created by professionals who focus on exactly this misinformation. Saunders found that these wrong beliefs lead to outcomes that are harmful to children. This is an incredibly powerful argument that is now available for mothers.

The heart of the custody courts’ failure are the extreme cases in which the outcome is that the alleged abuser receives custody and safe, protective mothers who are the primary attachment figures for their children are limited to supervised or no visitation. Saunders found that these, what he calls “harmful outcomes” are always wrong because the harm of separating children from their primary attachment figure, a harm that includes increased risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older is greater than any benefit the court thought it was providing. In most of these cases the extreme outcome demonstrates that very flawed practices were used and in many if not most of these cases the opposite outcome would have worked better for children.

The Saunders’ study also found that courts are not imposing supervised visitation on alleged abusers frequently enough. It found that shared parenting is being used much too often and that abusers use the exchanges to harass and abuse their ex-partners and the control provided in decision making to prevent decisions that would benefit the children. The study also supported mothers’ concerns about the harm caused by professionals who are part of the cottage industry that has a financial incentive to support abusive fathers. Significantly Saunders also found that domestic violence advocates have better training and expertise than any of the court professionals on the specific topics most needed in order to understand domestic violence cases.

My book that I co-edited with Dr. Mo Therese Hannah, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY did not contain much new research. What it did was put together all the important research related to domestic violence custody cases together in one place so that it would be convenient for protective mothers and court professionals. The book provided recommendation from the leading experts in the field and encouraged the use of a multi-disciplinary approach with a focus on current scientific research. The fact that the Saunders’ study cited our book repeatedly should make it difficult for courts to challenge the authority of the information in the book. The book is particularly helpful in challenging evaluations and the use of psychological tests that were not created for the populations seen in family courts. Dan Saunders cited several of the chapters in our book which confirms it is authoritative and neutral.

FROM MADNESS TO MUTINY, a book about sexual abuse custody cases by Dr. Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher was based on a review of over 1000 child sex abuse cases. It establishes the frequency that child protective agencies and courts fail to protect children and routinely use flawed and biased practices. The authors found that in 85% of custody cases with allegations of child sexual abuse the alleged abuser was given custody. This means the faulty practices in custody courts are responsible for sending many children to live with their rapists.

In 2012, a new edition of THE BATTERER AS PARENT by Lundy Bancroft, Dr. Jay Silverman and Daniel Ritchie was published. Their findings and recommendations include that all batterers engage in harmful parenting practices, evaluators who do not work for a domestic violence agency should consult with someone who does and the abuser should pay for all costs related to his abuse including legal fees. Most significantly they recommend that in domestic violence cases the arrangement that works best for children is custody for the safe or safer parent and initially supervised visitation for the abuser. Significantly the Saunders’ study found courts are not limiting alleged abusers to supervised visitation as often as they should. Saunders also cited the original Batterer as Parent repeatedly.

My new book, co-written by Elizabeth Liu, REPRESENTING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR puts this research together and encourages lawyers to use current research and a multi-disciplinary approach to present the strongest possible cases. The research discussed in this article is discussed extensively. Attorneys are advised to inform judges that there is now a substantial body of research that demonstrates many of the standard practices used by courts in domestic violence cases are working poorly for children. They should then ask the court to be open to hearing evidence about this research. We are hopeful that as more lawyers read the book and start presenting the right information to the courts that it will gradually change the system as court professionals become more familiar with valid scientific research.

I recently wrote an article about the health impact on children of witnessing domestic violence. I hope that my efforts will encourage lawyers and protective moms to present this information in court. It seems to me that an understanding that exposure to the father’s abuse will cause children to be sicker the rest of their lives and likely have shorter lives demands that courts rethink their standard practices that minimize and fail to recognize domestic violence. These failed practices cannot be in the best interests of the children given what we know about the health effects. The point is strengthened by recommendations in the Saunders’ study that court professionals need training about the impact of domestic violence on children.

One of the great things about the research mentioned in this article and other valid scientific research is that it reinforces each other in many ways because it speaks the truth. Courts had gotten into the practice of relying on evaluators, believing they were providing current research and then failing to notice or challenge the credibility of evaluators who could not cite valid research to support their recommendations and indeed could not answer questions about this research. We need to understand that when an evaluator says the opinion is based on clinical experience, which sounds so impressive, it really means it is just the evaluator’s personal and subjective opinion based on personal beliefs, biases and financial interests. An increased use of good research can only improve court outcomes.

United States Department of Justice

The first thing I was told during my initial meeting with staff from OVW (Office on Violence Against Women) was they had my book (the one co-edited with Mo Hannah) on their desk and were working with it. Imagine how different the court system would be if they could say the same thing. The people I have spoken with from OVW and other parts of the Justice Department get it. We don’t have to tell them that PAS is bogus, the courts frequently send children to live with abusers or that most contested custody are really domestic violence cases. They already know this. It is wonderful to have allies who have the credibility and resources to make a difference.

So why don’t we notice a difference in the outcomes of the horrendous cases we keep seeing? Under our federal system, child custody is specifically left to the states and indeed there is federal case law that limits the ability of federal courts to redress the common constitutional violations protective mothers experience in custody cases. This means the Justice Department must work indirectly to try to influence the needed reforms.

March 22, 2011 was a particularly exciting day. OVW had planned a roundtable discussion about child custody for its staff, but the enormous interest in the program led to it being expanded so that the program was available to the entire Justice Department, HHS and representatives of Vice President Biden and President Obama were also present. Non-government workers from organizations like the ABA, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and other interested groups also came to hear the presentations. The morning program featured six protective mothers and a brave teen who had been caught in the broken court system. In the afternoon I was privileged to be included among a group of twelve national experts many of whom are frequent presenters at the Battered Mothers Conference. As the only man on the panel, I joked that I was the leader of the male caucus.

The morning session had everyone in tears as we heard the heartrending stories of the unspeakable cruelty inflicted by abusive fathers with the assistance of custody courts that fail to recognize, believe or respond effectively to true allegations of abuse. These stories were perfect illustrations for the presentations in the afternoon in which we shared our experience and current research to explain why courts so frequently fail to protect children and offered recommendations for needed reforms.

Although the federal government can’t force courts to create the changes necessary to protect children, there are things it can do to help. The Saunders’ study and other research it funds can be used to help inform courts about the impact of their faulty practices. OVW recently offered grants to courts interested in implementing better practices in domestic violence cases. I was especially pleased to see that the notices included findings from the roundtable discussions. OVW has supported grants to good organizations like DV-LEAP and the Leadership Council for training, research and other assistance. We would also like to see the Justice Department withhold funds from courts and other institutions that continue to use harmful and faulty practices such as PAS and the reliance on biased and inadequately trained professionals.

I am also aware of other high level meetings with domestic violence experts I absolutely trust. Hopefully these will lead to more actions in support of protective mothers. We have also encouraged activities such as a White House Conference that would encourage the media to cover the custody court failures. For protective moms and their children, the effects of these hopeful events do not come soon enough, but it does provide hope that reforms are on the way.

The Rejection of PAS

Parental Alienation Syndrome is a bogus theory concocted by Richard Gardner to help him and other professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusive fathers to obtain large incomes at the expense of the well-being of children. There continues to be ever more research that debunks the theory and demonstrates the enormous harm it has caused.

PAS was never approved by any recognized professional organization. It was never included in the DSM which is the book that includes all the valid and recognized mental health conditions. Despite intense lobbying by abuser groups and the cottage industry, it was again rejected by the American Psychiatric Association which refused to include PAS in the DSM-V because there is no valid research supporting it. I realize that not many court professionals follow current research and decisions like this, but attorneys for protective mothers can bring this to the courts’ attention which can only serve to further undermine its reputation.

Anecdotal Information about Ongoing Custody Cases

When we see so many harmful outcomes in custody cases it is easy to get discouraged and to assume protective mothers cannot win. That is why it is so wonderful when we hear of successful outcomes. Recently I have noticed that there seems to be more good outcomes. Some moms have told me that they cited Saunders or one of my books and the judge seemed to listen and protected the children. I have started to see more judges open to listening to the research and qualifying domestic violence experts.

It could be that I am hearing about cases that are the exceptions. Certainly this is not scientific proof, but it seems like some of the favorable events might be starting to penetrate the court system. I would like to think that the courts are in the process of transitioning from the old failed practices to new approaches based on current scientific research that are better able to focus on the well-being of children.

Conclusion

It is hard to be optimistic when we continue to see so many bad outcomes and courts remain defensive about correcting past mistakes. Nevertheless, it is clear that the many positive signs discussed in this article are reason to hope that we are starting to make a little bit of progress. The research is compelling and any fair consideration of the research and evidence would result in drastically different outcomes. The increased media coverage and role of the Justice Department may be nudging the courts in the right direction.

I hope protective mothers and their attorneys will continue the trend of offering genuine expert witnesses and submitting the research that is so supportive of protective mothers’ cases. At the same time we must be vigilant for the next set of abuser tactics that will be implemented if they sense they are losing the control and privilege the custody courts have been providing. I hope that our children will one day be astonished that there once was a period when the custody courts were actually supporting abusers and criminals.

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. Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co- authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and was released in April of 2013. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

For more information about the new book, including access to the first approximately 50 pages or to purchase the book go to the publisher’s web site at http://civicresearchinstitute.com/rdv.html Elizabeth Liu and I have convinced our publisher to make available the last section of our chapter about GALs that lists and explains the best practices for GALs in domestic violence cases. You can now download and print this information and share it with your GAL. Everyone is welcome to share this information. I also hope you will check out my new Face book page, Barry Goldsteins Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor. Barry’s web site, www.Barrygoldstein.net is back up and running with new material.

Recovery Without Justice

By Sandra L. Brown, M.A.

At the heart of the victims' rights movement that I was involved in during the 1980's after my father's murder was the concept of judicial justice which would lead to psychological justice. It's a great concept and in a perfect world it would work in all situations. If you were wronged by the pathological person (physically hurt, conned out of money, screwed up custody situations, infidelity, spiritual abuse, etc.) the pathological would be held accountable in the courts for his behavior and more importantly, he would be forced into victim restitution in which he would have to repay or do something as a sign of his guilt and your pain.

Restitution, in and of itself, really doesn't heal anything. It does, however, make the victim/person harmed feel like the scales of justice changed.  The scales, which once grossly tilted toward him, now tilt in the victim's direction. For a brief moment in court, and for however long it takes him to pay or do the restitution, he is officially 'guilty.' Everyone knows he was charged and found guilty; now he is 'paying the price' for his actions. For a brief moment in court, a judge believes the victim! He believes the monster really did what the victim said he did. That, in and of itself, is often the psychological justice that victims really look for, and it helps them to heal.

In the case of murder trials, which I often attended, the family cannot be compensated in any true way that relieves their pain and suffering. Their loved one was murdered. No amount of restitution touches a human life. The best the family can hope for is either physical payment, prison, the death sentence, or some other act that the court assigns from the monster to the victim's family.

The judicial system acts as the conscience of this country. Victims seek solace in the courtrooms and chambers, hoping that justice will alleviate the pain, horror, and stigmatization of being a victim of the monster. But we know that in many cases, and I dare say most cases, that's not what happens. Restraining orders are not granted, arrests are not performed for stalking or violence, and children are given over to the pathological who is overtly violent, sick, drug addicted or otherwise an inept parent.

He continually violates the rules, but the court does not impose sanctions.  He doesn't pay child support, but his visitation continues.  He does not pay alimony, yet the court does not make him pay it.    He conned/stole thousands of dollars from you, but the court does not make him pay it. Your legal bill skyrockets as he does not pay what he has agreed to pay or been ordered to pay. Taking him to court again and again does no good; the pathological continues his behavior. The judge does not see past the expertly-crafted mask to the pathological's true nature-he gives him the benefit of the doubt, thinking him normal. Even when the court does order compliance, it does no good: the pathological laughs at court orders. You stand by, mouth gaping and wondering "Where is the justice? HOW does he get away with this?"

I have repeatedly said that the universe is strangely tilted to the pathological's benefit. If ANYONE will get away with a con or a criminal act, it will be them. The universal scales of justice tilt in his favor. Ironically, this somehow influences the judicial scales of justice. In the 20 years of doing this work I have seen pathologicals literally get away with murder, rape, embezzlement, breaking and entering, stalking, domestic violence, child abuse, and more. This ranks as the 8th Wonder of the World -- how pathologicals con their way out of the most vicious deeds and often never pay in any way for their behavior.

In these cases, women's hopes for justice, connected to their psychological healing, are dashed. The scales of justice will never be balanced -- she is not vindicated in the way that helps her heal. Even if he is found guilty of something, he rarely pays the price. If he is suppose to pay a fine, he doesn't. If he is suppose to go to jail/prison, it's postponed or over-turned. If custody is denied, it's later granted by another judge. If he embezzled, it's forgiven in exchange for an admission of guilt.

Victims' rights and its connection to judicial and psychological justice doesn't play out often in pathological relationships. The psychological justice that the victim is counting on in order to vindicate her -- her moment in which the conscience of this country believed her -- doesn't happen. Since we understand that psychological justice is what is most likely to help victims heal, now what?

I sternly tell victims of pathological relationships that they must recover without justice. We are not discussing 'what is fair'; the pathological has already skirted the issue of 'fairness.' He doesn't live that as a concept, and the law doesn't use it as a concept with him. If you desire to recover, heal and move forward with your life, you will have to recover without judicial justice. Without victim restitution. Without the conscience of this country validating your story.

You have to recover without a second of judicial support. Women who hinge their recovery on judicial justice or waiting for her day in court, or 'when he gets what's coming to him' will never recover. The universe is tilted in his favor, and your own recovery must be a daring adventure in the face of a lack of victims rights. Sometimes the only personal justice is recovering and living a great life. What he did to you doesn't define you, hold you down, or stop you from succeeding in your own spiritual outlook.

In the end, the only thing you really have control over is how you choose to see your situation. If you see yourself as a victim of the situation, you won't recover until you move past that view. If you see the situation from a different perspective - horrible things happened to you but don't define or restrain you, you will move forward -- with or without justice.

The most unfair situation is what you have lived through and the aftermath of the effects of the pathological relationship. In the face of this grossly dehumanizing experience is the indomitable spirit of recovery that can guide you to not only survive, but thrive in the face of great pain. I have every confidence you can heal, even without justice. Let us know if we can help you do that.

Enough of a Broken Custody Court System: What Would Work Better?

By Barry Goldstein

We have spent a lot of time discussing what is wrong with the custody court system particularly as it applies to domestic violence cases. This is understandable as there are so many horrendous cases in which flawed practices lead to outcomes that destroy children, undermine the reputation of the judicial system and create substantial harm to society. By now the research is overwhelming that the standard practices work poorly for children even as the custody court professionals fail to be open to the research now available. In recent years, academicians, government agencies and others have started to join protective mothers and domestic violence advocates in an understanding of the failure of the present system. We must go past mere complaints and offer solutions to reform the custody court system to be ready when those in authority are ready to listen. Accordingly I am writing this article to offer some ideas for the needed reforms. I hope this will start a discussion that will lead to a consensus on the types of reforms needed. While there will need to be a fundamental shift in attitudes to create significant reforms, I have tried to consider both what might be possible and what would work in creating my proposals.

1. Specialized Courts for Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse Cases: This would include any cases where there are allegations or evidence of possible domestic violence or sexual abuse. Some judges and other court professionals believe it is not a domestic violence case until the allegations are proven. This is a mistake as the courts need domestic violence expertise to recognize whether or not the allegations are true. Specialized courts would have special training for the professionals and obtain expertise by responding constantly to these cases. Hopefully it would eliminate judges who don’t want to be hearing domestic violence or sexual abuse cases or have an obvious bias. This is not a panacea as it can be a disaster when the dv judge is hostile, but it seems to have a better chance. The benefit might also be limited in rural areas where there are not enough cases for specialization. Hopefully courts that can concentrate on these cases will learn best practices and to look at the patterns to help understand the cases.

2. First Priority Safety of Children, Second Priority Arrangements that give Children Best Chance to reach their Potential: Courts generally use some version of the best interests of the child standard. This sounds like it focuses on what works best for children which would be a good idea, but in practice it has created a very subjective analysis that has failed children. Some experts have suggested an approximation standard where the relative parenting time during the relationship would be replicated after the separation. This is what the parents thought worked best for the children before the disputes over the break-up clouded the process. Exceptions could be included to protect children from dangerous parents or for a serious change of circumstance such as a serious illness or substance abuse.

Most states have legislation or court decisions that create factors the courts should consider in deciding custody and visitation. The factors are usually relevant, but there is often no priority about what is most important so we often see court professionals focus on less important factors. I had one case where the judge was more concerned that the mother dressed the girls the same like twins although they were a year apart in age than the father’s abuse which included an incident observed by the children where the father took a knife to the mother’s throat. It is hard to believe that the children’s safety is not the most important priority far above all others, but it often is given less priority. Making this the priority would suggest a risk assessment rather than an evaluation that focuses on far less important and often pretend issues. Court professionals need to learn how to better recognize domestic violence and child abuse and to avoid minimizing these dangerous behaviors. A child’s safety cannot be reasonably compared with less important factors like a fancier home, higher income or negative statements about the other parent.

Similarly, the next priority should be arrangements that give the children the best chance to reach their potential. Children who are separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to commit suicide, suffer depression or low self-esteem. It doesn’t make sense to take this risk except for something that can be shown to severely impact children. Research also shows that children witnessing domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behavior. Allegations of alienation have not been shown to have such long-term harmful effects, but courts routinely focus on such less significant issues. The benefit of focusing on arrangements that help children reach their potential is the decisions would be more objective and based on valid scientific research.

In any decision, temporary or permanent in which a court diverges from the result that would have been created based upon the approximation standard, the court should put in writing:

• The harm the decision will cause the child (such as primary attachment issues)
• The benefits to the child the court believes it is creating by the decision 
• Current scientific research that supports the expected benefits and supports the belief the benefits are more important to the well being of the child than the harm. 
• The basis for the factual findings 
• All significant evidence that would support a finding of a pattern of coercive control or intimidating behavior by the alleged abuser. 

These requirements would force judges to focus on the most important issues for children and to at least put in the record the evidence considered. If the judge failed to consider important evidence or minimized it, an appellate court could more easily overturn the decision. This in turn would discourage judges from making a lot of the standard mistakes we see today.

3. Early Hearing on Domestic Violence: Near the start of any custody case that includes allegations or information about domestic violence, and before any appointment of an GAL or other representative for the child or any evaluator or other mental health professional, the court will schedule a hearing limited to the question of whether or not one of the parties has engaged in a pattern of coercive, controlling or intimidating behavior towards the other party. If such a pattern is established by a preponderance of the evidence, and the non-abusive parent is a safe parent (i.e. not a drug addict, beat the kids, etc) the non-abusive or less abusive parent shall receive custody and the abusive parent shall initially receive supervised visitation. In order to resume unsupervised visitation, the abusive parent must complete a batterer program or other form of accountability (therapy, anger management, substance abuse and other similar programs that have not been shown to change abusers' behavior shall not satisfy this requirement). The abusive parent must acknowledge sole responsibility for the abuse, commit to never abusing the mother and any other intimate partner and stop all forms of domestic violence tactics. If the abusive parent satisfies these requirements the court shall have the authority to order the resumption of unsupervised visitation in whatever gradualized manner the court deems appropriate with the understanding that if the parent commits further acts of domestic violence, all visitation shall stop. If the court does not find sufficient proof of domestic violence, the case shall continue, but the court shall be open to additional evidence and events that together with the evidence initially submitted constitute sufficient evidence to support a finding of domestic violence. This idea might appeal to courts because it would save a lot of resources and court time. Cases that now take many months or years could be resolved in a few hours and children would quickly know which parent they will be living with. This would also save a substantial amount in legal and other fees thus limiting the common abuser tactic of bankrupting the mother with aggressive litigation tactics. Most important the hearing would focus on domestic violence without distraction from other less important issues that abusers often use as a tactic to avoid accountability. This should lead to better decisions.

4. Custody Decisions to rely on Valid, Current Scientific Research: Custody decisions shall be made based upon the use of valid and current scientific research. Any expert testimony must be based upon such current research. Experts qualifying to testify based upon mental health degrees and practice shall be limited to testimony concerning mental health issues. Mental health professionals shall not be used in custody cases in which no significant mental health issue exists. Degrees in medicine, psychology or social work shall not be taken as proof of expertise in domestic violence. In any cases in which there are allegations or evidence of domestic violence, no mental health professional shall testify as an expert without consulting a domestic violence advocate or other expert. In order to testify or provide other assistance to the court as a domestic violence expert, the individual must work as a domestic violence advocate or other similar position at a recognized domestic violence organization, be approved as an expert by such recognized domestic violence organization or convince the court of expertise based on training and experience in domestic violence issues and familiarity with current scientific research. Any court professional whose behavior, practices or professional approaches creates the appearance of minimizing the importance of domestic violence or opposing the state policy of seeking to end domestic violence may not be considered for any position that would be considered a neutral professional.

We see repeatedly that courts rely on mental health professionals who often have no expertise in domestic violence and either cite bogus research that has serious flaws or just use what they call their clinical experience (which means their personal beliefs and prejudices). If there is any basis for courts to hear testimony from experts it must be based on a familiarity with current scientific research such as is found in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Part of the problem is that there was no research when custody courts initially adopted current practices and so they never got into the habit or expectation of looking for current research to inform their decisions. At the same time a cottage industry has developed where court professionals have realized the abusers have control of the family finances so the way to make money is to support approaches that favor abusers. This has led to articles by abuser rights mental health professionals that are not peer reviewed or based on any valid research.

5. Avoid Gender Biased Practices: Domestic violence and sexual abuse are gendered crimes. Repeated court-sponsored gender bias committees and other research have found widespread gender bias against women and particularly women litigants in child custody cases. The Constitution and our sense of fairness require men and women to be treated equally under similar circumstances, but failure to consider the fundamental differences between men and women is a violation of equal protection and fundamental fairness. Accordingly, practices that require mothers and fathers to be treated the same regardless of past parenting are not in the best interests of children and should not be permitted. Custody and visitation decisions should be made based upon the needs and well being of the children rather than the "rights" of the parents. Gender bias is often unconscious so judges must be open to concerns of mothers that they or other court professionals have engaged in gender bias and the use of gender biased approaches should require appeals courts to overturn the biased decisions.

6. Accountability: GALs, evaluators and other appointed court professionals shall not have immunity from civil lawsuits in connection with their work. If the evidence demonstrates the lawsuit was brought as part of a pattern of coercive, intimidating and controlling behavior towards their intimate partner, the defendant will be entitled to reimbursement of legal fees and expenses. Judges shall have a qualified immunity provided they avoid gross negligence, deliberate and unjustified retaliation or violation of a party's civil rights. Before a lawsuit can be brought against a judge, the party must obtain permission from a commission set up to review potential lawsuits against judges. A majority of the commission shall not be part of the legal profession. No one shall take part in review of a proposed lawsuit who has appeared or is likely to appear before the judge or has other professional connection that would create an appearance of bias. The commission or panel making the decision must include someone who is an expert in domestic violence.

In addition to other issues normally reviewed by judicial conduct committees, the committees shall investigate allegations of gender bias, retaliation for criticism of the judge or the court and a lack of understanding of domestic violence issues. Aside from other considerations, these issues will be investigated to determine if the judge needs retraining in these issues. A majority of the committees shall not be part of the legal profession and no one should participate in consideration of a complaint who has or might appear before the judge or have other potential conflicts. States shall provide sufficient funds so that significant issues raised in complaints shall be investigated. Lawyers shall not be subject to discipline for good faith criticism of the court or a judge and the court system shall take steps to avoid creating the appearance of retaliation for such criticism.

I know many mothers who have been cruelly mistreated by abusive judges would like to remove all immunity for judges. In practice this would not work well for protective mothers and there are legitimate justifications for judicial immunity. If all immunity was eliminated, the abusers would be the ones filing lawsuits because they have the resources and judges would be afraid to do the right thing. We need to create meaningful accountability for court professionals without interfering with legitimate protections. I remember reading an article by a psychologist in which he pointed to the low rate of findings against evaluators in complaints by litigants and concluded it proved the complaints were mostly frivolous. He never considered that psychologists are judging themselves and have a strong bias against these complaints. It really demonstrates why a majority of those reviewing complaints against any of the professionals cannot be from the profession being reviewed.

7. Economic Abuse: Custody courts shall take steps to prevent the outcome of custody cases to be decided by the relative resources of the parties. Courts shall level the playing field where one party has control of most of the family resources by ordering the wealthier parent to contribute to the other parent's legal expenses. In cases in which a pattern of coercive, intimidating and controlling tactics is established, the abusive parent shall be responsible for all expenses made necessary by their abuse. Courts shall consider economic abuse in considering allegations of domestic violence.

Abusers often threaten their victims that if she dares to leave he will bankrupt her and go after the children. Judges and other court professionals are often untrained in the use of economic abuse and rarely take steps to prevent this unfair strategy or use it to help understand the pattern of abuse. If courts were to respond aggressively to this tactic they would save a lot of work and court time because the abusers would no longer have an incentive to pursue a lot of frivolous claims and strategies.

8. The Importance of Context: Context is critical to understanding domestic violence issues. Accordingly custody courts shall avoid practices where each incident or issue is reviewed separately so that the context is hidden. Even where courts have made decisions denying domestic violence or similar allegations, this shall not prevent the court from examining new or additional examples or evidence of domestic violence in the context of the previous evidence rejected in an earlier decision. Similarly courts should be open to considering earlier evidence in the light of current research not previously considered. We have frequently seen courts give custody to alleged abusers on the assumption they were more likely to promote the relationship with the mother and once they gain control undermining or destroying the relationship. This behavior should be used to demonstrate the original assumptions were wrong and support the allegations of abuse because it demonstrates his motivation. Nevertheless, courts that severely punish mothers for asking courts to limit contact with dangerous fathers routinely do nothing when the fathers not only ask the court to interfere with the mother’s relationship, but unilaterally take actions to limit contact between the mother and children.

9. Review of Catastrophic Outcomes: A Catastrophe Review Commission shall be established to review events occurring after a decision in a domestic violence custody case that demonstrate the predictions made in the custody decision were catastrophically wrong. This would include cases where an alleged abuser found safe by the court later kills a child or intimate partner, is convicted of sexual abuse, child pornography, a domestic violence crime or other similar event that makes it likely the original decision was tragically wrong. A domestic violence expert shall be part of any panel reviewing these cases. The panel shall issue a public report that includes the names of the parties and professionals involved in the case, findings and recommendations. One of the problems we see is that unless a father immediately kills the children there are no consequences to judges making dangerous decisions. If they knew later events could trigger an investigation that could place the court’s mistakes in the context of some tragedy they might be afraid to take the chance.

10. Protective Parent Act: No penalty or retaliation shall be imposed for a good faith report of domestic violence or child abuse. A determination that a report of domestic violence or child abuse is not supported by sufficient evidence to confirm the allegation shall not by itself be used as proof that the allegation was deliberately false or to discredit the person making the allegation. The myth that women often make false allegations has led inadequately trained court professionals to create a punitive and retaliatory response to allegations of abuse. The decisions usually cause more harm to children than any expected benefit. Sexual abuse allegations are particularly difficult to prove. Inadequate proof, particularly in the context of common poor investigation practices do not mean the allegations were deliberately false, but too many court professionals fail to understand the distinction.

11. Courts May Not Consider Theories Based on Myths: No theories or approaches based on the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse shall be considered in a custody case. No professional who expresses a belief in this myth shall be qualified to participate as a neutral professional in a custody case. A determination of a belief in this myth can be made by explicit statements or implicitly from the actions and approaches of the professional. Parental Alienation Syndrome and its progeny like “friendly parent” approaches are based on the belief almost all allegations of abuse are false. The same is true of PAS by other names such as alienation or parental alienation. These bogus theories have prevented adequate investigation of abuse allegations by assuming they are false. This reform would prevent the harm caused by these unscientific practices. It would not prevent courts from considering actual evidence of specific behaviors and the effects of proven behaviors.

12. Record Keeping: Courts shall keep records that will be available on its web site providing information for each judge about how many custody cases included allegations of domestic violence or child abuse and how many the judge upheld. This will further be divided by gender. The court will also keep records of requests for protective orders and the numbers upheld by each judge. This will not invade anyone’s privacy as the names of the cases will not be provided. We know that only one or two percent of abuse allegations made by mothers are deliberately false (some additional ones may not have sufficient proof) so that if a specific judge is consistently finding against what we know have to be valid allegations, it will establish the judge needs retraining or to be removed from sitting on a bench handling domestic violence cases. I believe just posting this information will discourage judges from making arbitrary and harmful decisions.

13. Use of Best Practices by Child Protective Agencies: Child protective agencies shall work together with a local domestic violence agency and obtain training for their staff from them. The caseworkers shall consult with domestic violence advocates or other domestic violence experts when working on any complaint in which there is information the case might involve domestic violence. Many local communities have created a partnership between child protective and domestic violence agencies. These have worked well by helping to recognize domestic violence and respond in ways that benefit children. This should be considered best practices and illustrates that a mental health degree does not demonstrate expertise in domestic violence so these professionals should be consulting with domestic violence advocates or other experts.

14. Response to Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: In any child custody case that included allegations of child sexual abuse or charges against a parent who raised concerns about child sexual abuse and the court decides to give temporary or permanent custody or joint custody to the alleged abuser, the court, in writing shall specify the following: What was the evidence that supported the sexual abuse allegations; what is the evidence that proves no sexual abuse occurred; what is the evidence that proves no boundary violation occurred; what is the evidence that the complaint was made in bad faith; what is the harm of changing custody of the child; what is the benefit of changing custody, what can be done to secure the benefit without creating the harm or minimizing the harm

No type of child custody case is mishandled worse than ones with sexual abuse allegations. By the time children reach the age of eighteen, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The stereotypical abuser is a stranger, but most rapists and molesters are someone the victim knows and for children it is often their fathers. Nevertheless 85% of sexual abuse allegations result in custody for the alleged abuser. Clearly a large percentage of these cases are wrongly decided and spectacularly so. Courts routinely use flawed practices in responding to these allegations. These reforms will force courts to at least consider important issues that are often missed in the emotions of these cases. Hopefully it will discourage courts from granting custody to abusers and punishing good faith allegations.

15. Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Courts shall use best practices in considering allegations of child sexual abuse such as use of play therapy in young children, providing sufficient time for a child to build a trusting relationship with the interviewer before expecting the child to reveal whatever happened; considering the context of domestic violence in the case, understanding children often recant truthful allegations for a variety of good reasons and the need to avoid silencing the child.

Child sexual abuse allegations are difficult to prove under the best of circumstances. The crime is not committed in front of witnesses for obvious reasons. Most sexual abuse does not leave physical proof (although inadequately trained professionals often expect it) and when physical proof is available it is often lost by the time the child reveals the abuse. Society is uncomfortable with the subject and court professionals don’t want to believe a father could do something so heinous, particularly if he is successful in other parts of his life. Accordingly it is important that professionals investigating the allegations use best practices and avoid being influenced by the myth that women frequently make false allegations. At the same time professionals should consider if the child’s reaction was caused by boundary violations or some innocent behavior.

16. Providing Necessary Information in Court Applications: In any application to a court for a change in the custodial arrangement, the applicant will provide information about any arrests or convictions for domestic violence or child abuse crimes and any prior protective orders against the party. Any misrepresentation or omission of material information required under this section shall result in the dismissal of the application and reversal of any relief granted based upon the misleading application.

We have seen common abuser tactics where they make false allegations and ex-parte applications for a change of custody. Frequently mothers lose custody without any opportunity to challenge the allegations. Courts can be unaware of a history of domestic violence and child abuse. By the time the mother has a chance to challenge the decision the children are living with the father and the court is reluctant to uproot them again. If the application fails to inform the court of these critical issues, the petition must be dismissed and the children returned.

17. Retraining Court Professionals: In conjunction with the current scientific research that establishes widespread mistakes and bad practices in responding to domestic violence custody cases and the reforms developed to respond to the problem, court professionals shall be retrained based upon current scientific research. Among the topics to be included in the retraining shall be:

1. Most contested custody are domestic violence cases and not "high conflict" cases.

2. How to Recognize Domestic Violence

3. Gender Bias

4. The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

5. The Need to Limit Mental Health Professionals to their Actual Expertise

6. The Proper Way to Respond to Sexual Abuse Allegations.



Court professionals have received a lot of misinformation that contributes to the bad custody decisions we see in domestic violence cases. Judge Mike Brigner and I have written an article designed to train judges. These six areas constitute frequent mistakes made by judges and other court professionals that lead to decisions that are harmful to children. A big part of the problem is that many judges and other professionals have a false confidence in their knowledge of domestic violence issues and are not open to hearing information based upon the current scientific research now available. Hopefully by making major reforms in the courts’ response to domestic violence cases it will send a powerful message that court professionals need to take a fresh look at this subject and be open to the expertise now available.



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. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com