The Mirror Solution to Child Sexual Abuse

by Barry Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Attorney General is now following-up by investigating some of the people who helped Jerry Sandusky continue to molest boys long after he should have been discovered and stopped. A recent news report described a meeting between the young man known at the Sandusky trial as victim #1, his mother and school officials. The boy had revealed Sandusky’s abuse to his school counselor. His mother demanded the school report Sandusky’s crimes against her son to the child protective authorities. The principal is being investigated because she attempted to discourage the mother from making a report. The mother told her she was going to the authorities to make the report. Despite her obligation as a mandated reporter, the principle called child protective to tell them to expect a visit from the mother and son, but not to take the allegations too seriously.

In recent times we have seen several stories, including Newtown where teachers and school administrators showed enormous courage and literally gave their lives to protect the children in their charge and here is a principal who allegedly undermined the efforts to protect a young boy from a criminal predator. It would be nice to think her behavior was the exception, but the reality is that when it comes to protecting children from sexual abuse, particularly when it is committed by someone they know, there is an awful pattern of adults giving more concern to the alleged rapists then to the children.

Is that an unfair characterization for the response to allegations of child sexual abuse in the United States and so many other countries? Consider that by the time children reach the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-seventh of the boys have been sexually assaulted. Although mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations of sexual abuse, in 85% of cases in which mothers raise these concerns, the alleged abuser is given custody. This means courts are sending an awful lot of children to live with their rapists. The only thing worse than raising these grizzly statistics would be for someone to say it is inevitable and we do not have the ability to do a better job protecting children.

Certainly disgusting predators like Jerry Sandusky are responsible for their crimes. At the same time this principal and so many officials at Penn State could have acted differently and stopped him sooner. But again this is more than a problem caused by a few uncaring individuals. As a society we have long tolerated and helped keep secret the widespread victimization of our children. Attitudes, beliefs and tolerance of sexism make children more vulnerable. The solution for protecting these precious children lies as close as the nearest mirror. If the level of child sexual abuse crimes was believed and considered intolerable, we could create better responses that would drastically reduce these crimes. The principal had an opportunity to protect not only the boy in her school but other boys who later became victims of Sandusky. As tempting as it is to criticize her actions and inactions, we have no authority to do so until we do what she failed to do—work to prevent more children from being victimized by the predators among us.

The Enormous Life Long Harm of Sexual Abuse

In my first book, SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY, I told the story about a client who was sexually abused between the ages of 3 and 8 by her brother. He would spank her and touch her during his abuse. For many years she felt guilty because some parts of what her brother did were physically pleasurable. When the brother’s abuse was discovered, he was removed from the home, but she never received therapy because her parents did not believe in it. Much later, as an adult and in a marriage with an abuser she found a good therapist. One day the therapist brought out an empty chair and told our client to pretend the chair was the three-year-old girl. “Tell the girl what she did wrong,” the therapist asked the client. In that moment, for the first time she realized it wasn’t her fault.

A few months ago I wrote an article about the health impact of domestic violence and child abuse. I discussed a wonderful book by Kathleen Kendall-Tackett. Early in the book she was discussing how these traumas shorten children’s lives and speaking of the many common illnesses caused or worsened by these traumas. And then she mentioned diabetes----and I froze.

My mother died just a few years ago at age 84 of complications from diabetes. The last several years of her life were compromised by her diabetes and her need for dialysis. It was years after I was an adult and had started my work in the domestic violence movement that I learned that her uncle had touched her inappropriately when she was a teenager. I thought about this as I read the book. I will never know, but it is possible she would still be alive if my “great”-uncle had never abused her. We cannot know how these traumas impact an individual, but we do know that many wonderful people like my mom live shorter and more painful lives because of society’s tolerance of domestic violence, child abuse and other traumas.

Predators do not fit the kind of stereotypes that would make them easily identifiable. I can remember as a kid going out on this uncle’s boat and having a wonderful time. There was never any suggestion he had done anything so harmful. He was also a popular science teacher. I don’t know if he ever abused any of the students, but he did touch other girls in our family. I believe it is long past time for society to start taking these crimes far more seriously.

The long-term health impact from sexual abuse can occur in many different ways: The trauma can cause depression, PTSD and other mental health problems which in turn can lead to suicide; Stress, inflammation, eating and sleeping disorders can cause many of the most debilitating and fatal diseases; The violation of trust makes it harder to create and maintain good relationships; The impact of the assault may undermine the ability to concentrate in school and get an education needed to provide needed resources; Many victims run away from home creating additional dangers and vulnerabilities. Survivors often make bad decisions resulting in risky sexual behavior, substance abuse, crime, prostitution, relationships with abusive men and other self-destructive behaviors that undermine their health. These and other problematic circumstances combine to multiply the risks and harms.

Societal attitudes towards rape tend to reinforce guilt and embarrassment. In many cases survivors are blamed for the abuser’s actions. In response to most other crimes, victims can expect support and assistance, but the experience of rape and sexual abuse is often hidden out of concern for negative responses. In most cases where the offender is a friend or relative there is a danger of additional assaults or retaliation if the attack is revealed. And as many of the Penn State victims stated when asked why they didn’t report it sooner, there is good reason in our society to fear they will not be believed.

The fact that rape and other forms of sexual abuse are enormously harmful is not new or surprising. Still, the new medical and other research that demonstrates the enormity of the harm to victims is important. This research should create an urgency to prevent these crimes and help the children heal. There are many things we can do to salvage lives, but it must become safe to come forward and reveal his abuse and the resources must be in place to provide the needed treatment and therapy. Survivors should expect non-judgmental emotional support so they are willing to reveal what he did to them and seek the help they need.

The Myth about False Allegations

One of the major factors in the decision by District Attorney Bill Delahunt to develop a series of best practices that led to creation of the Quincy Model was a finding that almost every prisoner in a nearby high security prison had a childhood history of witnessing domestic violence or suffering sexual abuse. He realized that by protecting the community from these crimes he could reduce all crimes. He created an office to focus on child sexual abuse crimes. Delahunt was aware that many people tended to disbelieve allegations of incest, but he correctly understood most complaints were true. Aggressive prosecution of incest and other child sexual abuse crimes contributed to the substantial reduction in domestic violence and other crimes in Norfolk County.

The myth about false allegations of incest has a long history. Sigmund Freud originally published a study based on his work with incest victims that confirmed its frequency. Strong opposition from parts of society and particularly those who were committing these crimes led him to concoct a theory that the complaints were based on dreams and fantasies and were almost always false.

More recently organized efforts by sexual abusers and the professionals earning money by helping to defend them led to the promotion of theories designed to dispute child sexual abuse allegations. This included allegations that were based on therapy and recovered memory as well as the custody based Parental Alienation Syndrome. As with any myth, there has to be a kernel of truth to sustain it. There have been false allegations and convictions, and these are rightfully condemned, but are rare. Far more common are true allegations that are disbelieved.

Significantly child sexual abuse is a crime and so tends to be judged based on the high standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. This is based on our values that include not wanting innocent people to be convicted and jailed. This is why proof is required beyond a reasonable doubt which is a very high standard of proof. Child sexual abuse is particularly hard to prove because many types of abuse do not leave physical evidence or the evidence may no longer be available by the time the child reveals the crime. Many judges and juries expect strong physical evidence before they will believe child sexual abuse allegations and sometimes even this strong evidence is not enough.

It is indeed a horrible experience to be accused of sexual abuse and I understand the high standard of proof needed to avoid mistaken convictions. There is no justification, however to use this same high standard of proof when the issue is protecting the health and safety of children rather than sending someone to prison. Nevertheless we have seen many cases in which the decision of prosecutors not to bring charges (which would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt) is routinely used by child protective agencies and custody courts as proof the allegations are false. Even when this non-probative information is not cited, the extreme skepticism many professionals have towards incest allegations creates a huge obstacle that prevents children from being protected. The catastrophic consequences of exposing children to sexual abuse should require courts to err on the side of protecting the health and safety of children rather than protecting abusers.

The fact is that pursuing allegations of sexual abuse are extremely painful and embarrassing for the child and the safe parent. Children do lie about many things but rarely abuse. This is confirmed by studies that confirm deliberately false allegations made by mothers occur less than 2% of the time in contested custody cases. Nevertheless the Saunders’ study found that inadequately trained court professionals tend to believe the myth that mothers frequently pressure children to make false charges. The frequency that child sexual abuse allegations are disbelieved demonstrates both the difficulty in proving incest and the high percentage of evaluators and other court professionals attempting to handle cases without the specific training they need.

Perhaps the most damning demonstration of society’s tolerance for incest is the discrimination against children victimized by sexual abusers they know. When the alleged perpetrator is a stranger, the investigation is led by law enforcement and the purpose is to gather evidence to prosecute the rapist. The alleged offender is quickly and aggressively questioned and they seek to obtain agreement for a lie detector test. In other words they take the allegations seriously and do everything possible to protect the child.

When the alleged predator is someone the child knows, particularly a family member, the approach is completely different. The investigation is led by a social worker. They are required to provide notice to the parents which provides the opportunity for the molester to destroy evidence and silence the child. There is a delay in interviewing the child and the abuser. The purpose of the investigation is to reunify the parent and child and little effort is made to gather evidence. If the case later leads to a custody dispute, this lack of evidence caused by the substandard investigation is treated as proof the allegations are deliberately false.

Misleading Stereotypes

When the media actively covers a story about child sexual abuse it is usually about a pretty blond girl who has been raped or kidnapped by a stranger. This is one of the reasons that the stereotypical sexual predator is some stranger lurking to pick up children. The reality is that the large majority of child sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows. Accordingly, practices that focus mainly on strangers leave most child victims vulnerable and unprotected. The discriminatory response to child sexual abuse is based on these false stereotypes.

Closely connected to this stereotype is the common but unstated assumption that a man who is successful in other parts of his life could not be doing something so distasteful. This probably influenced the principal who knew Jerry Sandusky as a successful college football coach and founder of an organization dedicated to helping underprivileged children. She probably didn’t consider that predators often engage in activities that will bring them close to vulnerable children.

The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was similarly abetted by this popular assumption. Dedicated priests devoting their lives to prayer and God would not abuse children. Certainly the church administrators would not tolerate priests who violated the commandments and broke the trust placed in them. This made it hard to believe the allegations of abuse by priests could be both true and as widespread as they turned out to be. Violations by Boy Scout leaders similarly tended to be disbelieved because the men involved were considered role models and leaders in the community.

These common mistakes have contributed to the failure of custody courts to believe true allegations of child sexual abuse and to protect the children. Many evaluators and other court professionals believe they can determine the truth about abuse allegations from observing the parties. They often fail to consider that an abuser acts very differently with the court professionals and indeed just about everyone else than he acts in the privacy of his home. In many cases evaluators and others have referenced glowing testimonials from friends and family as if it were proof the allegations could not be true. These witnesses are usually telling the truth, but they have no information about how he treats the mother and children in private.

At the same time, mothers may be angry, emotional and upset from the long history of their partner’s abuse and concern the court will not protect their children. The Saunders’ study found that court professionals pay far too much attention to mother’s anger and emotion; all out of proportion to what it says about her parenting. The Batterer as Parent and other experts have found that the best source of information about a father’s abuse and his likely future behavior is the mother.

Abused women pay close attention to their partners’ body language, tone of voice, choice of words and other clues that can provide early warning of his potential danger. This allows the mothers to attempt to diffuse the situation, usually by agreeing to what he wants, leave the home, call for help or shield the children, usually with her body in order to try to survive. Court professionals who rarely have an understanding of domestic violence dynamics just assume the mother is biased and fail to consider their best source of information. In many cases, this bias and ignorance has directly led to child murders after the court disbelieved the mother and provided the father with the access to the children he needed to kill them.

The fathers the courts see in custody cases do not look like stereotypical child molesters. Neither did Jerry Sandusky, the Catholic priests or the Boy Scout leaders who repeatedly violated the children in their trust. Trained professionals need to do a better job of avoiding manipulation by abusers who have long practice in fooling people.

The High Cost of Silence

Child sexual abuse is an unpleasant, painful and embarrassing topic, but our silence only makes it easier for the bad guys. The research about the enormous health consequences of tolerating child abuse and the unconscionable prevalence of these life-altering crimes demands that good people speak up and demand responses that will effectively protect our children.

In recent years we have seen effective “good-touch-bad-touch” programs that make young children aware of the dangers. Predators use many effective tactics to scare and silence children. This makes it particularly important to do everything possible to encourage children to report abuse or anything that makes them uncomfortable.

We have seen in the Sandusky case, Catholic Church and many custody cases how the practice of disbelieving children’s complaints discourages victims from revealing his abuse and allows these scandals to continue much longer. The use of these flawed practices encourages abusers because they correctly expect to get away with most of their crimes. Approaches that treat incest as a private family matter increase the risk to children.

Community silence is also devastating to our children. When we consider how devastating child sexual abuse is to the victim and the community it should be shocking to see the difficulty in obtaining laws and practices designed to protect children. Many states have had laws or practices that treat incest as less of a crime than assaults by strangers. Attempts to strengthen enforcement and eliminate incest exemptions have not had the near unanimous support they deserve. Campaigns to reduce or eliminate statute of limitation obstacles to victims suing their abusers have met significant opposition and have not always succeeded. This is important because children may have lost the memory of the abuse, as a defense mechanism for survival, or continue to face threats or risks for revealing the abuse. In some cases survivors have faced retaliation when they complain about their abuser.

This silence has been particularly deafening in response to the widespread failure of the custody courts to protect child sexual abuse victims. The media has failed to expose this scandal. The legislatures have failed to pass laws that require courts to make the safety of children their first priority. Professional organizations have failed and refused to discipline members who make a living ruining children’s lives by protecting the predators. Many judges have retaliated against protective mothers and professionals who criticized them for placing children in danger. And the public has stood by while the children’s lives are ruined and they are subjected to unspeakable pain and cruelty.


Child Sexual Abuse and Abortion

I personally believe that the government has no business telling women what to do with their bodies and it is particularly offensive for male officials to interfere with the medical needs and most fundamental privacy rights of women. At the same time I have many friends who sincerely believe that abortion is wrong and I respect their dedication. I am touching this issue, which I usually would not discuss in an article like this because of some interesting findings in the ACES and related research. The studies find that girls who are sexually abused are more likely to have abortions. This is not only because they might want to abort a baby conceived from rape, but the impact of sexual abuse often leads survivors to engage in risky sexual behaviors.

We have seen politicians focus on rare types of abortions and spend enormous attention and money seeking to ban these abortions despite the impact on the health and privacy of women. The research concerning the connection between child sexual abuse and abortion means that those who wish to prevent abortions could create laws and practices that would result in a larger reduction of abortions without interfering with the privacy of girls and women. Indeed, encouraging best practices to prevent rape and molestation of girls will make the lives of all girls and women much better. It should be a rare instance in which both sides of the abortion debate could agree. Once this connection becomes better known, the response of politicians and those who are working to prevent abortions will demonstrate the sincerity of their beliefs. How could they fail to take advantage of this research to prevent abortions by preventing child sexual abuse? For those who sincerely oppose abortion, protecting girls from incest and sexual assault should become a major priority.

Custody Courts Still Protect Sexual Predators

When mothers raise concerns about possible child sexual abuse during a custody case they frequently face responses from their attorneys refusing to present the evidence or strongly discouraging the moms from voicing their concerns and protecting their children. The attorneys’ motives range from disbelieving the allegation or not wanting to present it to concerns about the sufficiency of the evidence and the likelihood the judge will deny the allegations and punish the mother for making them. With few exceptions, these attorneys are not aware of the research that 85% of these allegations result in custody for the alleged abuser. Rather this response is based on their experience that judges generally do not want to hear about child sexual abuse and often respond in ways that hurt the mother and children. In some cases the lawyer is concerned the judge will be angry at them for presenting the information. This, of course, constitutes a conflict of interest as the attorney is undermining the client’s case to protect their personal and professional interests, but it is not the kind of ethics violation that courts or bar associations tend to take seriously.

This common response is an accurate reflection of the hostile reaction custody courts make to requests that they protect children from sexual abuse. Some of this reaction is caused by many years of listening to evaluators who are part of the cottage industry that makes large incomes supporting abusive fathers. Some of this reaction is caused by the frequent lack of training or research to inform decisions about domestic violence and child abuse. The bogus Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), based not on any research but rather a belief system by Richard Gardner that included many public statements that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. At the heart of the reaction that mostly fails to protect children is reliance on the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse.

While courts claim that protecting children is their highest priority, the results and their standard responses tell a very different story. I appreciate that there are many reasons for the courts’ failure, just as there are reasons for the frequency children in this society are subjected to sexual abuse. Nevertheless, if this was a genuine priority the responses would be very different and children would be much safer. It should not take the ACES study about the enormity of harm caused by child abuse, but if that is what it takes, let’s use it to protect the children.

Domestic violence experts often speak about the importance of context in understanding domestic violence cases. This is one of the many failures in the custody court system that tends to look at each issue and incident separately. The courts also look at each case separately and assume based on stare decisis that once a decision is made it must be correct. In many cases they won’t even consider new evidence which taken together with the previous evidence demonstrates the pattern of abuse. If custody court officials would look at the pattern of courts giving sexual predators access to the children and the research about how rare it is for mothers to make false allegations it would be easy to see that most of these decisions are catastrophically wrong.

Unfortunately we have seen extreme defensiveness and too often retaliation when concerns are raised that judges mishandled a case. This is particularly true in sexual abuse cases where it would be so distasteful for judges to realize they are responsible for the children being subjected to such vile behavior. We need the courts to be open to the new research, better practices and the need to rely only on professionals who have genuine expertise specifically about child sexual abuse.

Conclusion

When the scandals in the Catholic Church and Penn State finally broke, the public was rightfully outraged that so many children were left unprotected for so long. It was fair to blame the perpetrators and the administrators who failed to do their job and make protection of children the first priority. Many of us hoped that the exposure of these scandals would encourage reforms in the custody courts’ response to child sexual abuse because the same flawed practices and responses are involved. Thus far we have been disappointed.

Just as it would be helpful to custody courts to look for the patterns in abuse cases, the same is true for society’s failure to protect children from sexual predators, particularly close friends and family. As I mentioned earlier, by the time they reach the age of 18, one-third of the girls and one-seventh of the boys have been sexually abused. This presents an unmistakable pattern of society’s failure to protect its children.

This is a society that claims to treat children as precious. If a consumer product kills or injures a few children, it is big news, the product is recalled and the media is all over the story. So why do we continue to tolerate the much more widespread, life-altering trauma caused by sexual abuse? For this we must look in the mirror.

This is a topic we are uncomfortable discussing. Many people wish to disbelieve the allegations even though children rarely lie about abuse. How could respected judges, lawyers and psychologists even consider forcing children to live with their rapists? It is much easier to blame the mother for being vindictive. Is it any less shocking that respected priests could molest children and leading administrators would cover it up rather than making children’s safety the first priority? There came a point where the church denials and minimizations were overwhelmed by the evidence and huge number of children proven to be victims.

The public and the parishioners remained silent for far too long. We have reached the point with the custody courts that the research and evidence is so overwhelming that only shutting our eyes and closing our ears to the desperate pleas for help from the children and their mothers can permit the latest scandal to continue. It is time for the media to start doing their job of exposing court malfeasance and misfeasance. It is time for the courts to start discussing this problem with more than the usual suspects who have failed the courts and often make large incomes by doing so. Court administrators need to look at the research including the Saunders’ study and the ACES medical findings. Most of all it is time for all of us to look in the mirror and tell our children what we are doing to make them safe.

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.

Serious Health Consequences to Children Witnessing Domestic Violence

by Barry Goldstein

New Research Requires Changes in Custody Court Practices

Starting with the ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study in 1998 medical researchers have established the enormous and long term harm to children from being exposed to traumatic events such as witnessing domestic violence and direct physical or sexual abuse. The research establishes that there is a cumulative adversity so that the more exposure a child suffers the greater the chance of serious medical consequences and the more serious those consequences are likely to be. There is now a substantial body of medical research that establishes not only the enormous harm to children, but the many mechanisms that result in increased illnesses and injuries during their childhood and for the rest of their lives. When court or other professionals fail to take sensible actions to safeguard children, or give more consideration to less important factors they are literally reducing the life expectancy of these children.

When domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s, custody courts had to develop practices to respond. For many years when a protective mother went to court seeking a protective order and for any visitation with the father to be supervised judges would routinely ask some version of “Did he also assault the child?” If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as qualified as the mother for custody and visitation. These risky practices continued until the eighties and nineties when research established that children witnessing domestic violence were more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behaviors when older including substance abuse, self-mutilation, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, prostitution, crime and for boys to assault future partners and girls to be assaulted by future partners. These findings led to legislation in every state either to require courts to consider domestic violence in any decision about custody or visitation or to create a presumption against custody for abusers under some limited circumstances.

Every state has adopted the best interests of the child standard to determine custody and visitation and has developed a list of factors either legislatively or through case law that must be considered in making these decisions. Unfortunately the states have not required that children’s safety be treated as the first priority so courts are free to use very subjective standards when deciding where the children will live. In many cases political or personal beliefs and factors far less important than the safety of children are determinative in custody decisions. This often poisons the process because abusers can distract attention from safety issues by raising less important issues. Judges sometimes believe that fairness requires the court to treat the issues raised by the mother and father equally even though one of those issues is more fundamental to the well-being of children. This is an example of false equivalency that is common in custody courts. In many cases, courts weigh allegations of domestic violence and alienation as if they are equally important to the well-being of children. At worst, alienation might temporarily interfere with the relationship between the child and a parent while domestic violence leads to serious and life impacting health problems throughout the child’s life and often reduces how long they live. I have never heard an evaluator or a judge weigh the relative importance of these issues based on scientific research. This is particularly problematic because claims of alienation are a common abuser tactic but courts seem to be more open to these allegations than domestic violence which mothers rarely falsify.

There is now a substantial body of medical research that establishes the enormous risk to children of exposing them to domestic violence. The research demonstrates that these children have significant, increased risk of illnesses and injuries as children and need more medical care. Significantly, these medical problems do not end when children reach their majority but continue for the rest of their lives. They will have far more medical needs as adults and their life expectancy is reduced. I believe that custody courts cannot continue to tolerate practices that result in children losing precious years from their lives. This research requires fundamental reforms or else the courts cannot be acting in the best interests of children.

The Medical Harm to Children Witnessing Domestic Violence

One of the leading experts about the medical consequences of childhood trauma is Kathleen Kendall-Tackett. The second edition of her book, Treating the Lifetime Health Effects of Childhood Victimization, was recently published. This is a book by and for medical professionals that is designed to help them treat a variety of conditions in adult patients that were caused or exacerbated by traumas suffered as children. The research and the writing were not designed to respond to custody court issues, but the information should be required for any court that wishes to act in the best interests of children.

The long-term harm of exposure to domestic violence or direct physical or sexual abuse can and does develop in a myriad of ways. A child could develop immediate and obvious symptoms or the harm can go unnoticed for many years. The author encourages doctors to ask about childhood trauma because so many different ailments can have their genesis with childhood trauma. This is especially problematic because patients are rarely thinking about events from decades earlier as the cause of their health problems.

There are many ways in which childhood trauma can seriously impact health now and in the future. The trauma can cause increased inflammation that can trigger numerous diseases now and in the future. Accordingly, Dr. Kendall-Tackett recommends an anti-inflammatory for children exposed to abuse. Quite naturally, exposure to domestic violence often interferes with the child’s ability to enjoy the quality and quantity of sleep needed. This and several other common responses to abuse can lead to obesity with increased risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other medical problems. The author suggested that programs and campaigns designed to prevent obesity ought to include efforts to make sure children get their needed sleep and avoid exposure to domestic violence and child abuse. Indeed these experiences often lead to eating disorders.

Many diseases including heart disease, asthma and diabetes are caused or exacerbated by stress. One of the major reasons researchers found that we spend $750 billion per year on health costs related to domestic violence is because excessive stress is so inimical to good health. Domestic violence is especially harmful because there is the constant danger that the abuser will threaten or hurt his partner. Accordingly the stress is repetitive. This harm is especially severe for children whose various systems are still developing.

As discussed earlier, witnessing domestic violence strongly encourages substance abuse. The use of illegal drugs, tobacco and excessive use of alcohol, especially by children also creates a wide range of long-term medical problems. Many of the factors I am discussing interact with each other to reinforce the most negative impacts.

Exposure to childhood trauma also increases the risk of depression. This in turn can cause behaviors that further undermine the child’s health. Depression can discourage proper self-care, negatively impact the immune system and other bodily defenses and is a major factor in suicide. Significantly, separating children from their primary attachment figure as custody courts frequently do in domestic violence cases also causes depression. I mentioned before that cumulative adversity magnifies the risk so that it is particularly devastating to children who have witnessed domestic violence or been directly abused to be denied a normal relationship with their primary parent.

Childhood trauma is also associated with risky sexual behavior. This is another example of how witnessing domestic violence leads to many behaviors that cause still more health risks. Risky sexual behavior can lead to sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and cause survivors to interact with dangerous individuals. It can also encourage the use of dangerous drugs.

For children to witness their father or another man abusing their mother, they would tend to be fearful and angry, but often it is unsafe for them to express their anger particularly to the abuser. This can cause them to express their anger in other ways that can undermine their health and safety. This can result in both physical and mental illnesses or cause them to get into fights where someone else hurts them. The childhood trauma also can lead to shame and self-blame that can be harmful to their health. Significantly, low self-esteem can also be caused by denying children normal contact with their primary attachment figure so that many common custody court approaches serve to multiply the harm caused by domestic violence.

In many ways, domestic violence leads to poverty and this undermines the health of victims. Education is important in order to improve one’s economic status. Children who witness domestic violence and often miss needed sleep both because of frightening incidents at night and the fear which makes it hard to sleep at other times. This makes it difficult for children to get their work done in school. They may also act out because of their anger. Economic abuse is an often overlooked part of domestic violence tactics so that mothers seeking to leave their abusers often lose income and family resources. In many cases the bias favoring abusive fathers forces mothers to trade support for custody. Small wonder at least half of the homeless population consists of mothers and children who left abusers. Many children also leave home because of domestic violence, physical or sexual abuse. Victims with limited financial resources often can’t afford safe housing, healthy food and needed medical care. All of this contributes to medical problems facing children impacted by domestic violence.

Many victims of childhood trauma suffer from unexplained or inadequately explained conditions. Many are labeled as hypochondriacs which may say more about the failure of the medical community to find the cause than the complaints of the victims. These experiences are painful in many ways both physically and emotionally and can prove debilitating. Living with pain undermines other parts of a person’s life and interferes with their ability to reach their potential.

Just as any adverse experiences a child has are cumulative so that combined they are much more harmful, the same is true of the many medical consequences caused by domestic violence and child abuse. The various conditions which are just some of the problems faced by children impacted by domestic violence come together to magnify the harm done to children. This research ought to make clear that we must stop minimizing the significance of these childhood traumas.

Impact of Health Concerns in Individual Cases

The fact is that the present custody court response to domestic violence has been a disaster for battered women and children. Everything is severely tilted to favor abusive fathers so that the outcomes are often catastrophic and the court discussions tend to focus too much on protecting abusers’ interests rather than safeguarding children. Accordingly we are desperately seeking to find a way to help court professionals understand the enormous harm they are causing by following outdated, discredited and biased approaches. In succession we have hoped that the powerful documentation of court failures contained in The Batterer as Parent, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, the Saunders’ study from the US Department of Justice and Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor might encourage court officials to take a fresh look at false assumptions that continue to place children in jeopardy. Much of this research and publications are new so they still may help change the system as they sometimes change individual cases. They may also have a cumulative effect over time.

The new research about the lifelong health impacts on children witnessing domestic violence, child abuse and other childhood traumas ought to require courts to take a new look at standard practices. There are two important differences that might help give this information some traction. The research does not come from anyone involved in the domestic violence movement, but rather is from the medical community. It was developed for the purpose of better treating adult patients who suffered childhood trauma. In other words it would be hard for anyone to discredit this research. The second factor is that the findings go to what is supposed to be the essence of what custody courts are supposed to do. HOW CAN ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT IMPACT THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY OF CHILDREN BE TREATED AS IF IT WERE AS IMPORTANT OR MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS THAT RESULT IN INCREASED ILLNESSES AND INJURIES THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE CHILDREN AND REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCY?

This medical research strongly supports requests from protective mothers to make safety the first priority. Common issues that courts routinely consider as factors in deciding custody and visitation like alienation, friendly parent, which home is nicer, relative financial status of the parties, children’s preference and many of the phony or unimportant mental health diagnoses used to pathologize protective mothers pale in comparison with the significance of factors that impact children’s health such as domestic violence and child abuse. Not only should the court place far more weight on these factors, but there is no reason to allow issues that do not impact children’s safety to distract attention from factors that so directly impact the well-being of children. The “rights” of the parents, which “fathers’ rights” groups have elevated to the first priority, must be subordinated to the health and lifespan of the children. Yes, courts should have seen that before, but the research about the impact of trauma means that political beliefs about father’s rights can no longer be used to undermine children’s safety.

We have also seen many evaluators and other court professionals who do not understand domestic violence dynamics require some artificial level of domestic violence or child abuse before taking the risk seriously. In our new book, Elizabeth Liu and I wrote about a New York evaluator with a bias for shared parenting who claimed to know domestic violence when he saw it and required the victim to have serious physical injuries before he would allow claims of domestic violence to interfere with his personal preferences. Similarly some states require a more “serious” offense or level of proof such as conviction of a felony before presumptions against custody for abusers apply. This would not prevent a court from protecting children in cases that do not rise to this level, but some courts have discarded evidence if it fails to meet the requirement for the presumption. Courts sometimes forget that the purpose of considering domestic violence is because of the harm it does to children. The medical harm I have been discussing in this article is not limited to cases in which the victim sustains a “serious” injury or even to cases of physical abuse. Furthermore, one of the problems with the custody court response to domestic violence is the widespread failure to understand domestic violence dynamics. Abusive fathers commit domestic violence tactics based on a belief system that they are entitled to control their partner and make the major decisions in the relationship. His belief system does not change with the end of the relationship and in fact the use of the custody tactic demonstrates the likelihood he will continue to abuse future partners. If the abuser is granted custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness still more domestic violence. This adds to their cumulative adversity and therefore dramatically increases their medical risks.

The severity of the harm of domestic violence makes it critical that courts are able to recognize true allegations of abuse. We frequently see practices where courts rely on inadequately trained court professionals. The Saunders’ study recommended these professionals need to learn how to screen for domestic violence and conduct a risk assessment. In many cases allegations of domestic violence are dismissed for non-probative reasons such as the mother returning to her abuser, failing to follow-through when seeking a protective order, having no police or medical records or the children interacting with their father without fear because they know he would not hurt them in front of witnesses. At the same time few lawyers know to present the pattern of coercive and controlling tactics which includes so much more than physical abuse and judges and evaluators rarely look for this pattern. Evaluators routinely fail to use any tools such as the Campbell Danger Assessment that would help them recognize the danger, but instead rely on psychological tests that tell them nothing about domestic violence. We cannot continue to use such flawed practices and inadequately trained professionals when the resulting mistakes are likely to reduce children’s life expectancy. It becomes even more important for courts to use best practices which include considering current scientific research and at least consulting with a domestic violence expert. A psychologist or other mental health professional could also be a domestic violence expert, but this is rare. The Saunders’ study found that a mental health degree and the standard and required training for evaluators do not provide the level of expertise needed for domestic violence cases.

Many protective mothers have complained that their attorneys refuse to present evidence of abuse. The new medical evidence will make it critical that attorneys not only present the father’s history of abuse, but make sure the court is aware of the enormous medical harm to children to witnessing domestic violence. They must also ask the courts for the protection that is needed including protective orders and supervised visitation. One of the findings in the Saunders’ study is that courts did not limit alleged abusers to supervised visitation as often as needed.

The Medical Research Requires Fundamental Reforms in the Custody Courts

The enormity of the harm to children caused by witnessing domestic violence, child abuse and other childhood trauma makes it critical that society find ways to protect children and minimize their exposure to risk. Now that the research is available that demonstrates the cumulative impact of adversity on children, our method of resolving custody and visitation must assure everything possible is done to minimize this risk.

Our system of jurisprudence is based on the belief that if both parties present their best case the truth will usually prevail. This is particularly problematic when one party has significantly more resources. This frequently happens in domestic violence cases because abusers use control tactics that include control of financial resources. They have also developed tactics designed to bankrupt their victims by using aggressive and often questionable legal strategies. In many cases, protective mothers are left unrepresented by the time the case comes to trial. This means the results are often determined more by the relative wealth of the parties than the merits of the case. This can no longer be tolerable when the result often takes years off children’s lives. The Batterer as Parent recommends that the abuser pay all expenses including legal fees made necessary by his abusive behavior. Judge Mike Brigner has written that courts have the authority to level the playing field but rarely make use of this authority. At the very least courts will have to become more aware of economic abuse and create effective remedies so that victims can present their side of the story in a meaningful way.

Lawyers are ethically required to zealously advocate for their clients within the law even when this causes a miscarriage of justice. In the case of a criminal defense attorney they are required to use defense strategies that sometimes result in guilty criminals going free. In some cases they use their freedom to kill or hurt new victims. Nevertheless the potential harm would be speculative and the greater good of maintaining our system of jurisprudence takes precedence. Can it be ethical to use the same legal principles to help an abuser gain custody or unprotected visitation which is likely to seriously harm the health and well-being of a specific child victim?

It seems to me that the harm to children’s health requires that the legal and mental health community take a fresh look at the ethics involved in practices that are likely to hurt children. This is particularly true of the lawyers and psychologists who are part of the cottage industry that makes its money supporting abusive fathers. Can it be ethical given the new research for mental health professionals to provide reports and give testimony based on personal beliefs and theories unsupported by scientific research that are likely to harm the children in the case? Similarly can attorneys for batterers ethically use strategies deliberately designed to mislead or confuse the court in ways that place children in jeopardy? Can these professionals remain ignorant of current research so that they are unqualified to handle the case but can truthfully say they were unaware of the danger they helped create? Another way of asking this is should the legal system reconsider how custody and visitation are determined in cases involving domestic violence and child abuse in order to make sure the children’s health is protected?

At a minimum, it seems to me the courts must create a screening system so a professional with genuine domestic violence expertise reviews each case and sends all domestic violence cases to a special part or section that specializes in these critical and difficult cases. This will be important because a lot of common custody practices particularly seeking to require the parents to cooperate are inappropriate in domestic violence cases. Children will benefit if the professionals responding to the case understand the serious health and safety risks the children are probably facing.

The judges presiding over these cases would have special training about domestic violence and understand the risks involved. They would be used to looking to the specialized body of domestic violence research to inform their decisions. Lawyers, GALs and evaluators (if needed) would all be required to have the necessary training. The focus would be on the safety of the children as it should be.

The initial inquiry would be limited to the validity of allegations concerning domestic violence and child abuse. This avoids distractions from other less important issues that abusers often use as part of their tactics to avoid responsibility for their actions. If allegations of domestic violence or child abuse are confirmed the court will protect the children and encourage actions that would limit the long-term health impact.

The first priority is to make sure the children are never again exposed to these traumatic events. This is especially important because of the increased harm from cumulative adversity. Professionals trained in domestic violence dynamics will understand the danger for children to witness the offender’s abuse of future partners if the children are not protected.

There are responses and treatment children can receive that would reduce the harm caused by exposure to domestic violence and other trauma. In some cases they might receive anti-inflammatories to reduce negative consequences. Their sleep patterns can be monitored so they can be helped to get the sleep they need. Mental health therapy can be used to cope with the trauma and respond in more healthy ways. The protective parent is more likely to encourage the needed treatment, make it safe for the children to discuss their experiences and help them heal. In the present custody system, we often have arrangements that give the abuser control or veto power over treatment and other issues which are used to prevent or discourage the necessary treatment. This is another example where the “rights” of the parent or the minimization of abuse are harmful to the long-term health of the children.

Given the enormous risks to children’s health, it is important that children have access to any treatment that could prevent serious health consequences years later. This treatment is available today and could help protect children’s health. Other treatment may be needed as the child gets older and new symptoms develop as a result of earlier traumas. Many of the treatments will only be effective if the child is no longer exposed to domestic violence and abuse and is made to feel safe. This is another reason courts should be giving custody to the safer parent. It should be considered malpractice for any court professional to make recommendations that undermine a child’s chance to heal.

Conclusion

What happens if a court mistakenly believes a mother’s allegations about the father’s abuse and limits the children’s contact with the father? The children would be denied some good times with their dad and be denied opportunities to learn from him. This would be wrong and harmful and I have no desire to minimize the negative impact on the children. What happens if the court disbelieves the mother’s true complaints and provides the abusive father with unprotected visitation or even custody? This is an unmitigated catastrophe that substantially increases the children’s risk of illnesses and injuries throughout their lives and likely result in a shorter life. Certainly a less pleasant and productive life. In the rare event that the mother made a false complaint, the missed time can be made up and there is no reason to expect any long-term consequences. When the court fails to protect a child from an abuser, it is possible it can later realize its mistake and modify the custody arrangement. One problem, however, is that in my experience courts that rule against protective mothers are often extremely defensive about their mistakes and rarely correct them. Furthermore the abusive father is likely to use the control given him by the court to undermine the mother’s relationship with the children. It is possible, the children could be returned to the mother and receive treatment to ameliorate the harm caused by the court decisions, but in many cases much of the damage will be permanent.

Courts routinely consider the relative risks of being wrong in most other types of cases, but rarely in domestic violence custody cases. Indeed most evaluation reports and court decisions that I have read fail to weigh the relative risks and benefits of a given action based on scientific research.

The Saunders’ study from the U. S. Department of Justice recommended that evaluators and other court professionals receive training about the impact of domestic violence on children. Most of the court professionals who participated in the study claimed to have this research. In the case of the evaluators, however, this was not supported by their response to vignettes presented as part of the study. I suspect that when the professionals claimed they had this information, they were referring to the earlier research that witnessing domestic violence makes children more likely to engage in harmful behaviors when older. The frequency that courts minimize the significance of domestic violence strongly supports this conclusion.

The Saunders’ study also recommended that court professionals get training in screening for domestic violence. The serious consequences when courts fail to recognize true allegations of abuse confirm why this is so important. So does the finding that the courts are not imposing supervised visitation on alleged abusers as often as they should. Significantly, court professionals without adequate training tend to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse. This means that in many cases the lack of training or bias of court professionals causes decisions that pose enormous risks for children. Even if the judge knows that mothers rarely make false complaints, the court might be relying on an evaluator or GAL making a recommendation based on this myth.

Now that we know the enormous lifetime medical harm caused to children when they are exposed to domestic violence and child abuse, what will we do to minimize the potential harm? I would like to ask judges and court administrators if they agree this medical research requires a fundamental review of practices used to respond to abuse allegations. In order to better protect children, would the courts be willing to create meetings with leading researchers and domestic violence advocates to explore the best ways to protect our children. THE LOSS OF ONE YEAR FROM ONE CHILD’S LIFE IS ONE YEAR TOO MANY.

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.