Protecting Children After Newtown

by Barry Goldstein

The terrible tragedy in Newtown has created intense feelings in this country and around the world. We have suffered from all too many mass murders and other catastrophes, but many pundits have I believe correctly stated that this one is different. The difference is those twenty precious children who had their whole lives ahead of them, so much to learn and enjoy and so much to contribute. The world is incredibly poorer for the loss of those children and the six heroines who sought to save them. We all have a moral obligation to remember the victims in Newtown. There is nothing we can do to save these twenty children, but there are so many other children we can protect and there must be no excuses for failing to do so.

EVERY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES, WE SUFFER THE EQUIVALENT OF FOUR TO FIVE NEWTOWNS IN THE LOSS OF PRECIOUS CHILDREN AT THE HANDS OF ABUSIVE FATHERS INVOLVED IN CONTESTED CHILD CUSTODY CASES. I say this based on research that found news stories about 175 children murdered in a recent two year period by abusive fathers. In many of the cases the outdated and discredited practices used by the custody courts gave these fathers the access they needed to murder their children.

Perhaps our most fundamental Constitutional right is the right to free speech, and it is well established that this right is not absolute. The lesson from Newtown must be that any rights people have to own and possess guns and any rights parents have to their children must be given less consideration that the right of children to be safe. As every protective mother and father knows, the custody courts can and must do a better job of protecting our children. The court system’s refusal to reform broken practices based on compelling new research and their defensive response to criticism for their failure to protect children must stop.

The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

When domestic violence first became a public issue in the mid to late 1970s, there was virtually no research about domestic violence. The focus was on the harm to women partnered with abusers. When mothers came to court seeking protection for themselves and their children, they were met with some version of “Is he also assaulting the children?” If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as qualified for custody and visitation as the mother.

Later research revealed the profound impact on children of witnessing domestic violence. Studies found that children impacted by domestic violence were more likely to engage in a wide variety of harmful behaviors that include substance abuse, suicide, self-mutilation, crime, prostitution, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. The children were also more likely to suffer depression. The studies found that witnessing domestic violence was as harmful to children as being directly abused. In other words the earlier distinctions did not benefit children. This research resulted in laws in every state requiring custody courts to consider domestic violence when making decisions about custody and visitation. Some states passed laws creating a presumption against granting custody to abusers, but this was often undermined by requiring a high level of proof or severity for the law to apply. The result of these limitations was that many harms to children did not result in effective protection.

Additional research found that witnessing domestic violence interfered with the ability of children to reach their developmental milestones. In each age category, children have normal developmental milestones they need to reach as they grow and mature. One milestone helps achieve later milestones so that the failure to reach one milestone undermines the entire process and puts children at risk. In very young children, witnessing domestic violence can actually impact the hardwiring of their brain which has negative consequences the rest of their lives.

More recently, we have seen more research about the effects of adverse experiences like witnessing domestic violence. The more types of adverse experiences children have the greater the harm. Significantly, children who witness domestic violence have more physical and mental health illnesses as children and as adults, need more medical care and have shorter life expectancies. Court professionals must be asked how it can possibly be in the best interests of a child to impose such profound risks on the children they are supposed to safeguard.

Significantly, the study by Dr. Daniel Saunders for the U. S. Department of Justice found that court professionals need training about the impact on children of witnessing domestic violence. Usually evaluators, judges and lawyers have had some training and know that children can be harmed by witnessing domestic violence. The problem is they may not fully understand the extent of the risk or all the circumstances when an abuser’s actions can trigger this risk.

Protecting Children in Domestic Violence Custody Cases

Every state has laws or case law that describes a series of issues that courts should consider in making decisions about custody and visitation. This can include subjects like the preferences of the child, economic issues, friendly parent and many others. Most of the issues the courts are required to consider do not involve the very life expectancy of the child as witnessing domestic violence does. Every court has the authority to make issues that impact children’s safety the highest priority. This would certainly be in the best interests of the children. Nevertheless we repeatedly see courts focus on less important issues in cases where a proper understanding of the evidence regarding domestic violence would demonstrate the children are at risk.

I believe it is critical that judges and other court professionals be advised of the devastating impact domestic violence has on children. The specific potential harms should be mentioned in the initial court appearances, discussions with GALs and evaluators, cross-examination of expert witnesses, motions for temporary relief and closing arguments. The dire consequences of exposing children to domestic violence should mean that courts do not take these risks before getting all the information they need. They should err on the side of protecting children. A parent’s “right” to have access to their child and the child’s need to have contact with their parents should not trump legitimate safety issues. Even if the child survives, the lifelong health problems caused by the court’s mistake might not be reparable.

In order for courts to protect children from these dangers, the judge and other professionals must be able to recognize when the children might be at risk. Focusing on less important issues makes it harder to know when there is a danger which is exactly why abusers routinely raise false and less important issues. The court must also stop minimizing the risks or wrongly assuming that the danger ends when the relationship is over.

Disbelieving Valid Abuse Complaints

In cases like Katie Tagle and Amy Castillo and so many others the problem was that the court did not believe the mothers’ concerns and so made decisions that directly led to the murders of children. In most domestic violence cases the courts make the same mistake of disbelieving safe and honest mothers, but the consequences do not include the murder of children. Instead they are subjected to abuse, cruelty, separation from their mothers and new incidents of domestic violence. The harm to the children is not as dramatic and often occurs over many years and indeed their lifetimes. The additional medical problems and shorter lifetimes go unconnected to the mistakes made by the courts.

There are many flawed practices that contribute to the widespread failure of courts to believe valid allegations of abuse, but a large part is the assumption that protective mothers are lying about the father’s abuse. The court-sponsored gender bias committees from at least forty states and many judicial districts have all found widespread bias against women litigants and one of the most common examples is giving women less credibility than men. The recent U.S. Department of Justice study by Dr. Daniel Saunders specifically found that evaluators, judges and lawyers who do not have the specific necessary training to respond to domestic violence cases are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Saunders specifically found that this and other errors lead the courts to make decisions that harm children. The research establishes that mothers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations less than two percent of the time and fathers in these cases make false allegations sixteen times more often than mothers. In other words we have a large number of catastrophic outcomes and solid research that explains the bad practices that place children in jeopardy, but none of this has led the courts to take a look at this pattern of errors that are ruining children’s lives.

There are other factors that lead courts to disbelieve and minimize abuse complaints by protective mothers. Significantly, most of these errors are explained in the Saunders’ report. Court professionals need training in screening for domestic violence so the many unqualified professionals fail to recognize valid complaints about domestic violence. They need training in risk assessment so these professionals minimize the significance of the fathers’ abuse and place children at risk. They need training in post-separation violence so unqualified professionals assume the danger ends when the parties separate. They do not understand that after the woman leaves is the most dangerous time. They also fail to consider that the abuser assaults and coerces his partner not because of anything she did or his lack of impulse control but based on his belief that men are entitled to control their intimate partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. This means that when abusive fathers are given custody or unsupervised visitation, they are likely to abuse future partners which will compound the harm they have already done to the children. As we discussed earlier, these professionals need training in the impact of domestic violence on children. Although they generally know witnessing domestic violence is harmful, they do not realize the full extent of the harm and so minimize the significance of the father’s abuse. This leads to mistakes where they focus on less important issues and are often more concerned with phony alienation claims than issues that pose genuine safety risks.

One common example of this is that when courts limit abusive fathers to supervised visitation because they pose a safety risk, there is often strong pressure to resume unsupervised visitation as quickly as possible. When courts punish mothers by withholding normal visitation for continuing to believe the father is abusive, courts often are willing to continue these restrictions for many months or years. Two recent cases in the Washington, D.C. area demonstrate the harm of this approach.

In the Rams case, the father had a long history of abuse and presented serious danger to the child. The court quickly reestablished unsupervised visitation with the father over the mother’s objections. The little boy, Prince McLeod Rams died during one of these visits.

The second case, involving a protective mother, Natalie Khawam was in the news because her sister’s complaint about harassment led to the revelation of the affair involving General Petraeus. The media covered the fact that General Petraeus and General Allen had written letters to the judge describing Ms. Khawam as a wonderful mother. The letters were cast in a negative light because the judge had accused the mother of lying about her abuse allegations and repeated deeply flawed findings by the evaluator pathologizing the mother.

In this case the mother always provided good care for the child and is the primary attachment figure. The court has restricted the child’s access to his mother for many months and is in no hurry to stop this harm of the child. It is well established that denying a child normal access to his primary attachment figure significantly increases the risk of depression, low-self-esteem and suicide when older. There are no safety issues about the mother’s care for the child and a review of the court procedure demonstrates serious flaws that suggest the findings are wrong. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and I submitted an op-ed about these two cases to the Washington Post. The cases perfectly illustrate the favoritism towards fathers and frequent disconnect between the courts’ focus and the safety of children. Nevertheless the Post decided not to print the article.

Dr. Saunders found that evaluators, judges and lawyers without the needed training tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, support unscientific alienation theories and assume children are harmed when mothers seek to protect them from men they have seen to be dangerous. The reliance on these false assumptions repeatedly leads to cases in which courts force children to live with dangerous abusers to guard against false and unimportant concerns instead of focusing on the children’s safety. These were among the mistakes found in the Khawam case.

The failure of courts to protect children is magnified by the widespread use of professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusers. These are mental health professionals and attorneys who support abusive fathers because this is financially beneficial for the professionals. A large majority of contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to reestablish control over their victims. Domestic violence is about control and financial control is a common part of their domestic violence tactics. This means in contested custody the abusers most often control the family resources so the best way to earn a large income is to support approaches that help abusers. The Saunders’ study supports a finding that this cottage industry creates a significant problem in the custody courts. They combine a bias against protective mothers with inadequate training and yet courts often treat them as if they were neutral professionals.

The problem caused by these unqualified and biased evaluators and other mental health professionals is further magnified because judges and lawyers hear the misinformation they provide and often use it in future cases. It is easy to see how these common mistakes lead to outcomes that place children at risk. What is hard to understand is the failure to reconsider their standard practices based on the many catastrophic outcomes and the research that is now available. Dr. Saunders specifically found that there is a specialized body of research that the courts need to use to help understand and respond to domestic violence cases. The present standard and required training does not provide judges, lawyers, or evaluators with the expertise they need to respond effectively to domestic violence cases. Unfortunately the inadequate training that sometimes includes serious misinformation gives judges and other professionals a false sense of competency so that they are not open to new research or complaints based on harmful outcomes.

Media Coverage of the Homicides of Children

Television stations all over the country suspended their regular programming to cover the tragedy in Newtown. This was one of the most important stories of the last several years and it was properly treated as such. Fortunately, we do not expect to see twenty children gunned down at their school. The media quickly spent time examining how such tragedies can be prevented in the future. Reporters immediately placed Newtown in the context of several other recent mass murders and particularly ones at schools.

I want to be clear that I want the media to devote the level of coverage they did to the tragedy in Newtown. I want to know about the individual children and the brave women who gave everything to protect them. For many of us, tears were quick to come for many days. I profoundly hope the pain of this experience will motivate our country to finally adopt the reforms needed to make children safe. I want the media to continue to focus on this story and the governmental response until we make schools, theatres, malls and other places children frequent safe.

Reporters are not experts about guns, mental health, psychology, law enforcement, educational practices and so many other issues that should be explored in covering the murders in Newtown and discussing solutions. Accordingly, the media sought the assistance of a variety of experts who could help illuminate the issues and potential remedies. This is part of good journalism. It also provides a big contrast with their coverage of the hundreds of murders of children by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases.

Failure to Expose the Child Custody Scandal

In the last few years there have been hundreds of cases of abusive fathers involved in contested custody disputes killing their children. These tragedies have resulted in significant local coverage and occasional national coverage. The media, however, rarely interviews domestic violence experts or seeks to put these murders in the context of a failed custody court system. I have not seen one major media story that places these murders in the context of the 175 murders committed by abusive fathers in a two year period from 2009-2011.

This failure is significant because it encourages the false assumption that these tragedies represent a rare exception to what normally happens. Professor Dianne Bartlow led a research study that asked judges and other court administrators in communities that experienced these tragedies about the reforms they have created in response to the murders and the research that demonstrates courts are placing children in jeopardy. Interestingly, the judges who responded tended to be the best and most caring ones. That is why they took the time to discuss domestic violence issues. They appeared to have a sincere concern about protecting children. Nevertheless, Professor Barlow uncovered few attempts to create the needed reforms. Instead most of the judges seemed to believe that the murders were a rare exception. In other words the failure of the media to place these tragedies in context makes it harder for reformers to recognize the pattern of mistakes that place children in jeopardy.

On New Years’ Eve, 1994, Anne Scripps Douglas was brutally murdered by her husband in her Bronxville, New York home. Ms. Douglas had obtained a protective order and sought to expand it to keep him out of her house. The court refused to provide this protection. The local newspaper provided substantial coverage to this case and severely criticized the judge for her inaction.

A few days later, I was in family court seeking a protective order for my client. During a conference with the judge’s law secretary the abuser’s attorney sought to avoid the protective order. The law secretary advised us that the judges had met after the murder and agreed to make it easier for abused women to obtain protection. Accordingly there was no way to avoid a protective order and the case was quickly settled. In other words, the judges had sought to learn from the mistakes that led to this murder and create the reforms necessary to protect potential victims. They might have done the same thing without the press coverage, but I believe it is likely the strong criticism and public outrage encouraged the needed reforms. We will never know how many lives were saved by improving the court practices.

The outrage and concern over the twenty children murdered in Newtown has created strong pressure for action to make children safer. The limited coverage for the 175 children murdered by abusive fathers between 2009 and 2011 and failure to place these murders in context gave the courts and the legislature a pass to do nothing. And so these murders continue.

Overcoming Extremist Messages

The impact from Newtown was so strong that a majority of NRA members were moved to support reasonable gun restrictions that might prevent this kind of tragedy. It provided an opportunity for the NRA to participate in a constructive discussion. Instead they responded in a way several commentators described as tone deaf. In doing so they demonstrated that the NRA is not an advocacy group for gun owners but a shill for the gun merchants. Several prominent long time NRA members and supporters spoke out against the NRA response and promised to be open to reforms that could help keep children safe.

The abuser rights lobby which likes to refer to themselves as “fathers’ rights” has played a similar poisonous role in promoting practices in the custody courts that place children in jeopardy. They like to create the illusion that they speak for all men or at least all fathers, but in reality they do not even represent most of the men who abuse women. Most custody cases, including those involving abusive fathers are settled more or less amicably. These abusers are willing to seek custody in order to obtain an advantageous financial settlement, but they love their children and will not seek to hurt their children by separating them from their mothers. The extreme abusers who are part of the abuser groups believe their partners have no right to leave them so that they are entitled to use any and all tactics to pressure them to return or punish them for leaving. Unfortunately the court professionals often assume these fathers are acting out of love for their children and fail to inquire about their motives.

The NRA and the abuser groups have been able to bully their victims and the community because too many good people have been afraid to stand up to them. It is particularly heartening that NRA members are speaking out in support of sensible reforms that would not interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep guns, but would make our communities and our children safer. It is also critical for men, fathers and responsible organizations representing men to speak out in support of protective mothers so that legislators and the media understand the abuser groups speak only for a small group of dangerous extremists. The National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) is an example of a men’s organization that takes a strong stand in support of protective mothers and their children.

The True Meaning of Patriotism

A dear friend of mine is a protective mother whose children were harmed by the court’s acceptance of PAS. The three children were forced to live with the abusive father after he had sexually abused the two daughters. The mother won appeals decisions forcing a new trial and reconsideration, but the trial court ignored the law and the safety of the children to run out the clock so the girls aged out of the system before they could receive help for the harm caused by the father and the court.

My friend’s father was a World War II veteran and genuine American hero. He described seeing his buddies injured and killed and the horror that is war. He gladly did this for our country and his family. But when he saw what our courts did to his grandchildren she said he was sorry he ever fought. We failed this heroic soldier and we failed his grandchildren.

Patriotism can take many forms. It can include waving the flag on the 4th of July and other holidays. It must also include standing up to bullies from extremist groups, in the legislatures and the courts who are willing to place our children at risk. You see if patriotism stands for anything it must include the right to make sure our children are safe in their homes and schools.

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. His next book, Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and should be published early next year. Barry can be reached by email from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Custody Courts Need to Expand Sources of Information in DV Cases

by Barry Goldstein

A few years ago, the Canadian Institute of Health hired me to help review grant proposals about gender, violence and health. I participated in a meeting in Ottawa with a few dozen researchers and representatives of organizations that use this research. It was an amazing discussion because all of the participants were familiar with the current scientific research about domestic violence. Few of the experts in that room are used by custody courts to provide information about domestic violence and current research and yet the discussions in Ottawa included exactly the information that is missing in dv custody cases. This is the same information the Saunders’ study found the courts to need. Interestingly the experts were paid $200 per day but were far more qualified than the professionals relied on by custody courts who are paid thousands of dollars per day but do not have the knowledge of specific domestic violence topics necessary to make an informed decision. This experience helped me see how custody courts are limiting themselves to a small group of often unqualified professionals and failing to tap current scientific research that could make their consideration of domestic violence cases far more informed.

In one case in which I represented a protective mother, the court pointed out that my client believed the judge, law guardian, evaluators and visitation supervisors were all wrong. To the court, this was unthinkable and demonstrated how unreasonable the mother was. In reality all of these professionals were using outdated and discredited practices and did not have the specific domestic violence training the Saunders’ study found necessary to make an informed decision. It is interesting, however that experts outside the custody court system all understand the practices and results in the custody courts are not working for children. As more research has become available the domestic violence community (which is the only professionals working full time on domestic violence issues), academicians, government agencies and health professionals all understand the fallacies of the standard approaches to domestic violence cases in custody courts. The Saunders’ study specifically found that the training received by evaluators and other court professionals does not provide the needed expertise. Even the criminal courts have an understanding of basic issues missing in the custody court. The research establishes that victims often recant valid allegations for many good reasons. Knowing this, law enforcement and criminal courts often attempt to continue the prosecution after the victim recants. Indeed when they are working most effectively, the defendant may be charged with witness tampering for pressuring his victim to stop cooperating with the prosecutor. In custody courts, however a recantation by a child or mother is not only treated as if it was convincing proof the allegations were false, but usually punishes the mother for seeking to interfere with the father’s relationship with the children. Such actions can only be understood as retaliatory because they are divorced from the best interests of the children. In most of these cases the complaint was made in good faith, but even if it was deliberately false, the harm of separating children from their primary attachment figure is usually more harmful than whatever benefits the court thinks it is providing. Perhaps custody courts should consider its own logic and determine why all these other entities with more familiarity about current scientific research rely on such different practices.

Use of a Limited Group of Professionals for Expertise

The United States has custody courts in 50 states and the District of Columbia (and territories) and thousands of counties. Certainly there are variations about how evaluators and other court professionals are selected. Nevertheless, we frequently hear of communities where the same small group of professionals, particularly evaluators, are the only ones selected. Perhaps the assumption is that conducting so many evaluations gives them a greater level of experience and expertise. This arrangement does not encourage the implementation of new and improved practices based on new research and outcomes of past cases. Instead there seems to be a defensiveness to justify the same standard practices.

One of the concerns about using the same small group or clique of evaluators all the time is that the Saunders’ study and other research suggests that the recommendations and conclusions about the parents often have more to do with the values, beliefs and biases of the evaluator than the parenting abilities of the parties. This is particularly true when the reports are based on clinical impressions rather than scientific research.

The problem is compounded a thousand times over when the evaluators are part of the cottage industry that makes its fortune by supporting abusers. These professionals have figured out that in contested custody cases, abusive fathers usually have the money so supporting approaches that favor abusers is good for the bank account (but not for children). We often see courts appoint evaluators, parenting coordinators and GALs that openly advertise for “fathers’ rights” business and make public their advocacy in support of positions promoted by abuser rights organizations. Nevertheless, these professionals are treated as if they were neutral.

More commonly the mistaken approaches by evaluators are caused by a lack of needed training and a desire to make the recommendations they believe the judge wishes to hear. The limitations on the professionals relied on in a court results in lawyers and judges hearing the same information or misinformation and failing to hear opposing approaches, particularly approaches based upon current scientific research. Unfortunately few judges demand conclusions be supported by current research or discredit evaluators unfamiliar with this needed training,.

Even if a judge has confidence in the evaluators and other mental health professionals regularly relied on, there would be significant benefits in hearing from other experts. This would particularly be true for experts with a substantial practice outside of the courts and ones familiar with current scientific research. The judge and other court professionals might hear new information and approaches that could improve the court’s response to domestic violence cases.

Need for Domestic Violence Expertise

The Saunders’ study found that courts specifically need experts who know how to screen for domestic violence, risk assessment and post-separation violence. It is not surprising that the widespread use of mental health professionals for expertise in domestic violence has worked poorly for children. Initially this was based on a widespread assumption that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. Although these assumptions proved to be wrong, courts have continued to rely on mental health professionals in domestic violence cases. Until recently, psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers would complete their academic training without any information about domestic violence. Even now such training is very limited. They could obtain the needed information in workshops, trainings and reviewing professional literature, but today most mental health professionals who regularly work on custody cases do not have the necessary training in domestic violence. Indeed one of the most important findings in the Saunders’ report is that the standard and required training received by evaluators does not provide them with the expertise needed to respond to domestic violence cases.

In the Saunders’ study, many of the evaluators claimed to be screening their cases for domestic violence, but few were using tools relevant to the task. Most frequently evaluators were using some form of the MMPI or similar generalized tests that provide no information about domestic violence. This means that no effective screening for domestic violence was performed but the evaluators and in turn the judges believed the alleged abusers were safe. This is the worst of all possible situations because courts would have a false sense of confidence in the determinations. Similarly few evaluators used any tools for risk or lethality assessment.

The Leadership Council is a group of leading mental health, legal and academic professionals familiar with current scientific research about domestic violence and custody. Dr. Joy Silberg is one of the leading psychologists responding to domestic violence and child abuse. Her research for the Leadership Council found that every year custody courts send 58,000 children for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. I suspect most judges are unfamiliar with this important research or discount it because they cannot imagine courts making such frequent and dangerous mistakes. These errors, however are inevitable when courts rely on evaluators who unable to screen for domestic violence or perform risk assessments.

It is easy to determine if an individual case was screened for domestic violence and safety concerns. The evaluation would include a tool to determine risk such as the Campbell Danger Assessment. The report would contain a discussion of the abuse allegations made by the mother and whether such behaviors, if true would suggest a higher risk of lethality or other danger. In thirty years of practice I have had many cases in which we presented evidence of the father engaging in unwanted sex with the mother, hitting her while she was pregnant, harming pets, strangling her and other behaviors that genuine experts associate with higher risks, but I never heard one evaluator discuss the significance of these behaviors. Similarly, evaluators and judges rarely explicitly discuss the risks of separating children from primary attachment figures or of children witnessing new incidents of abuse with whatever benefits the court believes it is creating by exposing the children to allegedly abusive fathers.

On the other hand, we frequently see discussion by evaluators and other court professionals that demonstrates a lack of training. When evaluators assume that the danger is ended because the parties are separated or he hasn’t assaulted her since he no longer had access, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of post-separation violence. Abusers often use controlling and coercive behaviors against a series of partners because domestic violence is based on his belief system and sense of entitlement. This means that giving custody or unsupervised visitation to the abuser is likely to result in the children witnessing more domestic violence.

Dr. Saunders found that evaluators (and other professionals) who do not have the domestic violence training they need tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations, focus on bogus alienation theories and assume mothers’ attempts to safeguard their children are actually harmful. These issues can be more difficult because although the situations are rare, it could occur in an individual case. Courts should be suspicious of evaluators who focus on these issues. In most cases it will be based on their lack of training rather than the circumstances of the parties. If the evaluator regularly focuses on false allegations by mothers, alienation and protective mothering as a negative, this demonstrates the evaluator is unqualified to handle domestic violence cases. If there are valid reasons to focus on these issues, the evaluator should be able to articulate the evidence that makes this the unusual case in which the mother is making false allegations.

The Saunders’ study also found that inadequately trained professionals placed too much weight on mothers’ anger or emotions. This is all out of proportion to what it says about her parenting. Significantly this plays to gender stereotypes. Over forty states and many judicial districts have court-appointed gender bias committees. They have all found substantial bias against women and particularly women litigants. One of the common examples is blaming women for the actions of their abusers. It is normal and indeed healthy for victims of domestic violence to be angry and emotional at his mistreatment. When court professionals hold this against the mother, even if they do not express it directly, they are blaming mothers for a normal reaction to the fathers’ improper and often illegal behavior. We often see court professionals engage in this kind of gender bias without realizing they are doing so.

Problems with Reliance on Mental Health Professionals

Some courts routinely appoint an evaluator, usually a psychologist whenever they expect a custody case to be contested. I believe it would be better to use more critical thinking in the appointment of mental health professionals to assist courts in domestic violence cases. Many protective mothers and professionals would like to totally eliminate the use of mental health professionals because they rarely understand domestic violence issues, often pathologize safe, protective mothers and are responsible for many of the worst outcomes. I can understand this concern because under present circumstances these mental health professionals are doing far more harm than good. I believe the research would support the use of mental health professionals, but only when there is a legitimate mental health issue, something more than the alleged abuser saying the mother is crazy. If there is no real mental health issue, the appointment of an evaluator adds time and great expense to custody proceedings, but the evaluator has nothing to offer that will improve the decision making process.

With extremely rare exceptions, domestic violence is not caused by mental health problems, but many cases involve issues of domestic violence and mental health. It is important to understand that these are separate issues. An abuser would need to be treated for his mental condition but would also need to change his beliefs regarding control and entitlement. We sometimes see cases in which children are initially protected from an abuser because the evaluator can recognize his emotional problems, but the evaluator is unequipped to respond to his abuse. They often believe that resolving the mental health issues will make him safe and rush to give him unsupervised visitation or even custody despite his continued abuse. Research establishes that a multi-disciplinary approach tends to work better and these cases require cooperation between mental health and domestic violence professionals.

Mothers could also have mental health problems in addition to dealing with his abuse and in many cases the domestic violence is the cause of her emotional problems. In most of these cases the mother has provided most of the child care and has been a good mother. This would mean that the mental health issues are not preventing her from being a good parent. The best response is to stop the father from continuing his abuse and to help the mother heal. In these cases, the children need the mother much more than the father because she is the primary attachment figure, the safe parent and she is in a better position to help the children heal.

The Saunders’ study, the Robin Yeamans’ chapter in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody and The Batterer as Parent and other research have all found that unqualified mental health professionals often pathologize battered women. This can occur through the use of psychological tests like the MMPI that were not made for the populations seen in family court. It magnifies minor personality differences into something that appears more serious. Mothers are often labeled as paranoid, delusional or histrionic because they continue to believe the father is dangerous after the evaluator or court failed to recognize the validity of her allegations. In most cases this is a result of inadequate training for evaluators and other court professionals. They do not know how to properly screen for domestic violence or recognize behaviors that demonstrate increased risk. The widespread myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse, that Saunders found to be associated with inadequate training, greatly contributes to these frequent errors.

In legitimate mental health diagnoses, the condition would impact all aspects of the patient’s life. We frequently see cases where the mother functions successfully in other parts of her life like school, work, parenting and family relationships, but receives some diagnoses because of her (normal) reaction to the custody court and to her abuser. These diagnoses are generally wrong and might be viewed as “crazy in the family court,” because that is the only place where this “condition” exists.

The Saunders’ study interviewed 24 mothers with cases having negative outcomes for the children. These were the extreme results in which abusers win custody and safe, protective mothers are limited to supervised or no visitation. These cases are virtually always wrong because the harm of separating children from their primary attachment figure is far greater than any benefits the court thought it was providing. In most of these cases, unqualified evaluators had pathologized good mothers by using their standard flawed practices (and biases).

Benefit of Listening to Domestic Violence Experts

The Saunders’ study sought responses from judges, lawyers and evaluators, but the group of professionals with the most knowledge and training about the critical issues directly related to protecting the safety of children were domestic violence advocates. They are the only group that works full time on domestic violence issues. They receive far more training about dv than court professionals and indeed often provide training for other parts of the community.

Saunders found that evaluators and other professionals often lacked the training to screen for domestic violence, perform risk assessment and understand post-separation violence. This is exactly the work that is at the heart of advocates’ responsibilities. Domestic violence agencies and shelters are underfunded in good times and severely so during economic crisis like the present. This means they do not have the resources to provide services to everyone who needs assistance. Accordingly they have to screen alleged victims to make sure they need the services. Therefore, advocates are more experienced and accurate than evaluators in screening for domestic violence.

Probably the most important part of an advocate’s job is safety planning. They understand what behaviors by abusers are associated with higher rates of lethality or other dangers. This information is critical to designing a safety plan for their clients. It is not coincidental that going to a shelter has proven to be the best action in promoting safety. In contrast we regularly see courts giving access to children and forcing battered women to interact with abusers who have engaged in the types of tactics and behavior shown to create the greatest danger.

Advocates understand and research confirms that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves her abuser and particularly when he understands she is not coming back. This is why 75% of men who kill their female intimate partners do so after she has left. Despite this clear research, unqualified court professionals often assume the danger ends when the parties separate and make recommendations and orders that place women and children in danger.

Another common error made by court professionals with inadequate domestic violence training is to focus on each issue and each incident separately instead of looking for the pattern of controlling and coercive behaviors. Judges often complain about the difficulty of making decisions in a “he-said-she-said” case, but their jobs would be far easier if they learned to look for the patterns so they could understand the significance of evidence that is now often ignored.

Domestic violence is not limited to what is often a relatively few incidents of physical assault. Instead the assault is part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors designed to control the victim and allow the offender to make the major decisions in the relationship. Most domestic violence tactics are neither physical nor illegal. Typically a court is focused on a few incidents of physical abuse that the alleged abuser denies. Domestic violence experts would look to the context of these incidents and history of controlling behaviors. Evidence of psychological, emotional and economic abuse would be part of the pattern. So too would be isolating and monitoring behaviors.

Tactics like checking the victim’s odometer or phone, undermining her relationships with family and friends or controlling her access to money can be important clues to understanding motivation. Evidence that he threatened to separate her from the children or bankrupt her if she left him is critically important, but often overlooked. Why would a father who permitted or even demanded the mother provide most of the child care suddenly claim she is crazy or an unfit mother? Was he encouraging an unfit mother to care for his children? How does her decision to leave him or complain about his abuse make her unfit? Why would he want to harm his children by separating him from their primary attachment figure? These are all questions that experts who understand the importance of context would consider but court professionals rarely do. Similarly, researchers who have looked at large numbers of domestic violence custody cases see a pattern of courts failing to protect children because of outdated and discredited practices. Courts that look at each case separately and become defensive about any criticism deny themselves the valuable information these patterns demonstrate.

With the Saunders’ study and other research establishing that the evaluators and other professionals courts are relying on for advice in domestic violence cases do not have the needed training, it would seem that the obvious way for courts to obtain the needed expertise would be to use domestic violence advocates as witnesses and consultants. In the short-term, until other professionals can obtain the necessary training this would be the only available source of domestic violence expertise. In light of the findings that custody courts are placing 58,000 children in danger every year and that in a recent two year period abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases murdered 175 children, often with the unwitting assistance of the courts, it would seem mandatory for courts to have a great sense of urgency to make sure children are protected.

Despite the overwhelming need for domestic violence expertise, many courts have been reluctant or even hostile to listening to domestic violence experts in domestic violence cases. With the publication of the Saunders’ study, it should be considered malpractice for court professionals to attempt to resolve domestic violence cases without the assistance of domestic violence advocates or other genuine experts.

Why Are Custody Courts Reluctant to Learn from Domestic Violence Experts?

Attorneys representing abusers have been aggressive in seeking to create arguments to discourage the use of experts that would help expose their clients’ manipulations. This has led courts to accept invalid claims without using the kind of critical thinking we would normally expect. The widespread failure of attorneys for protective mothers to challenge false but accepted assumptions has contributed to these harmful practices.

Domestic Violence has not been Proven: Attorneys for abusers and judges often say that they don’t know if it is a domestic violence case because the allegations haven’t been proven. The implication is that they do not need domestic violence expertise unless it is established that the father abused the mother. The obvious problem with this reasoning is that the court needs domestic violence expertise in order to make an informed decision about the validity of abuse allegations.

Unqualified professionals often discredit allegations based on information that is not probative such as the mother returning to her abuser, seeking a protective order but not pursuing it and a lack of police or medical reports. Battered women often act in this manner for safety and other good reasons, so if these common and normal behaviors are treated as if they disprove her allegations, the court will deny a lot of valid complaints. At the same time unqualified professionals often fail to look for the pattern of controlling and coercive behaviors that would confirm the mother’s complaints. As discussed earlier, inadequately trained professionals tend to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations and these assumptions are often self-fulfilling.

Domestic Violence Experts are Biased because they Always Oppose Domestic Violence: Acceptance of this false assumption is again based on a lack of critical thinking. The law and the practice in every state and every court is also opposed to domestic violence. Domestic violence advocates seek only to develop the best practices and policies to accomplish what the legislatures have required and the courts are supposed to accomplish.

It is useful to imagine how a court and a legislature would respond to a series of arson fires. They would seek the experts who in that case would be the firefighting community. No one would suggest the firefighters are biased because they always oppose arson. We treat the two groups of experts differently because of three important differences. Arson has always been a crime, but domestic violence has only been treated as a crime more recently. Most firefighters are men and most domestic violence advocates are women and in our still sexist society we pay more attention to what men say. Finally there are no arsonist rights groups that courts or legislatures believe must be treated equally with the firefighters.

Many landlords fail to keep their properties safe and subject their tenants to unsafe and unhealthy conditions. We can understand a tenant would be angry at such a landlord, but if the tenant burned down the property, no judge would listen to claims of the landlord’s mistreatment of the tenant as a justification of arson. Custody courts routinely spend substantial and even most of the time listening to the various justifications abusers make to minimize his harmful abuse. In one case a father admitted calling the mother 20-25 times a day including as late as one in the morning when he knew the mother and children were sleeping. The judge refused to provide the mother an order of protection based on his belief the father was angry at the mother because he believed she denied him some of his phone calls with the children. While the law does not make an exception for when an offender is angry (justified or not), the lack of critical thinking is routinely used in failing to enforce laws against domestic violence.

Those who claim the advocates would be biased imply they would support false allegations. In reality protective mothers have been severely harmed by the myth that they frequently make false allegations. The rare times when a mother makes a false allegation undermines the credibility of the rest of the mothers so the last thing an advocate would do would be to support a false allegation.

Court Professionals Have the Needed Expertise: This was never true and the Saunders’ findings explode this myth. Saunders stated very clearly that there is a specialized body of domestic violence research. This was not true when courts first developed practices to respond to domestic violence. As the research became available, courts have continued to look to mental health professionals exclusively for expertise despite their lack of domestic violence training. Custody courts rarely use this research to inform their decisions. Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals have increasingly been required to attend some training about domestic violence. Some of this training is useless or worse and includes misinformation such as alienation theories and high conflict models. There are other trainings presented by genuine experts that include good research that is part of this specialized body of knowledge. In many cases, however the professionals believe they already understand domestic violence or are hostile to new approaches so pay little attention to the information. The amount of time for the trainings is usually inadequate even when it is mandated by law. These problems were confirmed in the Saunders’ study that found the usual and required trainings did not provide evaluators, judges or lawyers with the expertise they need in domestic violence.

How do Custody Courts Obtain Necessary DV Expertise?

It is important to place the problem in perspective in order to create the best response. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Many abusers seek custody in order to gain a better settlement especially on financial issues. Eventually they agree to a settlement because they do not want to hurt the children. The present system allows them to take an unfair amount of the family resources which hurts children but does not take children from their primary attachment figure. The biggest problem is the 3.8% of custody cases that cannot be settled and continue to trial and often beyond. Court professionals are taught that these are high conflict cases, but a large majority, probably around 90% are domestic violence cases involving the most dangerous abusers. These are the cases that desperately need domestic violence expertise in order to properly protect children. I say they are the most dangerous abusers because they tend to believe she has no right to leave and often seek custody in order to regain control over her.

This is one reason why it is so important for court professionals to be familiar with the research in post-separation violence. Not only do we often hear unqualified professionals make statements to the effect that the danger is reduced by the end of the relationship, but other professionals rarely challenge this misinformation. In reality, abusers who believe she has no right to leave usually engage in one or more of the following tactics. They kill their partners which is why 75% of men who kill their female partners do so after she leaves. They kill the children which is why we found stories of 175 children murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody in a two year period. In many of these cases the courts facilitated the fathers’ access because they did not have the training to recognize the danger. More commonly the abusers seek to maintain control and punish their victims by seeking custody. In many cases they have threatened the mother that they will take the children from her and bankrupt her if she dares to leave. This is important evidence that demonstrates his motivation but inadequately trained professionals rarely understand the significance of this evidence. Courts rarely consider why a father who had limited involvement in child care suddenly demands custody or why he would risk the harm of separating children from their primary attachment figure.

The problems with the custody court response to domestic violence cases constitute an emergency and should be treated with the urgency the safety of children deserves. This week and every week thereafter the failure to use the specialized body of research will ruin the lives of over a thousand children and two of them will be murdered by abusive fathers. Ultimately the court professionals will need to be trained and really retrained because they need to unlearn a lot of misinformation that is now common in custody courts. New practices will have to be developed that better protect children’s safety and experts testifying in domestic violence cases will need the kinds of specific expertise outlined in the Saunders’ study. This could take months and more likely years to fully implement, but we should not allow children to be jeopardized as the courts wait to implement the needed reforms.

In seeking professional assistance for domestic violence cases courts should look for the relatively few mental health professionals like Mo Therese Hannah and Joy Silberg who have training in psychology AND expertise in domestic violence. In cases in which there is no genuine mental health issue there is no benefit to relying on a mental health professional. What the court needs are experts familiar with the specific topics referred to by Dr. Saunders such as risk assessment, screening for domestic violence, post-separation violence, effects of dv on children and domestic violence dynamics. In most communities the best and often only source of this expertise would be domestic violence advocates.

Fortunately, we have a model for how this would work. In many communities, they have adopted practices based on the Greenbook Initiative in which child protective agencies partner with domestic violence agencies. They cross-train staff and when a potential domestic violence case is reported, the caseworker consults with a domestic violence advocate. This practice has proven successful because it helps caseworkers to recognize domestic violence and develop plans that benefit children.

Custody courts can use similar best practices by seeking the assistance of a domestic violence advocate when there are allegations of domestic violence. At the very least court professionals should be required to consult with these dv experts. This would permit courts to immediately have access to the needed information so they can better recognize valid complaints and understand which abusers pose the greatest risk. The last thing a court should ever do is to refuse to hear testimony from a domestic violence expert. As uncomfortable as it may be, the courts also need to be aware that many of their prior decisions made with outdated and discredited practices have placed children at risk and they will need to be open to modifying orders that are working poorly for children.

Expanding Sources of Information

The three leading sources of domestic violence research are the Saunders’ study, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody and The Batterer as Parent. The Saunders’ study repeatedly cited the other two leading works and found the training the evaluators, judges and lawyers receive has not provided them with an adequate understanding of domestic violence. This leads to frequent mistakes in which the courts fail to protect children.

How is it that the custody courts rarely look to the specialized body of domestic violence research to inform its decisions or seek advice and information from domestic violence experts? I believe the widespread practice of relying almost exclusively on a small group of mental health professionals discourages the courts from accessing a wider body of knowledge that most other parts of society seek when responding to domestic violence issues.

Although most evaluators and other mental health professionals regularly practicing in family courts do not have the needed domestic violence expertise, their findings and recommendations are rarely closely scrutinized and they are not discredited for failing to be familiar with current scientific research. These unqualified evaluators often focus on less important issues because they do not know how to screen for domestic violence or assess risk. Lawyers and judges are influenced by the misinformation routinely provided by mental health professionals. Saunders and other leading researchers regularly find serious errors by evaluators in cases that result in custody for abusers.

Judge Sol Gothard, who often trains other judges about domestic violence and sexual abuse wrote that if the courts commissioned a study to determine how their current practices are working for children they would receive the information found in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody. Unfortunately, custody courts have reacted extremely defensively towards criticism of their practices and have not been open to testing the effectiveness of these practices. Even when they create committees to study the situation, such as the Matrimonial Commission in New York, it is filled with judges and lawyers with a bias towards supporting the status quo. In most cases domestic violence experts need not apply. Similarly if we ask evaluators how their recommendations have worked out for children or eventhe practices they use, they would not have an answer because there is no such research. Stare decisis is often used to assume the decisions were correct and to discourage considerations of subsequent events that demonstrate the court made a mistake.

There is a reason that academicians, government agencies, domestic violence organizations and even criminal courts recognize that so many of the standard practices used in custody courts are ineffective or worse. These other segments of society are open to new information and research. In fairness, the custody courts are influenced by professionals who are part of the cottage industry that makes a good living supporting abusers.

How can it possibly be wrong for custody courts to take a close look at the research that is now available and that the Saunders’ study found court professionals need in order to make informed decisions in domestic violence cases? This research is incompatible with the present practices that have placed so many children in jeopardy.



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 from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

Cases Reversed Because Court Relied on Junk Science

by Barry Goldstein

Comparison of Court Response to Arson and Domestic Violence

                I have found that it is useful to compare the courts’ response to arson and domestic violence because it illustrates how courts routinely minimize domestic violence and engage in bias towards domestic violence survivors.  In the notorious Shockome case, the father admitted to calling the mother’s home as much as 20-25 times in a day, as late as 1 AM when he knew the mother and children were sleeping.  The judge explained his refusal to award the mother an order of protection because the father was angry because he believed he had been denied some of the phone calls with the children that he was entitled to.

                Compare this with a common situation of a slumlord who mistreats the tenants by creating unsafe and unhealthy living conditions.  A tenant would have a right to be angry, but if the tenant set fire to the landlord’s property no court would even entertain the idea that the landlord’s bad and even illegal actions could be used to justify the tenant’s arson.  In each case there is nothing in the criminal law that would justify the criminal acts based on the behavior of the victim, but courts routinely consider the justifications of the abuser but not the arsonist.

                Similarly, inadequately trained judges and other court professionals often discredit or minimize the value of the expert testimony of domestic violence advocates.  I have frequently heard judges dismiss these experts by saying they are biased because they always oppose domestic violence.  They seem to forget that the law and the policy of every state and every court is to prevent domestic violence.

                If a community had a series of arson fires and needed an effective court response, they would seek the assistance and advice of arson experts who would be found in the firefighting community.  No one would discredit the firefighters because they always oppose arson.  There are three important differences that help explain the difference in the courts’ response to arson and domestic violence despite the clear and unambiguous prohibition in the criminal laws.  (1)  Arson has always been a crime so there is no history of justifying an arsonist’s behavior.  (2)  The firefighting community is overwhelmingly male dominated while most domestic violence advocates are women.  In our still sexist society, we continue to treat what men say as if it is more valuable than what women say.  (3)  There are no arsonist rights groups that seek to minimize the danger of arson, manipulate court officials and create a cottage industry to support arsonists.

Reversal of Arson Conviction Obtained by Junk Science

                A California arson case was recently reversed based upon the use of expert testimony now understood to be junk science.  For many years the experts believed and testified that factors such as extreme heat, burn patterns and lack of other fuel proved the fire was caused by arson.  They now understand that these facts can be consistent with arson or accident and the judge found no jury would convict the defendant based on the actual information even though the evidence cannot determine whether or not the fire was caused by arson.  Hundreds of other prisoners were convicted based on similar testimony and it is expected this decision will also require the reversal of their convictions.

                There is an obvious parallel between the junk science used to obtain these convictions and the junk science routinely used to minimize and deny valid domestic violence complaints and to remove children from safe, protective mothers in order to allow abusive fathers to have custody.  There are also some differences.  In the arson case both parties agreed that the science used to obtain the conviction was invalid.  Significantly, because the winning party was the prosecutor, they have an ethical obligation to promote justice which a successful abuser does not have.  Nevertheless, particularly with the recent release of the United States Department of Justice study, the findings that the standard practices used in domestic violence custody cases are invalid are based upon overwhelming research while most of the misinformation relied on by the courts is based on unsupported personal opinion.  The arson case obviously was a criminal case while custody is a civil proceeding.  Nevertheless it would be hard to argue that children should continue to suffer and live in great risk when we know the basis for the custody decisions was invalid.

                Just as the leading experts regarding the science of arson agree that the prior assumptions were wrong, there is strong agreement that custody courts have been using junk science.  The three leading sources of research and information regarding domestic violence and custody are the Saunders’ report, Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody and The Batterer as Parent.  From Madness to Mutiny, which is the leading book regarding sexual abuse allegations in custody cases, and The Domestic Violence Report have provided similar findings.  Accordingly there can be no reasonable justification for the continued use of junk science in custody cases.

Custody Courts Do Not Know Who the Domestic Violence Experts Are

                The Saunders’ study looked at which professionals have the necessary domestic violence training to provide useful advice to courts in domestic violence cases.  The report confirmed what should have been obvious.  Domestic violence advocates work full time on domestic violence issues, receive far more training than the professionals relied on by the courts and must work on fundamental issues such as screening for domestic violence and working on safety plans.  One of the reasons the problems of relying on mental health and other professionals was not obvious to the courts is that domestic violence means different things to different people.  Dr. Saunders avoided this mistake by asking about training in specific areas critical to domestic violence cases instead of a generalized question about domestic violence often used by the courts.  Thus, for example, Saunders asked evaluators if they screened for domestic violence and then looked at what tools they used.  Many of the evaluators who claimed to screen for domestic violence used generalized psychological exams that provide virtually no information about domestic violence.  This was the worst of all possibilities because it provided no assistance but created an illusion of investigating domestic violence.

                One of the most important findings in the Saunders’ study is that there is a specialized body of domestic violence research and the court professionals do not have this expertise based on the standard or required domestic violence training they receive.  This results in a failure to look to this specialized body of research to inform their decisions and a false sense of competence to respond to domestic violence cases.  The use of junk science or no science is completely predictable when courts rely on unqualified professionals and often refuse to listen to the genuine experts.  Repeatedly we have seen courts refuse to listen to testimony of genuine domestic violence experts and then make catastrophic errors because of this lack of vital information.

                This problem is compounded by the development of a cottage industry of evaluators, lawyers and other mental health professionals who have developed a practice of supporting abusive fathers.  Indeed many advertise their support for “fathers’ rights” approaches.  We often see abuser rights attorneys, including supposedly neutral GALs recommend evaluators known to support abusers.  Courts that refuse to listen to domestic violence experts because support of the law and policy in the state is considered biased, routinely follow recommendations from unqualified professionals who make their living supporting abusers.

                The Saunders’ study found that evaluators with inadequate training in domestic violence tend to believe domestic violence is unimportant (despite the findings by every legislature), that mothers frequently make false allegations (despite the actual scientific research), that mothers seeking to protect the children from abusive fathers are harming the children, believe that victims deserve the abuse, focus on unscientific alienation theories and make recommendations that tend to be harmful to children.  These beliefs, statements and approaches are common in domestic violence custody cases especially from professionals who are part of the cottage industry.

Psychological Tests Constitute Junk Science as Applied to DV Cases

                Popular psychological tests have a valid purpose, but were not created for the populations seen in custody courts.  They are not useful in attempting to screen domestic violence cases.  Indeed, the Saunders’ study found that evaluators who relied on general psychological tests to screen for domestic violence were demonstrating their lack of adequate training or expertise.  Proper practice would require use of tools specifically designed to screen for domestic violence such as the Campbell Assessment.  In thirty years of practice I never saw an evaluator use any tools designed to screen for domestic violence.  Such practices are extremely rare.  Another way to say this is that exceedingly few evaluators are qualified to handle domestic violence cases.  They routinely commit mistakes that contribute to the widespread failure of custody courts to recognize the risk in domestic violence cases and make arrangements that fail to protect the safety of children.

                The psychological tests are based upon probability.  This means that people who answer the questions in a particular way may be more or less likely to have certain characteristics.  Under the most favorable circumstances the results of these tests would apply to 55-65% of the parties.  In other words the court is being asked to make decisions based on information that does not apply to at least 35% of the litigants and the court does not know which parents the results apply to.  Even worse, in cases involving domestic violence or bitter custody disputes, which cover virtually every contested case, the reliability of the test is even lower.

                The lack of reliability of generalized psychological tests contributes to the Department of Justice finding that social workers produce better outcomes for children than psychologists.  The study also found that unqualified evaluators and other court professionals frequently pathologize battered mothers labeling them with inaccurate mental health diagnoses.  Minor discrepancies and personality differences are treated as if they constitute a serious disorder.  We often see cases in which the mother is successful in all other parts of her life, but is labeled as if she had a serious mental health problem that occurs only in the custody court or in response to her abuser.  This is more accurately referred to as “crazy in the family court.”

                In many cases, evaluators and other court professionals with inadequate training in domestic violence fail to recognize valid allegations of domestic violence because they do not know what to look for.  Complaints are routinely discredited based on information that is not probative.  These unqualified evaluators then label the mothers as paranoid or delusional for believing accurate complaints that the evaluators failed to recognize.

PAS: The Epitome of Junk Science

                Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was never based on any research, but rather was concocted by Richard Gardner, based solely on his beliefs, experiences and biases.  Significantly, among his beliefs was his often stated idea that sex between adults and children can be acceptable.  It is hard to believe that the lack of scientific basis and assumption that incest and pedophilia is acceptable did not immediately disqualify PAS in the courts, but in fairness to the judges, many attorneys failed to challenge PAS or provide information about its nefarious origins.

                PAS is based on circular reasoning and assumes that if a child does not like or want to visit with the father it must be based upon alienation.  Fundamental to PAS is the belief that virtually all allegations of domestic violence or child abuse must be false.  This is why they do not investigate the allegations, but immediately seek to punish the mother for seeking to protect her children. 

                These mistakes are exposed in the Saunders’ study.  The actual research such as a comprehensive study led by Nicholas Bala found that deliberately false allegations of abuse by mothers in contested custody cases occur less than two percent of the time.  In contrast, fathers involved in contested custody are 16 times more likely to make deliberately false allegations, such as when they claim alienation.  The study specifically found that evaluators and other court professionals with inadequate training in domestic violence are more likely to believe that mothers are harming their children by seeking to protect them from dangerous abusers.  In other words, PAS is permeated with false assumptions and fundamental ignorance.

                Significantly, PAS is promoted by evaluators and other court professionals who are part of a cottage industry developed to support abusive fathers.  A large majority of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to regain control over their victims.  Abusers tend to control their partners in many ways including economically.  This means that in most contested custody cases the abusive fathers will have control of the family’s resources.  Accordingly, mental health professionals and lawyers interested in maximizing their income and unconcerned about the harm caused to children have a huge financial incentive to support practices that help abusive fathers.  This is not supported by scientific research, but searching for ways to justify support for abusers, these unqualified professionals have promoted PAS as a way to help dangerous abusers gain custody.

                The U. S. Department of Justice study confirms what every other reputable professional organization and expert has found that PAS is junk science.  The Saunders’ study, particularly in the context of all the other research discrediting PAS constitutes the level of research necessary to convince any unbiased court that the use of PAS should require the reversal of any custody or visitation determination that was never based upon any valid science.  PAS is often used by other names such as parental alienation or alienation in order to avoid the stigma of its deservedly poor reputation.  Any alienation claims that seek to assume the father’s bad relationship with the children was caused by alienation, avoid a full investigation of abuse allegations or seeks a punitive approach against the mother and children should be understood as PAS regardless of the terminology used.

Reversing Extreme Decisions Based on Junk Science

                The Saunders’ study included the interview of 24 protective mothers involved in domestic violence cases that resulted in extreme outcomes against these mothers.  The report states that the mothers were interviewed to determine what mistakes were made to create these harmful outcomes.  In other words when we see a case in which there are allegations or evidence of domestic violence and the mother does not pose a safety risk to the children, outcomes that limit the children to supervised or no visitation with their primary attachment figure are always harmful to the children.  In most cases, these extreme outcomes were caused by many serious mistakes and biases in the court that resulted in findings that are often the opposite of the actual facts. 

                In most of these cases the mother is the primary attachment figure for the children and there is often little dispute about that.  Indeed we routinely find cases in which the father wanted or even required the mother to provide most of the child care until she decided to leave him or report his abuse.  Her complaint against him did not suddenly make her a bad parent, but courts, using junk science and other discredited practices frequently reach this conclusion (although they do not express it this way). 

                Separating children from their primary attachment figure significantly increases the risk the children will suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when older.  This obviously creates a significant safety risk in addition to other problems and it is hard to understand why a court or a loving father would want to place the children in such a risky situation.  Significantly, when we review cases in which courts create these risks, we virtually never even see a discussion in which they weigh the harm of separating a child from their primary attachment figure with whatever benefit they believe they are providing.  This is another strong indication the courts were relying on junk science.

                It is possible that the risk of separating children from their primary attachment figure could be reasonable, but it would have to be based on a serious safety risk.  If the primary attachment figure beat the children, failed to provide for their health or nutritional needs or exposed them to danger with a drug addicted lifestyle, these risks would outweigh primary attachment.  There are some mental disorders that would create serious safety risks and the Saunders’ study found that these extreme outcomes are often justified by claims the mother is “crazy.”  In cases in which the mother took good care of the children while the parties lived together or she is successful in other parts of her life, the mental health diagnoses are usually based on flawed practices and junk science rather than legitimate safety issues.

                One of the findings in the Saunders’ report is that one of the common mistakes that lead to these extreme outcomes is false and exaggerated mental health diagnoses against protective mothers.  These mistakes are caused by bad practices that include reliance on psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody courts and the failure of many evaluators to properly screen for domestic violence.  This results in them denying valid allegations of abuse and then labeling the mother as paranoid or delusional for believing the true allegations.

                The study recommends that evaluators (and other court professionals) need specific training in screening for domestic violence.  Many evaluators claim to screen for domestic violence but use a general psychological test such as the MMPI.  They should instead be using a tool specifically made for assessing domestic violence such as the Campbell risk assessment.  With the release of the Saunders’ study any evaluator who disbelieved allegations of domestic violence without using practices able to screen for domestic violence has demonstrated a lack of qualifications to work on domestic violence cases.

                Unqualified professionals frequently discredit allegations of domestic violence based on information that is non-probative.  If an evaluator or other professional referenced information that the alleged victim returned to the abuser, failed to follow-up on a petition for a restraining order or does not have police or medical reports, this should be seen as proof the professional is unqualified to handle domestic violence cases.  The same is true of professionals who observe a father interact with the children and if the children show no fear assumes this means the children could not have been abused.  The children understand their father would not hurt them in front of witnesses.

                Dr. Saunders found that evaluators and other professionals without the necessary domestic violence training tend to have a cluster of beliefs that often result in outcomes that are harmful to children.  These beliefs can include the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse; that domestic violence is unimportant; that mothers are hurting children by trying to keep them away from abusive fathers; focus on the importance of alienation allegations and theories or believe victims of abuse deserve what was done to them.  If the professionals in a domestic violence custody case demonstrated one or more of these beliefs, it is likely the adverse outcome was based on the use of junk science and bias.

Conclusion

                The reversal of the California arson case provides strong support for reversing hundreds of arson convictions obtained through the use of junk science.  The same standard challenging the use of junk science would similarly support the reversal of many bad domestic violence custody decisions.  This is especially true of the extreme decisions because if the mother is safe, the decision is unquestionably wrong.  Protective mothers can argue that the decision in California requires courts to consider whether other decisions were obtained based upon junk science.  I believe it is time to junk the common use of bad science and no science that has so often been used to support decisions for abusive fathers.

               

               

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 from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com 

Department of Justice Report Demands Custody Court Reforms Part II

by Barry Goldstein

Read Part I:  CLICK HERE

  Using Saunders’ Report to Protect Children

                The Saunders’ study establishes that the custody courts are getting an intolerably high percentage of domestic violence custody cases wrong and this will continue as long as the courts rely on evaluators and other professionals who do not have the specific domestic violence training they need and refuse to use the expertise that could be provided by domestic violence advocates and experts. 

                It is clear that the custody courts need to adopt the reforms that will make sure children are protected, but there are significant obstacles to achieving the needed reforms.  The worst evaluators and other professionals who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusive fathers will fight to maintain their lucrative practices even as they earn their money at the expense of the safety and future of children they are supposed to protect.  The abusers will continue to seek to manipulate the court in order to continue using the custody tactic to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners even after they leave.  Judges and other administrators will be reluctant to acknowledge that their long established practices routinely place children in jeopardy.  Dan Saunders has done a substantial public service in providing meticulous research that should explode the complacency of court professionals who would like to believe the only problem is the complaints by protective mothers and their supporters.  Now it is our job to use this research to change the outcomes of cases and reform a system that is failing to protect children.

Presenting a Case with the Help of the Saunders’ Study

                The Saunders’ study highlighted an important point that may be obvious to some, but certainly is not recognized by the professionals who run the custody courts.  Domestic violence advocates are the group most knowledgeable about the specific topics needed to understand domestic violence custody cases and should be viewed as the experts on domestic violence.  There are domestic violence experts who are psychologists (  i.e. Mo Therese Hannah, Joy Silberg), lawyers (i.e. Joan Zorza, Lynn Hecht Schafran) and judges (i.e. Mike Brigner, Sol Gothard), but in each case it is not because of their educational degrees or profession.  They learned about domestic violence separate from their profession which made them so much more effective.  Domestic violence advocates work full time on domestic violence issues.  They have to understand how to recognize domestic violence and what behaviors are associated with higher lethality because one of the most important parts of their jobs is to work with clients to create safety plans.

 

                Dr. Saunders intimated that the percentage of other professionals with the needed training is probably overstated because those who participated in the study probably have more of an interest in domestic violence than other professionals who chose not to participate.  Advocates have chosen a career in domestic violence.  Obviously they have not done so for financial reasons as psychologists and lawyers who are part of the cottage industry supporting abusers have.  In my experience, advocates passionately care about their work to end domestic violence.  Dr. Mo Hannah and I had the privilege of training advocates working for the National Domestic Violence Hotline about custody issues.  It was a wonderful experience because the advocates understood the domestic violence part so we could have a really high level discussion about how courts respond to domestic violence and how they could best help victims calling for assistance.

                Court professionals would benefit from learning from advocates, but so would protective mothers.  If possible, protective mothers should start working with an advocate before seeking an attorney or other professional assistance.  Some domestic violence agencies have legal programs, but even when they don’t, there may be relationships with attorneys who would be supportive of survivors.  The advocates can help their clients put together the pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors by their abuser that will make it easier for court professionals to recognize that he is a domestic violence abuser.  They can also identify any behaviors that demonstrate a higher risk of lethality or other danger.  Recognizing this information is important because after the initial court documents are filed, the survivor may not be permitted to include additional information later in the proceeding or this information may be discredited because it was not raised initially.

                Advocates can also come to court with their clients.  They cannot speak on their behalf, but they can provide needed emotional support, make the judge and other court professionals understand it is a domestic violence case and often hear things in the court room that the client may miss in the emotion of being in court with their abuser.  Occasionally I hear complaints from mothers that the local dv agency was not helpful.  There are some agencies that still have not made custody issues a priority and any profession includes some individuals who are less helpful.  When we started the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, the domestic violence movement was not as supportive as they are now.  For mothers who have had a bad experience, I would encourage them to try again or try another agency.  In my experience the local shelter is their most important ally.

                In my opinion, domestic violence advocates are the answer to many of the problems exposed in the Saunders’ study.  Evaluators and other court professionals do not have the training in domestic violence necessary to understand the cases and protect the children.  We often see lawyers listening to lawyers and psychologists to psychologists.  This denies them the multi-disciplinary approach that is needed.  Many of the “domestic violence” trainings include substantial misinformation such as information about alienation and “high conflict” cases.  The Saunders’ report established that advocates know the most about the specific domestic violence topics court professionals need so it would make sense for advocates to play a major role in training court professionals and participating in discussions for the reform of the system.  Until these necessary reforms are accomplished, advocates can and should serve as expert witnesses and consultants so that the vital information is available to courts making life and death decisions.

                Custody courts have often failed to use critical thinking when deciding which professionals to hear as expert witnesses.  They have placed most attention on the post-graduate degrees of psychologists and other mental health professionals.  This would make the witness an expert in psychology or social work, but not in domestic violence.  There are certainly cases in which this information is useful to the court, but in domestic violence cases, domestic violence expertise is the most important information needed.  The Saunders’ report established that court professionals often mistake their limited training in domestic violence as providing them with the necessary understanding of domestic violence.  This has led them to refuse to hear testimony from the genuine experts with tragic consequences for the children.

  

                Domestic violence advocates can consult with evaluators and testify about domestic violence issues.  This will provide the court with information it vitally needs.  Mothers who cannot afford to pay for an expert witness would have the ability to provide the court with this information.  Although the evidentiary laws vary by state, they generally provide that someone who has substantially more knowledge of a relevant topic than the general public based on education, training or experience is qualified to be an expert witness.  Accordingly it would be common for a mechanic who did not graduate high school would qualify as an expert witness concerning the repair and workings of an automobile.  Domestic Violence advocates work full time on these issues, receive extensive training and often train others in the community.  By any fair consideration they easily qualify as an expert witness.  The Greenbook Initiative includes the practice of child protective agencies working with domestic violence agencies in response to abuse reports that may include domestic violence.  This practice has proven successful because it helps the caseworker recognize the domestic violence aspects of the case and create arrangements that benefit children.  Particularly until the custody courts create the needed reforms in response to the Saunders’ study, reliance on advocates’ expertise will be the best and most practical way to protect children.

                I believe one of the problems with the present custody courts is that the judges and other professionals have heard misinformation from mental health professionals and others throughout their careers.  As court professionals hear accurate information from advocates, I believe this will improve the knowledge of the professionals and at least help them understand there is another way to look at the same information.  Hopefully this will encourage professionals to start looking for patterns and to recognize the significance of evidence they previously ignored.   This will actually make their jobs easier because they will find evidence that confirms the claims of one party in cases that otherwise would be viewed as a he-says-she-says case.

Legal Representation

                Many protective mothers have complained about their attorneys and often have to change attorneys or represent themselves after an attorney drains her resources and undermines the case.  The Saunders’ study confirmed the problem as private attorneys were the least likely professionals to have the necessary domestic violence training.  We often see abusers and other court attorneys seek to use the fact that the mother has had a series of attorneys to suggest there is something wrong or uncooperative about her when it is actually a reflection of the difficulty in finding an attorney willing to present a strong domestic violence case.

                With the availability of the Saunders’ study, protective mothers can discuss at the initial meeting with a prospective attorney that there is new research from the U.S. Department of Justice that most court professionals do not have the necessary domestic violence training and this frequently causes mistakes that place children at risk.  Accordingly, she wants to make sure the attorney is open to presenting a strong case based on the father’s pattern of abuse and is willing to advise the court that the standard court practices are working poorly for children.

                The attorney will offer a retainer agreement that will specify the payments the attorney is to receive.  This is what is important to the attorney about the attorney-client relationship.  The mother should request that the agreement also states that the client has expressed her concern that the attorney will advise the court of the current scientific research that present practices in domestic violence cases are working poorly for children and that the attorney will present the court with the available evidence of domestic violence.  If the attorney objects to this kind of language it is better to know this at the start of the case instead of after the attorney has received substantial resources and may have undermined the case.  I am not as concerned with the exact language as long as it expresses the general information and the attorney does not seek to include language nullifying the intent such as saying that failure to present the information should not affect payment of legal fees.

                The most frequent question I receive is where to find an attorney who understands domestic violence.  The Saunders’ study confirmed that among private attorneys, the needed training is rare.  This does not need to be a disqualification if the attorney is willing to consult with experts and learn the material.  I have had some cases in which a protective mother wanted her attorney to read Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody or some of my articles.  Battered mothers may now want their attorneys to read the Saunders’ report or at least the executive summary.  I have written a book with Elizabeth Liu to train lawyers how to present domestic violence cases.  Some protective mothers will want their attorneys to read this book when it is published, probably the end of this year.  Some attorneys have asked to be paid at their hourly rate for the time it takes to read the material.  This is general information attorneys should be familiar with in order to competently represent their clients in domestic violence cases.  They will benefit by being better able to represent other clients from having read this kind of material.  Obviously they are entitled to be compensated for reading material specifically related to the case and I can see some compensation because the client needs them to learn the information quickly.  Again it is best to resolve this before substantial sums are invested in the attorney.  In some cases and some locations, a client may have few options for legal representation, but the best time to determine these issues is at the start of the case.

Evaluators

                In Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, we provided substantial research to demonstrate the problems with using evaluators in domestic violence cases.  Chapters by Robin Yeamans, Judge Marjorie Fields and Joan Zorza demonstrated the problems unqualified evaluators are causing.  The Saunders’ study confirmed the problem and demonstrated how the inadequate training, biases and belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations has contributed to tragic outcomes.   Indeed, the heart of Dr. Saunders’ research concerned the role of evaluators in domestic violence cases.

                Many judges routinely appoint psychologists or other mental health professionals as evaluators in domestic violence cases.  This practice was developed at a time when many assumed domestic violence was a mental health issue.  We now understand men abuse women because of their belief system and sense of entitlement that they should have the right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship.  Dr. Saunders specifically found that abusers often show no mental health problems in the psychological tests they take.  This is because the beliefs that lead to domestic violence are all too normal in this and many other societies.

                At the very least judges should take a fresh look at standard practices based on the Saunders’ study and other research.  They should be asked to make any decision on the use of an evaluator based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.  If there is no significant evidence that one of the parties has a mental health issue that would interfere with parenting ability, something more than one parent calling the other crazy, what expertise could a mental health professional bring  to the case?  If there is a real mental health issue, how does the court receive the domestic violence assistance that is critical?  The Saunders’ study establishes that the usual required domestic violence training that most evaluators and other court professionals receive does not provide the needed expertise.  Either the court needs to appoint an evaluator with an unusual high level of domestic violence competence, such as someone who has worked in a domestic violence program or require the evaluator to consult with a domestic violence advocate.

                The Saunders’ report established that social workers tend to do a better job on domestic violence custody cases than psychologists.  The use of a social worker is likely to result in lower costs, which means more assets available for the children and a better understanding of the critical domestic violence issues in the case.  It is also likely that the appointment of a social worker will save time.

                If the court insists on appointing a psychologist as evaluator, there should be a discussion of the use of psychological tests.  The generalized tests like MMPI that are most commonly used were not made for the populations seen in custody courts.  They provide virtually no information about domestic violence issues.  They are based upon probability so under the best of circumstances the results apply to the parties in the case only 55-65% of the time and in stressful contested cases or domestic violence cases the results are even less reliable.  Far more useful in domestic violence cases are tests designed for domestic violence cases such as the Campbell Danger Assessment.

                The Saunders’ study supports the recommendations of leading experts like Lundy Bancroft and Peter Jaffe that in domestic violence cases in which the victim is a safe parent, the outcome that works best for children is custody for the safe or safer parent and supervised visitation, at least initially for the abusive parent.  Accordingly, instead of wasting substantial time and money on evaluations, GALs and numerous court appearances, best practices would be to schedule an early evidentiary hearing limited to the domestic violence allegations.  This hearing will generally not take long because it is limited to domestic violence issues.  This avoids common distractions that waste time and seek to take the focus away from the safety of children.  One of the fundamental findings that is an underpinning of the Saunders’ study is that protective mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations.  This means that if the court provides a fair hearing, cases that often take many months or years can be resolved in a few hours or less and children will quickly learn who they will be living with.

Challenging Evaluators

                If the court appoints an unqualified evaluator despite your best efforts to avoid this mistake, the Saunders’ study provides many good ways to attack a harmful report.  The earlier objections should strengthen the mother’s position to challenge the report as she cannot be accused of complaining about the recommendations just because they are unfavorable.  Instead she is in a position to tell the court that the evaluator made precisely the mistakes she sought to avoid as demonstrated by Dr. Saunders.

                The first area for challenging an evaluator during cross-examination would be qualifications especially domestic violence training.  Is the evaluator familiar with the research found in the Department of Justice study by Dr. Daniel Saunders, The Batterer as Parent and Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody?  The mother or her attorney could have referred to this current scientific research during the course of the evaluation.  This will make the evaluator look worse for failing to review this important information.  If the evaluator did review this information it will provide a gold mine of material to ask the evaluator about.  Recommendations adverse to the mother’s position are likely to demonstrate the evaluator did not understand the research or failed to apply it properly.

                Ask the evaluator about training concerning the specific topics Dr. Saunders believes is necessary to be qualified to work on domestic violence cases.  If the evaluator claims general dv training or satisfying the training requirements of the state, compare this with the findings in the Saunders’ study that satisfying these requirements do not make someone an expert in domestic violence, and fail to prevent recommendations that place children at risk. 

                Has the evaluator been trained in how to screen for domestic violence?  Where did the evaluator receive this training?  Ask specific questions.  What information did you have that you believe made the allegations unlikely to be true?  Can you cite any scientific research to support your conclusion?  Did you look for a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors by the alleged abuser?  Ask all the types of information the evaluator received that if true would be part of the pattern?  Do not permit the evaluator to just say there are other examples.  Make the evaluator keep naming examples until he runs out of examples.  Compare the examples she provides with the examples mentioned in the report.  Ask the evaluator about other examples that the mother provided or is otherwise included in the evidence.  If you had considered all of the examples would you have recognized this as the pattern of the father’s abuse?  Are you aware that evaluators with inadequate domestic violence training tend to minimize the significance of dv?

                Ask if the evaluator has any training in safety or lethality assessment.  Describe what that training consisted of.  What behaviors by alleged abusers have been shown to create a higher risk of lethality or serious injury?  Keep asking until the evaluator admits he cannot name any others.  Has he ever conducted a lethality assessment?  Is there any information in the report about a lethality assessment or the significance of allegations about behaviors known to create greater risks?  Go through other examples of behaviors associated with higher risks particularly those alleged in the case.  Were these mentioned in the report?  Do you know if domestic violence advocates routinely conduct safety and lethality assessments?  Do you think it is likely they would have recognized the dangerous behaviors that you missed?  Are you aware the Saunders’ study found that dv advocates were far more knowledgeable about topics like lethality studies than evaluators and other court professionals?  Did you consult with a dv advocate as part of your investigation?  Are you aware that the Greenbook Initiative encourages consultation with dv advocates in potential domestic violence cases?  Since you missed several of the behaviors known to suggest increased danger and several types of abuse that could be part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behavior, do you think it would have been a good idea to consult with a domestic violence advocate? 

                How often do you believe mothers make deliberately false allegations of domestic violence or child abuse?  If the evaluator seeks to avoid the question by denying knowledge ask what her best estimate is?  Assuming the answer is more than two percent, continue this line of questions.  Can you cite any scientific research to support your estimate?  Do you know if the Department of Justice study cited specific research about the frequency of false reports by mothers and fathers?  Are you aware that the Saunders’ study found that evaluators and other court professionals who believe mothers commonly make false reports had inadequate training in domestic violence and were more likely to recommend arrangements that place children in jeopardy?  If you had been aware of these findings would you have done anything differently in preparing your evaluation?

                Are you familiar with the scientific research led by Nicholas Bala that is prominently cited in the Saunders’ study?  If you knew this study found that mothers in contested custody make deliberately false reports only 1.3% of the time, would that affect your estimate of how often mothers make false reports?  If you were aware that father’s involved in contested custody are sixteen times more likely than mothers to make deliberately false allegations, would that have affected how you prepared your evaluation?  Do you think women are sixteen times more honest than men?  Is it more likely that this applies only to parents involved in contested custody cases?  Do you believe the frequency of fathers’ false allegations is because a high percentage of contested custody is domestic violence cases?  And most of these fathers are seeking custody as a tactic to maintain control over their ex-partner?  If appropriate, are you telling this court you completed your investigation and made recommendations without considering the father’s motivation for seeking custody?

                Are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias?  Is it fair to say this occurs when a professional is expecting a particular outcome and thus ignores information that undermines the expected result and focuses on supportive information?  And professionals can engage in confirmation bias without realizing they are doing so?  Would you agree that confirmation bias is probably one of the factors that explains the findings in Dr. Saunders’ report that evaluators who believe women frequently make false allegations are more likely to reach that conclusion and make recommendations that hurt children?  Be careful not to ask questions to give the evaluator the opportunity to explain why it doesn’t apply in your case.

                Many of the challenges to the evaluation will be specific to the case.  If an evaluator recommends some form of joint custody use statements in the report that this is harmful to children because abusers use this to control their ex-partner.  When evaluators recommend unsupervised visitation, we can use the findings that supervised visitation for dangerous abusers is not recommended as often as it should be and supervised visitation for abusers is in the best interests of the children.  If there is an issue where the mother has been angry or emotional, use findings that this information is used far out of proportion to the significance it has regarding parenting ability.

                The report also discussed the finding that unqualified evaluators tend to pathologize protective mothers leading to harmful custody decisions.  If someone had a genuine and serious mental health disorder it would impact them in many aspects of their life and not just in family court or responding to her abuser.  Ask what the evaluator did to avoid this mistake as discussed in the Saunders’ report.  Can the evaluator explain why the Saunders’ study believes this practice hurts children?

                In cases where the evaluator disbelieves or minimizes the mother’s domestic violence allegations ask what was done to screen for dv.  The Saunders’ report says that the typical psychological tests used in custody courts are not useful for screening domestic violence.  In most cases the evaluator will not have used any tests that can be used to screen for domestic violence.  The DOJ study suggests this is a strong indication that the evaluator doesn’t have the necessary training to recognize domestic violence.  In practice this will probably apply to almost all evaluators.

                The Saunders’ study found a strong connection of sexism and belief in patriarchal norms with a lack of adequate training and recommendations that harm children.  Be careful about asking questions about this because this gives the evaluator a chance to deny their bias.  You can ask about specific statements or approaches that are obviously biased such as when Dr. Marcus referred to the mother as “hon.”   This issue can also be used when an evaluator has spent substantially more time speaking with the father and his supporters.  This material can better be developed with the testimony of an expert testifying on behalf of the mother.

                If the evaluator issues a report based on PAS or even alienation, there is strong research in the Saunders’ study to challenge it.  We can start by asking the evaluator if he agrees that sex between adults and children is improper.  Then ask if there is any research not based on the belief that sex between adults and children can be appropriate (this is what PAS is based on), that “alienating” behavior creates a safety risk.  Are you aware the DOJ study found that PAS, including by any other name has no scientific basis?  Are you aware PAS was rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because it has no scientific basis?  Are you aware that the Saunders’ study found that evaluators with inadequate training tended to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations but alienation theories, particularly those used to separate children from their primary attachment figure are based on a belief that most dv and child abuse allegations by mothers are false?  Are you aware that evaluators are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS?  Do you know if that is because they are in affect creating a diagnosis that does not exist?  You can also ask questions comparing the harm of separating a child from their primary attachment figure with the harm of negative statements about the other parent.  Ask for any research findings because there is no scientific support for these standard biased practices.

Judges

                In order to encourage the judge to be open to research and practices that are significantly different than she is used to, we need to present it in as non-threatening way as possible.  Emphasize that this is brand new research.  The message is that the judge is not being blamed for past decisions before the research was available.  If the opportunity arises we can acknowledge that the judge might have been hampered by poor lawyering and unqualified evaluators.  Indeed that is supported by the Saunders’ study.  One of the important points in the research is that the training required of judges and other professionals does not provide them with the necessary domestic violence expertise so it is important to be open to information provided by dv advocates or other similar experts.  Tell the judge that the new research has found that most court professionals do not have the dv training they need, often believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations and this often leads to decisions that place children in jeopardy.

                There is strong support in the Saunders’ study to require supervised  visitation for abusers.  If this is what the children need it is important to ask for this at the start of the case because once the mother offers unsupervised visits, she is acknowledging the father is safe.  Obviously the risk is that the judge treats that request for supervision as hostile or alienating, but emphasize this is what the research found to work best for children.  Ask the court to pressure the father to stop his abuse instead of pressuring the mother to cooperate with her abuser.  This way the goal is to have the father actively involved with the child but the way to do this is for the father to behave in ways that benefit the children instead of sending the harmful message that the father’s abuse is acceptable.

                If the father seeks to limit the mother to supervised visitation (assuming there is no genuine safety issue), the response is not to focus on defending the mother but in using his request to confirm his abusiveness and willingness to hurt the children in order to maintain control.  In the Saunders’ study, cases in which safe mothers lost custody and were limited to supervised or no visitation were examined to see what was wrong with the court practices.  This is because such decisions are always harmful to the children and generally caused by bias and a lack of training.  Help the judge see what such an outcome would look like before there is any serious consideration of this common mistake.

                Make it as easy as possible for the judge to recognize the father’s abuse.  Clearly state at the beginning of the case that the father has a history of domestic violence.  Put all of his coercive and controlling behaviors together to help the court see the pattern.  As the father engages in litigation abuse or other abusive behaviors label these as a continuation of his pattern.  Those behaviors that have been shown to create a higher risk of lethality or other danger should be discussed.  Ask the court to order a risk assessment instead of or if necessary in addition to an evaluation.  The Saunders’ study found that most evaluators and other court professionals do not have the training to assess safety, but this is the most important consideration in order to protect children.  Offer to provide the court (and the other party) research that supports your claims and let the judge know the information that will be provided.  This supports initial restrictions on the father’s access to the children and the mother.  By letting the judge know early in the case that there is substantial evidence and research to support the claim the father is dangerous it may discourage the court from making dangerous initial decisions.  Once the court makes a mistake, the judge is often reluctant and defensive when later information demonstrates the harm created by the initial decision.

After the Case Goes Bad

                If there is still time to appeal, you can cite the Saunders’ report in support of the appeal.  There are likely to be numerous mistakes the court made that are covered in the report.  I would emphasize that there is no reason for the court to defer to the trial court because the trial court did not have this critical research.  The mistakes described in the report lead to harmful outcomes for children so a court using best interests of the child should consider this research in making its decision.

                More common will be cases in which the court has already made a decision that is harmful to the children and an appeal would be too expensive or it is too late to appeal.  I believe the release of the Saunders’ study, by itself creates a change of circumstance that would justify asking the court to take a fresh look at the case based on the research in the report that was previously unavailable to the court.  Protective mothers could cite specific approaches and practices used by the custody court that the Saunders’ report demonstrates harm children.  Surely the judge is not going to claim to have already known the court was using bad practices so the best interests of the children demand the court reexamine the facts and circumstances based on this new research from the United States Department of Justice.  If there are factual changes in circumstances such as the father using the control given him by the court to undermine the mother’s relationship with the children, this can be used together with this research.

                Many of the cases that need to be corrected involve the extreme outcomes in which alleged abusers receive custody and safe, protective mothers are limited to supervised or no visitation.  The Saunders’ study included interviews with 24 mothers who were victims of these outcomes.  Dr. Saunders interviewed the mothers as part of the study in order to understand the kinds of mistakes made that lead to these harmful outcomes.  To say this more directly when the mother is safe, these outcomes are always wrong.

                More specific to the case would be to show how the professionals demonstrated their lack of adequate domestic violence training.  In many of the cases the evaluator and other court professionals failed to find domestic violence because they did not know how to screen for it.  The Saunders’ studies specifically raises concern where evaluators use general psychological tests like MMPI which tell us virtually nothing about domestic violence and fail to use needed screening tools like the Campbell Danger Assessment.  “Evaluators using general measures of personality-psychopathology were more likely to recommend sole or joint custody to the abusive  father in the case vignette.” (Report, P. 15).

                This also contributed to the common problem of safe mothers being pathologized through the use of psychological tests that were not made for the populations seen in custody court.  “Some of the standard tests may also measure and confuse psychological distress or dysfunction induced by exposure to domestic violence with personality disorder or psychopathology.”  (Report, P. 133).  Until there is more and better training and courts reform their outdated practices, this will be an important point that can be made in almost every domestic violence case.  This can be supported by the failure of the court professionals to consider the pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors that includes tactics far beyond just physical assaults.

 

                In cases in which mothers lost custody because they were wrongly pathologized by the misuse of psychological tests, the response can include, “One guidebook for judges cautions that ‘Generally…psychological testing is not appropriate in domestic violence situations.  Such testing may misdiagnose the non-abusive parent’s normal response to the abuse or violence as demonstrating mental illness, effectively shifting the focus away from the assaultive and coercive behaviors of the abusive parent’ (Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006, p. 20).  Not surprisingly, evaluators using these measures were less likely to have received information on screening for domestic violence and assessing dangerousness.”  (Report, P. 124).

                Few of the evaluators or court professionals have the needed training in assessing safety which is critical because it means they don’t know how to protect children’s safety.  This can be emphasized when there are allegations of specific acts that have been shown to create a higher level of lethality or serious danger.  Among the common examples would be hitting mother while pregnant, strangulation, hurting animals, unconsented sex, violating laws and orders and threats of suicide, kidnapping or murder.  Other related circumstances such as availability of guns, mental illness, substance abuse and tactics that seek custody as a way to pressure the mother to return further increase the risk.  The evaluator or other professional could conclude the allegations are false, but if they have the needed training would at least mention that these concerns are significant because of the correlation with higher risk of lethality.

                These critical mistakes will be present in virtually every case because the professionals relied on by the court do not have the training or expertise necessary to handle domestic violence cases.  Many other types of mistakes are common and can be used to support an application for modification of the custody-visitation arrangement based on changed circumstances.  The Saunders’ study found a connection between a lack of training, belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations and recommendations that place children at risk.  Accordingly if the evaluator or other professionals made any statements suggesting they believe or relied on this myth, this would be proof of their inadequate training and bias.  Sometimes the statements will not be direct but can be implied from the circumstances.  In one case the CPS caseworker accused the mother of making deliberately false allegations to gain an advantage in the case.  The findings, however confirmed the mother’s complaint was accurate but CPS did not consider the father’s acts as abusive.  In another case involving sexual abuse allegations, the court professionals considered only the possibility the child was abused or the mother made a deliberate false report.  They never considered the likely possibility that the child’s reaction was based on a violation of her boundaries or a good faith report that could not be confirmed.

                In other cases, court professionals may have relied on information that is not probative.  Common examples are when they rely on the fact the mother returned to her abuser, failed to follow-up on petitions for a protective order, did not have police or medical reports or the children showed no fear when interacting with their father in front of witnesses.  The use of any of these facts to support a finding against abuse allegations would demonstrate inadequate training in screening domestic violence.

                Another common mistake is a belief that the danger ends when the parties separate.  This might also be expressed in the fact that the father has not physically assaulted the mother since the parties separated and he had limited or no access to her.  This would demonstrate a lack of understanding of post-separation violence which is one of the specific areas Dr. Saunders found evaluators and other professionals need.  One of the likely dangers is that the father will abuse future partners and if he has custody or unsupervised visitation, the children will witness still more domestic violence.  Any recommendation to give the father custody or unsupervised visitation without discussing this risk should be understood as proof the professional is missing critical domestic violence training.

                “Similar to the emphasis on cooperative parenting, use of the label “parent-alienation syndrome” (Gardner, 1998) or, more recently, “parental-alienation disorder” (JBernet, 2008; von Boch-Galjau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010) can also place battered women in a no-win situation.  Battered mothers are vulnerable to these labels when they make formal child abuse allegations or raise concerns about the possible abuse of the children by an ex-partner.  Many child abuse professionals believe that mothers coach their children to make false allegations in contested custody disputes (Faller, 2007).  As noted earlier, they may even face court sanctions and lose custody as a result of raising such concerns (Faller & DeVoe, 1995).  However, research indicates that although false allegations may occur more frequently in divorce-access disputes, the non-custodial parent (usually the father), not the custodial parent (usually the mother) tends to make more false reports (Trocme & Bala, 2005).  Practicioners who apply parent-alienation syndrome (PAS) or parent-alienation disorder formulations tend to automatically label a parent as an “alienator” without a thorough investigation or the allegations (Brown, Fredercio, Hewitt & Sheehan, 2000; Brown Frederico, Hewitt & Sheehan, 2001; Meier, 2009).  As a result, battered mothers may be viewed as both pathological and abusive.”  (Report, P. 22-23).  This quote can be used where the court’s mistake was based on alienation theories.  The Bala research can be used when court professionals fail to have the proper skepticism of allegations made by allegedly abusive fathers.

                In cases in which the judge or other court professionals insisted on shared custody or attacked the mother for objecting to sharing custody with her abuser, consider, “Of particular concern was the relatively high percentage of evaluators who recommended that the victim receive physical custody, but that legal custody be shared by the parents.  Evaluators must understand the potential negative implications of this arrangement, given the likelihood that many abusers will use the arrangement to continue their harassment and manipulation through legal channels (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Jaffe, Lemon & Poisson, 2003; Zorza, 2010).  Abusers can gain access to victims by manufacturing reasons to ‘discuss’ child rearing or by insisting upon joint attendance at school events, parent-teacher meetings, or medical appointments.  They can also withhold consent for a child’s counseling, medical procedures, and extra-curricular school events.”  (Report, P. 130).

                The Saunders’ study found a correlation between a belief by evaluators and other court professionals that mother’s attempts to protect children was harmful and claims of “alienation” with beliefs by professionals that domestic violence is not important, women frequently make false allegations and men are entitled to control their partners.  Accordingly, courts should carefully scrutinize findings based on “alienation” and the mother’s fear of the father, particularly when her allegations of domestic violence or child abuse were not thoroughly investigated.  Punishing mothers for seeking to protect children from their fathers or continuing to believe the father is dangerous are common examples of gender bias because she is being blamed for her normal reaction to the father’s abuse.  Courts should seek to avoid these common mistakes and discredit evaluators and GALs who support these errors.

Reforming the Broken Custody Court System

                For many years custody court officials confidently responded to complaints from protective mothers by minimizing and rejecting their concerns.  In some cases they suggested there must be something wrong with a woman who believed all of the court professionals were wrong.  Now the United States Department of Justice has produced a comprehensive study that not only confirms what protective mothers have been saying that the courts are getting a high percentage of domestic violence custody cases wrong, but that most of the professionals relied on by the courts, and particularly the evaluators do not have the training or understanding of domestic violence necessary to help courts make an informed decision concerning the well being of children.  The present outdated and discredited practices give judges little chance to protect children.  This has resulted in courts sending 58,000 children for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers every year.  During a two year period starting in 2009 we know of news stories of 175 children murdered by fathers involved in contested custody cases, often with the unwitting assistance of the courts whose most important purpose is to protect these children.  With the tragic outcomes and the clear findings in the Saunders’ study, administrative judges cannot justify the status quo and we must use the DOJ report and other research to make sure the needed reforms are implemented.  There must be an urgency for creating the reforms because every day courts using the flawed practices place children in jeopardy.

                We need to bring the research from the Saunders’ study to the attention of the court system and ask the courts to implement the reforms needed to protect children.  Dr. Saunders stated very clearly that contrary to the beliefs of most judges, the present training practices do not provide the expertise necessary.  Locally I would encourage protective mothers, domestic violence organizations and other interested parties to request meetings with the local administrative judge.  The purpose is not to speak about individual cases which would raise ethical issues, but the need for the court to use the new research to reform practices that have been shown to hurt children.  Nationally, leaders of the dv and protective mothers’ movement need to contact national organizations of judges and create a dialog to promote implementing the reforms suggested by the Saunders’ report.  If you can’t promote a meeting, at least write to the administrative judge, provide the information about the Saunders’ report and ask how the court will respond to this research.

                Similarly, we can speak with our state legislators, provide this research and ask them to help protect the children.  Hearings on the problem would be helpful because it would attract attention to something the media has failed to expose.  Ask the legislators to consider the Safe Child Act that I wrote about recently.  If they have any interest in sharing in the $500 billion savings by dramatically reducing dv crime they can implement what I call Quincy Model 2.0.  Surely in these hard economic times there is no justification for continuing the trillion dollar abuser subsidy.

                I am frequently contacted by mothers who want to go public with their stories.  They need to be careful because courts often retaliate when their bad practices are exposed.  Of course they claim to be doing this to protect the children they sent to live with abusers.  The media has been missing in action with respect to the frequent tragedies caused by the standard flawed practices in the custody court system.  They often do not want to write about something they view as he-said-she said and are not willing to invest the resources to establish individual decisions were wrong or even outrageous.  Even when they can be pretty confident the court failed the children they are reluctant to write a story that could risk a lawsuit.

                The Saunders’ report could be used to promote better coverage.  They should have more confidence in writing a story based on a report issued by the United States Department of Justice.  The report does not speak about specific named cases but rather a pattern of bad practices that place children in jeopardy.  I would encourage you to contact your local media, make them aware of the significance of the Saunders’ report and ask them to help expose the scandal.  They may want to discuss specific cases, particularly local cases to illustrate the problem, but using the research and the pattern of mistakes should strengthen what mothers are saying and give them greater credibility.  It also means mothers do not need to go into all the details of their case which undermines their efforts to attract attention.  Instead they can show how the problems cited in the Saunders’ report were the same mistakes made in your case.  It is helpful when seeking publicity to include the local dv agency or a dv expert that will give the story even more credibility.

                I would also like to encourage people to discuss the Saunders’ report and the general problems in the custody court with family, friends and community members.  You never know when someone you are speaking with may have an important contact or special interest in the subject.  No one wants to see children suffer (aside from the abuser) so this is something members of the community are likely to care about.  If you are comfortable perhaps you can discuss the problem at a community event or offer to speak at different clubs or service organizations.  Only the other side benefits by keeping the failures in the custody courts a secret.  At the same time I would encourage you to speak about the problem in ways we can be heard.  I know many court professionals have done many despicable things and we often are very angry.  Saying what we want to say may feel good, but it can undermine our ability to be heard.

                I also recognize that we have been disappointed so many times before.  It is hard to be optimistic even in the face of overwhelming research that supports everything we have been saying for all these years.  Nevertheless it is important that we convey the message that this is an earthshaking event.  In effect the United States Department of Justice is acknowledging that our justice system is failing our children.  We can understand the causes and work on solutions but no one should tolerate standard practices that deny our children the opportunity to be safe in their home and reach the potential God gave them when they were born. 

               

               

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 from their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com