The Mirror Solution to Child Sexual Abuse

by Barry Goldstein

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

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

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

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

The Enormous Life Long Harm of Sexual Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Myth about False Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading Stereotypes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The High Cost of Silence

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

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

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

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

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


Child Sexual Abuse and Abortion

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

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

Custody Courts Still Protect Sexual Predators

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor, co- authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys to present domestic violence cases and was released in April of 2013. Barry can be reached by email at Barryg78@aol.com

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

Truly Caring for the Kids

by Charles Moncrief

Train children in the right way, and when old, they will not stray.  Proverbs 22:6 (KJV)

Whenever a political hack wants to gain power and build favor with constituents, especially following a traumatic national event, speechmakers appear on television and in news photos with children surrounding them. Why? Because it works. It’s a cheap and dirty form of child trafficking, one of the worst. Anytime a point cannot be made on its own merits, a favorite tactic is to drag the kids into the fray.

Some precedents from recent history include Chairman Mao of Red China, Kim Jong Il of communist North Korea, Chancellor Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, and Fidel Castro of communist Cuba. I admit that my ideals are different from those on this list, but I'd be just as disgusted to see some preacher surrounding himself with children as he pleads “Please bring your children to Sunday school, so that they don’t go to hell.” The believed merits of a cause simply do not justify this form of presentation.

While I'm writing this within a few weeks following the Connecticut school shooting, I'd rather leave the debates about gun control to those who follow those tactics. Instead of walking on those hot coals, my purpose is to focus on a much better treatment of children than launching a modern-day cheap version of the Children’s Crusade in the thirteenth century.*

Rather than dwell on child trafficking and abuse at the political and media level, we might want to look at forms of abuse that can occur at the level where we have some control and influence: the home. Admittedly, observations and reflections are intuitive; I'm no expert on raising children, and I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to be. But here are some observations and considerations.

Trauma or violence.Well-balanced children tend to come from peaceful homes, where there is respect and acceptance even for differences. And the opposite is true; unbalanced children generally come from traumatic home life where disrespect abounds. Violence in the home, whether physical or verbal, has its effect even on the children who are not the direct targets of the violence.

Parental example. Parents can have far-reaching effects on the children simply by the example they set. There’s no such thing as “when the children aren’t looking”. Children may be young, but they’re not incapable of picking up clues that build a picture for them over time. While nobody’s suggesting a return to the Ozzie and Harriet days, it makes sense to consider the effects of the behavioral examples parents set for their children.

Parental absence. How familiar is the story of a father whose success in business or society became more important than his family? Often a father or mother becomes so obsessed with providing for the children, at the expense of the relationship with those children. I get the picture of a parent driving by the house and throwing a bag of cash, food, or clothing into the front yard for the children to pick up.

Parental discipline. Failure to have realistic expectations on children’s formation can breed an atmosphere of disrespect and resentment. Remembering that children are not simply adults in small packages, it’s important to set standards of behavior and to enforce them. A child who knows his or her boundaries is actually much more free than one who doesn’t. Bruno Bettelheim offered an illustration of a child playing in a fenced-in yard, who knew the boundaries. He compared the situation to that of a child in an unfenced yard, who developed a fear of straying because there were no boundaries to serve as a guide.

Parental favoritism. Even the children who “benefit” from favoritism tend to have little respect for their parents, maybe more so than those who get the less favored treatment. The failure to provide even-handed discipline can have lifelong consequences when the children turn into adults.

In principle, the responses to these might be too simplistic:

• Provide a peaceful and nurturing environment for the children.
• Set examples of maturity in front of the children, even when you think they aren’t looking.
• Be present with the kids. They’d rather have your presence than your presents.
• Set standards of discipline and behavior, with consistent enforcement.
• Don’t play favorites.

I don’t like the simplistic responses, so I'll leave that to those truly skilled in the art of raising children into adults. But I would like to offer a few thoughts for the wounded veterans of relationships, since most of us live in some form of that state.

Repairing broken relationships. Consider the possibility that it is never too late to mend fences. Whether with alienated children or broken relationships with former close friends. If you can build up the strength to try (or to try YET AGAIN), this might be the time when you find gold. At least, you might find yourself liking the person you see in the mirror.

Reaching out. If you think you’re meeting a person halfway, think again. If you think you’re reaching out more than halfway, think again. Better yet, get an objective opinion from someone you trust.

Being open to honest feedback. Rather than considering the source, try considering the content. One scene comes to mind from “Last Holiday” in which a corporate president says (paraphrased) “She made a lot of accusations and we took it, because we thought she was someone important.” Sometimes the least of those around us can offer the greatest value if we will but pay attention. Remember, “The emperor has no clothes!” came from the mouth of a child.

Forgiveness kept in private. Before entering the presence of the person you’re reaching out to, silently and to yourself say the person’s name followed by “I forgive you”. Then never say it to the person’s face, at least as a lead-off line. At least, make the approach from a posture that the issue is too complicated to offer blame.

Even an attempt to repair a broken relationship can have far-reaching benefits. The grown children may not be receptive, even to the first hundred attempts, but they will on some level have to acknowledge that you’ve made the effort.

Wouldn’t it be nice if life worked this way all the time? We can all hope and pray for a perfect world, though we can at the same time hope and pray for the strength -- and even the sense of humor -- to deal with the reality that the system has its flaws. All the best in your journey through this new year.

Grace and Peace,
Charles+


* Legend, tradition, and lore have muddied the water about the events and sentiments surrounding the Children’s Crusade. Many modern historians even claim the participants were impoverished adults. Regardless, I'm using the name for what the words imply: exploitation of children to sell an idea that cannot stand on its own merits.

Vulnerability In Change Part II-Let's Get Naked!

by Pamela Chapman

Vulnerability In Change: Part I — Just Like Junior High Again

In my last piece, I shared the true story of my recent transition to the Yucatan. I was completely transparent and honest. I know the power of transparency. I have experienced its transforming power firsthand. My initial experience was working for the Orange County Rescue Mission in Southern Cal as a case manager. I had been warned that I should never, ever share my personal story with clients. But, I had no other story. I told it and the chains and bondages fell away.

My second experience was through the mentorship of my business coach Maria Simone accompanied by her techie, genius husband Michael (aka Doc) Murdock. Several years ago, during an online coaching session with several on the call, I shared my anxieties, my feelings of helplessness (aka self-pity), and paralysis. The session took a different course becoming a spiritual healing session for not just me but for all.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way—the only way for me to assist others in their healing is to bear my soul; being naked before my audience; allowing them to realize I too have set backs, misfortunes, challenges as well as major successes and victories.

I believe there is not one of us still breathing on this living earth who has achieved expert level. When you get to the place where you believe you are, the next phase comes accompanied by growing pains, to launch you to the next plateau. When you ascend to where you are un-teachable or the master, you are allowed to cross over into the next realm. There are days I spend more time practicing what I teach than actually teaching. I am one who believes we all teach what we need to know. There are days when I ask, seek, knock and then ask some more.

What Went Wrong

What happens in your life course, in your stretching if you’re aware, is you become more and more enlightened. So what does that mean? It means you no longer need a building to fall on your head when the expanding life lesson appears. It means you respond to light: the light taps, the light study, the light path. You become in tune with light. When there is a lesson to learn, you grasp it openly and willingly. It means you no longer blame your present or your journey on someone or something. You take responsibility. Transparency is the path of the enlightened journey.

When I was attracting cheaters and twisted souls in my Yucatan transition I asked, “What is going on with me? Why am I attracting this? What’s up with all these adolescent, junior-high, teenage fears revisiting? More importantly I asked, “What did I subconsciously or consciously ask the Universe?” (I’ll provide these answers in upcoming episodes.)

I know the tools. I teach the tools. I have learned tools from others and refined them. I have the hidden knowledge or what some call the secret. I know who I am and I understand my calling. But, I am also wise enough to understand pride comes before the fall. So, I never attempt to pretend I’ve got it ALL together. Oh no! I don’t need any lessons in humility. Well so at least I believed. You’ll hear more about the Yucatan humility lesson soon enough.

“What I want you to understand, especially my beautiful sisters out there, it proves nothing and nothing is gained by pretending you have no problems, weaknesses or challenges. The mask conceals ones true identity and alienates those you could possibly assist.” It intimidates. It allows others to believe they will never, ever be able to accomplish what you are: perfection.  (I’m reminded here of a Scripture that speaks of one’s righteousness or self-righteousness being as a filthy rags. And ladies, this Scripture ain’t talking about a dust rag.) 

When you remove the mask and share your story or your mystery (my story) with others, when you are transparent, filled with light, you permit others to not only see your challenges but your victories and overcoming as well. It gives them hope in accomplishing the same. You allow them to join you on the enlightenment or the road to glory.

My Solution

Each morning, in spite of feeling vulnerable, I would take time to ground. I would do the work to reduce, calm, and eradicate the mind chatter. With all of the challenges my new and unfamiliar environment had brought me, each day I was determined to find balance, joy and peace. Each day, my goal was to become a little more familiar with my new surroundings.

Whether it was exploring the new coast with my lab pals; or learning how to say, “Stop here please” in Spanish so I could ride the bus; or shopping and having lunch with my gorgeous expat sisters in the magical city of Merida, there was always the choice: drown in my sorrows and helplessness or make the best out of the seemingly mess.  I could be the victim or be victorious.

A Reality Reminder

The vulnerability I have recently experienced reminded me of the women I talk to. It reminded me of the teenage girl leaving elementary school trying to fit and find her way in junior high. It reminded me of the woman going through a harrowing divorce or the woman who has lost her soul mate to death having to deal with urgent family affairs, adjust to being single, and no longer being accepted amongst her married friends.

It reminded me of the woman losing her job having worked for the same employer for fifteen or twenty years, having climbed the corporate ladder, now being snubbed by what were once her professional peers. It reminded me of the woman who’d been abused and battered finding a shelter not only being distanced from the foe she still somehow loves; but, being isolated from family and friends, as well.

Nothing stays the same but change. We can fight it, judge it, or roll with it. When major transition comes upon us bringing unfamiliar turf, Vulnerability with a capital V rears its ugly head. It will have you asking yourself, “Am I okay?” It will make you paranoid. It will render you fearful.  It can cause paralysis. It will make you crazy in your head, emotions, crippling your mind, body and soul.

There is never any shame for your feelings, even those of vulnerability. The shame is wearing it beneath a mask while it festers, rots and stinks. The shame is getting comfortable in it and making excuses for it. The shame is remaining in its grip being its lifeless slave and limp casualty.

—To be continued

Pamela Chapman is Founder of iAscend Programs, an author and certified life coach who has worked extensively with victim services organizations and advocated for many years.  She now spends her time writing and traveling, living each day as a new adventure!  Her latest blog is You Are Not A Victim

Peaceable Response to the War against Women

by Barry Goldstein

Mitt Romney, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President and Reince Priebus recently attacked complaints that Republican leaders are conducting a war against women. They claimed that President Obama was twisting their words and deeds and there is no factual basis for complaints that the Republican Party supports policies and practices that hurt women. I have deliberately sought to avoid discussion of issues that involve partisan differences between the parties in my articles because I would hope ending domestic violence would be a non-partisan issue and protective mothers need the support of both parties to create the needed reforms. I feel compelled to write about the war against women because it is so related to domestic violence, but I hope to discuss it in a way that sheds more light than heat.

Sexism is critical to the discussion of domestic violence because it causes men to abuse their partners based on a sense of entitlement and superiority. It promotes many other practices and policies that mistreat women such as the issues that led to discussion of the Republican war on women. Most people become deeply insulted and angered when called sexist, but most sexism is far more subtle than the over-the-top hateful comments recently made by Rush Limbaugh. Good and caring men engage in sexist behavior, often without realizing they are doing so. I would urge Republican leaders, as well as Democrats and independents to avoid the normal defensiveness in responding to accusations of sexist behavior.

Instructors at the New York Model Batterer Program where I teach receive ninety minutes of training every week. Almost inevitably, male instructors, and sometimes also female instructors, say or do something sexist. The staff or other instructors explain that what they did was sexist. The normal response, particularly from newer instructors is to try to explain or suggest a misunderstanding. We ask the instructors to sit and listen and try to understand why someone says it was sexist because it almost always was. We consider this process of informing an instructor of his sexist behavior as a gift because it is hard in this society to say this to anyone. It is important to respond in a way that encourages colleagues to share this important information with us.

As part of this process, I have heard many things that made me uncomfortable. I needed to recognize my sexism, racism and other unearned privileges in order to work to change my behaviors. I wish the Republican leadership could understand the criticism of their war on women as a gift that should encourage them to consider the harm they are causing instead of defensive justifications and renewed attacks.

When we speak about oppressions, the experts are members of the group that is disadvantaged by that oppression. Women living with an abuser pay very close attention to his tone of voice, words, body language and other indications of his attitude in order to gain some advance warning of danger. They do this as a matter of survival and men do not need to pay similar attention because they are not at risk. When men in the batterer program or court professionals claim that men know as much about domestic violence as women, it is because they do not understand this fundamental dynamic. I believe it was significant that Republican Congressional Leaders held a hearing about contraception in which only men listened to only men. This is an example in which the damage they did to their reputation was self-inflicted and belies later claims by Republican leaders that their political problem was caused by unfair coverage or Democratic criticisms.

Republicans Earned Unpopularity by Hurting Women

In a society in which men tend to react defensively to their exposure for sexist behavior and a political environment where confident repetition of lies is often effective, it is not surprising Romney and Priebus would try to blame others for their party’s mistakes. I hope the tactic will not work in this case and it will encourage them to change policies and more importantly start to listen to women’s concerns. Here are some of their recent gaffes that caused a dramatic reduction in their support from women.

1. There was a dispute over requiring employers with religious affiliations to provide contraceptives to employees as part of their health insurance coverage. Some religious institutions such as the Catholic Church wanted a conscience provision to permit them to opt out. This was provided for religious institutions but not for affiliated entities that might cover employees from other religions. President Obama sought to arrange a compromise so in most cases the insurance company and not the religious institution would provide the contraceptives. There is room for reasonable people to differ over where the line should be drawn, but the Republicans sought to curry favor with religious supporters and aggressively attacked the compromise arrangement. In doing so they failed to consider that many women use contraceptive drugs for medical treatment or the longstanding right to contraceptives since the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. House Republicans exacerbated the harm caused by holding hearings at which they refused to listen to any women.

2. One of the women Congressional Republicans refused to listen to was a Georgetown Law Student, Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke instead spoke to a hearing organized by House Democrats and pointed out the frequency with which women used contraception for medical uses and the expense of doing so if they were not covered by medical insurance. This led to an offensive and personal attack by Republican hero, Rush Limbaugh in which he used some of the most offensive and sexist language available. Many abusers claim that they were taught not to hit women and would not do so unless she is a (insert slur). In other words the kind of language Limbaugh used places all women, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal at risk. Limbaugh has great influence and power in the Republican Party and many of their leaders, including the presidential candidates seemed not to have the courage to forcefully condemn this unjustifiable personal attack. By way of contrast, Georgetown University which disagrees with her position supported her right to express her viewpoint and labeled Limbaugh’s attack as improper. In another recent example that demonstrates even Democratic women could make offensive comments, Hillary Rosen claimed that Ann Romney never did any work. President Obama responded by unequivocally stating such comments are wrong.

3. In Virginia and some other states, Republican legislators in their haste to make it as difficult as possible for women to exercise their Constitutional right to have an abortion proposed legislation requiring the woman to be penetrated in order to see an ultrasound picture of the fetus. Many commentators recognized this as a form of rape. The legislation was amended so that penetration was not required, but they demonstrated a complete lack of concern over a woman’s right to privacy.

4. The Violence Against Women Act has been one of the most effective laws in working to reduce domestic violence. It provides funds for many critical programs and practices that help prevent domestic violence. It has always been a bi-partisan measure with strong support from both parties. In the Senate supporters gained the 60 sponsors they needed which means several Republicans joined Democrats to provide bi-partisan support. Now Republican leaders are threatening to kill VAWA (and who knows how many women and children) because they object to provisions to protect victims in same sex relationships and immigrants. A few months ago, I wrote an article in this space about how we could save $500 billion by using best practices to prevent domestic violence crime. VAWA is part of these best practices and it is impossible to imagine a justification to interfere with legislation that could save both money and lives. Does being a “pro-life” party not include saving the lives of the living?

5. In Wisconsin the Republican majority in the legislature passed legislation, signed by the Republican governor, that undermines the ability of women to sue for employment discrimination. They repealed legislation providing remedies for women paid less than men for the same work.

Obviously complaints about the Republican war on women were not made up out of thin air or even exaggerated. Instead, women and their supporters brought together a recent group of outrageous actions by Republicans that are harmful to women to show a pattern of hostility. I don’t think the Republicans were trying to hurt women and they certainly did not wish to give Democrats a powerful issue. Instead it was their sexism and privilege that blinded them to the harm they are causing.

In our personal lives, when men engage in sexist behavior, the best response is to apologize and make a commitment to avoid these offensive actions in the future. Politicians do not like to admit mistakes, but I believe Republicans could best defuse the harm they have caused to their political position by acknowledging their mistakes. They could join in the traditional non partisan cooperation to pass the reauthorization of VAWA and perhaps support the efforts of domestic violence advocates to save $500 billion by supporting proven plans that would drastically reduce domestic violence crimes (see my earlier article, “Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?”).

The Nexus Between Sexism and Racism

The King Center in Atlanta is a wonderful monument to the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. One of the most interesting exhibits is one dedicated to the continuation of his work that is proceeding all over the world. The exhibit focuses on movements to end many different oppressions and I was particularly drawn to information about the woman who started the domestic violence movement in Russia. The problems described in Russia in the 1990s were the same as in the United States in the 1970s. It is not that some societies permit domestic violence and others don’t. Instead virtually all societies have a history of sexism and domestic violence and the differences reflect when movements started to respond to men’s abuse of women.

In the batterer classes I teach some of the men complain or ask why we would speak about racism in a class about domestic violence. I often tell the story about the King Center in which they conceive that the work in Russia to end domestic violence is a continuation of his work to end segregation and racism. This is because racism and sexism are part of a system of oppression and we cannot end one without ending all oppressions.

Just as I discussed how sexism is often subtle or unconscious, the same is true about racism. We tend to think of racism as the kind of behavior associated with the Ku Klux Klan, but more often it is about stereotypes and unconscious assumptions that give whites unearned advantages over blacks. Whites, including politicians who are quick to deny their actions are racist would likely pass a lie detector test, but only because they do not understand all that racism entails.

Research shows that local television stations disproportionately cover crime stories involving alleged black offenders and do so even when the crime rate is down. This promotes stereotypes suggesting young black men are dangerous and has serious consequences. Trayvon Martin was viewed as potentially dangerous, not because of anything he did but because of this stereotype. Many whites have never heard of someone arrested for DWB, but people of color know this stands for driving while black. Many whites would not associate their fear of black men as coming from racism. It is important to understand that good people can act on their racist or sexist superiority and do so without realizing it. This means we should be slower to deny our own oppressive acts.

Vitriolic Attacks against the President

President Obama has repeatedly been the subject of some of the most personal and offensive attacks that any President has received. Obviously people have different political views and there is nothing wrong with criticizing someone whose policies they disagree with. I have heard some people justify the attacks on the President by saying that Presidents Clinton and Bush were attacked similarly. I believe the level of hatred against Obama is greater than the other presidents, but perhaps more to the point there was a basis for the level of anger against Clinton and Bush that does not exist in the actions of Barack Obama.

President Clinton earned strong public anger and disgust over his sexual behavior with an intern and lack of honesty about this and other issues. There were scandals involving his administration and many believed he was dishonest with the American people.

President George W. Bush engaged in many actions that could reasonably have created severe anger in his opponents. He prevented a full count of the ballots in Florida so that many people believe he was not properly elected. When the country came together after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, many believe he used the issue for political gain instead of using it as a way to maintain unity in the country. He made serious misrepresentations to the public to justify starting a war against Iraq that many believe was unjustified. In doing so, we lost an opportunity to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden. His economic policies that included lax regulation, the costs of two wars and a massive tax cut without paying for these expenses, led to the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression. He also had significant scandals in his administration.

By contrast, there has been nothing in President Obama’s record that compares to the actions that could reasonably have led to the angry reaction towards Bush and Clinton. Again it is reasonable for people with different political views to dislike his policies and wish him to be replaced. Everyone is entitled to their views. His administration has been remarkably free of scandals. He did not talk about getting Bin Laden the way Bush did, he just went out and did it. Many people, including Obama hoped or expected the economy would improve more quickly and dramatically, but the President has been successful in averting a massive meltdown which was a real possibility and the economy is far stronger than when he took office.

Many people strongly disagree with his position on health care, but any discussion that considers context would provide a more reasonable perspective. There has been strong support for a national health care law for many years from both parties. Republicans as diverse as Richard Nixon, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have advocated for a national health law. This has been needed because so many people are uninsured with devastating consequences. People can disagree about whether we need such a law, but it cannot be viewed as something outside the mainstream of thought and support. I could understand anger from the right wing if Democrats passed a one payer system which would be the liberal form of health reform. The moderate form would involve an insurance mandate with the government providing competition. The actual plan that relies on a mandate originally championed by Romney, Gingrich and others, based upon the free market system, was the most conservative approach considered. People can disagree, but the level of vitriol does not match the moderate nature of the reform. This is especially true when no other realistic alternative has been put forward by those who so strenuously object.

Included in the common personal attacks against the President are bizarre and obviously false claims that he is Muslim and was not born in the United States. There would be nothing wrong with a President who was Muslim, but this is used by opponents in a pejorative manner. There is no factual basis for these claims and the widespread belief is based upon repeated lies by the President’s opponents and racism. A recent poll of Republican primary voters in one southern state found over forty percent of the voters believed he was Muslim and another forty percent were not sure if he was. The level of ignorance and prejudice necessary to believe such obvious lies makes one wonder if such people should be qualified to vote.

Claims that Obama is the Worst President Ever

Included in the attacks against the President are frequently expressed opinions that he is the worst President ever. Obviously anyone is entitled to their opinion, but based on his actual record described earlier, there is no reasonable basis for this view. The multiple and catastrophic failures of the Bush Presidency would create a much stronger argument that he was the worst President ever, but he is not close.

The worst President in our history was Richard Nixon and there is no one in second place. He is the only President forced to resign from office in disgrace because of a long series of gross violations of our laws and our Constitution. Today many people do not understand the extent of his corrupt actions and how close he brought us to losing our democracy.

Many people have heard the lies he promoted that other Presidents did the same thing or that it just involved campaign irregularities in an election he would have easily won anyway. In reality, when he started his Watergate crimes, the polls showed him losing to Senator Edmund Muskie who had been a popular Vice Presidential candidate in 1968. Nixon and his co-conspirators systematically and illegally destroyed the campaigns of each of the Democratic candidates who had a good chance to beat him. In effect he selected his Democratic opponent and then engaged in dirty tricks against Senator McGovern also.

I was a student in Washington during Watergate and the election and so had the opportunity to see just a small part of the criminal activities from the Nixon campaign. At one point the president of the George Washington University College Republicans repeated to me a conversation I had just had with a McGovern staffer. The Senate Watergate Committee would later describe his activities on behalf of the Committee to Re-elect the President (aptly referred to as CREEP) for spying on the Quaker Peace Vigil that was protesting in front of the White House. We thought the information suggested CREEP had placed a listening device at McGovern Headquarters and sought to warn them by giving them a piece of paper that described how the Republicans had information from the phone conversation. A few years later I learned from a former McGovern staffer that they treated everything as an open campaign because Nixon spies had infiltrated McGovern’s staff.

One of the scariest events I ever witnessed was the Nixon Justice Department’s response to May Day protests aimed at ending the war. Thousands of people, most of whom had nothing to do with the demonstrations were arrested and held at RFK stadium. On our campus many students were arrested going to or leaving class. Pepper gas permeated the campus for weeks afterwards. That night parents kept calling the dorm and we did not know where their children were or even if they were alive. The courts later found the arrests to be illegal and the victims were compensated.

It is important to remember that the successful outcome with Nixon removed from office was not inevitable. We came chillingly close to losing our democracy. And I have not even discussed his decision to continue a war we later learned he knew was hopeless in order to delay the political consequences. Nixon was also involved in illegal spying on political opponents, enemies’ lists and financial corruption. Nothing that Obama, Bush, Clinton or any other President did comes close to the deliberate and fundamental violation of our rights by Nixon.

The Cause of the Extreme Level of Offensive Personal Attacks

There is room for good people to disagree with the President, believe he is doing a poor job and to prefer someone else in office. As discussed earlier, the level of hatred and personal attacks are not justified by his character, behavior or policies and it is not close. There are a group of factors that have created this extreme response and it is important to understand them in order to reverse the trend of coarsening our political discussion. If the public tolerate the abuse of President Obama, we are likely to see it repeated against all other leaders.

1. In 1964, Republican leaders in Congress joined Democrats to pass the Civil Rights Act. A group of Democrats supported the Reagan tax cuts. Senator Ted Kennedy helped President Bush pass the No Child Left Behind Act. Democrats and Republicans repeatedly came together to pass and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). More recently moderates in both parties have been removed from office and each party takes more extreme positions. This has made it harder to reach the needed compromises and creates an environment in which ever more outrageous personal attacks are tolerated based only on a difference on policy issues.

2. The public has permitted deliberate lies to work so that politicians have learned to use this outrageous practice that weakens our country. We saw this in the 2004 election in which lies that the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attack and had weapons of mass destruction. The debate over health care was infected with lies like the claims of death panels. The lies discussed earlier about Obama being Muslim or not being born in the United States have been part of this trend of our toleration of these lies. Although the media occasionally provides “fact check” type stories, they have failed to make clear when some claims are clearly wrong. Obviously they do not wish to be seen as partisan, but when statements are clearly false, this needs to be part of the story. For many years conservatives accused television networks and other media of bias, but a recent study found that those who watch Fox News are less knowledgeable than if you do not watch FOX. Extremists like Rush Limbaugh seem to have no concern about the accuracy of his statements, but many listeners believe his lies.

3. The worst offenders usually bristle at suggestions that racism is behind their personal attacks against President Obama. I have tried to acknowledge there are other forces that contribute to these attacks and not every one is caused by racism, but it would be naïve to believe racism plays no role. Many of these personal attacks were made before the President even took office. It is fair to say that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of a black President. Some of the offensive statements have involved racial stereotypes making it easy to recognize. Those accused of racism would do well to follow the example of instructors in our batterer program and stop to consider why someone finds their statement racist rather than reacting defensively. Most of the time they will find the accusation is accurate and could help them avoid offensive conduct in the future.

Solutions

One of the most troubling aspects of the deteriorating civility in political discourse has been open statements by elected Republican leaders to the effect they want President Obama to fail. It is no surprise or offense that they would like to see a Republican elected in his place in the next election. The problem is when they take actions designed to deliberately hurt the country and particularly the economy in order to make him look bad and thus encourage his defeat on election day. On several occasions it has appeared that their lack of cooperation or willingness to seek compromise was done not out of principle but in furtherance of a plan to hurt the President’s chances by hurting their constituents.

What happens if they get elected in this election or some future election and the Democrats use the same obstructionist approach? In this closely divided nation it will be rare for a party to have the sixty votes needed to control legislation in the Senate in addition to control of the House and Presidency. This is a formula for long-term disaster. I hope both parties will avoid this kind of obstructionism and perhaps more important I hope the public will punish any political party that engages in such tactics by voting against them.

I do not believe Republican politicians woke up one day and decided they wanted to figure out all the ways they could hurt women. In each case they were focused on something else they saw as a benefit and failed to understand the harm to women until much later. They attacked Obama’s attempt to compromise the contraception issue as a way to support their deeply religious supporters, but in doing so failed to recognize that access to contraception is a well settled issue. They also seemed unaware that many women use contraceptives for health issues. In the case of Rush Limbaugh, they needed his support and failed to find the courage to denounce offensive behavior they would not have tolerated from almost anyone else. In Virginia they backed off the mandated rape of women seeking an abortion, but much of the damage had already been done. In each case they could have acknowledged their mistakes, changed their positions and created a mechanism to better hear women’s voices. This requires a level of humility we don’t often see from sexist men or powerful politicians.

It appears that Republican leaders have decided to respond to the harm they have caused to their relationship with women through denial and blaming others. Unfortunately, this strategy sometimes works, but the harm they have caused seems so obvious that it is unlikely to work this time. I believe they could instead take a couple of actions that would not conflict with their political philosophy, would provide real benefits to women and would improve the way they are being viewed. It would be an example of doing well by doing good.

The first thing they need to do is join with Democrats in the bi-partisan passage of VAWA. In the past, Republicans have always supported VAWA and there should be nothing in their political philosophy that would support men’s right to assault and brutalize their partners. VAWA provides support for many useful projects that help make women and children safer. Indeed this should be viewed as a fundamental part of any pro-life policy. VAWA has helped in creating new research that would help make even more progress in the work to end domestic violence.

The second thing they should do is propose or join in support of policies to create what might be called Quincy Model 2.0. This would use the best practices I described in the earlier article that have been shown to result in a dramatic reduction in domestic violence crime. Most prisoners have a childhood history involving domestic violence or child abuse so adoption of these practices would drastically reduce crime. Republicans have always made crime reduction an important priority. Many Republicans have sought to promote abstinence so that children do not engage in sexual activities with other children. The common mishandling of sexual abuse allegations by the custody courts places children at risk. Surely if Republicans don’t want children having sex with other children they will even more want to protect them from sexual assault by adults. Finally Republicans want to reduce the deficit and cut taxes. Implementation of the Quincy Model 2.0 would save $500 billion every year and the savings would gradually increase as children live their lives without witnessing domestic violence. This would permit proposals that reduce debt and cut taxes without cutting vital services women need.

I believe these actions would improve the conditions in our society and improve the way Republicans are viewed by women. I know there are many skeptics in the political community, but I am confident women would prefer safety to a campaign issue. Together we can end the war against women.

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

Suicide

By Heidi Hiatt

So give me something to believe

‘Cause I am living just to breathe…-Believe, The Bravery

There is a stark white space in which people sometimes find themselves in the still hours of the early morning. Its ashen walls are the accumulated debris of life’s challenges and tragedies. Its heavy ceiling has settled into place during the years in which the hope of the room’s prisoner soured and dissolved. The quiet is deafening and there appears to be no windows, no doors, no way out. This is the hellish, lonely place in which some people sit before they commit suicide.
“How did I get here?” they wonder, yet no one seems to answer. The thought bounces around their cell, mocking them as they think back to better times. “If there is a God, where is He?” they ask, as the sneering voices with no bodies tell them life’s not worth it and death is the only answer. The air is toxic and it makes every fiber of their beings scream more.

Many things bring people to this box. Sometimes life deals a string of blows that knocks them down every time they get up. Being sexually violated and used lures victims to this hell hole. Horrors like the loss of a loved one or the death of a child bring them here. Financial disasters, divorces, uncertainty, a lack of social support, elusive success, and relationship problems suck them in. Mental illness can play a role in convincing people that they must escape from their wounded bodies. Life’s problems can be legion, and the pain and pressure of simply existing can be overwhelming.

If you are in this box, the pit where the oxygen is being sucked out and you want to pull the plug before anything or anyone else can hurt you, there’s something you need to know. Taking your own life won’t solve your problems. It will only put you in a place where you are still acutely aware of your problems but you can’t do anything about them.

That’s not an original thought. It’s a profound statement made by a veteran police officer who works with people struggling with suicide. Suicide is not removing yourself from your problems; it is removing yourself from any possibility of solving those problems. To solve them, you need to stay here with the rest of us.

Please wait. There’s more. If you feel suicidal and are reading this, it shows that you still looking for help and answers. What you are feeling is not freakish or shameful or unique. Many great people have found themselves in this eerie state of aloneness and found their way back out. There’s a wonderful saying to describe what happened when the situation passed, “just when the caterpillar thought the world was over, it became a butterfly.”

I do know who said this: “if you’re going through hell, keep going.” That is from Winston Churchill, a man who led his countrymen through World War II. While I’d already heard that, I found it on the underside of my iced tea lid during a difficult time. I set it on the kitchen windowsill where I’d see it often. It reminded me that we are commanded to persist, to endure, and to take our eyes off of the seemingly insurmountable problems right in front of us and keep them on the bigger, better things ahead of us.

If you’re thinking about suicide, you might not think there’s bigger, better things because there hasn’t been so far. But how do you know that unless you stay here to find out? That’s a gamble worth taking. Here’s one reason why. Next to the Winston Churchill quote sits another iced tea lid. This one quotes Douglas Malloch, saying “good timber does not grow with ease; the stronger the wind, the stronger the trees.” If you survive the present storm you find yourself in, you are going to be stronger and more able to weather any future storms. This, here, now—this could make you stronger if you let it. Find your way out of this hole, and you may be able to help others out of theirs.

Does life seem meaningless? Have you been a giving and hard-working person who seems to always get taken advantage of or hurt by those energy-sucking narcissists we call vampires? Have your parents abandoned you, or has someone ripped your heart out and kept kicking you when you’re down? Have you done good and been rewarded with evil?

I want to paint a picture for you. A few weeks ago on a Friday night I was struck by a thought so powerful that I had to write it down immediately. I saw a person standing in a blank space. They had suffered a terrible injustice and felt like no one noticed and no one cared. They felt violated, afraid, and completely abandoned by the legal system and everyone else who should have helped them.

All of the sudden the picture changed. There was now a backdrop of God on His throne and scores of angels gathered around. Instantly I was struck by the thought that we are never alone. It may feel like it, and sometimes it feels like God has turned His back. But wait—He sees everything. He’s there. He’s keeping score. He knows exactly what we’re feeling. He will give us justice, even if it takes until the end of our lives. Even when the universe seems devoid of God and nothing makes sense, He hasn’t moved. He’s watching.

The Psalmist understood this. Pursued by enemies who had no good reason to hate him, vexed by problems with his family and friends, he told God exactly how he felt when he found himself in those desolate lonely places. He cried out. And he kept crying out. He knew God heard him and he believed God would answer, even if that wasn’t right away. Much of what you’re feeling right now, he felt. Try reading a Psalm, and you might feel a kinship with a man who lived 3000 years ago who experienced some of the same things.

You might not believe in God. You might blame Him for everything bad that’s happened. In your circumstances, that might be totally understandable. I don’t understand why a lot of bad things happen either. But I’ve learned something through it all—God allows what He can use. If you feel that there’s nothing left of you and you have nothing left to offer, you’re wrong. It’s been said that God doesn’t call the qualified. He qualifies the called. He fills you. He makes you whole. It is in Him, as the scripture says, that we live and move and have our being. Right now it’s about what He can do through you.

This is the point at which it’s okay to let Him know that you can’t do it anymore; He needs to do it for you. He is not bound by time and circumstance. He has unlimited power. Max Lucado says that your toughest
challenges are bobby pins and rubber bands to God. This does not mean that God answers us when and how we want Him to answer; He knows best and will answer in His way. Someone once said that God always answers our prayer– either He changes the circumstances, or He supplies sufficient power to overcome them.

Here’s another assurance for you—you should not be ashamed of getting to the point at which you are considering suicide. You are responding to a flashing warning sign that says, “hey, something has to change.” This is a good time to call a crisis line or just about anyone who will listen. Thanks to crisis lines, there is always someone to listen. Churches are a good place to call too. Many churches have crisis lines. Find one online or in the phone book.

God will listen too. He’s available 24/7 and no matter what you’ve done He wants you to spend some time talking to Him. Be honest. Tell Him everything. He already knows. He just needs to hear it straight from you. He won’t make you ashamed. He’s all about letting you know how unique and amazing you are. He made you to do something that no one else on earth can do. He knows your every thought. He wants to walk right beside you and help you fight through the rough spots. Perhaps He will use the crisis you are in to center you, to help you reprioritize, and to show you what you are meant to do with your life from here forward.

If you are besieged by those nagging voices that tell you you’re not worth it, you should just let go, you’re a loser, no one wants you, you’ll never pay those bills, you’re too far gone for anyone to love you—rebuke them. They are lies straight from the father of lies. An all-powerful Creator who calls you His child loves you—that alone makes you worth it.

Your life has immeasurable value. Your mission here is not done. Listen to the voice that reminds you of what’s right about you, and what wonders can still be realized in your life. Ignore the damning red-hot pokers that stab your mind and heart at times like this. You can do this. You’ve read this far. You’re doing it.

Please remember:

-Taking your own life is not a solution to your problems; you can only solve them if you stay here.

-Your life may be hell on earth right now, but this isn’t the end. Keep walking.

-Getting through this can make you stronger—much, much stronger.

-God is in control and He sees everything no matter how alone you feel.

-Open your Bible or go to www.biblegateway.com. Find the Psalms. That guy knew despair and loneliness and betrayal, but no matter what he faced, his attitude was not “God, here is my problem,” but “problem, here is my God!”

-God can use this situation and these circumstances. No matter how broken. No matter how ugly.

-Be honest with God. Tell Him how you feel. You’re His child. He made you and He loves hearing from you.

As you make the decisions you are facing right now, I invite you to draw on God’s power and break free of that box. I don’t think that’s what He’s had planned for you. You’re still here because you have not fulfilled your mission and there is much work left to do. Don’t be ashamed. Don’t berate yourself for feeling this way. You can get through this.

As C.S. Lewis said, it is seldom the exact present that is unbearable. Take it step by step and don’t measure yourself in terms of what other people think. Measure yourself in terms of how God thinks. He loves you, and He has a plan for you that is literally outside of the box. Now is not the time to give up, no matter how overwhelming the desire to do so is.

For those in my life who are facing huge struggles right now, remember that not only does God love you, but I love you too. You always matter to me and I am here for you. I know you are stronger than the fire you walk through and brighter days are ahead.

God has made you to walk through shadows. When the shadow

approaches, you must walk through. –Adrian Rogers

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

By Barry Goldstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. How to Recognize Domestic Violence

3. Gender Bias

4. The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

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

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



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



Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Barry can be reached by email at their web site www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com