How Cutting Edge Research Can Help Psychologists and Judges Protect Children

By Barry Goldstein

One of the most important research studies about the impact of domestic violence on children began as a project to treat morbidly obese patients and help them lose substantial amounts of weight by eating no food but taking supplements to satisfy their nutritional needs. Some patients failed to lose the expected weight because they did not follow the protocol, but it was successful patients who were the ones to drop out of the program. Upon studying the personal records and interviewing the patients who left, Dr. Vincent Felitti came to understand that rather than a problem, the patients had viewed their excessive weight as a protective factor. They had experienced childhood trauma, particularly sexual abuse and believed their weight would discourage anyone from attacking them.

These findings led Dr. Felitti with the assistance of Dr. Robert Anda of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to create a study involving over 17,000 middle-age patients in order to understand how childhood trauma impacted their health. This became the original ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) research. The first study was released in 1998 and since that time the CDC has sponsored at least five additional studies in other cities that confirmed and expanded on the findings of Dr. Felitti. There have now been over 80 research papers written for medical professionals about ACE research.

The patients were asked about ten different types of trauma in their childhood. The traumas were selected based on their prevalence in the obesity program. The traumas considered were domestic violence; physical, emotional, or sexual abuse; an adult in the household who engaged in substance abuse; was imprisoned; depressed or mentally ill; separation from at least one of the biological parents; emotional neglect; and physical neglect. An ACE Score was created wherein the patient received one point for exposure to each type of trauma. The point was given whether there was one incident or many so the calculation often understates the harm.

The fundamental finding in the ACE research is that children exposed to domestic violence, child abuse and other trauma will suffer more illnesses and injuries throughout their lives and have a shorter life expectancy. The harm is cumulative so that each additional form of trauma multiplies the risk. Other research demonstrates that fathers who commit domestic violence are more likely to also commit child abuse. Thus if a child was exposed to domestic violence, verbal, physical and sexual abuse, that would create an ACE score of 4. If one of the parents also had a substance abuse problem and these events led to the removal of one of the parents from the child’s life the ACE score would be 6. At this level a child has a life expectancy twenty years less than a child with none of these traumas.

On first consideration these findings are depressing, but they also offer an incredible opportunity. If society can protect children from domestic violence and child abuse, we would enjoy a dramatic improvement in the health of children and adults with huge resulting financial savings. The initial reports and articles have been directed at the medical community. This is useful because doctors can use this information to diagnose and treat adult patients suffering from a variety of illnesses that were caused by trauma experienced decades earlier. I am now working with Dr. Felitti to use this research for purposes of prevention.

In 1964 the Surgeon General’s report linking smoking and cancer was released. The tobacco industry initially attacked the report and denied the findings. Today the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association would not consider doing their work without a component to discourage smoking. This has led to a significant reduction in smoking and therefore less cancer, heart disease and deaths.

The ACE research has linked the childhood traumas studied to the ten leading causes of death in the United States. We believe that charitable organizations working to prevent many common diseases and societal problems should include a component to prevent domestic violence and child abuse in their work. This would include organizations working to prevent cancer, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, auto-immune diseases, Aids, substance abuse, depression, suicide, eating disorders, PTSD, rape and many other scourges of society.

Understanding the pathways from abuse to illness will help professionals develop appropriate responses to domestic violence and child abuse. Domestic violence involve tactics abusers use to coerce and control their partners. The purpose of the tactics is to frighten and intimidate the victim so she does what the abuser demands even if she does not agree. Even more than the immediate harm from any physical abuse, it is this stress and fear that impacts victims and their children to produce the long-term medical risks. Many common diseases are caused or exacerbated by stress. The stress also causes inflammation which is associated with many health risks. The abuse and stress also lead to eating and sleeping disorders which in turn cause still more medical problems. Domestic violence and child abuse are also linked to depression and PTSD. The laws that require courts to consider domestic violence when making decisions about custody and visitation were based on research that children exposed to domestic violence are more likely to make a variety of poor choices. This leads to problems like substance abuse, crime, prostitution, teen pregnancy, dropping out of school, self-mutilation, suicide and depression. Significantly, these health problems and poor decisions interact with each other to increase risks exponentially.

How domestic violence and child abuse harm children is critical to understanding the most effective responses. Some professionals look to individual incidents and tend to focus on physical abuse. In a situation where a man and woman hit each other the professional might make the mistake of assuming the behaviors are equivalent. Aside from whether one assault was more severe, an important question is who is afraid of their partner. In many cases the woman is smaller and physically weaker and so the man is not afraid the way the woman is. Furthermore the physical incident is part of a pattern of coercive and controlling behavior that creates the stress and fear associated with health risks. This is why context is so important to understanding domestic violence. Approaches that look only at physical abuse, minimize the significance of domestic violence, miss the underlying pattern and the impact on the victim or focus on less important issues will fail to protect children from the catastrophic risks described in the ACE research.

The Saunders’ Study: Recognizing True Abuse Complaints

The disastrous impact on children of exposure to domestic violence and child abuse should require that psychologists and judges err on the side of safety and make sure they can recognize true allegations of abuse. The study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan was released by the U. S. Department of Justice in April of 2012. Dr. Saunders recommended that evaluators and other professionals receive training about the impact of domestic violence on children. The ACE research confirms the importance of this information.

The purpose of the Saunders’ study was to consider the knowledge and training of evaluators and other court professionals regarding domestic violence. He recommended that they have training in screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, post-separation violence and the impact of domestic violence on children. Many of the findings from this research raise concerns that court professionals do not have the expertise they need and this frequently leads to the failure to protect children.

Dr. Saunders emphasized that the selection of evaluators and other professionals to participate was not done on a random basis. He relied on volunteers and it is reasonable to believe the sample was weighted towards the best professionals who agreed to participate because they had greater training and interest in domestic violence issues than their colleagues. Despite this, however, approximately 30% of the evaluators said they did not have all of the necessary knowledge. Even this understates the problem as other questions demonstrated the lack of adequate training is far more widespread. Although most evaluators claimed they screened for domestic violence, when asked what tools they used many relied on standard psychological tests. These provide no information about domestic violence which means the evaluators were not conducting any effective screening. Their answers to vignettes further demonstrated inadequate understanding of domestic violence. This is the worst possible situation because these professionals did not have the necessary training but believe they do so they would be unlikely to consult with genuine experts.

Dr. Saunders found that evaluators and other professionals without the needed training tended to focus on the myth that women frequently make false allegations, unscientific alienation theories and the assumption that mothers seeking to protect children from frightening fathers were actually harming the children. Many domestic violence custody cases focus on these issues which means the courts are frequently relying on unqualified professionals. The Saunders’ study found that professionals using these methods create outcomes that hurt children.

The study also looked at what Dr. Saunders referred to as “harmful outcome” cases. These are extreme decisions in which the alleged abuser wins custody and the safe, protective mother who is the primary attachment figure is limited to supervised or no visitation. These are typically cases in which the mother raised concerns about abuse, but the court disbelieved her. These outcomes are always wrong because the harm of separating the children from their primary attachment figure, damage that includes increased risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older is greater than any benefit the court thought it was creating. In most of these cases the extreme outcome was caused by a very flawed process so frequently the opposite outcome would have benefited the children. The frequency of these harmful outcomes confirms the courts routinely rely on unqualified professionals.

The Quincy Solution:

Would Anyone Like to Share $500 Billion Every Year?

The ACE research demonstrates the enormous harm caused by tolerating domestic violence and child abuse. It not only reduces the quality and length of millions of lives, but creates enormous economic harm that impacts all of society. Research about the original Quincy Model proves that domestic violence and child abuse are not inevitable and that they can be dramatically reduced by using a group of best practices that are easily implemented. The Saunders’ study provides information on how to reform the custody court system which must be included in order to enjoy the enormous benefits from the Quincy Model with its reduction in domestic violence crimes and child abuse.

A group of leaders in Quincy, Massachusetts first individually and later working together developed a series of best practices to prevent domestic violence crime that became known as the Quincy Model. The people in Norfolk County benefited from this program from the late 1970s until the mid-1990s. District Attorney, Bill Delahunt reviewed the personal records of inmates at a nearby high security prison and noticed that virtually everyone had a childhood history that included domestic violence and/or sexual abuse. He realized that if they could prevent domestic violence crime, all crime would be reduced and that is exactly what happened. A county that had averaged 5 or 6 domestic violence homicides every year had none for several years, then one and back to none.

Some other communities like Nashville, San Diego and Duluth had similar good results with similar best practices. When some of the best practices were abandoned the murder and crime rates went back up. Since Quincy new research and technologies have become available and can be used to strengthen the model. During the Quincy Model some victims stopped cooperating after their abusers sought custody in the Probate Court. This undermined but did not derail the Quincy Model because this abuser tactic was still rare. Today it is standard practice for the worst abusive fathers to seek custody as a way to regain control over their victims. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Even in cases with abusive fathers the litigation is settled because the fathers love their children and are unwilling to deliberately hurt them by separating the children from their mothers. This often results in a settlement in which the mother gives up resources and financial support in return for custody. The biggest problem in custody courts are the 3.8% of cases which cannot be settled and go to trial and often far beyond. These are overwhelmingly domestic violence cases that cannot be settled because the abuser is willing to hurt the child in order to control and punish the mother. At the same time the abusers are very manipulative and as the Saunders’ study demonstrated the court professionals do not have the training to recognize domestic violence. The problem is compounded by the development of a cottage industry of lawyers and evaluators that earn large incomes by supporting practices that help abusers. Domestic violence is about control and includes control of the family financial resources. Accordingly the best way for professionals to make a good living is to support the side with the money.

Many court professionals are taught to misunderstand these disputes as “high conflict” cases. That assumes the victim and the abuser are equally responsible for the conflict. The courts often pressure victims to cooperate with their abusers instead of forcing the father to stop his abuse if he wants a relationship with the children. A study led by Jennifer Hardesty found that courts frequently place too much emphasis on the emotions and anger of the mother out of proportion of what it says about her parenting. Many court-sponsored committees have found widespread gender bias against women. One common example is blaming mothers for their normal reactions to the fathers’ abuse. Dr. Saunders found that courts are not requiring supervised visitation for alleged abusers as often as they should. Every year in the United States, 58,000 children are sent for custody or visitation with dangerous abusers.

If custody courts are unwilling to voluntarily create the needed reforms, the Quincy Solution protects children with the Safe Child Act. This requires that in all custody and visitation decisions the health and safety of the children must be the first priority. Many people are surprised this is not already required. The proposed legislation requires courts to use genuine experts and avoids many of the outdated practices that place children in jeopardy.

Bill Delahunt created a section in his office to prosecute incest and child sexual abuse crimes. He believed that most allegations are true despite assumptions at the time that children frequently made false complaints. The original ACE study included a confidential questionnaire of over 17,000 middle age patients. 22% stated they were sexually abused as children. They had no reason to lie about this and in fact some patients probably denied abuse because embarrassment or defense mechanisms caused them to forget. Accordingly we know sexual abuse of children is far more common than we would like to believe. Nevertheless, although research confirms mothers make deliberately false allegations of sexual abuse less than 2% of the time, custody courts are giving the alleged sexual predators custody in 85% of these cases. This means courts are sending many children to live with their rapists. In this context Saunders’ finding that inadequately trained professionals tend to focus on the myth that women frequently make false allegations is especially important.

The same pathways described in the ACE research that cause health problems to children from domestic violence and child abuse also impact direct victims of domestic violence. The Academy on Violence and Abuse studied the medical costs and estimated the United States spends $333-750 billion per year on health costs related to domestic violence. I believe the higher amount is more likely because even in medical settings victims often deny or minimize their partner’s abuse. We spend over one trillion dollars per year on crime costs and at least $200 billion is caused by domestic violence. Many victims, children, third parties and abusers never reach their financial potential substantially undermining the economy. This means in the United States, domestic violence costs us over one trillion dollars annually and should be thought of as a subsidy for abusers. Even the best practices won’t end all domestic violence or related child abuse, but based on past successes, The Quincy Solution can prevent 80% of domestic violence crime and save at least $500 billion annually.

The Quincy Solution is not magic, but just the use of a group of best practices we know can prevent domestic violence. This includes strict enforcement of criminal laws, orders of protection and probation conditions; practices that make it easier for victims to leave; coordinated community response; multi-disciplinary approaches, use of current scientific research and technology like GPS; and reform of the custody courts so abusers can no longer manipulate the courts to gain custody or pressure their victim to return.

Most women will no longer have to cope with domestic violence. Children will live in safer homes and grow up happier and healthier. We will all benefit from a stronger economy, less crime and dramatically reduced health insurance costs. Of course in order to gain these life changing benefits, abusive men will no longer be able to terrorize and control their families. Sounds like the best deal we could ever make.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence author, speaker and expert. His new book, The Quincy Solution: Stop Domestic Violence and Save $500 Billion demonstrates that domestic violence is not inevitable and we can enjoy the benefits of ending abuse through the best practices in the Quincy Solution. Barry is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody and co-author with Elizabeth Liu of Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor. To purchase the new book or join the campaign to end domestic violence with the Quincy Solution: http://stopabusecampaign.com/product/the-quincy-solution To learn more about Barry's work, check out www.Barrygoldstein.net and www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com Barry can be reached at Barryg78@aol.com

Dylan Farrow Speaks Out about Sexual Abuse

by Barry Goldstein

The original ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study led by Dr. Vincent Felitti included interviews with over 17,000 middle age and middle class patients of Kaiser Permanente. In a confidential survey 22% of the patients said they had been sexually abused as children. They had no reason or benefit for lying and it is likely some denied sexual abuse out of embarrassment or a variety of defense mechanisms. In other words this is certainly a conservative figure for the percentage of children sexually abused in the United States.

And yet most discussions about child sexual abuse are distorted by the issue of false allegations. There is a substantial group of people lying about child sexual abuse allegations. It is the people who have a financial or personal interest in supporting the myth that women and children often lie about sexual abuse. This group includes the priests and church officials who fought so long and hard to conceal the Catholic Church scandal; Jerry Sandusky and the Penn State administrators who protected him; Richard Gardner who concocted Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) to earn obscene amounts of money and protect pedophiles; the cottage industry of evaluators and lawyers who make their money supporting abusers; “fathers’ rights” organizations that are more concerned with the power and control of abusers than the health and safety of children; judges and court administrators who don’t want to admit how often they have failed to protect children and numerous other perpetrators. And as a letter from Dylan Farrow tells us, it includes Woody Allen. These scoundrels are comfortable accusing others of lying because they have been lying about the frequency of false allegations.

On this planet, we only get one chance at life. One chance at a happy, healthy and productive life. In this country we now know for sure that at least one-quarter of our children must live their only life as victims of child sexual abuse. They not only suffer the unspeakable violation, but the never ending aftermath. As a result of the actions of a predator that we failed to protect them from, the children will suffer more illnesses and injuries throughout their only lives. They will suffer far more physical and emotional pain throughout their one life. They are likely to use a variety of defense and coping mechanisms many of which will bring them still more harm. And their one life is likely to be shorter.

The Saunders’ study found the evaluators; judges and lawyers tend to pay far more attention to mothers’ anger and emotion all out of proportion to what it tells us about their parenting. The mothers see the pain and suffering their children are being put through by abusive fathers and the widespread failure of the courts to protect children. The mothers had been taught since grade school that our courts would protect victims and certainly children. How can they not be angry and emotional? This is their child’s one chance at life. What nerve to tell mothers and children to get over it, cooperate with the abuser, the child needs their (abusive) father, and we don’t believe you, and DON’T DARE BE ANGRY AND EMOTIONAL.

Perhaps the courts need to look in the mirror. They might be able to see that under current practices although mothers make deliberately false allegations of child sexual abuse less than 2% of the time, in 85% of these cases the alleged and really likely sexual abuser is given custody. And there goes the child for years of unspeakable abuse and with it goes the child’s last chance for a happy life. The statistics from court cases and from the ACE study confirm the courts are getting a high percentage of cases wrong and erring on the side of destroying children’s lives. AND YET COURT OFFICIALS SINCERELY BELIEVE THE SYSTEM IS WORKING.

Dylan Farrow Letter

Dylan Farrow is a brave young woman who recently released a letter describing the sexual assault against her by her adoptive father, Woody Allen. Her letter was published on a blog by New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof. This was a major news story and controversy when Dylan was seven-years-old and first revealed her father’s abuse. Shortly thereafter, he revealed a romantic relationship with a 19-year-old girl who was essentially his stepdaughter. They later married.

In her letter, Ms. Farrow described how Allen had engaged in many acts that we would understand as grooming a victim. Dylan tried to hide but he usually found her. She described some of the details of his sexual assault on her that led to her complaint. This resulted in a medical investigation, criminal investigation and custody dispute in which Allen used the common abuser tactic of seeking custody to punish the mother (actress Mia Farrow) and regain control.

The medical investigation at a hospital in Connecticut came to the conclusion that there was no sexual abuse. It is important to consider context in this case and understand that at that time, like today, many professionals do not have the expertise they need to investigate child sexual abuse claims and many professionals believe the myth that women and children frequently make false allegations. Allen sought to promote this myth by immediately claiming that Mia Farrow was pressuring Dylan to lie because of the problems in the relationship between Allen and Farrow. In her letter, Dylan revealed that the enormous pressure created by Allen caused her mother to ask if the allegations were true and told her it would be ok if she needed to recant.

The prosecutor decided not to bring criminal charges based on concerns about how serving as a witness would impact the child. At the press conference announcing the case was being dropped the prosecutor clearly stated that he believed the child. He was severely criticized for this statement and charged with an ethics violation, but it seems ethical for the prosecutor to support the victim and make the point that the lack of prosecution does not mean the allegations are false.

The custody case resulted in a rare successful outcome. Mia Farrow won custody of the three children and Woody Allen was denied any contact. This is an extremely rare outcome in custody cases as there was and still is a strong bias to include fathers in children’s lives. As mentioned before, custody courts rarely believe even true allegations of sexual abuse. Accordingly, the outcome suggests the evidence against Allen was incredibly strong.

Dylan described some of the consequences to her from Allen’s abuse. She said that she cut herself, suffered eating disorders and emotional problems. All of these issues are consistent with being a sexual abuse victim and support the validity of her complaint.

Misunderstanding of Innocent Until Proven Guilty

In her letter, Dylan Farrow discusses that the ambiguity of the outcome led many people to a view of “who can say what happened” and then continue as if nothing was wrong. This is a common problem, particularly in the case of celebrities. There is good reason to believe Kobe Bryant raped the woman, who complained about him, but after typically aggressive legal and public relations tactics, the charges were dropped and a settlement arranged. He has gone back to his old life and is generally treated as if no rape ever occurred.

The public has a fundamental misconception about the meaning of “innocent until proven guilty” that works against victims. This is a basic constitutional right that I fully support. We believe it is important that no one be convicted of a crime and imprisoned if they are innocent. Accordingly we have a standard that the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are willing to accept the fact that many dangerous criminals will walk free because of the importance of protecting innocent defendants up against the immense power of the government. Even with the protections we see cases in which a defendant’s innocence is demonstrated after many years in jail.

Innocent until proven guilty is an important principle, but it applies only to the government. If there were rumors that a neighbor had molested children, no responsible parent would allow their children to play in the neighbor’s home. The rumors might be completely unfair and untrue, but the potential risk to children is so catastrophic that it would be neglectful for any parent to expose their children to the danger. No reasonable parent would say that the neighbor is innocent until proven guilty so I have to let my children play in his home. The admonition does not apply to the general public, but only to the government.

In the case of Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen, the information went far beyond the rumor stage. We have a credible victim and know that in the context of custody disputes, which applies to this case, less than two percent of sexual abuse allegations are deliberately false. Allen has claimed that the complaint was in retaliation for his romantic relationship with Soon Yi Previn. She is the adoptive daughter of Mia Farrow who at the time shared three children with Woody Allen. In other words she was the equivalent of his stepdaughter. At the very least this relationship raises issues about Allen’s sense of boundaries.

There is no proof that the allegations were false. An investigation at a Connecticut hospital found the allegations to be wrong. The prosecutor, while declining to prosecute said there was probable cause to support the complaint. Perhaps most revealing is that the custody decision gave Mia Farrow custody and denied contact for Woody Allen. Many in the public may not realize how significant this decision is. The custody courts have a huge bias favoring keeping even the most abusive fathers in children’s lives. In cases involving sexual abuse allegations, 85% result in custody to the alleged abuser. The Saunders’ study from the U.S. Department of Justice found that courts do not limit alleged abusers to supervised visitation as often as they should. So for the custody court to deny the father a relationship with his children demonstrates there was strong evidence that the allegations are true. It is important to understand that if the evidence made it 90% likely Allen molested Dylan; this would justify the custody court decision but would also justify the decision not to prosecute criminally.

Much of the public and indeed many professionals do not realize how difficult it is to prove child sexual abuse. Many types of sexual assault do not leave physical or DNA evidence and in other cases the physical proof may be gone by the time the child reveals the assault. Nevertheless, many people expect physical proof or DNA evidence and this alone can create a reasonable doubt in some minds. As the letter from Dylan reminds us, sexual assault is an extremely painful and embarrassing experience. We would not expect an adult rape victim to speak about the worst event in her life without developing a trusting relationship with her therapist and yet many professionals expect children to reveal all the details after very minimal discussion designed to create trust between the child and investigator. In this case it appears that the reluctance of Dylan to speak openly with strangers was used by Allen to try to discredit her complaint.

Children often do not fully understand the significance of what the offender did to them. They may worry that they are at fault and might be punished. Accordingly, it is normal for them to first reveal to the person they most trust and to tell only part of the story in order to gauge the reaction. In this like many other cases the child tells her mother, but when the mother has a dispute with the alleged perpetrator, her involvement is viewed as suspicious. When more information comes out later, this is treated as undermining credibility by those unaware it is a normal response by children.

The underlying problem in this and so many other child sexual abuse cases is that society’s response is terrible. It is not easy to create an atmosphere and response system that allows one-quarter of our children to become victims of sexual assault. The press has to fail to cover scandals as they did with the Catholic Church and Penn State until long after it should have been obvious, and as they continue to do with the custody courts. We maintain the myth that women and children often make false allegations of abuse. As the Saunders’ study demonstrated, this myth results in inadequately trained professionals routinely disbelieving true allegations. The failure to prosecute or even make child protective complaints against abusers encourages their sense of entitlement and permits them to find still more victims as Jerry Sandusky did.

It is the harmful atmosphere, belief in the myth and misunderstanding of innocent until proven guilty that encouraged the public to move on with their lives, give Woody Allen a pass and let him continue to live a life filled with fame and honor. But there is an unacceptable price for giving Allen a pass. In doing so we hurt Dylan and the people who love her. Dylan’s letter demonstrates the pain caused by a Hollywood community that continues to honor Allen for his work seemingly without concern for his treatment of his daughter.

Alec Baldwin, who is specifically mentioned in Dylan’s letter, responded by saying the issue is none of his business. This is unsurprising from someone who has promoted a pro-pedophile theory that seeks to prevent accountability for abusers while destroying the one chance thousands of children had for a good life.

Our belief in innocent until proven guilty must not prevent the public from providing support for victims like Dylan. We have every right to shun Allen for what he did and what we believe he did. I used to enjoy Woody Allen’s movies, but I haven’t seen any since I heard the complaint. When I think of Dylan lying on her stomach in the attic, nothing Allen can produce will ever be funny. The public response obviously matters to Dylan, and that is enough for me, but it really has a far greater importance. Allen’s continued acceptance sends a terrible message to abusers that they can expect to get away with the most horrific behavior.

The message to children is even worse. Your one chance at a good life doesn’t matter. Don’t dare challenge someone wealthy and powerful. Men have the power to use and abuse children’s bodies. So be quiet and don’t dare to complain. If you think this is not the message consider that one of Sandusky’s victims explained why he didn’t come forward sooner. He didn’t think anyone would believe him.

We must believe our children. They lie about other issues but not sexual abuse. We cannot continue to take one quarter of our children, permit miscreants to sexually assault them and deprive them of their one chance for a happy life on this planet. It is a painful and difficult subject, but we cannot continue to hide our eyes and our hearts. We must believe Dylan. Thank you Dylan, for being the voice for so many children who have been silenced and abandoned.

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

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

Lies of the Fathers (Rights Groups)

by Barry Goldstein

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

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

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

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

What about Male Victims?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mothers Make False Claims

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

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

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

Shared Parenting Benefits Children

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

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

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

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

Children Need Both Parents Equally

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

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

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

Mothers Most Often Already Receive Custody

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mothers Commit Child Abuse More than Fathers

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

Courts Receive Grants to Reform Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

The 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.