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.

Custody Courts Need to Expand Sources of Information in DV Cases

by Barry Goldstein

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

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 In reality all of these professionals were using outdated and discredited practices and did not have the specific domestic violence training the Saunders’ study found necessary to make an informed decision.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

Use of a Limited Group of Professionals for Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

Need for Domestic Violence Expertise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems with Reliance on Mental Health Professionals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefit of Listening to Domestic Violence Experts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do Custody Courts Obtain Necessary DV Expertise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding Sources of Information

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The Catholic Church, Penn State, Syracuse & the Custody Courts: The Pattern of Powerful Institutions Protecting Pedophiles

By Barry Goldstein

Domestic violence experts understand the importance of looking for patterns in order to recognize and understand domestic violence. The scandals involving the Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University did not involve domestic violence, but the principles are the same. The church scandal may have involved 100,000 victims while the scandal at the colleges impacted many additional children. We can and should provide support, compassion and compensation for the victims, but can never return them to their old lives. The abusers who committed these acts are reprehensible, but the many responsible leaders of these respected institutions who failed to stop them caused even greater harm. If society fails to learn from these mistakes and use the patterns to prevent additional children from suffering the same fate we are all no better than others who covered up this abuse.

The abuse of children at these institutions is not an isolated event. It is well established that by the time children reach eighteen one third of the girls and one sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The popular stereotype of a rapist or pedophile is some stranger lurking somewhere in a raincoat, but 83% of sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows just as it was at these respected institutions. This is an extraordinarily painful and uncomfortable subject, but society cannot protect children unless it examines the patterns that have facilitated these tragedies and create responses designed to prevent such scandals from ever happening again.

The Catholic Church sex scandal continued over many decades. By some estimates two percent of priests engaged in child molestation. In many cases church administrators including the most influential leaders reassigned pedophiles to new positions with access to more child victims or sent them for treatment and then permitted them to regain access to children. In some cases victims and their parents were silenced by threats or promises. In this manner the scandal was covered up for more than a generation until exposed by lawsuits and eventual press coverage.

At Penn State a respected assistant football coach is accused of sexually abusing at least several children. In one case a graduate assistant witnessed an assault and informed Coach Paterno but nothing was done to protect the children. At Syracuse University the alleged abuser was an assistant basketball coach. When initial complaints surfaced the school asked the law firm that helps them with compliance with NCAA regulations to investigate. The firm has no expertise in sexual abuse issues and there is no indication they hired anyone with this expertise to help with the investigation. The result was the coach had more years to abuse additional children.

Looking at the Patterns

In all three cases these are powerful and respected institutions. They had the trust and admiration of many in the community. Although children rarely make false allegations of sexual abuse, denials by these institutions tended to be believed. The media and law enforcement have relationships with these institutions and were willing to give them the benefit of any doubts. The problem was compounded by the myths and misinformation related to child sexual abuse.

These institutions are also wealthy. The Catholic Church was able to pay for the treatment of pedophile priests and keep the information secret. Syracuse University could afford to hire a law firm to protect their interests and create the illusion of a reasonable response. The ESPN sports network received evidence of the coach’s abuse and failed to report on the story for many years giving the coach the opportunity to abuse still more boys. ESPN has a financial interest in covering the sports program at Syracuse. Could their financial interest influence their decision against covering the issue at least subconsciously?

The institutions also had a strong moral reputation especially the Catholic Church. Who would believe that a church that aggressively seeks to prevent sex outside of marriage and especially sex between consenting same sex partners would tolerate and protect priests who raped young boys? Penn State and Syracuse University had the reputation of running strong and ethical athletic programs and so it was difficult to believe they would tolerate or cover-up for coaches sexually abusing children. Their moral stature made their denials all the more believable.

At the same time the victims had none of these advantages and this was not a coincidence. In most cases the predators deliberately selected victims who were vulnerable and less likely to be believed. Their victims were young, had no influence in the world and not likely to be given credibility. For obvious reasons the pedophiles abused the children at a time and place where there would be no witnesses with few exceptions. Even when an incident was witnessed at Penn State, the failures of the university permitted the coach to continue his abuse.

Sexual abuse has profound negative effects on children. This experience often contributes to the child making poor choices even into their adulthood. These poor choices often get them into trouble which further undermines their credibility. Many aspects of sexual abuse, like domestic violence are counterintuitive which makes it harder for non experts to recognize and believe valid complaints. Throughout the scandals at the three institutions we heard journalists, law enforcement and other professionals without training about sexual abuse making statements to the effect that the long time it took the children to report the abuse made the reports less credible. In reality, this is a normal response for many reasons including threats, fear, embarrassment, guilt and the realistic danger that no one will believe them. This widespread ignorance from professionals and the general public (who will serve on any juries) gives sexual abusers an additional advantage.

Difficulty of Proving Child Sexual Abuse

There are many reasons why child sexual abuse is hard to prove and this applies to custody cases, criminal cases and tort cases. There are rarely witnesses to the assault for obvious reasons. Many forms of sexual assault leave no physical evidence and when there is evidence it may have disappeared by the time the child reveals the abuse. One of the biggest obstacles to proving sexual abuse in a court of law is the widespread myth that women and children often make false allegations of abuse. This is especially problematic in custody cases where most evaluators and court professionals are given inadequate domestic violence training and those without proper training are more likely to believe the myth.

Children face a lot of pressures not to reveal the abuse. Abusers often threaten to harm them or their family if they tell anyone. They are also threatened that no one will believe them and the frequency with which professionals disbelieve valid complaints by children supports this threat. When the abuse is committed by a father or other family member, the child may still love their abuser or not want to get him in trouble. Revealing something that is so painful, embarrassing and uncomfortable is difficult and often requires a lot of support which the child may not have. Children (and adults) respond to traumatic events with a variety of defense mechanisms. This is a survival mechanism that may be the best way to cope with an impossible situation. This may cause the child not to remember or otherwise delay the reports. Many people including unqualified professionals often believe the delay raises doubts about the victim’s credibility. It is common for victims of abuse to engage in illegal or other unwise behaviors that further undermine their credibility. One of the alleged Syracuse victims is charged with molesting another boy.

An important factor that helped the scandals in the Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University as well as the custody court system continue as long as they did is the widespread disinclination to believe that someone who is successful in other parts of his life could do something so disgusting. This applies to the priests who assaulted children, the assistant coaches at the two universities and many of the fathers in custody court cases. Many professionals cannot imagine that people like this could commit these crimes and so never conduct an effective investigation. This factor probably contributed to the lame investigations by police and the media regarding Syracuse University as well as the investigations by Penn State and Syracuse Universities. In the custody court, the frequent use of mental health professionals without expertise in child sexual abuse and use of the bogus Parental Alienation Syndrome contribute to the widespread failure of court professionals to believe valid allegations of child sexual abuse. Initial complaints by victims in the Catholic Church child sex abuse scandal were probably taken less seriously because they were made against clergy who would be expected to maintain high moral standards.

When child sexual abuse complaints are investigated, most are initially investigated for purposes of criminal prosecution. In the Syracuse University case, for instance it appears some of the allegations were investigated by the police and the law firm and the failure to find sufficient evidence to be able to convince a jury of the validity of the complaint beyond a reasonable doubt led to closing the case which was widely interpreted as establishing the complaints were invalid. This is part of a widespread problem about the lack of critical thinking in responding to abuse complaints.

Consider a fundamental question of what is the purpose of investigating allegations of child sexual abuse. For law enforcement the purpose is to determine if a crime has been committed and if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges. For other institutions such as schools, religious institutions, custody courts or child protective agencies, the primary purpose should be to determine if the alleged offender presents a risk to children and if so to take steps to make sure the children are protected. Too often when law enforcement believes it cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt and closes the case, other institutions treat this as if the perpetrator has been vindicated.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a heavy evidentiary burden to meet under the best of circumstances and even more difficult in cases that are notoriously hard to prove. Our system of justice deliberately makes it difficult to prove because the consequence can be taking away someone’s liberty. I certainly don’t advocate reducing the standard of proof in criminal cases, but there is no legal or moral reason to use that severe standard as a precondition for protecting children. Indeed when the issue is the safety of children any reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of protecting children.

Given the high level of proof required and the added obstacles to proving child sexual abuse, circumstances that are normal to child sexual abuse cases and information that is of little or no probative value are often sufficient to convince police and prosecutors to close cases with true allegations. The necessary reliance on the testimony of a young child, the myth of frequent false allegations, the lack of physical evidence, the delay in reporting the abuse, inappropriate later behavior by the victim and a continued relationship with the abuser are all common circumstances in child sexual abuse cases, have little or no probative value but any one of them alone can be used to claim a “reasonable doubt.”

The widespread false assumption that the failure of law enforcement to press criminal charges means the allegations were probably false automatically eliminate most valid cases. This encourages the institutions discussed in this article and others to take no steps to safeguard children from a possible or even likely sexual offender. Using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to determine who goes to jail is reasonable, but using the same standard to decide whether to protect children is unconscionable. We see a similar problem with many child protective agencies that can either determine abuse allegations are unfounded or indicated. When the caseworkers believe there is not enough evidence to bring charges they are required to close the case. In many cases the evidence is ambiguous or a fair assessment is they are not sure whether or not the allegations are true. Many agencies do not have the option of saying they cannot determine the validity of the allegation and leave the case open. The result is that many children are exposed to dangerous abusers in this way. Even worse, artificial deadlines, limited resources, the use of unqualified professionals and flawed practices undermine the ability to establish the evidence needed to protect children.

Custody Courts

It took the media far too long to expose the long and sordid history of widespread sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church. It appears some members of the media had strong proof about sexual abuse by the assistant coach of the Syracuse University Basketball team. In each case they failed to expose the scandal and protect children. When the press did start covering the scandals at the Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University they became major stories. In many ways the biggest part of each of these stories was not the sexual abuse committed by employees of these institutions but the cover-up that many of the leaders of these institutions participated in. The stories and the effect on the institutions would be far different if the leaders had quickly investigated the allegations, reported the abuse and taken steps to protect children.

It appears the cover-up by the Catholic Church is responsible for approximately 100,000 children suffering from attacks by the clergy. In fairness to the custody court system, the complaint is not that judges are sexually assaulting children but they are sending children to live with dangerous abusers. Current scientific research establishes that every year 58,000 children are sent for custody or unprotected visitation with dangerous abusers. This is caused by the widespread flawed and discredited practices used in the custody courts and the extreme defensiveness in responding to complaints from protective mothers and professionals supporting them. These tragedies have continued since at least the late 1970s although the numbers were probably significantly lower in the earlier years before the male supremacist movement and the cottage industry of professionals who earn their living supporting abusive fathers made going after custody the leading tactic to prevent battered women from leaving their abusers. A significant portion of the 58,000 children victimized each year by flawed practices in the custody court system are not sexually abused but abused physically or witness their mothers’ abuse by their father. Nevertheless the number of children subjected to sexual abuse through the practices in the custody court system is probably much higher than the number abused in the Catholic Church.

We know the custody courts are getting a very high percentage of their contested sexual abuse cases wrong because they are giving custody to the alleged abuser in 85% of the cases despite the research that establishes deliberately false complaints by mothers and children is extremely rare. In a majority of the cases with sexual abuse allegations the charges are true, many others involve boundary violations that do not have to disqualify the father for normal visitation but certainly should discourage giving him custody. The problem is that when the court disbelieves the abuse allegations it tends to punish the mother by taking custody away from her and often limiting her to supervised or no visitation. These are decisions that are extremely harmful to children. Most attorneys have little or no expertise about sexual abuse and yet they routinely discourage mothers from making sexual abuse allegations even with substantial proof because they know the likely result would be for the mother to lose custody.

Perhaps even more convincing than outcome studies is the routine use by custody courts of deeply flawed practices that give judges little chance to protect children from sexual predators. The new Department of Justice study found that most evaluators and other court professionals have inadequate training concerning domestic violence and those with inadequate training are likely to believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations of abuse and in turn make recommendations that harm children. In custody cases with sexual abuse allegations this means many of the evaluators and other professionals the courts rely on consider only the possibility that the allegations are true or the mother is making deliberate false allegations to undermine the children’s relationship with their father. The difficulty in proving child sexual abuse, widespread failure to use best investigative practices and the bias caused by the myth cause these professionals to routinely assume false allegations even when there is strong evidence supporting the mother’s allegations. Although boundary violations (which can cause children to act out in sexualized ways) and ambiguous information that may be inconclusive are far more likely than deliberate falsehoods, the inadequately trained professionals rarely even consider these possibilities and jump right to punishing the mothers by removing custody and often restricting visitation. This not only increases the risk to children but helps abusive fathers silence the children so that their continuing abuse is unlikely to be revealed.

Although the burden of proof in custody cases is typically preponderance of the evidence which translates to something just over 50%, as with the other institutions discussed in this article many court professionals use the failure of law enforcement to bring criminal charges as evidence the charges are false. Similarly they also use the failure of child protective agencies to press charges as proof of false charges. Of course the inability to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt does not establish it cannot be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Significantly over forty states and many judicial districts created court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread bias against women including requiring women to meet higher standards of proof than men. The frequent use of the lack of criminal or child protective charges as if it were proof of false allegations is a common example of placing an illegal evidentiary burden on protective mothers.

When children are sexually abused it is a painful and embarrassing experience. Like women who are raped, it is not something children are comfortable discussing. Accordingly best practices for therapists or investigators would be to take the time to develop a trusting relationship with the child before expecting the child to discuss truly painful experiences. For younger children it is particularly useful to use play therapy. This permits children to reveal whatever happened unconsciously which has the added advantage of preventing parents or others from influencing what they say. Unfortunately court professionals rarely use these best practices. We often see cases in which the caseworker or other investigator asks a few general questions like favorite food or how they like school and quickly ask questions about the alleged abuse. When a child refuses to discuss the issue or otherwise deflects the question the professional often assumes the allegations are false or at least cannot be proven.

One of the problems with custody courts’ response to domestic violence is their reliance on a half sentence. The part they have heard often is that children do better with both parents in their lives. The rest of the sentence is unless one of the parents is abusive. Having missed the critical remainder of the sentence, court professionals are often particularly anxious to actively involve the father in the children’s lives. In many cases with allegations of sexual abuse the court will initially limit the alleged abuser to supervised visitation, but there is tremendous pressure to make sure the father resumes normal visitation as quickly as possible (tellingly the courts don’t seem to feel the same pressure when mother’s are limited to supervised visitation based on alienation claims or mental health diagnoses that don’t seem to impact other parts of her life or her ability to parent the children). Accordingly the professionals rush to complete investigations, fail to use best practices and seek to reunite the father and children as quickly as possible. This results in the frequent denial of valid complaints and quickly gives the father the opportunity to silence the children. If children’s safety were the first priority as it should be and as I believe most judges would say they favor, the outcomes would be very different.

The Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University had years of opportunities to take action to stop the abusers, protect children and save their reputations. Instead they waited until criminal charges, civil suits and massive publicity forced them to respond. Ironically the desire to protect their reputations was probably an important motivation for staying silent but that silence magnified the harm to the institutions a thousand times over. The custody court system is now in a similar situation that the other institutions confronted immediately before the scandal broke. For many years protective mothers and later abused children after they aged out of custody orders that subjected them to more abuse complained to the courts. Current scientific research is now indisputable that the use of flawed and discredited practices has resulted in custody courts sending children to be raped and beaten by abusive fathers. The exposure of the scandal is taking longer because judges and some other professionals are largely immune from civil suit, they have some control over the criminal court system and with a few exceptions the media has viewed the scandal as a dispute between mothers and fathers and have avoided covering and exposing the scandal. The problem is that they have failed to look for patterns so they could understand what is happening. The custody court system has reacted extremely defensively often threatening and retaliating against mothers and professionals who sought to inform the public of the courts’ failures. Like the Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University, the custody court system is a powerful institution with substantial resources and a strong moral reputation. This has helped them put off the day they will be exposed. Their advantages have provided extra time but inevitably a sensational case or a prize winning journalist will expose the continuing scandal and the rest of the media will jump onboard. As someone who worked within the custody court system for thirty years I still hope and believe that they can recognize the problem, reform the flawed practices, retrain the professionals it relies on and start protecting the children in its care. They would probably take some criticism for waiting so long, but nothing like the coverage of the Catholic Church, Penn State and Syracuse University. Making the reforms voluntarily instead of responding only after the scandal breaks would save the court system a lot of trouble, money and damage to their reputation. I believe the scandals we have discussed in this article make it more likely that some reporters (and perhaps more importantly their bosses) will be ready to break a story that I believe has Pulitzer Prize written all over it. In other words the custody courts need a sense of urgency in creating the needed reforms for their sake and to protect the children.

Preventing Sexual Abuse of Children

This is a painful and unpleasant topic to discuss. This discomfort probably contributes to the failure of the media to expose these scandals more quickly. I am hopeful that the massive coverage of the tragedies discussed in this article will encourage the media to perform its role in exposing scandals and particularly crimes, and flawed practices that place children in danger. Already I have seen a wonderful article by Wendy Murphy, who every year makes a provocative presentation to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, about the importance of accountable language in discussing stories about offenders’ rape and abuse of children. The media often describes events in ways that blame the children, invisibilize the perpetrators and describe the brutal and demeaning acts as if they were pleasant or titillating. The media makes similar errors in writing about domestic violence cases often creating a sympathetic description of men who murder their partners and sometimes their children.

One of the problems is that journalists, like judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, college administrators and the public do not have the training or expertise to understand and respond appropriately to domestic violence or offenders’ rape and brutalization of children. There is a specialized body of current research and there are wonderful professionals who have the expertise to assist courts, journalists and survivors. This expertise was not always available so society needs to get into the habit of seeking this expertise when confronted with these issues. There are mental health professionals who have this expertise, but it is not based on their academic training but on extensive practice with survivors and familiarity with current research. The media should not shy away from covering these stories even if they make themselves and the public uncomfortable, but they should make it a habit of seeking assistance from genuine experts.

Journalists need to provide context for their stories. Many people believe that women and children frequently make false allegations of abuse and that a delay in reporting the abuse is an indication of a false report. The news stories should include interviews with experts or references to research that provide accurate information in order to challenge the myths and stereotypes that are so prevalent. When the sexual assault case involving Duke lacrosse players fell apart the media failed to place the events in context by informing the public that deliberately false allegations are extremely rare and the results at Duke constituted a rare exception. They generally treated the players as completely vindicated despite what was at best obnoxious and loutish behavior.

One of the problems is the lack of clear thinking about the concept of innocent until proven guilty. We often forget that this applies only to the criminal justice system which cannot presume a defendant charged with a crime is guilty or punish him unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt or he admits his crime by pleading guilty. The system was designed so that guilty defendants sometimes walk free in order to make it rare for innocent defendants to be convicted. In other words there is a difference between not guilty and innocent. Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to the rest of the public or the media although the media must consider defamation laws. In the Kobe Bryant case the criminal charges were dropped and he later reached a civil settlement with his alleged victim. He has largely been treated as if he were vindicated although there is a good chance he committed the crimes originally charged. A civil settlement is not an admission. Instead it means that he may or may not have committed the crime just as a not guilty verdict does. Clearly the media could do a better job of explaining this. If the public knew there were pending or possible charges against the assistant coaches at Penn State and Syracuse University, parents could have taken steps to protect their children. This would be unfair to the coaches if they never acted inappropriately, but the safety of children should be the higher priority.

Indeed society’s response to sexual assaults against children ought to be changed to make the safety of children the first priority. There are valid justifications for statutes of limitation and charges from many years ago can be difficult to defend (and prosecute) with witnesses dead or unavailable and memories faded. Nevertheless the frequency of children not reporting these crimes for many years if at all and the frequency in which the perpetrator discouraged the reports through threats, gifts or promises supports extending the time for reporting to a more realistic time frame. As I write this the prosecutor in Syracuse stated that the charges against the assistant coach are credible but he cannot prosecute because of the statute of limitations. A court could throw out a criminal complaint if the circumstances and delay made it unfair to the defendant, but an arbitrary statute of limitations gives the court no alternative but to allow a likely sex offender to continue seeking his prey.

Communities need to have the resources and expertise available to support the survivors and develop the evidence needed to take the criminals off the streets. Child protective caseworkers and other professionals involved in these cases need better training and retraining to eliminate the widespread use of myths and stereotypes. Programs need to be developed for children to meet with trained experts who can take the time to work with the children, develop trusting relationships and give children a safe place to reveal what the perpetrator did. These professionals can then be expert witnesses to support the allegations both in criminal court and custody court. Some communities already have good programs like this. There is a cost to these programs, but what often gets overlooked is the cost to society of allowing predators to keep raping and assaulting children and of failing to provide the therapy children need costs far more in criminal, health and other costs. Attempts to save money on programs to prevent domestic violence and child abuse actually cost far more financially and in personal devastation.

The custody court system also needs to make safety the first priority starting with the recognition that the present practices are working poorly for children. Courts must stop using mental health professionals with inadequate training in domestic violence and child abuse and those who believe the myth. If court administrators do not believe they are routinely using unqualified professionals they should review the Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders. Other court professionals need to be retrained to stop relying on the misinformation that is so prevalent in the custody courts. They need to look to the specialized body of scientific research and genuine experts for assistance. When allegations are pending, courts must avoid custody or visitation arrangements that give the alleged abuser the ability to silence the children. Stop using bogus theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome that have no scientific basis and were concocted based on the false assumption that virtually every allegation of abuse is false.

When I was a boy, I was a big Yankee fan and my favorite player was Mickey Mantle. I did not know or understand at the time that he engaged in many inappropriate behaviors. Towards the end of his life he demonstrated remarkable courage and candor when he told his fans “Don’t be like me.” Recently, in response to the Penn State Scandal, Archbishop Timothy Dolan declined to offer advice acknowledging that the Catholic Church had done a poor job in responding to similar issues. He is right that the Catholic Church can never undo the enormous harm it caused to children in its care. Certainly they need to help the victims and take steps to make sure this never happens again, but that is not enough. I believe they have an opportunity to use their experience to help prevent other children from suffering similar life-destroying experiences. They should stand with protective mothers and their children (including many Catholics) to encourage the custody court system to make the needed reforms.

They have the influence and access to deliver their message and make sure it is heard. Priests can deliver sermons informing the congregation of the widespread failure of custody courts to protect children. They can support protective mothers and use the moral force of the church to pressure abusive fathers to stop their abuse and stop playing the custody card in ways that ruin their children’s lives. They can write about the problem in their church publications and gain newspaper columns to address this issue. Perhaps most important they can set up meetings with administrative judges. They can provide the research of how the custody courts have failed to protect children. They can explain the harm to the church of covering up for so long and like Mickey Mantle tell the judges “Don’t be like us.” I believe the moral way to respond to their history of tolerating the abuse of children is to help prevent other children from suffering a similar fate.

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

The 9th annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference will be held January 6-8 in Albany, New York. For more information check out the Battered Mothers Custody Conference web site. I hope to see many of you at the conference.