EXTREME CUSTODY DECISIONS THAT RISK LIVES

Dear Custody Court Judge:

The research is now clear that certain extreme decisions in domestic violence custody cases that have become all too common are contributing to an increase in the frequency of domestic violence homicide and other harmful consequences. This is established in the leading resources about domestic violence and custody including THE BATTERER AS PARENT by Lundy Bancroft and Jay Silverman, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY edited by Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein and the major new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders of the University of Michigan. Judges should be aware of the research that demonstrates the danger of creating these dangerous decisions avoid these decisions in the future and modify existing arrangements that create substantial risks to the children.

The decisions that must be avoided and corrected are ones in which an alleged abuser is given custody and a safe, protective mother is limited to supervised or no visitation. I will more fully describe these dangerous cases below and I am not saying it can never be right to give someone custody who was accused of domestic violence or child abuse or that a mother who makes abuse allegations should never be denied normal visitation.

I will discuss the harm and danger of these extreme decisions below, but judges should be aware that these decisions are probably the largest factor in the recent increase in domestic violence homicide. Furthermore these extreme decisions are never in the best interests of children even when the court is right that the abuse allegations are false and the mother seeks to take the father out of the child’s life for bad faith reasons. More commonly, the research demonstrates that court professionals who used flawed practices to justify the extreme decision also got the underlying facts wrong. Judges should look to the specialized body of research now available that can help courts make the best decisions in domestic violence custody cases.

Description of Extreme Cases

The extreme cases I am speaking about include evidence or at least allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. It is not limited to cases in which the allegations are confirmed or believed. The research establishes that courts fail to recognize valid complaints about domestic violence and child abuse with frightening frequency because of the outdated and discredited practices that continue to be used in domestic violence custody cases despite the scientific research now available. Furthermore, even when courts reject abuse allegations because of inadequate proof or in rare cases in which mothers make deliberately false allegations, courts have a tendency to punish mothers in ways that are harmful to the children.

Most of these cases involve mothers who are the primary attachment figures for their children. Primary attachment is created in the first couple of years of a child’s life so later care or custody of a child does not change the primary attachment figure. Some court professionals confuse continuity, which is a valid consideration with primary attachment which is far more significant to children. Primary attachment is often minimized by custody courts because of stereotypes and gender bias. Mothers are often expected to provide most of the child care so they receive little credit or benefit for doing so even though it makes a big difference to the well being of children. In fairness to judges, many attorneys fail to present evidence about the mothers’ early care for her children and the significance of that care.

In attempting to treat both parents equally, courts often fail to understand that the parents may not be of equal importance to the well being of their children based on past parenting such as superior parenting skills, non-abusiveness and primary attachment. When a court treats unequal parents as if their value to the child is the same, this is actually a bias favoring the weaker parent and certainly not in the best interests of the children. Children who are separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to suffer depression, low self-esteem and to commit suicide when they are older. It cannot be beneficial to subject children to such substantial risks unless the primary attachment figure is unsafe, but courts routinely do so when they treat alienation as if it were more significant than primary attachment or abuse.

If custody courts were acting in the best interests of children as required by statute, they would be weighing the harms and benefits of any proposed custody-visitation arrangement. So if a mother was a drug addict she could not be relied upon to keep her children safe and healthy. If she beat the children, that would create an obvious safety risk. If she had a mental illness so serious that it would prevent her from taking proper care of her children, this would create a safety risk. I must emphasize, however that many of the mental health diagnoses seen in custody court are inaccurate because of flawed practices and biases and in any event do not create a legitimate safety issue. The kinds of safety issues discussed in this paragraph are more serious than the risks of separating a child from her primary attachment figure and would justify the extreme decisions discussed in this article. The problem is that most of the extreme decisions are justified by reasons that do not involve a safety issue and are likely to create more harm than benefit for the children.

The extreme decisions frequently imposed on protective mothers come in the context of a court system that is extremely reluctant to restrict fathers who abused their partners to supervised visitation as recommended by leading domestic violence experts such as Lundy Bancroft and Peter Jaffe. Children who witness domestic violence are prevented from reaching their developmental goals which in turn interferes with their ability to reach future developmental milestones. These children are also more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful behavior when they are older including substance abuse, self-mutilation, suicide, prostitution, crime, teen pregnancy, school drop-out and for boys to abuse future partners and girls to be abused by future partners. Again these are valid safety concerns that justify visitation restrictions. Some unqualified professionals unfamiliar with domestic violence dynamics minimize these risks because the parties are separated or the father stopped assaulting his partner when he no longer had access to her. Domestic violence is not caused by the victim’s behavior, but by the abuser’s belief system. There is no reason to believe the end of the relationship will change his beliefs so if the father is given custody or unsupervised visitation, the children are likely to witness his abuse of future partners. Over forty states have created court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias particularly against mothers in custody cases. The willingness and almost eagerness to engage in these extreme decisions against protective mothers, together with the reluctance to limit contact with dangerous fathers demonstrates the impact of gender bias in domestic violence custody cases.

For purposes of this article, these extreme cases are ones in which there is no legitimate safety issue to justify decisions that place children in jeopardy. One common example of a non-safety issue is the use of alienation to justify the extreme decisions. One of the problems with alienation is that courts often allow fathers to make a general complaint claiming alienation without specifying exactly what the mother is alleged to have done. This makes it difficult to defend and raises due process concerns. If the concern is that the mother is making negative statements about the father, where is the research that demonstrates the long term harm to children hearing these statements? There is none. Children hear negative statements like this even in intact families. The most likely result is to harm the relationship with the parent making these statements if they are false. Even when the statements cause some harm to the relationship, these effects are generally short term. More often in domestic violence cases the real problem with the father’s relationship is his mistreatment of the mother or children as when Alec Baldwin called his daughter vile names, threatened her and then wanted to blame the mother for the natural effects of his abusive behavior. We often see mental health professionals lacking domestic violence expertise pathologize the victim and use this to justify the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article. I will discuss this in more detail below, but these are rarely safety issues. Courts also sometimes impose the extreme decisions to punish mothers who continue to believe their allegations of abuse after the court denied them, criticize the judge or otherwise act in ways the judge disapproves of. Given the harm to children of separating them from their primary attachment figure, none of these justifications rise to the level of safety issues so that the restrictions on the children’s ability to see their primary attachment figure are far more harmful than any benefit the court believes it is providing for the children.

Extreme Decisions Contribute to Rising Domestic Violence Homicide Rate

When domestic violence first became a public issue over thirty years ago there was no research to inform decision making by institutions charged with responding to domestic violence. The standard police response was to separate the parties and have the abuser walk around the block to cool off. This is how police officers were trained to respond and was considered best practices. Later, researchers found that this response was ineffective. In 95% of cases in which men murdered their intimate partner, the police had been called and used the standard response. On average the police had been called to the home in response to the abuser’s violence five times. The information from the research and lobbying by those working to end domestic violence led police departments across the country to adopt a pro arrest policy. These and other policies designed to hold abusers accountable and make it easier for women to leave their abusers resulted in a significant reduction in domestic violence homicides. The benefit of strict accountability was confirmed by some communities like Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California that obtained even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide by stricter enforcement of criminal laws and restraining orders against abusers.

The steady decrease in domestic violence homicides continued until recently when many states reported a resurgence in intimate partner homicides. Some people have suggested the poor economy has caused this increase, but a lot of research and information suggests the frequency of custody court decisions favoring dangerous abusers and particularly the extreme decisions discussed in this article have been a major factor in the increase in domestic violence homicides. A large part of the reduction in domestic violence homicides had been aided by providing victims with safer ways to leave their abuser. Court decisions, particularly in criminal cases taking domestic violence more seriously sent an important message that society no longer tolerated abusive behavior. The frequent custody decisions supporting abusers have undermined this progress and sent the opposite message. Domestic violence advocates have told me that they are seeing more mothers staying with their abusers and taking his beatings because they are afraid the custody court will separate them from their children and they won’t be able to protect them. Of course some of these mothers do not survive this decision. At the same time, custody decisions that minimize the significance or fail to recognize the father’s abuse are sending a terrible message that society will tolerate this abuse. For many years, Dutchess County, New York permitted many court professionals with strong fathers’ rights sympathies to work in the custody court. This led to numerous extreme decisions against safe, protective mothers. This in turn led to a series of domestic violence homicides and now the community is trying to create a coordinated community response and change practices that have encouraged these tragedies including the murder of a police officer by an abusive father in the aftermath of one of these murders.

Custody courts also developed their practices to respond to domestic violence cases at a time when no useful research was available. The courts turned to mental health professionals for expertise based on the widespread assumption that domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. We now have a substantial body of research that establishes these assumptions were wrong and the standard practices are working poorly for children. The evaluators and other mental health professionals routinely relied on by the courts are not experts in domestic violence and usually unfamiliar with the specialized body of research now available. This has led judges and lawyers to be taught a lot of misinformation and continue to use outdated and discredited practices. Significantly, the Department of Justice study found many evaluators and other court professionals do not have the domestic violence training they need. Those professionals without the needed training are more likely to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse and therefore make recommendations harmful to children. We often see court professionals make reference to this myth and it is especially influential in the extreme decisions discussed in this article. Even if you know mothers in contested custody cases make deliberate false allegations only one or two percent of the time, you may be influenced by other court professionals making recommendations based on this myth. Parental Alienation Syndrome (also often referred to as parental alienation or just alienation because of its notoriety), which was recently rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V (that lists all valid mental health diagnoses) because there is no scientific basis for it, is based on the assumption that virtually all allegations of abuse by mothers are false. In fairness to judges, they were often never told that PAS is based not on any research but the beliefs and biases of Richard Gardner. Gardner, who made a fortune providing expert testimony for abusers made many statements to the effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. It is hard to imagine many judges would want to be connected with such beliefs if they had known the basis for the PAS formulation. Alienation tactics based on PAS are probably the most common basis for the extreme decisions as the theory recommends punitive actions against protective mothers without considering the harm to children.

Most court professionals have been taught that contested custody are ”high conflict” cases by which they mean the parents are angry with each other and act out in ways that hurt their children. The actual research shows a different story. Most custody cases are settled more or less amicably. Even abusive fathers who are willing to seek custody for strategic reasons will ultimately settle usually for an unfair financial advantage and often a custodial arrangement that gives him some continued control over his victim. Even though these fathers are abusive they are not willing to hurt their children in order to punish the mother. Of course most custody cases do not involve domestic violence and these are easily settled once the parties get past their hurt. Accordingly over 95% of custody cases are settled more or less amicably.

The real problem is the 3.8% of cases that go to trial and usually far beyond. The vast majority of these cases, probably around 90% are domestic violence cases that involve the worst of the worst abusers. These are usually cases where the father had little involvement with the children during the relationship, but suddenly demands custody as a way to pressure her to return or punish her for leaving. Abusers tend to be good at manipulation and court professionals are usually happy to find a father who appears to want to be involved in his children’s lives. The flawed “high conflict” approach works great for abusers because it requires the parties to interact and cooperate with each other. This gives him the access to his victim he sought by playing the custody card. At the same time it pressures the mother to cooperate with her abuser and punishes her reluctance to interact with someone she experienced as dangerous and difficult. In other words the “high conflict” approach gives abusers a huge advantage.

The most dangerous abusers are the ones who believe she has no right to leave him. They usually respond to her leaving in one or more of three ways. They respond by killing her which is why75% of men who kill their partners do so after she has left. They respond by killing their children. In the last couple of years over 175 children have been murdered by abusive fathers involved in contested custody cases. Most often they respond by going after custody as a tactic to regain control and too often custody courts help them do so.

In one California case featured on the Dr. Phil Program, Katie Tagle asked Judge Lemkau to limit the father to supervised visitation after he threatened to kill the baby. The transcript of the hearing shows that the judge stated he thought the mother was lying and threatened to punish her. During the unsupervised visitation, the father murdered seven-month-old Baby Wyatt and himself. I am sure Judge Lemkau was sincere when he expressed how sorry he was for what happened, but said there was nothing he could have done based on the information before him. In a sense, he is right. As long as he and other judges continue to use the outdated and discredited practices routinely relied on in domestic violence custody cases, you have little chance to protect the children whose futures you must determine.

The first priority in any custody case ought to be safety, but that cannot happen as long as custody courts continue to rely on professionals without the needed expertise in domestic violence. Many communities have developed practices where child protective agencies and domestic violence agencies work together on domestic violence issues. They cross-train staffs and when a potential domestic violence case develops, the caseworker will consult with a domestic violence advocate and even bring her to the home. This has resulted in a better ability to recognize domestic violence when it is present and respond in ways that benefit children. This should be understood as a fundamental part of best practices. Psychiatrists and psychologists are encouraged to consult with experts in fields in which they do not have expertise when that is a vital part of the case they are working on. Evaluators rarely consult with domestic violence advocates or other experts even though they rarely possess the domestic violence expertise they need or familiarity with current scientific research. Domestic violence advocates routinely conduct safety assessments for their clients. There are many common abuser behaviors such as strangling or choking his victim, raping or attempting to rape her and hitting her while pregnant that are associated with higher rates of lethality. We virtually never see evaluators discussing the significance of these and other dangerous behaviors. If they are not doing a lethality assessment, the evaluators cannot tell judges which alleged abusers are unsafe. Instead we routinely see evaluators focus on less important issues because they don’t have the expertise to recognize the dangers. Even worse they frequently seek to punish mothers who know their abusers are dangerous after failing to recognize the danger because of their lack of expertise. This is common in the extreme decisions discussed in this article.

There is good reason to believe there is a strong connection to the extreme decisions discussed in this article and the sudden rise in domestic violence homicides after many years of decline. These cases are dealing with the most dangerous abusers. The frequency of these extreme decisions has led many victims to stay with their abusers. Some of these mothers will not survive the decision. Perhaps most significant is that these decisions send a horrible message of support for abusers which only serves to support their dangerous beliefs. I am sure this is not your intent, but it is the message these extreme decisions send to the community.

These Extreme Decisions are almost Always Harmful to Children

The extreme decisions described in this article are the focus of much of the review of domestic violence custody cases because they trigger the most legitimate complaints. Thousands of these cases have been reviewed and we rarely find any attempt by the court professionals to weigh the harm caused by these decisions with whatever benefit the court believes it is providing to the children. The decisions are virtually always wrong because separating a child from her primary attachment figure significantly increases the child’s risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older. When the justifications for limiting the mother’s contact with the child to supervised or less do not involve safety issues, the restrictions on the mother’s access are more harmful than any benefits. In other words, even if the court’s factual findings are accurate, the decision is a mistake.

Many of these decisions are based on findings that the mother suffers from some kind of mental illness. Repeatedly we have seen unqualified and biased mental health professionals pathologize the victim and impose false or exaggerated diagnoses based upon considering facts out of context. In many cases mothers have been labeled delusional or paranoid because professionals without adequate training in domestic violence failed to recognize the proof of the father’s domestic violence. Other common mistakes are based on the misuse of psychological testing. Most judges and lawyers are not aware that these tests were not created for the populations seen in custody court and are based on probabilities so may not apply to the parties in a specific case. The tests were designed for patients in mental hospitals who have severe mental illnesses. In the context of family court, parents under stress or with minor differences from the average person are diagnosed as if the differences are significant. Under the best of circumstances, the results of psychological tests are accurate between 55-65% of the time. If I went to court and told you that 98% of domestic violence allegations by mothers are accurate, you would quite properly tell me that you have to look at each case separately because this father might be part of the 2% and yet the courts routinely rely on tests that don’t apply to at least 35% of the parties. Even worse, the tests are less reliable when given to parties under stress such as victims of domestic violence and those involved in difficult custody cases. Evaluators rarely explain that the tests are based on probabilities. Repeatedly we have seen mothers who have no problems dealing with family, jobs, school and other parts of their lives labeled with disqualifying mental illnesses. While they may be impacted by the pressure of custody court and the use of litigation abuse by the father, these mothers are safe as parents and sane in every other part of their lives. In almost all of these cases the mother has always taken good care of the children and the father allowed and often demanded she provide the child care right up until she decided to leave him. She did not suddenly become crazy because she left him except in his eyes.

Another common excuse for the kind of extreme decision discussed in this article is some version of alienation. This is a common abuser tactic and in many of these decisions the problems with the relationship between the father and children were caused by the father’s behavior. Court professionals have constantly heard and relied on half a sentence. The half they are familiar with is that children do better with both parents in their lives. This is a true statement, but the rest of the statement is unless one of the parents is abusive. Interestingly this statement seems to get little consideration when a mother is taken out of the child’s life. As mentioned earlier, alienation issues tend to be short lived and there is no research that demonstrates the kind of long term harm that has been shown to children separated from their primary attachment figure. I am not saying that alienating behaviors are not a legitimate issue, but only there is no basis in scientific research that justifies the harm done to a child in losing regular contact with her primary attachment figure. Supervised visitation is not sufficient to avoid this serious harm.

These extreme decisions are also made as a way to punish the mother for continuing to believe her abuse allegations after the court denies them, her continued fear or anger towards her alleged abuser, attempts to obtain publicity, failure to pay support or economic sanctions, criticism of the judge and other similar issues. Courts that limit mothers’ contact with the children for these types of reasons fail to recognize they are really punishing and hurting the children. Significantly, the motivation of most abusers seeking custody is to punish the mother for leaving and it is particularly harmful for courts to help him do so. The fathers understand the best way to hurt the mother is to hurt her children, but the judge is supposed to help the children. Even if the facts the judge believes justifies action against the mother are true, they can never justify extreme decisions that place the future of the children in jeopardy.

Sexual Abuse Cases

Many of the extreme decisions come in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse. By the time children reach the age of eighteen, one-third of the girls and one-sixth of the boys have been sexually abused. The stereotypical rapist or sexual abuser is a stranger, but 83% of rape and sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows. For young children, this is often their father, but when allegations are made by mothers in custody cases, the alleged abuser receives custody 85% of the time and the mother is often denied any meaningful relationship with the children she tried to protect. A large majority of these decisions are wrong and it is extremely difficult for judges to get these cases right with the deeply flawed practices that are standard in these cases.

Many years ago, three brave children complained their father was physically and sexually abusing them. The mother obtained a protective order limiting the father to supervised visitation and sought custody. The children told the CPS caseworker, their attorney, the judge and the court-appointed evaluator what their father did to them. As is common in these cases, these professionals decided the mother was brainwashing the children and they threatened to take custody away from her unless she stopped. The judge ordered a resumption of unsupervised visitation that weekend. Before the first visitation could start, the father was confronted by the baby sitter in the presence of the children’s law guardian and admitted kissing his daughters on their privates. The law guardian immediately made a motion to stop the visitation which I supported. The judge consulted the evaluator who said the father used bad judgment, but there was no reason to stop the visitation. During the first visit the four-year-old was penetrated for the first time.

I called CPS based on the father’s admission which had not been part of the original investigation. When the judge found out he yelled and screamed at me saying that the allegations had already been investigated. This time a new caseworker did a thorough job and found the father had done even worse than we alleged. They filed charges against the father and he never again had anything but supervised visitation.

The caseworker and I were invited to a celebratory dinner after the mother won custody. The children had gifts for us, but most important they had a name for us. They called us believers because we believed them when all the professionals charged with protecting them didn’t. There is no greater honor than to be called a believer and the problem is that a lot of custody court professionals are not believers. They instead believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations as again confirmed in the recent Justice Department study.

The evaluator in this case was a psychiatrist who was the favorite evaluator of all the judges in Westchester County, New York. He had a very positive reputation and in fact was excellent in cases that did not involve domestic violence or child abuse. Many years after this case a mother was pressured to accept joint custody with her abuser and this psychiatrist was appointed to resolve any issues the parents could not decide on their own. The mother learned that the father’s new partner had suffered a mental breakdown at a birthday party attended by her son. She called the psychiatrist to discuss how to handle the situation. The psychiatrist responded completely appropriately and then told her that when she first called he thought she was going to claim that her son was sexually abused AND HE WAS FULLY PREPARED NOT TO BELIEVE IT. In other words, no matter how strong the evidence, if this evaluator was appointed (and he handled most custody cases in Westchester), a mother had virtually no chance of convincing him about her allegations of abuse and the judges were almost certain to follow his recommendation. While few evaluators would express their disbelief of all sexual abuse allegations so openly, his views are all too typical. This gives even good judges little chance to get sexual abuse cases right.

Sexual abuse is extremely difficult to prove especially with young children. Many professionals expect physical proof, but many forms of sexual abuse do not leave physical evidence and any evidence is often destroyed by the time the child reports the abuse. We often see valid claims of abuse dismissed for reasons that are not probative such as the failure of prosecutors or child protective to bring charges, the reluctance of children to discuss the abuse particularly with someone with whom they have not developed a trusting relationship with and unqualified professionals often take a child’s matter of fact demeanor as if it disproves the allegations. Most prosecutors know that victims often recant valid allegations of abuse for many good reasons, but custody court professionals routinely use this as absolute proof the mother pressured the child to make a false allegation.

When a mother or child makes allegations of sexual abuse the most likely circumstance is that the allegation is true. The next most likely is that the allegation is based upon behavior that made the child act out in ways that suggested sexual abuse but were actually boundary violations. Other common causes are good faith complaints that turn out not to be true or situations where there is not sufficient evidence to determine the validity of the allegations. The least likely cause is deliberate false allegations by mothers, but inadequately trained court professionals frequently jump to this conclusion which often results in the kind of extreme and mistaken decisions discussed in this article.

In one New Jersey case, DYFS and the court completely mishandled both the domestic violence and sexual abuse issues. DYFS has now adopted best practices for potential domestic violence cases by making consultation with domestic violence advocates a standard response. This has been shown to give them the best chance to recognize domestic violence and make arrangements that work best for children. This case started before they adopted best practices and so never consulted with a domestic violence advocate even though the case is ongoing. They failed to recognize the father’s history of domestic violence. After the father was given custody and the mother limited to supervised visitation, an unqualified therapist inadvertently discovered the father had broken into his previous girl friend’s apartment after they separated and she had to obtain a restraining order. The unqualified therapist forced the mother to have joint counseling with her abuser and ignored his discovery because he did not understand its significance. DYFS later hired a psychologist who was familiar with current scientific research and was the only professional hired by them to cite research to support her recommendations. She immediately understood his history of domestic violence, together with other evidence the unqualified professionals failed to understand the significance of, confirmed the mother’s allegations of domestic violence and should have resulted in a reversal of the mistaken living arrangements.

DYFS sought to limit the mother to supervised visitation after all their unqualified professionals decided she had made deliberately false allegations. The evidence included the decision by DYFS and the prosecutor not to bring charges. As discussed earlier, the difficulty in proving sexual abuse means the failure to press charges does not establish the allegations were false and in the case of the prosecutor the inability to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt certainly does not mean the charges were false. DYFS interviewed the child without developing a trusting relationship and when she didn’t immediately repeat her allegations or with other professionals was reluctant to speak about them they concluded the allegations were deliberately false. Reports from the child’s therapist with whom she had a trusting relationship showed that the child reported the abuse but was reluctant to speak about it and used a matter of fact tone. The unqualified professionals immediately assumed that either the allegations were true or deliberately false so when they discredited the allegations proceeded as if the mother deliberately made false allegations.

The psychologist later hired by DYFS reviewed the records and recognized that the facts used by DYFS to discredit the allegations were not probative and cited research to support her findings. Again DYFS and the court ignored the findings of the one professional, who was both neutral and familiar with current scientific research. In reality, this was a very young girl who did not know the significance of whatever was done to her. Something her father and grandmother did made her uncomfortable and she told the person she most trusted, her mother. It was difficult for her to tell others although she did tell her therapist and a few other professionals. She was uncomfortable speaking about it. The evidence does not definitively establish if she was sexually abused or if her boundaries were violated. These are the two possibilities supported by the evidence that the professionals should have focused on, but instead they focused on false allegations just as the Justice Department study says is done by professionals with inadequate training. The result is that the child is forced to live with a dangerous abuser and denied a normal relationship with her primary attachment figure who is a safe, protective mother. In other words the court created one of these extreme decisions because it relied on unqualified professionals and failed to look to current scientific research to inform its decision.

In a Dutchess County case, the mother did everything right and the actions she complained about were admitted and still she was found to have made false sexual abuse allegations to gain an advantage in the litigation. The mother met with the school nurse who told the mother about incidents in which her child acted out in a sexualized way. The nurse advised the mother to seek therapy for her son. She took the child to the family services center that is regularly used by the courts and police as the nurse suggested. They selected the therapist to treat her son. The mother was concerned that the father would scratch the children all over their almost naked bodies, but not on their privates. They reacted in an inappropriately excited way and begged their mother to do this to them. The therapist believed this constituted sexual abuse and called child protective. The mother begged her not to because she was afraid of the reaction by her abuser. During couples counseling, the therapist for the mother and father also concluded the father’s actions were sexually abusive. The father admitted what he did and promised not to do it anymore. CPS also confirmed what the father did, but did not consider this to constitute sexual abuse and so unfounded the case. In the custody decision the judge treated the allegations as if they were deliberately false and punished the mother even though the acts she complained of were confirmed and two neutral therapists believed the actions were harmful to the children. The abuser won custody and the mother, who had been the primary attachment figure, was limited to supervised visitation. When good judges use bad practices to create these extreme decisions, it is easier for bad judges to get away with the extreme decisions even when there is no basis because his decisions are not that different from the mistakes by good judges.

Extreme Decisions Usually Have Underlying Facts Wrong

When the mother is safe, decisions that give custody to the alleged abuser and limit her to supervised visitation are virtually always wrong because the harm of denying the children a normal relationship with their primary attachment figure is greater than any benefit the court believes it is providing. These wrong decisions can only be obtained through the use of deeply flawed practices so it is not surprising that courts often also made substantial mistakes in their factual findings.

Often the key to understanding the case has to do with the domestic violence allegations, but unfortunately, although most professionals now have some minimum amount of domestic violence training, they have never learned how to recognize domestic violence or the importance of consulting with a domestic violence expert who understands the dynamics of domestic violence and is familiar with current scientific research.

Judge Mike Brigner wrote that when he trains judges and other court professionals about domestic violence, the most common question he receives is what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they cite behaviors like returning to her abuser, seeking a restraining order and not following-up and the failure to have police or medical records. All of these are common behaviors of battered women for safety and other reasons particularly if she is still living with him, but court professionals repeatedly treat these actions as if they prove her allegations are false. Another common mistake is for a professional to observe the children interact with their father and when they don’t show fear, the professionals assume it means the father could not be abusive. The children understand that he would not hurt them in front of witnesses, particularly someone he is trying to impress. When court professionals believe these common behaviors disprove domestic violence allegations, they give the judge very little chance of recognizing valid allegations of abuse.

Another common mistake is to look only at physical abuse in considering the mother’s allegations. Domestic violence are tactics abusers use to maintain what they believe is their right to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship. Most domestic violence is neither physical nor criminal. Lawyers should present the pattern of the father’s controlling and coercive behaviors and judges should be looking for this pattern. This would include not only physical abuse, but verbal, emotional and psychological abuse. It would include economic abuse and control, litigation abuse designed to bankrupt or otherwise harm his victim, isolating behaviors, monitoring behaviors, threats as well as evidence that shows the father’s motivation for seeking custody. In cases in which the mother did most of the child care during the relationship, the court should consider why the father is suddenly seeking custody and why is he willing to harm the children he claims to love by removing their primary attachment figure. The father may not know the exact harm demonstrated by the research but should have a general sense that children are harmed when denied their primary attachment figure.

The Department of Justice study found that court professionals pay far too much attention to the anger or emotion a mother displays in court in comparison to its significance in determining how good a mother she is. Similarly over forty states have had court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found substantial bias against women and particularly against mothers involved in custody disputes. One of the common forms of bias is to blame a mother for the actions of her abuser. This is exactly what a court does when it blames the mother for her emotion or anger caused by the father’s history of abuse and use of abusive litigation tactics instead of blaming him for intimidating and coercive behaviors that caused her reaction. Gender bias is often difficult to recognize because it is not done deliberately or consciously and some court professionals become extremely defensive when this issue is raised. A good remedy is to frequently consider how you would have reacted to the same situation if the genders were reversed.

We often hear judges complain about how difficult it is to decide a he-said she-said case. Usually this is because much of the evidence that would have helped the judge see the pattern was missed because the court professionals did not know what to look for. In one case the father admitted telling his wife that he brought her here from Russia so she had no right to leave. He said she would never get away from him. This father, in effect told the judge his motivation for seeking custody, but the judge failed to use this evidence because he did not understand its significance. Most cases will not have such obvious evidence, but smart professionals can figure out the motivation from the history and context.

Consequences of Extreme Decisions

Abusers understand that the best way to hurt mothers is to hurt their children. This is why so many abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship suddenly seek custody when the mother seeks to leave her abuser. Court professionals often miss recognizing the fathers’ motivation because they have repeatedly heard that contested custody are high conflict cases when most are actually domestic violence cases. The worst part of this work is hearing about the unspeakable pain suffered by mothers and children when courts send children to live with dangerous abusers and take safe, protective mothers out of their children’s lives. It is extremely frustrating because these mistakes cause so much harm, but could be prevented if the courts would apply current scientific research.

If there was a scientific basis for these decisions, an evaluator could tell the court how his recommendations have worked out for the children in earlier cases. There is no such research and the closest we have are the Courageous Kids. These are young adults who have aged out of custody orders forcing them to live with abusive fathers and denying them a normal relationship with their mothers. These kids have a moral authority that none of the rest of us has because the decisions were supposed to be made for their benefit. The decisions gave control to the fathers who had tremendous power and resources to silence the children. This means the many Courageous Kids who have spoken out, often in great pain in order to help other children from suffering the same fate, represent a small percentage of spectacularly mistaken decisions. They describe tremendous pain and suffering during childhood and many problems that last into their adult lives. In many ways they are the lucky ones because other children in this situation commit suicide, destroy their lives with drugs and other harmful behaviors or otherwise never reach their potential.

As discussed earlier these decisions lead to a higher crime rate in addition to the increase in domestic violence homicide. A large majority of our prison population witnessed domestic violence or suffered direct abuse. The extreme decisions discussed in this article increase this unfortunate population. These mistakes also have a profound negative impact on society. The increased crime requires substantial expenditures in the criminal justice system as well as property losses and injuries. These mistakes also substantially increase health expenses that raise insurance rates and taxes when the government pays health costs. At the same time, by destroying or limiting the potential of these children, and others, it reduces economic output thus reducing tax revenue.

As someone who practiced law for thirty years, I am particularly concerned about the harm these cases do to the reputation of the courts and the legal system. I repeatedly hear statements that the custody court system is corrupt. This is based on so many cases in which the disparity of the evidence and the outcome makes it look like only corruption could have caused such improper decisions. The extreme decisions that cannot possibly benefit the children further support the corruption conclusion.

While there are instances of corruption such as the Garson case in Brooklyn, I believe the research supports a different explanation. It appears the courts adopted flawed practices at a time when no research was available and have continued these outdated and discredited practices despite the current scientific research available. The use of myths, stereotypes, bias and misinformation are widespread in the custody courts. The use of mental health professionals as if they were the experts in domestic violence contributes both to mistaken decisions and widespread misinformation. Many judges have been unwilling to take a close look to scrutinize evaluators’ recommendations or to discredit evaluators who are unfamiliar with current scientific research. The problem is exasperated by a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who have figured out that fathers tend to have control of most of the resources in contested custody so the best way to make a lot of money is to support theories and approaches that help abusers. We frequently see courts treat evaluators and GALs who are biased in favor of fathers as if they were “neutrals.” These mistakes create an appearance of corruption that is extremely harmful to the reputation of the legal system.

Judges are supposed to be open to new information, willing to correct mistakes and to change their minds based on new evidence. I was particularly impressed with Judge Thomas Hornsby who wrote a chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY in which he said that in his nineteenth year on the bench he learned the right way to handle certain types of restraining orders. It takes the kind of ethics and courage we expect from judges to admit past mistakes like that. Too often we hear judges refusing to listen to a domestic violence expert based on statements that the judge has been on the bench for many years and doesn’t need this assistance. And then they send the children to live with an abuser. It is important for good judges to set an example and reverse decisions that research establishes are harmful to children.

Conclusion

When you made a decision giving custody to the alleged abuser and limiting the mother to supervised or no visitation, you thought you were doing something to benefit the children. In some cases you thought the father was the parent most likely to promote the relationship between the children and other parent.

In most of these cases once the father gains control he actually interferes with the mother’s relationship in ways that you would severely punish if done by the mother. Repeatedly abusive fathers use their control to undermine the mother’s relationship because that was his purpose in seeking custody in the first place. The subsequent interference in the mother’s relationship, including asking the court to limit her contact is a change of circumstance giving the court new information not available when the decision was made. The research now available that demonstrates the frequency of abusers destroying mothers’ relationships with their children is also a change of circumstance the court was unaware of when it made the decision. Domestic violence is very much about context and one of the common mistakes in custody court is to look at each incident and each issue separately thus preventing court professionals from recognizing the pattern of abuse. Judges sometimes make the mistake of treating a finding denying abuse allegations as settling the issue so that it can never look at the issue again or at least not the prior evidence. Best practices would be to look at the new information, such as the father using his control to harm the children’s relationship with the mother in the context of his history of controlling and coercive behavior so that even if the court failed to recognize his pattern of abuse earlier, the new circumstances, taken together with the prior evidence can be sufficient to confirm the abuse allegations if only the judge can be open to acknowledging the prior conclusion was wrong.

Even if the court continues to believe the mother’s abuse allegations were false and even deliberately so, current scientific research does not support limiting the children to supervised or no visitation with their primary attachment figure. The harm of losing a normal relationship with their mother under these circumstances is far more harmful than the risk she might make some negative statements. This research, by itself constitutes a change of circumstance requiring at least normal visitation for the mother. We have too often seen judges refuse to correct their decision for fear of looking bad by admitting an error. I ask you not to take the risk of a child suffering depression, low self-esteem or God forbid commit suicide. That would be a judicial error we cannot tolerate.

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

How Custody Evaluators Think about Domestic Violence

Posted: 06/30/11 04:34 AM ET

by Robert Hughes, Jr.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Professor of Human Development

One of the most challenging aspects of custody decisions is the issue of domestic violence. About 20% of divorces require judges to appoint a custody evaluator to assist in the determination of custody arrangements. There are a wide range of estimates (50% – 90%) of the extent to which these divorce cases involve aggression and violence. One of the central questions that the custody evaluator must decide is whether the domestic violence is likely to continue and how to handle custody arrangements in a way that does not put family members at-risk of further violence. At present there are no universal standards for conducting custody evaluations and most custody evaluators have little training in domestic violence.

In a recent study Megan Haselschwerdt, Jennifer Hardesty and Jason Hans (Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2011) examined how custody evaluators think about domestic violence in their decisions regarding custody. They conducted in-depth interviews with a small sample (N=23) of custody evaluators that had on average about 14 years of experience conducting evaluations.

Even among behavioral scientists there has been much debate about the nature of domestic violence. Professor Michael Johnson at the University of Michigan has clarified the dispute by explaining that there are two major types of domestic violence. On the one hand, some violence is the result of stressful situations in which husbands or wives lash out in physical or verbal aggression. He called this “situational violence.” On the other hand, some domestic violence involves the use of extreme forms of control that forces a partner to do something she does not want to do. Johnson labeled this form of violence as “intimate terrorism.” He also notes that in addition to physical violence, intimate terrorists use psychological abuse, isolation and intimidation to control their partners.

Custody evaluators are likely to encounter couples who are engaged in both types of violent situations. How custody evaluators assess violence can influence their recommendations about custody outcomes. These researchers found that custody evaluators tended to hold a view that either viewed violence as situational violence or intimate terrorism.

The custody evaluators whose views tended towards viewing aggression as situational violence reported less training in domestic violence. This group generally viewed domestic violence as stress induced, normative and mutual. As a result, these evaluators minimized spouse abuse as relevant to child custody decisions. They also thought that false allegations of violence were common. In terms of custody and parenting plans, they prioritized coparenting and father-child relationships.

On the other hand, custody evaluators who characterized domestic violence as intimate terrorism took a different view of custody. They were more likely to report extensive training in domestic violence. These evaluators viewed spouse abuse as a significant factor in determining child custody. They thought that false allegations of abuse were rare. This group of evaluators distinguished between types of violence and expressed strong views that custody and parenting plans should be different for each of these types of violence. In the case of intimate terrorism, they prioritized victim safety over ongoing contact with fathers.

Although based on a small sample of custody evaluators, these findings raise important questions about the degree to which domestic violence is being thoughtfully considered in custody decisions. It is important for the legal system to develop training and policies such that custody evaluators can appropriately consider custody arrangements in domestic violence situations.

U.S. Laws Protect Cars But Not Domestic Violence Victims

Pat LaMarche

Vice President of Community Affairs at Safe Harbour, Inc.

June 27, 2011

Far more women in the United States are victims of domestic violence than are injured in car accidents each year. Using information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and the insurance industry the numbers aren’t even close — battering outstrips crashes roughly two to one. It begs the question why states require car insurance but not intimate partner abuse insurance. Perhaps no law maker’s thought of how useful the benefit would be to a victim assaulted by their so-called loved one.

Those folks driven into homelessness as they flee their abuser could argue that the money would be pretty darned handy as they try to provide safety for themselves and — in many cases — their children. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless 2007 fact sheet, 22% of parents seeking shelter were fleeing domestic violence.

If there were a payout for these folks the insurance companies might solve problems the government seems incapable of fixing. First of all the abuser’s premiums would go up which would punish him or her for beating up their intimate partner or kid. Considering how few penalties there are for abusers this might add a layer of deterrent for someone who otherwise sees no downside to their violent actions. At the National Institute of Justice website you can learn some chilling facts about domestic violence, arrest rates, and conviction rates. For example an alleged abuser is 70% less likely to be convicted if he or she is white. And only about 25% of abusers are arrested if they flee the scene when the cops are called. So if you’re white and “hit and run” you only have about a 1 in 12 chance of any real consequence.

Imagine is the stats were that lousy on car accidents and 11 out of 12 times folks had to pay for damage they didn’t cause.

But possibly even more important than nailing the perp, the victim could use the payoff to remain current on his or her bills, acquire housing, and relocate without burdening charitable organizations or already overtaxed federal or state funded facilities. That same National Coalition for the Homeless white paper states that nearly a third of all folks who seek shelter are turned away. Getting domestic violence victims out of the picture would reduce this number to less than one in ten.

While the case for instituting mandatory domestic violence insurance policies seems pretty plain to me, I have to admit that I didn’t come by the idea all by myself. I work with these homeless victims. And the story that underscores our national preference for property over people belongs to a forty something year old mom I’ll call Penelope.

Penelope’s alcoholic husband abused her for so long that she’d stopped imagining life would change. And it probably wouldn’t have if her husband had stuck with just beating Penelope. But when he started pounding their son, Penelope went to the authorities. The judge in her town told her that something needed to be done to correct their family’s problems, but that they must address it privately. He even refused to grant her the protection from abuse order for which she petitioned his court at the outset of the proceedings.

So Penelope put a few things in the car and ran away with her boy. They left their home, their friends, her job and his school just to stop the abuse. Fleeing victims pay a weighty price for their freedom.

While on the run Penelope was robbed and the thief got her debit card. She immediately called the bank and had the card canceled, forgetting that her car insurance was automatically withdrawn from that account each month.

Eventually Penelope sank further into poverty and ended up at our shelter — as she struggled to find a job and help her son adjust to a new school and the loss of his friends — she let her car registration lapse. The officer that pulled her over also cited her for not having car insurance — a fact she had not known until that time. Penelope’s car was impounded and she’s now fined $20 each day until she can pay the hundreds of dollars in fines that these infractions have accrued. At the rate she’s going that day will never come. Eventually she may be placed under arrest.

The other day Penelope confided that she’d like to file for divorce so she could receive child support and become more financially stable. But now that she’s homeless she’s afraid a court would give her abusive alcoholic husband custody of their son. And no matter how precarious her condition, she must insure his safety.

GAL Power

Marcus Griffith

June 22, 2011

Divorced parents with minor children often fight over custody and visitation rights, producing courtroom decisions that are complex and often heartbreaking for at least one parent. This story takes a rare public look into that system for two reasons:

First, it involves the kind of complicated, personal and family situations that make these cases so difficult to adjudicate. Secondly, there is the additional drama of conflict combined with allegations of questionable performances among the justice system officials themselves.

Clark County Court Commissioner Carin Schienberg recently removed two children from their mother’s home, even though no petition for such action was before the court. Schienberg based her temporary decision on an allegedly flawed report prepared by a court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL).

When the mother’s attorney criticized the GAL report and refused to apologize for her comments, the commissioner held the attorney in contempt and fined her $500.

The commissioner’s ruling is under appeal, with a hearing pending. Meanwhile, the two minor children have been moved to the custody of their father. He has issued multiple threats of legal action against the writer and any publication who would publish a story about this case.

In Washington State, court commissioners are appointed by superior court judges. They are not elected by the public, but they have many of the same responsibilities and authorities as a superior court judge.

A family law guardian ad litem is appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child, often during divorce or custody proceedings. In addition to family law matters, a GAL can be appointed to assist anyone a court deems legally incapacitated. Clark County commissioners and judges appointed GALs 396 times in 2010, according to Superior Court Administrator Jeffrey Amram.

GAL reports are confidential. However, the author obtained a copy of the GAL report from an undisclosed source after concerns were raised about contents of the report and the commissioner’s ruling.

Case didn’t seek custody

In August 2008, the mother received “primary residential placement” of the two minor children as part of a court-approved parenting plan. After more than two years of continuing conflict between the parents, the father filed an October 2010 contempt motion against the mother for violation of visitation rights.

The commissioner, in early December, held the mother in contempt for certain violations. At the same time, she approved a motion to require that transfer of the children for visitation times take place at the Vancouver police station due to conflict between the parties.

In November, the mother filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, asking for restricted visitation time with the father until he received counseling for anger management. The father, responding in December, said there was insufficient proof for a major modification of that plan.

That is the issue before the court that led to the appointment of Vancouver attorney Meredith McKell Graff as Guardian ad Litem to investigate the matter.

According to the mother’s attorney, Vancouver attorney April Brinkman, the GAL report was supposed to be finished by the first of February 2011. However, it was not submitted to the court until May 12, and it came with a blockbuster recommendation that the children be removed from the mother’s home and the father be given primary residential placement.

A source close to the case, who asked not to be identified, said there were significant concerns about the integrity of that 26-page report, which were ignored by Commissioner Schienberg. The source called the report a product of “shoddy investigation” and involved “lies told in court” by Graff.

Background shows need for a GAL

It has been almost a decade since the Clark County parents in this case were divorced. Subsequent battles over custody of their children have included numerous allegations between the parties of child abuse, sexual abuse, stalking and harassment.

The 2008 parenting plan noted the “abusive use of conflict by both parents” as a potential risk to the “psychological development” of both children. Information from various sources and documents reveals disturbing allegations surrounding both parents that make it difficult to sort fact from fiction.

One of the more disturbing allegations against the mother is referred to as the “wiener game.” It was reported to Child Protective Services at an unspecified time, according to the confidential GAL report. While bathing with her children, the report says, the mother “taught each boy how to stimulate himself to erection… then balance an action figure toy on their erect penis. The longer they can hold the toy on their penis is the winner (sic).”

The father allegedly has forced his children to write false accusations against their month, including allegations outlines in a recent police report. In that June 1 report, Battle Ground Officer Joshua Phelps wrote:

“I asked [redacted] about his mom making him lie about things. [Redacted] told me that she did not do that, but their father told them to write that down.”

It doesn’t appear, at this time, that police or Child Protective Services have substantiated allegations against either parent, but due to the long record of conflict it’s no surprise that the court saw need for an independent and objective view of a GAL.

GAL investigation takes a turn

The court order appointing Meredith McKell Graff as GAL instructed her to “investigate and report the factual information to the court concerning parenting arrangements” of the two children. Graff’s final report was unequivocal in its recommendation.

“The children in this matter… are at extreme risk of harm if they remain any longer in the mother’s home,” the report states. “They should be removed immediately.”

Subsequent concerns about the GAL report are voiced prominently by the mother’s attorney in the motion for reversal of Commissioner Schienberg’s temporary order.

High on the list of concerns about the May 12 report is a statement by Graff that she interviewed the references for both parents. That conflicts with her statement of May 24 in which she declared, “I did not interview (the mother’s reference); my legal assistant performed this task.”

Neither statement revealed the actual fact that Graff’s assistant, Heidi Atwood, actually interviewed all four references listed in the report.

“As the guardian ad litem’s legal assistant,” wrote Atwood in her May 24 declaration to the court, “in order to save time… I was given the assignment of calling all the guardian ad litem references and asking them the questions requested by the guardian ad litem … ”

Atwood is not listed on the court-approved guardian ad litem registry, and there’s no record that she has completed any of the required training to work as guardian ad litem. She is a 40-year-old college student at Washington State University whose only professional license in Washington is as a Notary Public, according to Graff’s law office and state documents.

A lie in court?

Court transcripts of the June 2 hearing include Graff’s statement that she couldn’t obtain a release from the mother to get medical records. “Because (the mother) did not sign a HIPAA release with her doctor … I did not get medical records from the mother,” said Graff.

However, Brinkman has since filed with the court a copy of just such a release, signed by the mother on March 29 and faxed to Graff’s office, according to Brinkman.

Further, Graff didn’t need that release to get the information. The court order appointing her includes a signed “release of information” provision giving her access to all pertinent records, specifically including health care records, for both parents.

The GAL report says that Graff has “minimal concerns with the father,” despite the fact that she quoted a 2007 psychological evaluation saying that the father has “issues with chronic and intense anger;” that he is “not able to express negative feeling appropriately;” that he is “over-controlled with brief, impulsive episodes of acting out;” and that he is “sensitive to rejection and has a subtle paranoia that is expressed as jealously or possessiveness. He can be hostile when criticized and has little self-awareness.”

The doctor who conducted that psychological evaluation of the father also evaluated his current wife, saying she is “aggressive and striving,” and “defines her view as the correct one and assumes that to disagree with her is simply a demonstration of one’s lack of understanding.”

Graff’s report did not disagree with that impression, but said the children need a controlling adult in their lives. “Even though the father’s wife may appear to some that she is ‘controlling,’ she is actually what the boys need right now,” Graff wrote.

The report recommended that both parents enter counseling, but held “no reservations” about having the children moved to primary residency with their father.

Many issues of credibility

Graff used Child Protective Services reports to help form her recommendation that the children face eminent harm in the mother’s care. However, none of the allegations against the mother have been substantiated by Child Protective Services, police or the county prosecutor’s office, according to available court documents.

Graff considered various allegations of both parents to be less than credible.

“The parents — both of them — have engaged in CPS and the police far too often, and too many times with false or misleading information, in order to discredit the other parent,” Graff stated.

It’s not clear, then, why allegations from one side would become grounds for such a significant recommendation. There is also a matter of various subjective and inflammatory words and phrases used in the report.

The report at one point says that the mother “remade herself into a sexual abuse zombie,” and later says a photo of the mother and her new husband “shows them tonguing like reptiles.” Nothing clarified the use of those phrases as part of an evaluation of parenting skills.

The GAL report also indicates that Graff did not interview the children’s doctors, teachers, psychologists or neighbors.

Lack of balance in interviews

Graff — or rather, her assistant, Atwood — interviewed three references for the father but only one for the mother, an imbalance that casts doubt on fairness of the investigation. And despite Graff being assigned the investigation in December, Atwood didn’t start requesting interviews with the mother’s references until May 10, according to numerous court documents and the declaration of a veteran Oregon police officer.

Officer Jason Maddy stated, “The law office of McKell Graff left a voicemail for me Tuesday, May 10, 2011, sometime during the afternoon. Records indicate that the voicemail was the first and only time that Atwood called Maddy. He planned to call Atwood on May 13, but Graff completed her report on May 11.

Maddy, an experienced investigator, was bothered by the one-day callback window. “I would never even think of just calling someone and leaving a message and writing the report the next day without hearing from them,” Maddy stated. He further stated that he “would have been able to provide very important information about how I have seen (the mother) interact with her children.”

Another reference provided by the mother said she didn’t receive the request for an interview until May 11. By the time she called Graff’s law office the report already was filed, and Atwood wouldn’t document what she said would have been favorable statements about the mother.

Even more disturbing, although Graff may have stopped taking statements in support of the mother on May 11, she continued taking statements against the mother even after the report was filed with the court. In her May 24 declaration, Graff references new allegations against the mother that surfaced after the confidential report was filed on May 12.

“I have been now told,” wrote Graph in that declaration, “that the children have been punished for telling me things that the mother did not want me to know or the children to tell me.”

Second-hand allegations

Graff appears to have disregarded her direct observations of the mother’s house in favor of statements from unidentified sources.

“The mother’s home is chaotic and dirty,” Graff stated in her report. However, she wrote that the house was staged to look clean during her lone visit there.

“The mother made a point of having me go ‘say goodnight’ to each boy before beginning the interview,” Graff wrote. “I am concerned this was an effort to get me to walk down the hall to show me that the house was ‘neat,’ rather than how it had been prior to its staging for my visit.”

The report cited an unnamed source who reported to Graff that the mother put a large amount of “stuff” in storage so Graff would not see the usual state of the house.

In contrast, Graff was very impressed with the father’s home, where she made multiple visits. She wrote: “Going in, one feels a sense of peace and calm.” Although records indicate that there was only one investigative interview at the father’s house, Graff wrote, “I have been to the (father’s) home on more than occasion.”

The father’s house is in an upscale neighborhood, and court documents indicate that the father makes substantially more money than the mother. Graff said, however, that those factors were not taken into consideration in her recommendation.

“To be clear,” she wrote, “my recommendation for (the father) being named the primary residential parent is not based on socio-economic factors. I have been appointed in other cases where the recommended placement was for the poorer home of the two parents.”

She continued, in one of the report’s more unusual narratives: “One can be clean, neat, organized, and poor, with clean, ragged clothes and one can have money and worldly possessions and be dirty, chaotic, and provide no supervision for children, along with allowing them to be sexually abused within the grand, expensive home.”

GAL invoices for thousands more

Graff is seeking payment of almost $2,500 more than was first authorized by the court, which wrote in its appointing order: “The guardian ad litem fee is $75 per hour up to $750, the maximum the guardian ad litem may charge without additional court review and approval.”

That full $750 was paid months ago through combined payments from the parents. But according to Graff, she has racked up 41.6 hours to date for a total bill of $3,120. She stated in a court document that it would be “appropriate for the court to order the parties to share an additional $2,370.”

The GAL invoice does not explain how many hours her assistant worked, of whether those hours are included in the billing.

Commissioner’s fully endorses report

The June 2 hearing, held in open court, included specific reference to contents of the confidential GAL report. And Commissioner Schienberg seemed very pleased with the quality of the report.

“First of all,” Schienberg said in the hearing, I want to thank Ms. Graff for her work. I think you did an excellent job; it was very thorough … I think she did an excellent report.”

The commission, however, went beyond stating her positive impression of the report. When April Brinkman questioned the lack of supporting documents in the report, Schienberg was quick to demand that Brinkman apologize to the GAL.

“There’s no evidence to support anything that the GAL has said,” Brinkman stated in court. The transcript record of that statement provides no information on tone, volume, body language or any other factor except the words themselves.

“Excuse me, you’re going to apologize right now to this Court and to Ms. Graff,” said Schienberg, “or I will hold you in contempt. You apologize, now.”

Brinkman declined to apologize, was held in contempt of court and was fined $500.

Continued on the Vancouver Voice.

Here is more information about the case.  To read the writ that Linda Marie submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, please click here.  To see the public service commercials that were made featuring Linda Marie, please click here.

Linda Marie Sacks and her daughters, who are in the custody of their abuser

Historic US Supreme Court Case on Behalf of America’s Mothers and Children

DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE JUNE 23, 2011
Case 10-1381 Petition for Certiorari Attached

The Sacks v. Sacks case has been distributed for conference on June 23, 2011. Just imagine….the US Supreme Court in Washington DC will discuss the Sacks v. Sacks Petition for Certiorari Case 10-1381 on June 23, 2011 and will decide if they will hear the case.

Linda Marie’s daughter in April 2007, said “Mommy fight for us, and do something every day to get us back, and don’t ever stop”. This Florida Mother has kept her promise to her daughter’s and now is speaking on behalf of America’s children and their “protective parents”.

Sacks is speaking for all of America’s children and addresses the failure of the courts and child protective services to protect our children. This cert being reviewed shows the documented evidence of an epidemic which shows how courts give custody of children to the batterers and pedophiles, while the safe, loving non-offending parent is sanctioned by the court to having their contact terminated or being placed on supervised visitation without any case plan or reunification plan.

Sacks, a pro se litigant, and after reading Justice Scalia’s book “Making Your Case” The Art of Persuading Judges, used this valuable information in her Briefs to the Fifth District Court of Appeals in 2009, and this book was instrumental in helping her formulate her cert petition for the US Supreme Court.

Imagine, Sacks going to “Internet Law School”, reading law books, and researching how to write a cert petition, in her effort to be re-united with her children, and addressing this national crisis for parents all over the US. She needed to file a cert in the 90 days time, as this is the time frame allotted by the US Supreme Court rules.
On March 2, 2011, Peter Jamison from the SF Weekly published the article, Illegal Guardians: When Judges Give Custody To Abusive Parents the Family. This article documents child sexual abuse cases and the identified perpetrator/ pedophile will get sole physical custody of the minor child(ren), and the safe protective parent, will be restricted to supervised visitation or all contact will be terminated. It’s on page 24 and 25 of the Cert as well. (sf.weekly.com)

This national case clearly shows how fit parent’s all over the U.S. are being be deprived of a relationship with their children, and this case exposes the national crisis for America’s children who are victims of child sexual abuse and or physical abuse, and the failure of family courts to protect them.

This is a liberty right protected by the United States Constitution, for a parent-child relationship, but not protected by family courts or CPS all over the U.S.

The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee are addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011, “and explore what can happen to a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.

The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the article.(www.now.org) Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter. Page 36 of the Cert Petition.

This “squeaky clean” Mom, truly the “All American Mom” has only seen her children for 83 hours in 4 years and 3 months, under supervised visitation at the local visitation center. Sacks says she is one of the lucky ones, as documented cases, and personal stories from Mothers across the US, and International cases in the UK and Australia show that some never are allowed to see their children after an erroneous ruling by a lower court, or an appellate court, or State Supreme Court.

In the Sacks case, the “Court appointed” psychologist, Dr. Deborah O. Day of Psychological Affiliates is quoted on page 5 as she stated “that it is this examiner’s opinion that this child is experiencing a significant mental health crisis, likely to pediatric bipolar, and therefore that negates any child sexual abuse”. Then Dr. Day thwarted the investigation by the police department and DCF, Dept. of Children and Family. The child never had pediatric bipolar, but yet Dr. Day falsely labeled her, and provided false and misleading information to the court, and failed to protect the minor children. (Page 5 and Appendix J of the Cert Petition).

This is a rare opportunity for the US Justices to review an historical case, which could establish case law, clearly needed to uphold the constitutional of the United States, for a parent to establish a home, and to the care and custody of their children, and violated in courtrooms all across the U.S.

The last time a case similar to this was presented to the U.S. Supreme Court was Wendy Titelman’s case. Ms. Titelman’s book, A Mother’s Journal Book One: Let my Children Go! details her children’s case in Cobb County, Georgia where her children were placed in the custody of their allegedly abusive parent after the failure of that family court system to protect her children. Ms. Titelman’s book is cited in the Sacks Cert Petition and, on page 38 includes a quote from Hon. Sol Gothard who said,“the problems expressed in Wendy’s book are epidemic and widespread.”

These cases and outcomes are so widespread, they have gained the attention of our Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women and advocates all over the United States. (Page 12, 13 and 37 of the Cert Petition).

According to The Leadership Council, 58,000 are court-ordered to live with a sexually or physically abusive parent after a divorce in the U.S. This a “public health crisis” for America’s children.(www.leadershipcouncil.org). This information is included in Ms. Sacks’ petition on page 24.

The California Protective Parent Association (www.protectiveparent.com) cites case studies showing a clear pattern of similar cases and has asked for Congressional hearings to address this crisis. Sacks petition pages 34-35.

This is a perfect opportunity for advocacy groups, national organizations and law firms to file an amicus briefs, and top national organizations are ready to sign on in support of the Petitioner, Linda Marie Sacks, and the issues raised about the crisis in the family courts.

Linda Marie Sacks states, “This is an historic case for all of America’s children who are not being protected by the official avenues which were put in place to protect them. I am truly the “All American Mom” and never did I ever imagine, that I could lose custody of my children for believing them and trying to protect them. The family court system is giving pedophiles and batterers custody. Typically, the parental rights of safe and absolutely fit protective parents are being terminated – or like me are placed on supervised visitation for years without a case plan or reunification plan.”
Please forward to all and thank you for all you do, as YOU are part of the solution to this nationwide crisis.
Press Contact:

Kathleen Russell
Executive Director
Center for Judicial Excellence
495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610
www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

For more information on Amicus Briefs please contact:

Linda Marie Sacks
386-453-3017
lindamariesacks@aol.com

_____________________________________________________________US SUPREME COURT DOCKET____________________________________________________

No. 10-1381
Title:Linda Marie Sacks, Petitioner
v.
David Michael Sacks, et al.

Docketed:May 11, 2011
Lower Ct:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Case Nos.:(5D09-3752)
Decision Date:December 7, 2010
Rehearing Denied:February 7, 2011

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 6 2011Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 10, 2011)
May 17 2011Waiver of right of respondents David Michael Sacks, et al. to respond filed.
Jun 7 2011DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2011.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Linda Marie SacksP.O. Box 730966(386) 453-3017
Ormond Beach, FL 32173
Party name: Linda Marie Sacks

Media Advisory – Hawaii House of Representatives

June 20, 2011 – For Immediate Release

Contact: Office of Rep. John Mizuno, Telephone: 808-586-6050, Cell: 808-741-0639

 

LAWMAKERS TO HOLD BRIEFING ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HEAR CONCERNS FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS AND DISCUSS THE NEED FOR POLICY CHANGE

 

Several domestic violence survivors will share their story of how they lost custody of their child(ren) to the abuser, even after a finding of domestic violence by the abuser

 

WHAT:            The House Human Services Chairman, Rep. John Mizuno, will hold a legislative briefing to address domestic violence in Hawaii.  Rep. Mizuno will identify certain concerns involving specific failures of the current “system” in adequately addressing domestic violence.  Rep. Mizuno will also be hearing from domestic violence victims, survivor advocates, and agencies working directly with domestic violence victims, issuing protective orders and temporary restraining orders.

The briefing will:

• Identify and address concerns regarding domestic violence in Hawaii

• Explain the reason for the various bills which seek to provide greater protection for domestic violence victims

• Explain the difficulties in passing measures which seek to improve the state’s system in handling domestic violence cases

WHEN:            Tuesday, June 21, 2011 – 11:35 a.m. Hawaii Standard Time (Televised in Hawaii on Ch. 53, for Neighbor Island residents and nationwide go to the internet www.olelo.org – click NATV Ch. 53 for online live stream coverage)

WHERE:           Hawaii State Capitol, Room 329

WHY:               Rep. Mizuno was contacted by several survivors of domestic violence who will be sharing their stories with lawmakers during the briefing. According to Rep. Mizuno, “It is extremely concerning to hear that time after time the abusers who beat our victims, many times end up gaining custody of the children.  Based on our victims’ testimonies and information provided by organizations and advocates for domestic violence victims, I believe our current system has many major flaws in properly addressing domestic violence issues.  Therefore, I am looking for solid solutions to better address domestic violence statewide at the conclusion of this briefing.”

Why Don’t We End Domestic Violence?

By Barry Goldstein

Society has the knowledge and ability to prevent a large majority of domestic violence crimes and especially murders. It is not like cancer or heart disease which would require some fundamental changes in human behavior to achieve massive reductions. We could easily put together a change in laws, policies and practices and quickly end the danger of domestic violence for most women and children. If we could as readily prevent most of the deaths from earthquakes, tornados, cancer or terror attacks, we would not hesitate to do so. Why should we continue to tolerate the enormous harm caused by abusers? Many of our leaders have spoken of and dreamed of a world without domestic violence. This is a worthy goal, but I am not naïve enough to believe we can end all domestic violence in our lifetimes. We can, however create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes. I say let’s do it.

Background

Our publisher asked Mo Hannah and I to prepare a second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. I decided to write a chapter for the book of a modern tale of two cities comparing Quincy, Massachusetts with Poughkeepsie, New York. I selected Quincy, Massachusetts because they had developed the Quincy Model which had resulted in a drastic reduction of domestic violence homicide. I selected Poughkeepsie, New York because they had been severely criticized for using approaches in custody court that strongly favored abusive fathers. The court system and particularly the judges reacted to the criticism in a defensive and retaliatory manner. Dutchess County has now had a series of domestic violence homicides including the last crime in which the abusive father also killed a police officer. The County Legislature created a committee to study and respond to the series of domestic violence homicides and I am interested to see if they make a connection between the murders and the pattern of mistreatment of protective mothers in the custody court system.

In the late 1970s around the start of the modern movement to end domestic violence, approximately three thousand domestic violence homicides were committed each year in the United States. The frequency of domestic violence homicides did not change significantly until society adopted policies and practices to hold abusers accountable, particularly with pro-arrest policies. The timing of the increased accountability with the reduction in domestic violence homicide supported the belief that these policies led to the reduction, but perhaps what was most convincing was the results in communities that were especially strict in enforcing domestic violence laws. Communities like Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California saw even more dramatic reductions in domestic violence homicide as a result of strong programs to prevent domestic violence. Quincy, Massachusetts adopted its model in response to a series of domestic violence homicides and for many years they had no domestic violence homicides in Quincy.

Achieving a Massive Reduction in Domestic Violence Crime

As part of the research for my chapter I have had the opportunity to read about the practices that were so successful in Quincy and elsewhere. I have also read some of the ideas for improving the conditions in Poughkeepsie. We also have the research to establish improved practices in the custody courts. This is particularly important for reducing domestic violence crimes because abuser rights groups have been particularly successful in using common mistakes and flawed practices in the custody courts to undermine the progress society had made elsewhere in reducing domestic violence. The result of the failures in the custody courts has been that more battered mothers are staying with their abusers because they are afraid of being separated from their children and some of them do not survive this decision. Although some have attributed the recent rise in domestic violence homicide after many years of reduction to the bad economy, I believe the problems we see in the custody courts is the more likely explanation. Based upon the research and experience, I believe it would be easy for a group of domestic violence experts to create a best practices model that would result in a drastic reduction in domestic violence crimes.

The basic reforms that would create a massive reduction in domestic violence crime should not be in dispute. Experts may differ about some of the specifics around the edges, but the decisions on those issues would not affect the positive outcome if we included the practices that have been shown to work. We are working on a more complete and detailed agenda for the second volume of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, but we already know the basics of what is needed. Here is what any reform agenda would include:

1. Coordinated Community Response: The communities that were most successful in reducing domestic violence homicide developed a coordinated community response in which all parts of the community came together to do their part in ending domestic violence. The professionals worked together to coordinate their response and included the domestic violence community as a key resource in the response to domestic violence. The communities had regular meetings to monitor how the campaign to end domestic violence was going and to make adjustments as needed.

2. Make it Easier for Victims to Obtain Protective Orders: Some people disparage protective orders as not worth the paper they are printed on and sometimes it is true, but women with protective orders are safer than those without. Society needs to make it less of a burden on battered women to obtain needed protection by having specified times when the court handles only protective orders so women can get in and out of court quickly. At other times judges should take protective orders before other cases because of the safety concerns. This is important because women may have work or family obligations that make it difficult to wait around the court in order to see a judge. Many judges get frustrated when women seek a protective order and then don’t return for the next court date. Reducing the burdens on victims will encourage them to follow through. At the same time there should be special clerks that help women fill out the forms and prosecutors’ offices should brief victims on the procedures they can expect. Finally judges should take domestic violence allegations more seriously, receive better training and make sure women who need protection can obtain the orders.

3. Strict Enforcement of Criminal Laws and Violations of Protective Orders: The heart of the programs that created a substantial reduction in domestic violence homicide was taking domestic violence seriously. This requires strict enforcement of domestic violence crimes and protective orders. Research demonstrates that abusive men tend to use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether to abuse their partners. That is why accountability and monitoring are the best ways to prevent domestic violence. The strict enforcement not only sends a message to the men held accountable, and their children, it sends a message to the entire community. The programs are often launched with important media coverage and those involved in the coordinated community response also help spread the message.

4. Lethality Assessment: The most important purpose of the laws, programs and practices designed to prevent domestic violence is the safety of victims and their children. One of the first things domestic violence advocates learn is safety planning and how to assess the danger. There are several common behaviors of abusers that have been shown to be related to an increased level of danger that domestic violence experts look at in making lethality assessments. These behaviors include choking, strangling or putting his hands around his partner’s throat, assaulting her while pregnant, raping or attempting to rape his partner, killing or hurting family pets, availability of guns, threats of suicide, homicide or kidnapping and a belief she has no right to leave. Incredibly, court professionals rarely use risk assessments or even understand the significance of these behaviors in making judgments about alleged abusers. Criminal courts should be using risk assessments to inform decisions about bail, protective orders and sentencing. Custody courts should use this information in determining custody and visitation arrangements that are safe for the victim and children.

5. Give Domestic Violence Cases the First Priority: Communities that reduced domestic violence crimes gave these cases the first priority. As discussed earlier this means making sure victims can get access to judges quickly so they don’t lose jobs or have to spend a lot of money on child care in order to protect themselves. It means local judges coming to arraignments after hours rather than releasing alleged offenders with an appearance ticket, but no protective order. It also means that custody courts must recognize most contested custody cases involve domestic violence and place a priority on the safety of the children and alleged victims.

6. Best Interests of the Child Should Mean Safety is the First Priority: The most important issue in deciding custody should be the safety of the children, but states usually have a list of factors to be considered and shockingly courts often focus on other less important issues. The second priority should be arrangements that give children the best chance to reach their potential.

7. Use of Current Scientific Research: When domestic violence first became a public issue there was no research to inform professionals about the best way to respond. When professionals modified their practices based on new research it has helped protect victims. Police departments went from practices of separating the parties and having the abuser walk around the block to cool off to a pro-arrest policy. Communities that created more accountability for abusers saw domestic violence crimes reduced. Child protective agencies that have partnered with domestic violence agencies and consulted with their advocates on potential domestic violence cases have been better able to recognize domestic violence and forge arrangements that protect children better. Police and prosecutors need to be aware of the frequency in which abusers involved in contested custody make deliberately false allegations and avoid wasting their resources persecuting their victims before fully investigating the allegations and speaking with the real victims. Custody courts have been particularly slow to modify practices based on current scientific research. They need to recognize most contested custody involve abusive fathers seeking custody as a tactic to maintain their control. They need to limit the role of mental health professionals to their area of expertise which is mental health and not domestic violence. They need to avoid inadequately trained professionals who continue to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations particularly in sexual abuse cases. The court must also stop permitting unscientific theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome.

8. Retraining Court Professionals: A lot of unfortunate events have combined to create widespread beliefs in a wide range of misinformation about domestic violence. Domestic violence is often counterintuitive which leads to misinformation. The lack of research when court professionals started responding also contributes to the problem. The widespread use of unqualified professionals has encouraged an undeserved confidence in false notions that make them harder to challenge and correct. The media has done a lousy job of covering domestic violence and often fails to understand who the experts are. Accordingly we need to retrain court professionals both to prevent the use of misinformation and to help the professionals learn about current scientific research, domestic violence dynamics and best practices. The training must have the active participation of genuine domestic violence experts such as dv advocates. Professionals working in criminal court must learn the importance of taking domestic violence seriously, prioritizing domestic violence cases and holding offenders strictly accountable. They should particularly learn how communities have dramatically reduced domestic violence homicide. Criminal court professionals must learn that accountability and monitoring are the only approaches shown to reduce domestic violence. Domestic violence is not caused by substance abuse, mental illness or anger management issues. Some offenders may have mental illness or substance abuse and domestic violence issues and each problem should be responded to separately. Custody court professionals must unlearn the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse. They need to look at the motivation of alleged abusers and understand the harm to children. They must learn that allegations of child sexual abuse have been totally mishandled and learn best practices to respond to these painful allegations. They also must learn that the way to include both parents in children’s lives that most benefits children is to require abusers to stop their harmful tactics instead of asking their victims to get over their fear and concern.

9. Use of Domestic Violence Experts: We now have a substantial body of specialized knowledge about domestic violence. Courts must stop relying on “experts” unfamiliar with this research and ignorant of domestic violence dynamics and instead listen to genuine domestic violence experts. Courts must stop refusing to listen to these genuine experts and especially until this information is better known to court professionals allow these experts to testify in order to educate the judge and other professionals.

10. Early Domestic Violence Hearings in Custody Cases: A large majority of contested custody cases are actually domestic violence cases. The research is very clear that unless the victim is unsafe, she should have custody and the abuser supervised visitation because that is what works best for children. Accordingly, custody courts can schedule an evidentiary hearing at the start of the case on the domestic violence issue. There is no need for evaluators or GALs as it is a factual issue. This will permit courts to resolve cases in a few hours or less that otherwise would take months or years and provide a huge savings in money and court time. Children also benefit because they don’t have to spend years worried about where they will live. This also avoids less important and distracting issues that only make it more difficult for the judge to understand the issues. This practice is likely to help courts make better decisions as well as quicker ones.

11. Use of Victim’s Advocate: The advocates are used by law enforcement to help and support the victim and provide information and training for law enforcement personnel. They are used in the prosecutor’s office for similar purposes and to acquaint the victim with the procedures. These practices should make survivors more comfortable and thus more likely to cooperate and press charges. In the court clerk’s office the advocate can help victims fill out forms and documents and explain the procedures. These procedures will help provide law enforcement and the courts with needed evidence while encouraging the complainant to continue to participate.

12. New Approach to Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Cases: Although most allegations of child sexual abuse made by mothers are true and deliberately false allegations are rare, 85% of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases result in custody for the alleged abuser and frequently little or no contact with the mother who sought to protect her child. This is a result of the difficulty in proving abuse of very young children and deeply flawed practices. Based especially on the new Department of Justice study led by Dr. Daniel Saunders, we should start by eliminating court professionals who believe in the myth that women frequently make false allegations. Professionals should be trained in best practices that would include understanding why a child might be reluctant to reveal sexual abuse or recant truthful allegations, use of play therapy for young children, avoid giving abusers additional opportunities to silence children and give children a chance to develop trusting relationships with therapists or other investigators before expecting them to discuss the abuse. We particularly need to abandon approaches that retaliate against mothers for good faith allegations.

13. Limit Role of Mental Health Professionals to their Area of Expertise: Mental health professionals are routinely used for evaluations and other services in domestic violence custody cases despite limited and often distorted information about domestic violence. This has contributed to the frequency in which courts place children in jeopardy. Mental health professionals have a role to play when a parent has a serious mental disorder that interferes with the ability to care for the children or other issues related to their field of study and practice. They should be limited to roles they are qualified for and at the very least consult with domestic violence experts on cases involving possible domestic violence.

14. Gender Bias: Over forty states and many districts have conducted court-sponsored gender bias committees that have found widespread gender bias. Other scientific research supports these findings. Women who kill their partner receive seventy percent longer sentences under similar circumstances as men who kill their partner. Women are given less credibility, higher standards of proof and are blamed for the actions of their abusers. Courts cannot do an effective job of responding to domestic violence as long as it continues to unconsciously favor male litigants. Court professionals must be trained about gender bias, attorneys and litigants must be protected and encouraged to raise concerns about gender bias, judges and other court professionals should be transferred, retrained or otherwise disciplined for continued gender biased practices and appellate courts must reverse cases based on gender bias.

15. Improved Police Role in Ending Domestic Violence: Police should make domestic violence cases a high priority and conduct an evidence based investigation instead of just relying on the victim’s testimony. Police must be trained to understand fathers involved in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. This means they should take complaints from mothers seriously despite ongoing litigation, but have some skepticism of father’s allegations. They should always speak with the mother to understand the context before making a decision to make an arrest or bring charges. The police must also be aware that abusers tend to be very manipulative, but sometimes the police can use abusers’ sense of entitlement to encourage them to make statements that are actually admissions. Police departments must take precautions to respond to male officers who abuse their partners and particularly use their influence and relationship with other officers to undermine any investigation. There should be no tolerance for domestic violence or covering up domestic violence complaints. Departments should have a procedure for women to have someone in the department they can safely complain to about their partner’s abuse and any assistance other officers provide him.

Politicians sometimes justify their failure to do more to stop domestic violence by citing the costs, but the reality is the costs are much greater by tolerating domestic violence. In reviewing a report about the response to domestic violence in Dutchess County, New York, I noticed how often they undermined substantial parts of the plan to prevent domestic violence in order to save small sums of money. The problem is when they are budgeting; they fail to consider the extra money that will be expended as a result of the increase in domestic violence encouraged by the cutbacks.

Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to engage in a wide range of harmful and costly behaviors including crime. Large majorities of the prison population were directly abused as children or witnessed domestic violence. This creates huge added expenses in police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys and prisons. It also creates more expenses in substance abuse treatment. This is in addition to the extra similar expenses in directly responding to domestic violence crimes and custody cases based on domestic violence.

An increase in domestic violence crimes also increases health care costs. Not only is the health care system used to heal the immediate physical wounds, but it leads to other medical problems based on the stress of living with domestic violence as well as emotional and psychological difficulties. If the woman has medical insurance his abuse is paid by all of the policy holders through higher premiums. If she does not have insurance she may not be able to pay for the care so that the rest of the public and the government ultimately pays. Many of the health costs are borne directly by various governmental entities.

When victims miss work it harms the economy thus reducing tax revenues. The same is true when women lose jobs because of injuries or repeated court dates. Government programs like unemployment insurance and crime victim compensation may also be triggered. Significantly domestic violence interferes with the ability to reach their potential. It is hard for women to reach their potential when dealing with domestic violence even if the injuries do not prove fatal. Men who commit domestic violence crimes can’t reach their potential if they are in jail and even if they are not jailed the time they waste abusing and harassing their partners can interfere with the ability to reach their potential. Children who witness domestic violence are significantly less likely to reach their potential and if the children grow up to hurt others these third parties also lose the ability to reach their potential. We don’t know if society will miss out on someone who would have discovered a medical cure, developed a patent, created a major new business or is just a productive member of society. All of this represents a massive loss of economic activity that translates into a huge loss of tax revenue.

While the proposal described above would include some additional expenses, it also includes plans that would save substantial tax dollars. Conducting early evidentiary hearings on domestic violence would help courts make better decisions, but also save substantial sums of money and judicial time. A large majority of contested custody cases which are the cases that take most of the court’s time are domestic violence cases. Since mothers rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse, a hearing for an hour or two will avoid cases that often take many months or years. There will be no need to spend money on evaluators, GALs or other professionals who provide no help in recognizing or responding to domestic violence. Furthermore, as the practices outlined in this article become better known, abusive men will be less likely to commit domestic violence crimes and children will be sent an important message that domestic violence will not be tolerated. This will save significant sums initially and much greater amounts over time as the message resonates.

We don’t have figures on the full cost of domestic violence or the amount of money this proposal would save, but it has to be at least in the hundreds of billions of dollars. In that context attempting to save thousands of dollars by cutting local programs or a few million on programs nationally is counterproductive based on the financial costs and insane based on the human costs.

How to get Started Ending Domestic Violence

It is common rhetoric to say we should end domestic violence. We may not be able to prevent all domestic violence tactics or even all domestic violence crimes, but we know how to quickly create a massive reduction in domestic violence crimes and especially domestic violence homicide. How do we get from here to there?

Just as people in Quincy, Massachusetts, Nashville, Tennessee and San Diego, California came together to make ending domestic violence the leading priority other communities can do the same and it is easier because they have the successes of those communities to look at and a lot of additional research. Individual states can take the lead by adopting the needed law changes and provide funding to implement a program like the one discussed in this article.

This can also be done on a national basis. The President can announce that we will no longer tolerate domestic violence and create a program to encourage communities to implement the practices that work. Grants and other support can be provided to set up pilot projects around the country to demonstrate that these practices will work. Eventually the federal government can make implementation of these practices a requirement if states wish to receive any federal funding for law enforcement and the judicial system. This should be done on a non-partisan basis. Democrats claim to be supporters of women so they should certainly wish to free women from the fear and risk of domestic violence. Republicans regularly propose spending millions of dollars to promote abstinence for children. If they don’t want children having sex with their peers they certainly will wish to protect them from sex with adults. The bills to end domestic violence should be House 1 and Senate 1 to make them the first priority.

Several years ago I gave a presentation with Mo Therese Hannah at the NCADV Conference in Atlanta. I spoke about the success of Quincy, Nashville and San Diego in implementing these practices. After the workshop, a woman came up to me and told me what I said was no longer true. It seems a new administration took over in Nashville, dismantled the successful program and the domestic violence homicide rate went back up. This was disappointing news, but it also confirmed that it was these practices that are the difference between a substantial reduction in domestic violence crime and requiring women’s lives to be impacted by men’s abuse of their intimate partners.

Domestic violence is not inevitable. It can be prevented. Our daughters and granddaughters can grow up in a world in which domestic violence crimes are rare. The worst crime would be if we take the knowledge, research and ability we have to substantially reduce domestic violence crimes and instead find some excuse to force women and children to continue to suffer.

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

Do they even know what is going on…really know what’s going on? 

Why don’t they do something? 

I wondered this as a child victim of family court, placed with my mother’s abuser (my father).  I wonder about this as an abused mother, who hasn’t seen her children in several years now.  Why are they handing all this help to fathers (through Fatherhood Initiative grants from HHS), and not helping mothers in the same boat?  Not to mention looking the other way on the actual criminal aspect of it.  Why not come out of that big white house on Sunday evening and tell us why.

An employee for the Marion County Prosecutor’s office, who has to remain anonymous, believes Kay’s story is legitimate, but could not take action due to the custody dispute.

WTF?

From WRTV-6:

MUNCIE, Ind. — A handful of convicted sex offenders spoke frankly to 100 strangers Wednesday night in Muncie, with no questions off limits. The workshop was a first-of-its-kind event put on by the Family Services Society to prevent future abuse, 6News’ Tanya Spencer reported.

As offenders spoke candidly about the crimes that put them in jail, two of the panelists said they assaulted young girls they had just met. One abused his own daughter and another was a church mentor.

The offenders talked about how they justified their actions in their minds.  “I moan and gripe and complain about the children that are wearing pants that’s got “sexy” (written) on the back. Why do you want to put a word on your 12-, 14- or 16-year-old daughter’s butt? I mean, is that not trying to draw attention to her?” said one sex offender, who met his teenage victim online. He blamed pornography for fueling his addiction to sex.

All of the panelists agreed that they thought only of their own gratification during their crimes, never about the effect on their victims.  Parents came to the workshop looking for answers.  “(I want) to see how these folks operate and get insight to see where I can stand to protect my own children,” said Dwight Martin, a father of a 5-year-old.”  (I wanted) to make sure that I know what to look for to keep my kids safe,” said Brandy Martin, Dwight’s wife.”

I have three little children. I have a 4-year-old, a 1-year-old and a 3-month-old. That’s my worst fear ever is that something awful like that could happen to them,” said parent Sandrina Saintignon.

Counselors with the Family Services Society said unfortunately there’s no known set of characteristics or personality traits that will help parents identify an offender. They also said that 90 percent of sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows and trusts.

The best advice from those who know best how to lure young victims is to talk to and listen to kids.  Let them know they’re loved unconditionally and that they can share anything with you.  Also, pay close attention to any change in their behavior.

“It (the sexual abuse) changed how she (his 13-year-old daughter) acted towards me,” said one offender, “So, if you see a change toward a family member or friend, pay attention to it. Ask questions.

“Experts said one in three girls and one in six boys will be molested in their lifetime.Experts also said 88 percent of sexual abuse cases are never reported.  The Family Services Society has done panels like Wednesday’s before for small groups, but this was the first that was open to the public.  Event organizers said they may offer more sessions in the future.