Domestic Violence, Children and Parenting Plans Policy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Domestic Violence, Children and Parenting Plans

Policy Considerations

• What’s Old:
• Statutory Best Interest factor
• Nicholson v. Scopetta
• Permitting Child Abuse
• Enhancement of Penalties-if DV within sight or sound of a child
• What’s New:
• Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court-DV Dep’t.
• HB 3
• HB 429

How the parents look to the system

AND how they look to each other

3

Demeanor of the Abuser: Undermining child-parent relationship

• Attempts to present as the true victim
• Angers easily
• Claims the other parent is stupid or

inflexible

• Appears vulnerable or attempts to engender

empathy with the court

• Unwilling to understand the other parent’s

perspective

• ***Attempts to create alliances with third

parties

• Patronizes the other parent, attorney or

court

• Minimizes, blames the other for or excuses

inappropriate behavior

4

Demeanor of the Abused

• Has difficulty in presenting evidence from fear
• r cognitive impairments resulting from abuse
• Demonstrates inappropriate affect resulting

from fear, depression, PTSD or other responses to abuse

• Appears extremely anxious and unfocused
• Appears numb, unaffected or disinterested
• Acts aggressive or angry when testifying
• Shows signs of distress when listening to

abuser’s testimony

5

Faced with parenting decisions

Domestic Violence vs. the System

6

Family Court Perspective

• Joint decision making and

equal access is best for children and both parents should be involved with the decision making

• Parents who seek and

“demand” sole custody or who seek to restrict other parent’s access do not act in the best interests of the children-

• Parental alienation
• Friendly parent provisions

7

The System’s Dilemmas:

• Who to believe?
• Conflicting experts about

DV and PAS

• He said/she said
• Few social service

resources

• What to do?
• Try to protect children and

non offending parents (mothers)

• Refrain from violating the civil

liberties of accused fathers

• Worry about a tragic outcome
• Homicide of the victim
• Death of the child by an

abusive parent

8

Assumptions in parenting decisions

• Joint decision-making is best
• Parental involvement is safe for

both parents- (or not considered at all)

• Parents are child focused or will be

if permitted joint decision making

• Abuse to a parent is unrelated or

does not impact the children

• BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE

IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

9

Why is the issue so difficult?

The Assumption

• Parental involvement is

safe for both parents

• Parent child

relationships are safe and healthy and parents are child- focused

The effect of DV

• Post separation abuse often

Increases (Bancroft & Silverman, (2002))

• Child exposure to DV affects

relationship with both abusive and non abusive parents; abusers often use children to maintain power and control after separation

(Bancroft & Silverman (2002))

10

Why?

Assumption

• All parents can

communicate effectively

• Abuse of a parent is

unrelated to/does not significantly impair the parent/child relationship

Effects of DV

• Abuse and threats of abuse may

make communication impossible (Jaffe, et all 2006)

• Abuse can significantly impair

victim’s parenting (Stark (2009); Jaffe

& Crooks (2005) **Bancroft & Silverman (2002)

• Children may resist relationship

with abuser due to hyper- vigilance/fear (Drozd & Olesen (2004)

11

Why?

• Abuse may be difficult to

identify:

• Stereotypes of abusers are often wrong
• Abusers present well/elicit sympathy

(Research by Peter Jaffe, Claire Dalton, Lundy Bancroft)

• Victims often present poorly or be

hesitant to disclose to court

• Effects of DV often counterintuitive

(children often express love for abusive parent, victims stay in relationships/accommodate abusers

12

Why?

• Misconceptions about DV:
• Parents (mostly mothers) fake abuse to

gain advantage in custody disputes.

• If DV not immediately alleged, it is not

real or present in the relationship.

• Parents (mothers) actively alienate the
• ther parent from kids.
• Even if there is abuse, if it is not directed

at child, it shouldn’t affect custody.

13

Misconceptions v. Truth

Misconception

• Parents fake abuse

allegations to gain advantage

• If DV not alleged or alleged

late, there is no DV

• Parents alienate other

parent from children

• Abuse of parent not

relevant in custody decision

Truth

• Research shows false allegations not

prevalent (2%-12%; more likely that non-custodial fathers often fabricate

(Trocme & Bala (2005); Thoennes & Tjaden (1990); Bala % Schuman (2000))

• Victim and attorneys hesitant to raise

issues, court may not ask right

• questions. (Frederick (2008))
• PAS has been discredited-not listed in

DSM by APA (NCJFCJ Guide)

• Children are affected by exposure to

DV (Jaffe, et al. (2006); Wolfe, et al. (2003);

Edelson, (1999)

14

Making sense of the allegations

What victim/abuser says

• Drill down when questioning
• Listen to what the victim says
• Ask questions about the DV
• Assess for threat
• Remember to consider lethality

factors

• Consider “context” of both the

incident and the threat

How victim/abuser acts

• Observe demeanor of

both victim and abuser

• Consider behavior of

both in response to your questioning in light

• f myths, assumptions

and fears

15

What does the research show?

Mother’s demeanor matters. Hostility + DV= 5 times more likely to award sole custody to father. Hostility + documentation of DV= 3 times more likely. Severity/type of violence not predictive of recommendations

16

What does the research show?

• Psychologists more likely to believe DV irrelevant.
• Gender of evaluator often predictive of

recommendations.

• Daniel Saunders, presentation at NCJFJC Annual conference, “New Research on

Child Custody Evaluations and Domestic Violence: Implications for the Bench (2011); Custody Evaluations in cases with Domestic Violence research by Michael

• S. Davis, Chris O’Sullivan, Kim Susser, and Marjory Fields (National Institute of

Justice); Custody Evaluators’ beliefs about Domestic Abuse in Relation to Custody Outcomes, research by Daniel Saunders, Kathleen Faller, and Richard Tolman (NIJ); The Effect of Domestic Violence Allegations on Custody Evaluator’s Recommendations, research

17

Why is domestic violence relevant in custody disputes

• Abuse does not end with separation
• It often ESCALATES
• Overlap between DV and child abuse
• Children’s exposure to an

inappropriate role model

• Undermining of non-offending parent
• Perpetual litigation as a form of on-

going control

• Extreme cases lead to

homicide/suicide and abductions

18

What does the research show?

• Domestic violence is often not detected in disputed child

custody cases

• Screening for physical abuse alone is insufficient to detect

coercive controlling behaviors Practitioners who do not use systemic methods such as lethality, dangerousness and risk assessments tend to under-detect DV between parents

• Even when DV is detected, cases often proceed without

accommodations for safety or power differentials-mediation is such an example

19

Take Aways…

• To adequately address

parenting issues:

• Routinely screen for DV
• If present, identify who the DV
• ffender is and who the adult

victim is and

• If present, need for a specialized

assessment of DV risks to children, non-offending parent and parenting arrangement

• Domestic Violence, Parenting

Evaluations and Parenting Plans, (Anne L. Ganley (2009))

20

What’s a Court to do?

CRAFT SAFETY FOCUSED AND WORKABLE PARENTING PLANS THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP

• No abuse
• Abuse in the past, acknowledged
• Isolated / Situational violence or

threats, acknowledged

• Reactive or Resistive, acknowledged
• On-going and History of Abuse or

threats maybe with Coercive Control

• Significant History of Abuse with

Coercive Control, maybe with attacks directly on children DIFFERENTIATE DOMESTIC ABUSE

22

Parenting Paradigm

• NO VIOLENCE
• NO CURRENT

VIOLENCE

• NO CURRENT

VIOLENCE, BUT CAN’T WORK TOGETHER

• CONTACT VIOLENCE
• ON –GOING ABUSE,

THREATS, COERCIVE CONTROL ON-GOING ABUSE, THREATS

• COERCIVE CONTROL

INCLUDES CHILD OR OTHER ABUSE OF CHILD

 SHARED PARENTING  PARALLEL PARENTING  SUPERVISED

EXCHANGE

 SUPERVISED

PARENTING

 NO CONTACT

Level of Violence Appropriate Parenting plan

23

Shared parenting: Flexibility

• SHARED DECISION MAKING
• No significant history of violence, abuse or

threats

• Cooperation and Communication
• Remorse if there has been violence or

threats

• Parents put child’s need first
• Generally not appropriate for parents with

coercive control history or mentally ill and substance abusers

24

Parallel Parenting : Clear Boundaries

• DIVIDED DECISION-MAKING POSSIBLY

DIFFERENT ISSUES ASSIGNED TO EACH PARENT

• Isolated incidents of violence, no coercive control
• No current violence
• Offending parent took responsibility
• Incompatible child rearing styles
• Appropriate where each parent has a positive

contribution to make but direct contact with other parent creates acrimony

• Not appropriate for infants and very young children or

special needs children or one parent poses a threat to child or ongoing threat of violence to other parent

25

Unsupervised but with safety measures

Overnights v. no

• vernights

Pick up and drop off Drop-offs at school or daycare Always have an alternative plan for exchange and an AGREED safe third person Transportation The burden of a modified schedule should be on the OFFENDING parent

26

Unsupervised but with safety measures

• Look at stock language in shared

parenting orders

• Requires sharing address and phone

number

• Instead: no release of this information
• Relocation
• Contesting the non-offending parent’s

move can be a way to continue court battles

• Instead: no need to inform for move that

does not impact parenting

27

Supervised Parenting (Visitation)

• Fees
• Who is paying?
• Cost should be paid by the offending

parent

• Clear repercussions for missing visits or

being kicked out of visitation centers

• Make offending parent accountable to

the court without the input of the victim

• Mandatory review hearings for offending

parent; optional review for victim

28

Consider the following…

• Stair stepping plans if contact is suspended or supervised
• Exchanges: safe place, details on time, location, who can be present,

allocating costs

• Residential and holiday schedules: be specific as possible. Think

ENFORCEMENT

• Child and medical support: changes when DV is indicated
• Communication
• Between parents: restrictions to written communication and phone calls for

emergencies, Family Wizard

• Between parent and children: set parameters, follow language in existing POs

and No Contact orders

29

Consider th the following…

Consider other resources: mediation so long as power imbalance addressed

Caucus mediation can be a powerful tool

Violation of parenting plan: legal means to get child returned, and how to address interference and contempt issues (easier with a clear parenting plan)

Very clear repercussions for cancelling a number of times or not bringing a child back when

• rdered

Modification of parenting plans:

Change of circumstances, vexatious litigator if within 6 months, age

• f child

30

Suspended Contact : Explicit Goals

• DECISION MAKING AND PARENTING TIME TO PARENT ABLE TO

PROVIDE NON-VIOLENT HOME

• Access suspended per Court order due to high risk parent
• Severe current substance abusers and acutely mentally ill without

treatment

• Specific goals and behavioral criteria to be met before Supervised

Access

• Child caused distress and or orders disobeyed at Supervised Contact
• Very high lethality indication, previous abuse or abduction of child
• Conviction for serious assault or attempted homicide or homicide of

family member

• Child completely estranged due to past trauma
• Not appropriate for unjustified refusal of residential parent to make

child available or other non-compliance

Goals for the Offending Parent

• Continue with counseling
• Complete anger management, BIP or any other program recommended by court or counselor
• Sign a HIPPA release permitting appropriate verification of same
• No further criminal issues
• Complete requirements of probation
• Random drug and alcohol tests-# of consecutive clean tests
• No contact with current girlfriend unless she can provide the same
• Parenting class
• Compliance docket-case management
• Recommendations for future time shall be made by children's counselor with input from abuser’s counselor
• Advancement to telephonic, email or facetime by recommendation
• Firearms
• Discipline

Why is understanding lethality important?

• Assess risk
• Impact on parenting
• Impact on the non-offending

parent

33

Lethality Assessment

• Does he ever try to strangle or choke you?
• Does he use illegal drugs?
• Is he an alcoholic or problem drinker?
• Does he control all of your daily activities?
• Is he violently or constantly jealous of you?
• Have you ever been beaten by him while pregnant?
• Has he ever threatened or tried to commit suicide?
• Does he threaten to harm your children?
• Do you believe he is capable of killing you?
• Does he follow or spy on you, leave threatening notes, destroy

your property, or contact you when you don’t want him to?

Significant Factors for Homicide

34

Lethality Assessment

13 out of 20 Factors SCORING: LESS THAN 8: VARIABLE DANGER 8 TO 13: INCREASED DANGER 14 TO 17: SEVERE DANGER 18 OR MORE: EXTREME DANGER

• Has the physical violence increased in severity or frequency in the

past year?

• Does he own a gun? (+4)
• Have you left him after living together during the past year? (+3)
• Is he unemployed? (+3)
• Has he ever used a weapon against you or threatened you with a

lethal weapon? (+2)

• Does he threaten to kill you? (+2)
• Has he been avoided being arrested for domestic violence? (+2)
• Do you have a child that is not his? (+1)
• Has he ever forced you to have sex when you did not wish to do

so? (+1)

35

Thank You

Alexandria M. Ruden Legal Aid Society of Cleveland amruden@lasclev.org 216-861-5713