Abusers gaining custody in family courts: A case series of over turned decisions By Stephanie Dallam ABSTRACT: This article presents findings and recommendations based on an in-depth examination of records from 27 custody cases from across the United States. The goal of this case series was to determine why family courts may place children with a parent that the child alleges abused them rather than with the nonoffending parent. We focused on "turned around cases" involving allegations of child abuse that were at first viewed as false and later judged to be valid. The average time a child spent in the court ordered custody of an abusive parent was 3.2 years. In all cases we uncovered the father was the abusive parent and the mother sought to protect their child. Results revealed that initially courts were highly suspicious of mothers' motives for being concerned with abuse. These mothers were often treated poorly and two-thirds of the mothers were pathologized by the court for advocating for the safety of their children. Judges who initially ordered children into custody or visitation with abusive parents relied mainly on reports by custody evaluators and guardians ad litem who mistakenly accused mothers of attempting to alienate their children from the father or having coached the child to falsely report abuse. As a result, 59% of perpetrators were given sole custody and the rest were given joint custody or unsupervised visitation. After failing to be protected in the first custody determination, 88% of children reported new incidents of abuse. The abuse often became increasingly severe and the children's mental and physical health frequently deteriorated. The main reason that cases turned around was because protective parents were able to present compelling evidence of the abuse and back the evidence up with reports by mental health professionals who had specific expertise in child abuse rather than merely custody assessment.
Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imaging the Solutions Joan S. Meier ABSTRACT: The article critiques the judicial system's handling of domestic violence cases involving child custody and protection issues. It addresses the cultural and legal biases against mothers in such scenarios and discusses the impact of male violence within families on custody outcomes. Notably, it highlights the collaborative efforts behind the Green Book, aimed at reforming child protection practices by shifting responsibility towards male abusers and recognizing the need for women's safety. The paper also critiques the reliance on psychological evaluations in custody determinations, emphasizing the need for more robust and sensitive approaches to these complex cases.
NIH: Child Custody Determinations in Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence: a Human Rights Analysis | Jay G. Silverman, PhD, Cynthia M. Mesh, PhD, Carrie V. Cuthbert, JD, Kim Slote, JD, and Lundy Bancroft, BA ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence and child abuse are recognized both as public health concerns and as violations of human rights, but related government actions and inactions are rarely documented as human rights violations in the United States. Men who abuse female partners are also highly likely to abuse the children of these women. However, family courts are reported to often ignore risks posed by abusive men in awarding child custody and visitation. Battered women involved in child custody litigation in Massachusetts (n=39) were interviewed. A recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state was documented, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multiple internationally accepted human rights covenants and treaties. The human rights framework is a powerful tool for demonstrating the need for legal, social, and political reform regarding public health concerns. (Am J Public Health. 2004;94:951–957)
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.