Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts' errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women's and children's reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. However, the term parental alienation is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. However, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court.

No abstract

No abstract

This article addresses the recently discovered connection between domestic violence and welfare dependency.“ Empirical research among welfare populations shows that over 50% of women receiving welfare are or have recently been battered, and that partner abuse is a major reason for the continuing poverty of many women. The question the author asks and begins to answer is why this connection has not previously been identified or publicized by either the battered women’s movement or the anti‐poverty movement, and what the challenge may be to both movements as they attempt to address it in the context of welfare reform. The author argues that the connection has not been previously addressed because of the somewhat conflicting ideologies underlying both movements. The battered women’s movement is defined in part by its strong moral denunciation of male abusers and assertion of the victimization of women by men. The anti‐poverty movement is reluctant to demonize half of the poor population, particularly in light of the conservative welfare reformers’ emphasis on ”character“ as the main cause of poverty. The article argues that we must – and can – find a way to synthesize the feminist emphasis on interpersonal justice and morality with the anti‐poverty movement’s recognition of the larger social causes of poverty. The perspectives of both movements must be enlarged to recognize the multiple layers of victimization which poor women and men endure; and both movements will be revitalized by this cross‐fertilization.

No abstract