Rethinking Custody Evaluation in Cases Involving Domestic Violence

Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence and Early Delinquency

“…Research has demonstrated that negative effects of early trauma are not necessarily permanent, and that when both IPV victims and their children are provided the proper support and guidance, the negative outcomes of IPV exposure can be buffered-even reversed (Carpenter and Stacks 2009;Cook et al 2005;Kaufman and Henrich 2000;O'Brien et al 2013;Stark 2009). For instance, some evidence-based, developmentally appropriate interventions for children exposed to IPV have been shown to decrease children's depressive symptomology and certain antisocial behaviors (Lee, Kolomer, and Thomsen 2012) and to enhance the relatedness among children within supportive environments (Thompson and Trice-Black 2012).…”

“…Research on this topic tends to disregard or minimize the Bincredible resilience^of children exposed to IPV, and the buffering effects of their support systems and coping skills (O'Brien, Cohen, Pooley, and Taylor 2013;Stark 2009). Indeed, many protective factors have been shown to positively mediate the effects of children's exposure to IPV-including positive parenting (Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, Shapiro, and Semel 2003), positive self-image and self-esteem (Bolger and Patterson 2001), having a positive relationship with at least one caring and nonabusive adult (Lynskey & Fergusson 1997), having parents and peers who disapprove of antisocial behavior (Herrenkohl et al 2005), easy child temperament, involvement in a religious community, and cognitive ability (Buckner, Mezzacappa, and Beardslee 2003).…”

‘I’d just lose it if there was any more stress in my life’: Separated Fathers, Fathers’ Rights and the News Media

“…The research literature on custody disputes indicates that it is often coercive fathers who pursue custody and/or contact provisions aggressively and tenaciously through family courts as part of their ongoing harassment of their former partners (Boyd 2003;Tolmie 2012a, 2012b;Meier 2009;Miller and Smolter 2011;Stark 2007Stark , 2009). Moreover, when legal processes fail to deliver the results coercive fathers wish, they not infrequently resort to more forceful means of achieving their desired ends; for example, custody abductions or even child homicide.…”

Domestic Violence and Family Law: Criminological Concerns

“…Despite clear evidence that separation requires greater rather than lesser protection from violence and abuse, and the literature documenting not only the overlap of partner and child abuse but also the damaging effects of exposure to violence, men's physical violence against adult female partners is frequently deemed irrelevant to parenting in family court. Lack of recognition of the various means of manipulation, controlling behavior, and threats that form the fabric of abusive relationships is incomprehensible in the resulting family law discourses about domestic violence (Stark 2009 In addition to physical and emotional abuse, critical criminologists have begun to document what Miller and Smolter (2011) termed 'paper harassment', using civil and family law processes to retaliate against women and children who report abuse, especially at divorce. The family law system in particular regularly mandates continuing engagement between abusive fathers and protective mothers.…”

“…However, at separation, divorcing mothers are expected to facilitate, promote, and encourage ongoing contact between their children and their abuser, also ostensibly for the sake of the children (Gill and Radford 2007;Hannah and Goldstein 2010;Prezkop 2011;Schneider 2000). Despite lip service to concerns about domestic violence and state laws requiring its consideration at custody determination, maximum contact with the male parent in heterosexual couples is currently prioritized in US family courts (Jaffe, Lemon and Poisson 2003;Lemon 2000;Schneider 2000;Stark 2009). As Clare Dalton (1999) explained:…”