Connecticut Protective Moms: Post-Separation Abuse In Family Court - Issues and Solutions

This report presents recommendations made by dozens of members of Connecticut Protective Moms, domestic abuse victim advocates, and leading national domestic abuse experts and academics working on family court reform.

The aim of this report is to offer suggestions to improve the dysfunctional family court system, which at present does not adequately protect domestic abuse victims and their children after they leave abusive home situations - and too frequently orders vulnerable children back into contact with abusers. The status quo has led to prolonged and abusive family court proceedings which continue the trauma of emotional and physical harm to both protective parents and their children.

While CPM recognizes and acknowledges that domestic abuse is perpetrated by male, female and non-binary persons, for the purpose of this report, the victim will be referred to as female and abuser as male, due to research studies regarding domestic abuse and Interpersonal Violence (IPV).

Our Mission

Connecticut Protective Moms

Connecticut Protective Moms (CPM) is a 501 (c) (3) grassroots organization of Connecticut moms who are dedicated to improving the Connecticut Family Court process to validate all forms of domestic abuse including coercive control, emotional, verbal, financial and legal abuse. By raising awareness and educating Connecticut Family Court stakeholders on this broader definition of domestic abuse, we will advocate to reform state legislation to protect mothers and their children from continued abuse during Connecticut Family Court proceedings and to eliminate bias against a mother's domestic abuse allegations during child custody proceedings.

Why CPM?

The lack of education and knowledge of domestic abuse tactics among family court professionals - judges, lawyers, GALs, forensic evaluators - during divorce and family court proceedings often put moms and children at further risk of abuse and danger. Our objective is to change the "default" position of laws, court orders, and social attitudes in general to see moms and children protected not only before, but during and after they step into a family court for divorce from an abusive individual. CPM will raise awareness of new and stronger legislative solutions to family court legislation and loopholes that jeopardize the safety of children.

OVERVIEW

“The whole idea is to change the way we handle family court cases. We’re trying to make them less adversarial because that doesn’t always have good outcomes”, said Michael A. Albis, Chief Administrative Judge for Family Matters. 2019

Domestic abuse in Connecticut is a growing public health crisis with victims being harmed and murdered by their abusers. Children are also being harmed emotionally and physically, and sometimes killed, by parents granted unsupervised parenting time, in many cases despite safety concerns being raised by the child’s protective parent.

• ●  Recent federal research found that about one in five homicide victims in the United States (US) were killed by an intimate partner.

• ●  Among female homicide victims, about half were killed by intimate partners.

• ●  CT averages about 14 intimate partner homicides per year — a figure that has been increasing amid weak legislative measures and other limited efforts to prevent such cases.

• ●  Empirical research indicates that family courts regularly discount allegations of abuse when those allegations are raised in contested child custody cases.

• ●  Total lifetime financial costs with just one year of confirmed cases of child maltreatment, including child physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, result in $124,000,000,000 in annual costs to the economy of the US.

• ●  The United Nations defines gender based violence as discrimination, that is, violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.” (CEDAW 1992: para. 6).

TWO DECADES OF CONNECTICUT TASK FORCES

Over the past 20 years, CT has legislated task forces and commissions to study how to prevent domestic abuse and increase efficiency of family court proceedings to keep these victims safe after they leave an abusive relationship.

After 20 years of studying these issues, too few of the resulting recommendations have been legislated. Of the few which have become law, it is clear from recent incidents that protections are not adequately applied. Furthermore, family court decision-makers continue to order vulnerable victims into harm’s way. Meanwhile, CT domestic abuse victims and their children continue to suffer emotionally, physically, financially and sometimes tragically are killed.

• ●  2002 Commission on Custody and Divorce to examine ways that the divorce and custody determination process might be improved for children, their parents, and other significant caregivers. This task force was created by former Gov. Rowland and chaired by Tom Foley, who was still in a contentious custody battle with his wife, who claimed he was abusive and using the court to harass her and take custody of her children away from her. Tom chaired the commission and asked his Judge and psychologist who recommended sole custody for him, to join him on the commission to make recommendations.

  “However, the commission's work did not lead to any major revisions to Connecticut's divorce and custody laws.”

  
  

• ●  2014 Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children

  SHB 6685, Special Act 13‐24: Established a task force to study legal disputes involving the care and custody of minor children. The appointed co-chairs of the task force were two Guardian ad Litems who were actively involved in family court cases.

  
  

The task force shall study: (1) the role of a guardian ad litem and the attorney for a minor child in any action involving parenting responsibilities and the custody and care of a child, (2) the extent of noncompliance with the provisions of subdivision (6) of subsection (c) of section 46b‐56 and the role of the court in enforcing compliance, and (3) whether the state should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in any action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child. The study shall include, an examination of statutes applicable to an action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child, and the costs associated with contested divorce actions, including, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees including the fees of guardians ad litem and attorneys for the minor children. The study may include recommendations for legislation on matters studied by the task force.

“In 2014, legislation was passed that included revised billing practices for GALs to use a sliding fee scale as well as code that GALs must adhere. Items in the code include good faith and competent representation.”

● January 2016 Task Force to Study the Statewide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

“Recommendations should include more suggestions about ways to improve the process and outcomes for victims of abuse and their children in "routine" family cases that impact children, i.e. divorce, custody, and visitation cases. The primary thrust of the Task Force's recommendations seem to focus on improving decision making in restraining orders and criminal cases involving domestic violence. Yet, for many victims of domestic abuse, the initiation of a criminal case or a restraining order case against an abuser is just the beginning of a long, difficult process that continues in family court as a means to perpetuate abuse against their victims, which, in turn, impacts the safety and well- being of children.”

“Consequently, the Task Force recommendations should include recommendations for how family courts can do a better job identifying domestic violence victims and their children in family cases and then crafting safe orders that protect children from ongoing exposure to emotional and physical abuse not only between the parents, but to the children themselves. These recommendations should also address how family courts can effectively resolve difficult cases over time, since relationships between abusers and their victims will often continue in the parenting relationship long after any criminal or restraining order case has ended. Judicial training is one important component of these recommendations...”

• ●  2019 CCADV and Judicial Branch Information Session

• ●  https://www.jud.ct.gov/HomePDFs/FamilyCourtReport719.

  pdf

  “The Judicial Branch has been working to enhance how it manages family cases for many years, and is continuing to refine this initiative.

  “It was the type of case [Dulos — considered among the most litigated divorces in the state] — that judicial officials are now hoping to mitigate with new strategies for making complex or “high conflict” cases less adversarial by adopting principles from the Family Justice Initiative, a program of the National Center for State Courts.”

FUNDING

For the legislative changes the state has made in an effort to curb domestic abuse, public funding around this insidious problem has declined dramatically in recent years. As a result, on a daily basis in CT, many victims seeking help can’t get it and are turned away from critical services, including shelters and legal representation in family courts. Few resources have been allocated to improving the family court system, where so many victims are trapped for prolonged periods while trying to protect themselves and their children from harm.

2023: WHERE ARE WE?

Current legislation to reform domestic abuse laws and family court reform initiatives gives short shrift to the devastation wreaked by domestic abuse for a victim and their children. Although our law states that the court must consider the effect of domestic abuse upon the best interests of the child, anecdotally CPM moms know it is rarely, if ever, addressed and taken seriously in family court in our contested custody cases. Statistics cited in the Seattle Journal for Social Justice indicate that in a relationship where the mother is abused, there is a strong likelihood (somewhere between 50-70 percent) that the children will be abused as well. However, in family court system culture a common refrain from decision-makers is just because domestic abuse or violence happened between the parents the children are still better off with both parents. In many cases, this means children are court ordered to be in the care of an abusive parent. In an alarming number of cases the protective mother loses custody all together, due to false cross-claims of parental alienation (PA), when in fact the children refuse to see their abuser due to fear. PA is frequently used as a legal tactic by abusers and their attorneys to counter any claims of domestic abuse, even when children are actively - yet reluctantly - visiting with the abusive parent. In custody litigation, abuse allegations are not being adequately screened and considered by family courts, nor are past patterns of abusive behavior.

With the passing of PA 21-78 Jennifers’ Law, child custody statute Sec. 46b-56 was revised to elevate domestic abuse (formerly factor #14) to become the primary factor, to be examined and adjudicated first. By first determining whether there is abuse in the family, a Judge is better equipped to understand the overall family dynamic, prioritize the child’s safety, and then weigh the fifteen other custody factors with clarity. Currently, the judges are not adequately using Jennifers’ Law in their assessment of family conflict.

Our CPM moms are reporting that the new law is frequently being ignored, and some believe Judges have no understanding or training to assess coercive control, domestic abuse, and child abuse. They also are reporting that their lawyers continue to refuse to address domestic abuse in their case as well as attempt to enforce Jennifers’ Law.

Other CPM moms feel there is a historical bias against mothers and an undue burden to prove domestic abuse existed in the household, and later the courtroom. This traumatizing burden is coupled with the difficulties in presenting the evidence as many Judges and court professionals wish to follow the mindset of that was in the past, or domestic abuse has nothing to do with custody, when in fact it has everything to do with child custody. Therefore many Judges are limiting or ignoring the evidence victims have. Admitting and reviewing this evidence is how patterns of coercive controlling behavior can be shown, however the current status quo of family court all but eliminates the victim from being able to adequately do so.

CPM Mom:

“The current court system too often gives parents who live with abusive partners two terrifying choices: stay and suffer the violence; or flee, only to have the family justice system force their children to have even more contact with the abusive parent. If I had stayed with our abuser, I risked losing custody of our children as well as our abuser losing custody, all for

not protecting them from witnessing and therefore becoming victims themselves, due to the exposure to domestic abuse. However I left our abuser and now the courts are doing everything possible to force our children to be in the exact environment I tried protecting them from. I not only left but signed a safety plan, promising to keep the children safe from their father and would have lost custody to social services had I stayed with our abuser. CPS substantiates abuse and neglect claims against mothers who don’t ‘do enough’ to shield and protect their children from witnessing or experiencing abuse. Yet the family courts push to send them alone, without any supervision, or without me, their established safe parent there to protect them, and for some reason family court thinks they are somehow safe with their substantiated abuser, when if I stayed with them, I risked losing custody? How does this make any sense?”

LOOKING FORWARD TO A PARADIGM SHIFT IN FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS

As stated by Grant Wyeth, “The Family Court remains one of the great collective moral failings of our time.” He adds, “this should not be considered a niche issue. It is important for both political science and international relations.”

It is important to note, there is now a massive global focus on violence against women and children, and how the judicial systems across the world are tasked with safe-guarding our most vulnerable demographic, the children. The movements established and outcries of injustices are finally being heard.

“For many of us, it’s not accurate to say that we are victims-survivors of domestic violence; the truth is, we are also victims-survivors of family court. But the collective trauma and injustice we have experienced have brought us together, and our global solidarity — and healing — is a powerful force the world is just starting to see.” Custody Peace

The good news is, indicators show that 2023 will be a year of global changes and the potential to improve how family courts handle domestic abuse and child safety. We have the research, growing media attention, and global advocacy; now we need continued action, from everyone.

• ●  The newly enacted Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law" in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), financially incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children.

• ●  The Revised Chapter Four: Families and Children put out by the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges: NCJFCJ For the National Council with the task of education and training for judges to be putting forth such comprehensive and up to date material. We need to focus on implementing this into CT’s own mandates for judicial training.

• ●  With the United Nation Human Rights office of the high commissioner assigning a Special Rapporteur requesting calls for input. The purpose is to inform the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls’ report on the nexus between custody and guardianship cases, violence against women and violence against children, with a focus on the abuse of the concept of “parental alienation” and related or similar concepts.

• ●  The CA NOW Family Court Report includes evidence for the purpose of providing a holistic overview of the problems they believe

  are of serious concern,” including:The Family Court system in California presents profound obstacles for women seeking to protect their children from abuse.

  The struggle to move women and children from the status of men’s property to citizens in their own right continues today.

  
  

  Decent fathers did not take wrongful advantage of the court situation; it was the abusers who did. The bias in the system results in pathologizing, punishing, and discriminating against women.

• 
  

  The present family law system in California exists to enrich attorneys and allied mental health and mental health professionals.

  
  

This system allows mothers to be taken to court time after time, challenging what is in “the best interests of the child,” therefore subjecting them to a system that has no end for them or their children. In the most egregious cases, perfectly fit mothers who were the primary caretakers of their children lose custody to the fathers who are motivated by evading support obligations, and are often known abusers.

• ●  COLORADO JULIE’S LAW HB 21-1228Domestic Violence Training Court PersonnelConcerning oversight of court personnel who are regularly involved in cases related to domestic matters, and, in connection therewith, making an appropriation.The bill increases and clarifies domestic violence training requirements (training) for court personnel (personnel) who are regularly involved in cases related to domestic matters, including child and family investigators, parenting responsibility evaluators, and legal representatives of children.

  
  

  Child safety is the first priority of custody and parenting adjudications, and courts should resolve safety risks and claims of domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse first as a fundamental consideration in determining the best interests of the child before assessing other best interest factors.

  
  

  Custody litigation involving domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse shall be admitted only when the professional has undergone proper and regular training, including the effects of domestic abuse, child abuse, and child sexual abuse, and the professional possesses documented expertise and experience in the relevant types of abuse, trauma, and behaviors of victims and perpetrators.

  
  

  All professionals’ groups involved in parenting coordinators, parent responsibility evaluators, decision makers, family court facilitators, and judges and magistrates, need to have appropriate and ongoing training in domestic violence, coercive control, and related issues.

  All evidence admitted in custody and parenting adjudications should be subject to evidentiary admissibility standards.

  
  

• ●  The 25+ Most Positive & Hopeful Family Court Reform Moments of 2022

WHAT CAN WE DO NOW?

It’s time for the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) to tackle this issue with a bold and comprehensive solution that promotes safety within families, saves the lives of abuse victims, and protects those victims after they leave their abuser and enter into family court proceedings.

We have an immediate and essential opportunity in CT, to be the model of justice for women and children, not only for other states, but nations across the world. We have a unique opportunity to demonstrate why we passed Jennifers’ Law. It wasn’t just a recommendation to placate those concerned with the femicide that occurred in CT. It is a law. A law meant to provide safety and protections for families when they escape domestic abuse. A law that we have the chance to exemplify how we will enforce it to the fullest extent. A law to honor the women and children who have lost their lives. And we can make CT a safer place for everyone, including its most vulnerable constituents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Post Separation Abuse in Family Court

2. CPM Goals

3. A High Conflict Divorce is a Case of Domestic Abuse

4. Inadequate Training in Coercive Control & Child Abuse

5. The Use of Children as a Tactic of Intimate Partner Violence and its Relationship to Survivors Mental Health

6. DARVO: Abuser and Court Blame the Victim and Deny Allegations of Abuse

7. 8. 9.

10. The Custody Switch: Primary Caregiver Removed

11. Financial Abuse

Parental Alienation Claims Reunification Therapy and Programs Litigation Abuse

12. Unregulated Court Appointed Officials in Contested Custody Cases GAL, Forensic Evaluators

13. 50-50 Shared Parenting Presumption

14. Pro Se Protective Moms

15. Children’s Rights

16. Adverse Childhood Experiences Research

17. Additional CPM Moms Observations and Suggestions

18. The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act

POST SEPARATION ABUSE IN FAMILY COURT

Up until separation, the abuser may only have abused the adult partner, but when an abuser senses the loss of power and control, the abuse often escalates. In many cases, the post-separation attacks begin to include children. This is because abusers engage in post-separation abuse to seek to regain control over victims. Post-separation abuse includes endangering and disregarding children during parenting time, financial and litigation abuse, as well as continued harassment and intimidation. Most of this contact with an abuser is court ordered under the watchful eye of appointed court professionals.

Research by leading family court reform experts, including Peter Jaffe, PhD, has shown that harassment, stalking and physical abuse continue at significant rates post separation and may even become more severe.

After we have studied the issue of post separation abuse in family court proceedings extensively, speaking with hundreds of CPM mothers, national domestic abuse advocates and policy experts, we recognize the following issues and propose the following recommendations.

CPM GOALS Our main goals are to reduce or eliminate:

• ●  A child's continued court ordered exposure to abuse by a parent;

• ●  The financial incentive for abusers and family court appointed

  professionals to prolong litigation in contested custody battles;

• ●  Children being used as a pawn by an abuser and taken from their

  protective parent in custody cases involving domestic abuse;

• ●  The aggressive and adversarial nature of family court proceedings

  that escalate an abuser’s attacks;

• ●  Litigation and financial abuse of the protective parent, under the

  guise of the abuser’s access to the children and prolonged meritless

  court actions;

• ●  Historial gender bias in family court which discounts a mother’s and

  child’s allegations of abuse;

• ●  Reactive public systems that place the onus on abuse victims to get help for themselves and their children during times when they’re most at risk;

• ●  The number of unqualified court appointed “experts” such as GALs (who have no mental health background), psychologists, psychotherapists and custody evaluators with no continuing education on coercive control, domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse, who have outdated viewpoint on the presentation of victims of abuse and the family dynamics;

• ●  Eliminate immunity given to court officials in order to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, and to have a checks and balances system in place, therefore hopefully preventing further unnecessary loss of life and damage to our future generations;

• ●  The overall cost burdens to victims, while improving funding and resources;

• ●  Judges’ failure to factor the best interest of the child in custody orders with regards to domestic abuse. Their safety, both physical, and psychological are and should be of the utmost concern.

A HIGH CONFLICT DIVORCE IS A CASE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE

There are approximately 30,000 divorces a year in CT. While most divorces are acrimonious and difficult for every family member, they do not involve domestic abuse, coercive control actions of using the children as pawns to inflict more pain on the primary care giver or hiding marital assets. The five percent of cases that enter the judicial branch every year with contested custody and contested financial issues are red flags for domestic abuse. This does not even take into account the 1000s of post- judgment divorce cases returning every year because one of the litigants continues to want control and abuse the system. Many of our CPM moms have been in family court for over five years and over ten years.

Unfortunately, a vast majority of domestic abuse cases are wrongly labeled in custody litigation as “high conflict,” when in fact there is only one person who is high conflict, the abuser. As Rosenfeld, et al., 2019 found, there are certain individuals who are drawn towards conflict. These patterns of behavior - when adequately observed - become evident in the judicial system.

When most victims leave and a divorce ensues, the victim is wrongly labeled as highly emotional and reactive or “bitter and vindictive” in order to paint the victim in a negative light. A majority of these victims are only trying to protect and desperately shield their children from further abuse.

ISSUES

• ●  Court professionals have been taught that contested custody involves two good parents who are acting out in ways that harm children because they are angry at each other.

• ●  The research says a large majority are really domestic abuse cases. Using high conflict approaches, courts view reports of domestic abuse and child abuse as obstacles to the preferred co-parenting arrangement instead of a warning that one of the parents is unsafe.

● Courts have the power to force children to interact with an abuser, but they cannot remove the fear and stress from the children. This forces children to go into survival mode which has a detrimental effect on their developing brains. To cope, many children learn to push the pain and fear deeper inside where it will inevitably come out in more harmful ways.

Experts Weigh In:Lisa Fontes, Phd Author of Invisible Chains & Dr. Christine Cocchiola, DSW, LCSW

When abusers use the courts to harass their ex-partners, judges sometimes consider “the couple” as the problem, failing to identify the legal maneuvers as a form of continued abuse.

Guardians ad litem, custody evaluators and judges often mistakenly identify custody disputes involving a domestic abuser as high-conflict divorces. The term high-conflict divorce suggests symmetrical and parallel escalation from both parties. However, in most high-conflict divorce cases, what we are really seeing is one “party who is drawn towards, rather than away from, conflict” (Rosenfeld et al., 2019).

These cases are marked by one high-conflict litigant who exerts power through litigation abuse. In other words, an abuser creates a series of court complications to make a divorce or custody case impossible to resolve, so it continues for years. The problem is not the couple—the problem is the abuser should be held accountable for their actions. The abuser wants the case to drag on, relishing these opportunities to continue to make their victim suffer.”

CPM Mom:

“It brings to question how exactly does the judicial system think most women get out of their abusive marriages? They get a divorce. When the victim has had enough and is done living in that situation, when they are fearful for their own children to grow up thinking this is normal, acceptable behavior or how one should treat a partner. The only way out for a victim is to divorce and they have found that strength to finally disclose their abuse for the first time, which happens to be in court, only for it to get thrown in their face and be told by the very system meant to protect them from abuse, they have to prove it. It is degrading and humiliating, this isn’t a ‘bitter and vengeful act,’ this is being able to disclose what she has been through, and again, for many victims, it’s for the first time. For our judicial system, to have this same mentality and victim blaming, as an abuser does, it needs to change.”

INADEQUATE TRAINING:

COERCIVE CONTROL AND CHILD ABUSE

CPM Mom:

“Many family court victims have spoken about the fact that the CT Judicial Branch does not comply with Federal ADA law. It is essential that victims of domestic abuse and their affected children who have thereby become disabled emotionally, or who have been disabled ongoing, have the necessary modifications they need in order to access the legal proceedings in their cases. Thus far, the CT Judicial Branch has failed to do this. Not only is the CT Judicial Branch's refusal to comply with ADA law a violation of federal ADA law and a violation of the constitutional and human rights of our most vulnerable, it is also foolish, short sighted, and bottom line negligent.”

CPM Mom:

“I have to say there are a lot more eyes on the situation now. In 2012 I was very much alone and it was all still “swept under the rug. We now have more professionals studying this field. Dr. Emma Katz, Dr. Marianne Hester. Now we have Dr. Cocciola and Dr. Fontes breaking barriers. I feel we need to rely on the science of competent mental health professionals rather than attorneys to make life long decisions for children.”

CPM Mom:

“When I brought up my abuse to the family relations custody evaluator, she stated to me, “Just because he abused you doesn’t mean he’ll abuse your kids.” While that statement may be true, the experts reveal that the abuser doesn’t have to abuse the children to cause harm. The abuse

only has to occur in the home. The child only has to be a witness to the abuse to be negatively affected by it. The same evaluator took my statement about my abuser throwing a chandelier at me. When she asked my abuser what happened, my abuser classified it as a drunken mistake without intent of violence and fear. How can one rip an entire chandelier out of a ceiling by mistake? And how was that event able to be justified away? The same evaluator was told about a night when my abuser pointed a gun at me. My abuser was able to deny this ever occurred, so it wasn’t taken into account. This is not an appropriately trained evaluator.”

ISSUES

• ●  Judges presiding over custody cases involving allegations of domestic abuse have limited training when appointed. They are only required to attend limited training when appointed.

  CT has not established standards for such training.

• ●  An evaluation of the judges education program “Enhancing

  Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases,” developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, showed that judges overestimated their skills and competence prior to the training (Jaffe, 2010). Six months after training, the majority of judges saw specific behavior changes in the areas of victim safety, batterer accountability, and judicial leadership.

• ●  Family court stakeholders, including psychologists and Guardian ad Litems, also have little or no training in domestic abuse, child abuse, and coercive control. (See GALs below).

• ●  The first draft proposal of Jennifers’ Law PA 21-78 required training for all family court stakeholders on domestic abuse and coercive control, but it was eliminated in drafting.

• ●  Domestic abuse training for the judicial branch has been limited and inconsistent. Attached, please find a compilation of CT Judicial Training for Judges provided to the media by the Judicial Branch in November 2021.

SOLUTIONS

• ●  Pass legislation to create a requirement for coercive control and domestic abuse subject matter trainings for Judges and court professionals, as recommended by the recently published NCJFCJ Revised Chapter Four: Families and Children Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence

• ●  The newly enacted Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law” in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), financially incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children by: Providing evidence-based ongoing training to judges and court personnel on family violence subject matter, including: (i) child sexual abuse; (ii) physical abuse; (iii) emotional abuse; (iv) coercive control; (v) implicit and explicit bias; (vi) trauma; (vii) long and short-term impacts of domestic violence and child abuse on children; and (viii) victim and perpetrator behaviors.

• ●  Mandatory, yearly continuing education on domestic abuse by a qualified licensed mental health professional or established program like “Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases,” developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Family Violence Prevention Fund

• ●  Training needs to be developed in coordination with credible, respected Coercive Control clinical experts at academic institutions and led by appropriate facilitators, such as those with clinical experience and expertise - CT’s Christine Cocchiola, DSW and Lisa Fontes, PhD.

• ●  Transcripts or notes on the hearings/trials should be read prior to every hearing and evaluation. This will insure the victim won’t have to continually relive and retell their abuse.

• ●  In Jennifers’ Law, child custody statute Sec. 46b-56 was revised to elevate domestic abuse (formerly factor #14) to become the primary factor, to be examined and adjudicated first. By first determining whether there is abuse in the family, a judge is better equipped to understand the family dynamic, prioritize the child’s safety and weigh the fifteen other custody factors with clarity. The judges are not yet adequately using Jennifers’ Law in their assessment of family conflict. It is frequently being ignored, some say because they are not trained to understand and assess coercive control.

• ●  Requiring an evidentiary hearing if there’s a credible allegation of abuse enables judges to identify abuse at the initial stages of a case and stop the abusive behavior earlier, rather than have litigants trapped in costly litigation for years and enabling abusers. These cases can drag out for years, subjecting the victims to litigation abuse, years of unnecessary trauma, and draining financial resources. Adjudicating this issue first prevents the escalation of abuse, which often increases when a victim leaves. Addressing abuse early and intervening in a way that genuinely keeps victims safe decreases the need for social services, law enforcement, and other state resources including our already severely taxed educational system, in the long term.

● No immunity for judges, without accountability there is no recourse or “skin in the game” for the judge’s to follow the laws as written and to then apply them appropriately. A checks and balances system is paramount in any judicial process.

THE USE OF CHILDREN AS A TACTIC OF DOMESTIC ABUSEa.k.a. AWARDING CUSTODY TO AN ABUSIVE PARENT

CPM Mom:

“After spending 20 years married to my first college boyfriend, I never, ever realized how controlling he really was...because as my lawyer told me..I always behaved. When I decided to leave after he became belligerent, cruel and emotionally and financially abusive, he ramped up his abuse knowing he was losing control of his victim, me. He declared that if I left, he would take custody of our children and I would be left without a penny since he had sole ownership of our bank accounts and I had no idea where or how much money we had. After 5 years and him spending 2 million dollars for lawyers, my ex husband was awarded sole custody and I received 50% visitation with no support.”

CPM Mom:

“If a stranger committed the same egregious acts against someone not in our home, man, woman or child, they’d have the proverbial book thrown at them. However because this is a former partner or a parent, they are effectively given a free pass to continue their reign of terror and at times even seem empowered to push the boundaries by the Family Court system and escalate their abuse.”

CPM Mom:

“Less than two years after my abuser and I divorced, my abuser took me back to court after my daughter’s therapist called DCF to report something my daughter told her. My abuser blamed me. We’ve been back in family court for more than a year because he wants more custody and alleges Parental Alienation - despite never being denied visitation and voluntarily missing over 30 visits in the prior year. After an evaluation from Family Relations, they agreed he should have more custody. I’m hoping the judge will see through the ruse and keep the current agreement.”

ISSUES

• ●  The Abusive partner gains shared and often sole custody of the children from his victim even when he has a history of abuse.

• ●  In the 1970s, “the best interests of the children” became the predominant guideline, although it still remains somewhat ambiguous and CPM moms agree that often it feels as if the statute protects abusers who want access to their vulnerable children than the other way around.

• ●  Due to a cultural backlash, the abuser’s rights to a child supersede a child’s own constitutional right to live free from fear, harm and abuse.

• ●  This can happen through uninformed and gender biased courts, court

  staff, evaluators, and attorneys and how the very act of protecting ones’ children can lead to their loss.

  
  

DARVO:"Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." WHEN AN ABUSER AND COURT BLAME THE VICTIM AND DENY ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE

ISSUES

• ●  DARVO refers to a reaction by abusers and their response to being held accountable for their behavior.

• ●  DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The abuser may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the abuser assumes the victim role and turns the true victim - or the whistle blower - into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when the abuser assumes the role of the falsely accused and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser for false accusations.

• ●  Institutional DARVO occurs when the DARVO is committed by an institution such as family court (or with institutional complicity) as when police charge rape victims with lying. Institutional DARVO is a pernicious form of institutional betrayal.

• ●  There is a pervasive attitude in the courts that allegations of child abuse are not true. Andrew Schepard, founder of PEACE, a statewide parental education program, in a New York Law Journal discussed a study of child abuse charges. He stated that “many professionals involved in such cases (child abuse) believe that the allegations are presumptively false, simply a nuclear weapon in the ongoing divorce custody wars.” The study found, to his surprise, that only 9% of the allegations were false.

• ●  Provocation. The court blames the survivor for the respondent's violence by claiming that she provoked his violence. Provocation comes up when the abuser tries to blame the domestic abuse victim for their actions. “Reactive abuse” is a term associated with this that shifts the blame onto the victim. An abuser will try to claim reactive abuse when the survivor fights back or defends themself, sometimes claiming that the victim is mentally unstable or “crazy” and reacted through physical violence.

• ●  The court denies domestic abuse victims protective orders with

  no explanation.

• ●  The court refuses to demand the abuser pay temporary child

  support or alimony/maintenance at the time of filing, therefore in many cases keeping an already financially fragile mother from being able to support her children.

• ●  The judge does not want to hear evidence related to custody or visitation and/or refuses to decide custody or visitation. Leaving mothers and their children to fend for themselves against an emboldened abuser with no recourse or protections in place that a custody agreement offers.

• ●  The judge orders custody or unsupervised visitation to the abuser. Effectively eliminating any necessary protections needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the child or children involved.

  Belief in False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse, Daniel Saunders et al.

• ●  On average, evaluators estimated that one fourth to one third of child abuse allegations were false.

• ●  On average, evaluators estimated that 26 percent of mothers’ domestic violence allegations were false and 31 percent of fathers’ allegations were false.

• ●  Evaluators “supported” the allegations of domestic violence in approximately half of their cases alleging domestic violence.

SOLUTIONS

• ●  The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law" in VAWA, incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children by: Courts must consider evidence of past sexual or physical abuse, including protection orders, arrests, and convictions for domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse of the accused parent”The court should consider the respondent’s past violence or abuse toward the victim, including coercively controlling/intimidating behavior, to determine the best interests of the children.

• ●  The court should be able to use Family History (generational) to determine risk of abuse.

• ●  For purposes of an appeal, if the judge says that he or she is not going to grant the protective order, it is necessary for the judge to state his or her reasons for denying the order.

• ●  The burden of proof should be on the abuser to prove they are mentally stable and in therapy.

• ●  There should be a similar FVEP (Family Violence Education Program) as used in criminal courts for abusers identified in family court, not just the co-parenting program currently ordered. With the identified abuser bearing the cost burden.

• ●  There should also be no limitations or objections to hearsay testimony when discussing a minor child’s disclosures made to a trusted provider or established safe parent. This limits a protective parent from being able to prove the abuse they have endured and how it has affected the children.

PARENTAL ALIENATION (PA) CLAIMS

CPM Mom:

“My abusive ex, who was not very involved in our children’s lives prior to my filing for divorce, claimed his children’s less than enthusiastic attitude about being with him ‘parental alienation,’ which he said was caused by me brainwashing them to avoid him. He paid PA ‘experts’ to back up his theory. He claimed that our middle school aged children's preference for me, their primary attachment figure all their lives, was not because of his emotionally abusive behavior, but because I schemed to put them up to it.”

Experts Weigh In: Dr. Christine Cocchiola, DSW, LCSW

Acceptance of PA can result in failure to adequately investigate reports of abuse. One of the biggest pitfalls of having children evaluated by someone trained in parental alienation theory is that the assumption of manipulation by the preferred parent means that the rejected parent is deemed by evaluators to be the only source of “credible” information; the preferred parent and child are not viewed as credible and thus their concerns are often ignored. This parent and the child often quickly realize that the evaluator does not believe them, is biased, and has their mind made up. This can lead to them shutting down and not providing information, or even exaggerating actual abuse to be more extreme in an attempt to get the evaluator to pay attention.

Although proponents of parental alienation agree that substantiated abuse rules out a diagnosis of PAS, many custody evaluators appear predisposed to attribute abuse allegations to vindictiveness, rather than exploring whether there is a factual basis for the child’s disclosure or the protective parent’s concerns (e.g., Saunders, Faller, & Tolman, 2011). In addition, as Johnston, Roseby, and Kuehnle (2009) pointed out, parental violence, abuse, and neglect range on a continuum from blatant acts to more subtle forms of emotional abuse, neglect, and a lack of empathy and concern for the child that may not be acknowledged, difficult to document, and

unreported or dismissed by authorities. Even when abuse is formally investigated, it is frequently not substantiated as allegations of interpersonal violence can be very difficult to independently confirm, especially if the law enforcement or child protective services personnel also believe in the myth of PAS and, therefore, do not conduct their normal comprehensive investigations.

ISSUES

• ●  U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show? “Family court and abuse professionals have long been polarized over the use of parental alienation claims to discredit a mother alleging that the father has been abusive or is unsafe for the children. This paper reports the findings from an empirical study of ten years of U.S. cases involving abuse and alienation claims. The findings confirm that mothers’ claims of abuse, especially child physical or sexual abuse, increase their risk of losing custody, and that fathers’ cross-claims of alienation virtually double that risk. Alienation’s impact is gender-specific; fathers alleging mothers are abusive are not similarly undermined when mothers cross-claim alienation. In non-abuse cases, however, the data suggest that alienation has a more gender-neutral impact. These nuanced findings may help abuse and alienation professionals find some common ground.”

• ●  Decades of misinformation taught to family court stakeholders led by people with no experience in domestic abuse, promoting unscientific theories like Parental Alienation (PA).

• ●  With respect to cases in which an allegedly abusive parent claimed the protective parent ‘‘alienated’’ the child, courts believed the protective parent only 1 in 51.

• ●  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges noted that “it is often legitimate for the partner of an abusive parent to try to protect the children from exposure to abuse, or to try to secure his or her own safety from the abusive partner by limiting that

partner’s contact with the children.”

• ●  The court’s acceptance of PA theories leads to protective

  parents being afraid to raise the issues of domestic abuse and child abuse for fear of losing custody and possibly visitation. In a CPM survey, we found the majority of women in our group are advised by their attorneys not to raise that issue in court because of the risk that it will backfire and they will be seen as liars and could lose custody. Even with failed reunification attempts, abusers allege PA at an alarmingly high rate amongst CPM moms.

• ●  The friendly cooperative parent concept intimidates the parent who has experienced an embattled relationship, which makes the failure of joint custody predictable. Family Relations counselors tell our CPM moms they are being difficult when they are not agreeing with visitation with the abusive parent or when they try to limit communication with their abuser.

  SOLUTIONS

• ●  The courts are currently burdened with “high conflict” divorce proceedings and custody modifications. In cases where domestic abuse is alleged, appointed court professionals and judges involved must be educated in the dynamics of abuse and coercive control and the specific means abusers use to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage (including accusing victims of PA in order to gain increased custody access.) This training should also include information on how PTSD from abuse trauma affects a victim’s psychological state, which is often used by abusers in court to discredit their victims.

• ●  The judge should utilize their ability to call for a meeting with a child to allow the child to express for themselves to the child their wishes. Sometimes known as a Lincoln Hearing in New York State.

• ●  Suggestions about how to increase the number of and improve access to affordable supervised visitation sites for children exposed to domestic abuse;

• ●  A proposal for a stronger legal presumption against awarding sole or joint custody (whether physical or legal) of a minor child or unsupervised visitation with a minor child to a parent who has been convicted of a crime related to domestic violence. At present, domestic violence figures only as a single factor in the CT custody statute's non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered when making determinations about the best interests of the child (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-56(c)(14)). Where domestic abuse has been conclusively demonstrated between the parents, a presumption in favor of the non-abusive parent would provide important protections for the child, while avoiding the procedural pitfalls discussed above.

• ●  Improved access to counseling and therapy services for children who have been exposed to domestic abuse, including low-cost services or services readily covered by insurance providers;

• ●  Improved access to quality child care to litigants, particularly so victims can get or remain employed or attend court;

• ●  Encouraging judges to more frequently award or enforce relief that will enable survivors to establish or continue their employment, including stronger, faster child support enforcement;

• ●  Access to a no-cost or affordable psychiatric evaluation - not by a Forensic Psychologist - in cases where the results of such an evaluation would impact the court's determinations about custody and visitation in cases involving allegations of abuse;

• ●  Allocating additional resources to programs that help stabilize families in crisis, such as rent bank programs, security deposit assistance programs, and legal protections for families at risk of losing their housing as a result of abuse or its collateral consequences (e.g. the loss of an abusive parent's income to contribute to household expenses, even if such loss is only temporary).

REUNIFICATION THERAPY AND PROGRAMS

CPM Mom:

“Sole focus of cases is on reunification with the abusive parent. The children's therapist providing outside services should be consulted in regard to the child's needs. Relationships of the child and the protective parent are often not respected. The system is giving the child the impression something is wrong with the protective parent. Further traumatizing the protective parent and the child. Increasing the children and parent anxiety. Children become afraid they will be separated from the non-offending parent. Giving children the impression, they are not safe. Interfering with the children's ability to disclose information. They will be punished for reporting the truth. The offending parent will be angry about the disclosure.”

CPM Mom:

“You should never force a child into reunification with an abusive parent no matter what. It is detrimental to their well being and ACE scores should be heavily weighed in custody cases, as an ACE score clearly outlines the health issues that surround one's exposure to the abuse and negative experiences as a child.”

CPM Mom:

“Once you demand a safe parent to force a child to go on visits or into reunification therapy, a loss of trust, sense of stability and safety is immediately removed. My own children ask me “why don’t you love us? If you did, you wouldn’t make us go see our dad.” That is heartbreaking to hear. It damages my relationship with the kids because when you are court ordered to do this and are a law abiding individual, you follow court orders, unlike an abuser.”

ISSUES

• ●  One of the concrete dangers of this type of therapy is that it has been used to force children into reunification with adults that have committed abusive crimes against them, thus putting the children at risk of further victimization.

• ●  The punitive “therapies” are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. These children may find this kind of setting a “trigger” for further post-traumatic reactions.

• ●  Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child.

• ●  Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and rather than helping their well-being, could cause lasting psychological harm, particularly when imposed upon children who claim the parent they are being forced to reunify with is abusive.

• ●  Reunification therapy is not a recognized modality in the DSM-5, by the APA, or the WHO, many court appointed professionals engage in this “practice” while demanding out of pocket payment because of the lack of scientific evidence based data to support it.

  
  

  SOLUTIONS

• ●  The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law" in VAWA, incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children by limiting courts ordering of unregulated “reunification treatment”, which may not be ordered by the court without scientifically valid and generally accepted proof of the safety, effectiveness and therapeutic value of the particular treatment.

• ●  Consulting with clinical experts in the field of children’s trauma such as Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D. who is the Executive

• Vice-President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence. Her psychotherapy practice specializes in children and adolescents suffering from dissociative symptoms and disorders, and her forensic practice specializes in child sexual abuse. She has served as an expert witness in 27 states.

COERCIVE CONTROL IN THE COURTROOM:

LITIGATION ABUSE

CPM Mom:

“We need to disincentivize litigation abuse against both primary caretakers and domestic abuse victims to safeguard outcomes for the children. Some parties and their lawyers abuse the system, wasting valuable resources, prolonging the conflict and increasing the cost of divorce, or undermining parenting arrangements. More resources would be available to families who need them if families and their representatives who inappropriately over-consume system resources were discouraged. In addition, children will benefit if compliance with agreements and court orders improves and opportunities for parents to prolong their disputes are diminished.”

ISSUES

• ●  Domestic abuse victims seeking safety and justice for themselves and their children through family court and other legal systems may instead encounter their partners’ misuse of court processes to further enact coercive control. Abusers use the court proceedings to damage their victims emotionally, financially and may try to impact the childrens’ relationships with their protective parent by seeking sole custody.

• ●  Litigation abuse is extremely damaging to children as it robs them of the security of knowing their primary caretaker is financially secure; having financial resources for college, extracurriculars, and basic needs. It also robs children of their protective parent's focus and attention. Many parents lose their homes, retirement savings, and ability to support themselves due to litigation abuse. Post separation abusers often leave their targets with no options other than litigation due to the abuser’s failure to cooperate, and subsequent vexatious litigation techniques.

• ●  Social science research and survivor advocacy has established that abusive partners often use the family court process as a tool to continue coercive control over a former partner.

• ●  A decade ago, researchers exposed the experience of “paper abuse” as a tactic of domestic abuse, and further research and survivor strategies have since emerged. In the literature, this control is referred to as paper abuse, litigation abuse, legal systems abuse, procedural stalking, custody stalking, court abuse, and post-separation abuse to account for the myriad contexts and situations in which it occurs.

• ●  “The abuser retains or regains control by bringing the victim back to court repeatedly. Each day in court takes a tremendous toll on the victim in lost wages and lawyer’s fees. Victims of domestic abuse have often already suffered from financial abuse. The court battle may stretch them financially beyond the breaking point, forcing them and the children to move into a shelter or even—sometimes—return to the abuser. Psychologically, the stress of prolonged court battles can be devastating to the protective parent and to the children Clements et al., 2021.”

  
  

  SOLUTIONS

  We need solutions that would go a long way to protect victim-survivors who suffer from post separation legal abuse. The courts should protect someone who has endured coercive control within their relationship rather than extending the abuser's reach after separation.

The Experts Weigh In:

Dr. Christine Cocchiola, DSW, LCSW Lisa Fontes, PhD

1. Findtheabuserincontemptupontheveryfirstfailuretopaychild support or in some other way conform to the terms of a court order-- thus averting the need for repeated court hearings.

2. Become familiar with abuser profiles and patterns of domestic violence to detect these more easily when they appear in court.

3. Watch vigilantly for signs of abuse throughout the court and mediation processes.

4. Sanction abusers who file frivolous motions.

5. Be wary of granting custody or visitation to abusers. Where such

   contact is granted, structure agreements to reduce the need for contact between the parties.

6. 
   

Litigation Abuse Research Links

• ●  Fitch, E. & Easteal, P. (2017). Vexatious litigation in family law and coercive control: Ways to improve legal remedies and better protect the victims. Family Law Review, 7, 103-115.

• ●  Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18, 84-99.

• ●  Clements, K.A.V., Sprecher, M., Modica, S., Terrones, M., Gregory, K., & Sullivan, C. (2021). The use of children as a tactic in intimate partner violence and its relationship to survivor mental health. Journal of Family Violence, DOI: 10.1007/s10896-021-00330-0

THE CUSTODY SWITCH: PRIMARY CAREGIVER REMOVED

CPM Mom:

“An abusive parent will use the Department of Children and Families to make false claims against the protective parent. The "scorched earth" tactic causes chaos and trauma for the children during the divorce. Additionally, it damages the protective parents' reputation in the community; it is a bait-and-switch tactic to confuse the court process, places the protective parent as the target of a DCF case, and further damages the children's relationships with the protective parent. While protecting children from an abusive partner is essential, weaponizing DCF against a protective parent destroys any hope that the children will get the help they need from the trauma inflicted by losing a mother.”

CPM Mom:

“If abuse is deemed credible, sole custody should be awarded to the safe parent and visitation should be deemed unreasonable with the abuser or under the discretion of the safe parent in unison with the children’s therapist. Or simply by agreement of the safe parent.”

ISSUES

• ●  Abusive parents seek joint or full custody as a means of revenge, punishment and continued control over domestic abuse victims after previously sharing no parenting responsibilities and demonstrating no interest in doing so.

• ●  Survivors are placed in a no-win situation: If they do not report abuse, then protections for them and solid grounds for custody are not available; yet reporting the abuse may be viewed as raising false allegations in order to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (Dore, 2004). Research shows that parents who raise concerns about child sexual abuse can be severely sanctioned for doing so (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). The sanctions include loss of custody to the alleged offender, restricted visitation, and court orders not to report further abuse or take the child to a therapist.

• 
  

SOLUTIONS

● A proposal for a stronger legal presumption against awarding sole or joint custody (whether physical or legal) of a minor child or unsupervised visitation with a minor child to a parent who has been convicted of a crime related to domestic abuse

FINANCIAL ABUSE

CPM Mom:“What about manipulating a non-monied spouse to spend money on an attorney so they become financially disabled by the court process. The abuser is filing motions that are excessing, or harmful to the children or making claims to DCF to get a neglect claim filed, causing the other party to go to court to protect their rights and children under false pretense.”

CPM Mom:

“Cost of legal fees are often causing significant hardship on the parent caring for the children, having a negative impact on their lives. Being used to drive non-offending or protective parents into poverty. The court is leaving non-payment of alimony and unallocated support unaddressed. There should be more oversight on relentless filing of frivolous motions. Monitoring of the courts to be used as weapons to further abuse. Causing loss of wages relentlessly having to take time off from work to attend court, evaluations and children’s therapy sessions.”

CPM Mom:

“There needs to be tougher laws preventing someone from draining all retirement accounts, stocks, and bank accounts. If a mother was prevented from working before the divorce, her partner should be responsible for her attorney fees as well. This would limit the high cost attorneys they acquire while rendering us unable to find adequate representation and forcing us into pro se litigation.”

CPM Mom:

“Alimony should be automatic in these cases and long term. Victims often find they need to work two jobs even with the financial support orders just to get by in CT. This creates more lasting effects on the children as their safe parent is now gone more and exhausted. Getting these families adequately supported financially should be a priority. And this aligns with the need for stricter enforcement of support orders.

CPM Mom:

“I’m imagining what I’d have done with the exorbitant amount of money I’ve spent protecting myself and my children. I’d love to have made renovations on my home, which would likely increase my property taxes. I imagine my income would be spent more on consumer goods than attorney’s fees. And I’d still have a majority of my retirement fund, which I’d be able to use later in life, as opposed to needing to utilize state and federal benefits.”

According to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, financial abuse occurs in 98% of abusive relationships and plays a primary role in preventing victims from leaving an abuser.

Research evidence suggests that financial abuse is more complex than it appears on the surface. There are four different ‘types’ of financial abuse: interfering with employment; controlling access to financial resources; refusing to contribute to financial costs; and generating financial costs. This is broadly consistent with Postmus et al. (2012).

ISSUES

• ●  One of the main themes in most of the family court contested custody cases we survey, is the egregious non-payment of alimony, unallocated support, marital assets, health insurance, educational expenses. This often leads to an abuser and GAL claiming that the mother is unable financially to provide an adequate home environment due to the resultant financial abuse.

• ●  Currently, a litigant must notify the court and file a contempt for non payment. This can inflame the hostile, abusive perpetrator who is withholding funds as a means of further abuse. Additionally, each time a litigant files a document there is a fee and if the litigant needs an attorney the cost to hire an attorney can be excessive in cases with domestic violence

• ●  Abusers preventing survivors from using financial resources

• ●  Abusers withhold money or give their victims an allowance

• ●  Abusers don’t allow their victims to have access to bank accounts

• ●  Abusers hide or lie about joint assets

• ●  Victims have a lack of access to utilities (including

  phone/internet)

• ●  Victims have a lack of control over household finances or how

  money is spent

• ●  Victims lack knowledge of household finances and financial

  decisions

• ●  Victims lack of ownership and/or access to a

  vehicle/transportation

• ●  Abusers refuse to pay or evade child support. This is a major

  indicator of an abusive dynamic.

• ●  Abusers withhold money so they cannot hire an attorney

• ●  Abusers spend financial assets such as retirement, stocks, bonds, or

  another financial account, while leaving a victim with no access to any

  of the money they are entitled to.

• ●  Abusers are known to forbid the survivor to work outside the

  home

• ●  Abusers are known to stalk or harassing the survivor at the

  workplace

• ●  Abusers are known to threaten to get the survivor fired by

  calling the employer

• ●  Abusers may cause the survivor to lose their job by physically

  battering them prior to important meetings or interviews

• ●  Abusers are known to force the survivor to be late, or miss or

  leave work

• ●  Abusers sabotage the car so there is no mode of transportation

• ●  Abusers are known to file constant vexatious motions forcing the

  victim to constantly take time off to be able to appear in court.

• ●  Abusers are known to force the survivor to sign financial

  documents, or forging their partner’s signature

• ●  Abusers are known to force the survivor to write bad checks or

  file fraudulent legal financial documents

• ●  Abusers are known to Pressure the survivor to be a co-signer or

  guarantor

• ●  Abusers are known to Coerce debt/force a victim to overspend on credit cards

• ●  Abusers are known to use personal information or assets used against a victims will or without their knowledge

• ●  Abusers are known to convert their partner’s assets into their own

• ●  Abusers are known to keep all assets in their name, while forcing

  victim to keep all debt in their name only

• ●  Abusers are known to refuse to make rent, mortgage or utility

  payments, or refusing to sign over mortgages of the children’s

  residence, to prevent the victim from acquiring the marital residence

• ●  Abusers are known to forbid the survivor from attending job

  training or advancement opportunities

• ●  Abusers are known to interfere with their partner’s attempts to

  further their education

• ●  Abusers are known to hide finances in trusts and overseas

• ●  Abusers are known to transfer assets to third parties pre-divorce

• ●  Abusers are known to limit salary and bonus pay until the

  divorce settles to avoid showing it on the financial affidavit, or become unemployed altogether.

• 
  

  SOLUTIONS

• 
  

• ●  Adding oversight to address contempt of court ordered financial awards. Having automatic oversight with enforcement measures and safeguards against re-litigation is what is needed to uphold financial awards and ensure that they are paid.

• ●  Non-monied spouse NEEDS Pendente Lite funds to live and provide for children as well as representation to have a chance to survive.

• ●  Primary caregiver presumption legislation would cut down on a bargaining tool where one parent agrees to forgo a custody battle if the other agrees to a less favorable financial settlement. Richard Neely, a lawyer in West Virginia, has acknowledged that he often advised his male clients to make that threat. When he became Chief

• Justice of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, he was responsible for the passage of a primary caregiver presumption.

• ●  Alimony, by law, should be handled the same way child support is

  by the court. Hold the abuser accountable.

• ●  Non-monied spouse needs access to CPA or a forensic financial

  analyst when there is a lack of disclosure in discovery of financial assets, or any misinformation found that has been presented to the court in either financial affidavits or testimony given.

• ●  Filings could be sent to the payee by the court, or third-party administrator for verification. If found to be falsified, then a consequence would be automatic (fine/incarceration, similar as per current child support laws) and issued by the court ex-parte, with verification from the recipient party that support was withheld, in full or partially. If the payor is honest on fillings, but falling short, the court should ask for a hearing for review.

• ●  As per H.C. Res 72, these experts should be available through the courts and the fees, if any for private services, should be collected and awarded after the financials have been evaluated, and as part of the judgment. This prevents loss of family assets to these experts and the ravages of legal abuse on victims and their dependents.

• ●  Judges should be more willing to assign attorney fees or compensation for frivolous filings

• ●  The abuser should be responsible for the litigation costs, and attorneys fees, of the victim, so as to discourage the vexatious litigation and ongoing financial abuse.

• ●  To be able to record any court hearing, or professional involved in your case to ensure accountability and best practice standards are being met.

• ●  Implement a maximum of motions a party can file before they do an investigation on that person.This is met with some apprehension as some of our CPM mothers who have lost custody to an abuser, seek to reunite with their children and their only recourse is thought filing of motions.

UNREGULATED COURT APPOINTED OFFICIALS IN CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES:

GAL & CUSTODY EVALUATORS

CPM Mom:

“According to the current statutes’ GALs are only indicated in the case of an impending trial. It is not necessarily for “high conflict” divorce. And we can see from the outcomes that these professionals often elongate the cases and prolong the divorce trauma for the children involved, involving them even more, and creating more conflict, and less available funds to be distributed to a dependent spouse who is raising children. We need to add something into our statutes that allows protective parents who do not want their children subjected to this and their bank accounts pillaged by this practice to be able to get services for free through the court by right. This low-cost low-conflict provision also serves to de-escalate and discontinue the litigation abuse that is often perpetuated by domestic abuse perpetrators through the courts. There needs to be a remedy available that strengthens the ability for judges to adjudicate with an evaluation conducted by DA experts.”

CPM Mom:

“I think we take the opportunity to relay that GAL’s should be done away with in cases where the victim parent is found credible and put greater emphasis on allowing the fit and credible parent to make decisions in the best interest of the children. The cost should go to the abuser and they should only use experts in DA and CC. There is absolutely no reason a judge, GAL or otherwise should be deciding in place of the safe parent if they are deemed fit and credible. That parent should maintain their rights and responsibility to act in and decide for the best interests of the children as far as visitation/access goes.”

CPM Mom:

“Currently, experts – including medical doctors – can be paid out of pocket by either litigant to push a narrative. Many of these experts do not have training or expertise in DA and they are making decisions passed on experience with a different population of individuals. Many medical doctors, therapists, and psychologists do not have any DA training unless they are compelled to seek out the training on their own.”

CPM Mom:

“Psychologists should not be ordered to perform any evaluations or diagnosis, they are not medical doctors. If absolutely necessary a psychiatrist or a clinical social worker should be court ordered from a hospital facility. NOT PRIVATE PAY.”

ISSUES

When parties in a divorce case involving child custody are unable to come to an agreement on certain child custody and parenting plan issues, a family court Judge can intervene and appoint a GAL. Over the years, including the 2014 Task Force Public Hearing, litigants came forward to testify how the current discretion judges had and the authority given to GALs had hindered rather than helped the judicial process in seeking resolution of a child custody or parental rights case.

● “High rates of domestic abuse exist in families referred for child custody evaluations. These evaluations can produce potentially harmful outcomes, including the custody of children being awarded to a violent parent, unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation between violent parents and their children, and mediation sessions that increase danger to domestic violence victims. Past research shows that domestic abuse is frequently undetected in custody cases or ignored as a significant factor in custody-visitation

determinations. Previous research also indicates that abuse—and its harmful effects on victims and children—often continues or increases after separation.

• ●  Lack of initial training: Required GAL training in CT is only 20 hours online and has no domestic abuse nor coercive control training. The

• ●  Lack of continued education: There is no mandatory training or requirements pertaining to coercive control or domestic abuse as a GAL. (1) Certify that they have completed twelve hours of relevant training within the past three years, three hours of which must be in ethics;

• ●  No official practice guidelines for GALs. GALs who are attorneys are only bound by the Practice Book and the Code of Professional Ethics.

• ●  GAL Eligibility Requirements are Not Appropriate - prerecorded training program consists of seven (7) 2-hour online sessions and additional hours of reading and assignments in preparation for the training sessions.

  
  

Persons eligible to serve as a guardian ad litem or

attorney for the minor child:

1. Are either an attorney in good standing,licensedt o

practice law in the State of CT by the Judicial Branch, or

are a mental health professional licensed by the CT

Department of Public Health and in good standing in the

areas of clinical social work, marriage and family therapy,

professional counseling, psychology or psychiatry;

2. Do not have a criminal record;

3. Do not appear on the Department of Children and

Families’ central registry of child abuse and neglect; and

4. Meet all eligibility criteria in CT Practice Book Sec. 25-62.

● As it stands now, when protective parents of abused children seek custody and a GAL or Custody Evaluator is involved, they are 5-8 times more likely to lose custody.

• ●  If dissatisfied with the quality of the work performed by a GAL assigned to their case, there is no system in place to address the issues and no accountability. One can file a grievance against a GAL however they are reviewed by fellow GALs to determine any malfeasance.

• ●  Scientifically unsound and unscientific theories of Parental Alienation (PA) are being used by AFCC and other organizations to train mental health professionals working in family court. The curriculum is outdated and encourages these court appointed professionals to question abuse allegations by female victims as likely false attempts to undermine the other parent.

• ●  No Oversight: The Judicial Branch does not have a central monitoring process for the quality of GALs' work. Individual judges are responsible for appointing and removing GALs, but no oversight. Criminal court GALs are held to higher standards in their work with children.

• ●  GAL Immunity: While there is no case law on the liability of GALs in family court, in Carrubba v. Moskowitz 274 Conn. 533 (2005), the state Supreme Court held that attorneys appointed by the court pursuant to CGS § 46b-54 are entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken during, or activities necessary to, performance of functions that are integral to the judicial process. courts have “almost unanimously” granted GALs absolute immunity for their actions that are integral to the judicial process. This suggests that GALs in family court proceedings in CT are found to have absolute immunity for actions undertaken at a Judge’s direction.

  In determining whether attorneys appointed pursuant to CGS § 46b-54 are entitled to absolute immunity, the court adopted a three-prong test as to whether:

  1. the official in question performs functions sufficiently comparable to officials traditionally granted absolute immunity at common law,

2. the likelihood of harassment or intimidation by personal liability is sufficiently great to interfere with the official's performance of his or her duties, and

3. there were sufficient procedural safeguards to protect against improper conduct by the official.

SOLUTIONS

• ●  The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law" in VAWA, incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children by: Restricting expert testimony to only those who are appropriately qualified to provide it. Evidence from court-appointed or outside professionals regarding alleged abuse may be admitted only when the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and experience in working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

• ●  Although increased regulation of GALs was passed into law in 2014, another stronger bill was proposed in 2015 and did not pass, recommending additional oversight. The bill known as House Bill 5505 or “An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings,” introduced legislation that would place further restrictions on judges in appointing GALs and the role of GALs in custody cases. For example, GALs would no longer have certain quasi-judicial immunities and would not be allowed to testify about a child’s medical condition.

• ●  Appoint Clinical Social Workers, who are more skilled and better trained with domestic abuse issues from working with affected populations. Be certain they have specialized training and demonstrated understanding.

• ●  When Supervised visitation is issued due to family violence, the supervisor needs to have specialized domestic abuse clinical training and reporting instructions that are accessible to the court. These supervisors can be Social Workers but must meet minimum experience and training qualifications and communicate their findings to the court.

• ●  No judicial immunity for misconduct done by a GAL. They are supposed to be held to a higher standard that represents the best interest of the child and if they fail to do so, there should be repercussions. Along with monetary reimbursement.

• ●  No grievance committee should be made up of fellow GAL’s or attorneys, there should be a panel of non judicial officials as well as a Judge who oversees the committee.

• ●  When domestic abuse has been identified, appoint a domestic abuse expert, ONLY Social Workers and Therapists with years of clinical and academic experience or training in the area of family violence or trauma specifically related to children. In addition, they must have training in ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and if indicated, a sexual assault expert.

• ●  New Qualifications such as 5 years of advocacy or significant specialized training 200 hours specific to family violence and experience. This is of paramount importance in changing the playing field and ensuring that these experts, who the courts give great weight to by law, are no longer biased and using flawed science to discredit protective parents.

• ●  GALs should ONLY report facts on a case and not give their opinions, especially when they are attorneys and not social workers or mental health providers. Opinions should be excluded from any testimony.

• ●  GALs should not be allowed to recommend a type of mental health service. If a psychologist is needed a list should be produced to choose from.

50-50 SHARED PARENTING PRESUMPTION

CPM Mom:

“Proposed legislation that mandates joint custody is in the best interests of fathers; certainly not in the best interests of children. There is evidence that under appropriate circumstances parents and children benefit under joint custody arrangements after divorce. There are, however, critical differences between voluntary joint custody arrangements and court-imposed joint custody (especially in high conflict cases with domestic abuse) over the reluctance of one parent.” This concern extends to mediation-influenced joint custody.”

CPM Mom:

“The bottom line is green. “Shared parenting” is a re-branded attempt by the fatherhood rights agenda to make joint custody appealing. For years, court ordered joint custody has been in the forefront of demands by fathers’ rights groups. We believe that the actual motivation for proposed legislation is to require the court to equate the parenting plan or schedule with actual parenting responsibilities, financial and otherwise. Arguments have been made by non-custodial parents that the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children. Wrongly formulated legislation apportions child support based on the percentage of time the child spends with each parent.”

ISSUES

• ●  False narrative that mothers are awarded custody in 95% of divorce cases.

• ●  False narrative that children do better in a home where 50/50 is presumed. Even if there is domestic abuse.

• ●  Non-custodial parents claim the costs of spending time with their children should be deducted from their child support obligations, ignoring the fact that it is the primary caregiver who is responsible for the day-to-day expenses of the children.

• ●  Fatherhood rights organizations - National Parents

  Organization, formerly the Fathers and Children Org, and Shared Parenting Org - have been actively proposing automatic 50/50 presumed custody bills to the CT legislature for years. 50% of the states had a bill like this proposed last year.

  
  

  SOLUTIONS

• ●  The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden’s Law" in VAWA, incentivizes states to ensure that their child custody laws adequately protect at-risk children in four concise ways, including by: Restricting expert testimony to only those who are appropriately qualified to provide it. Evidence from court-appointed or outside professionals regarding alleged abuse may be admitted only when the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and experience in working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse.

• ●  Federal House of Reps. House Res Con 72 states that evaluations of custody must prioritize family abuse. Placing this exact language into our child custody statutes would prevent 50/50 bills from future consideration, voiding the argument as unconstitutional (to a child’s civil rights) that family abuse is the first and most significant matter to be evaluated in custody awards.

• ●  Only 50-50 Presumed Shared Parenting in divorce and separation cases with no evidence of domestic abuse, no former criminal charges or cases with pleadings for contested custody or forensic psychological evaluations.

• ●  For very young children, exact 50/50 custody makes for a disrupted life. Babies and toddlers are ill-suited to equal co-parenting because a night or two away from a caregiver feels like a long time to them. A schedule with a primary caregiver (usually the mother) is the safer alternative approach. A baby in particular needs a consistent carer during this early stage of life.

CPM Mom:

PRO SE PROTECTIVE MOTHERS

“Another challenge is the growing prevalence of self-represented parties, or Pro Se’s who attempt to navigate a legal process without the assistance of an attorney. Not only do Pro Se’s risk being overwhelmed by the complexity of the legal and factual issues, but they also enter the process without the counseling that lawyers give to clients before, during, and after the divorce and custody determination process. Their sense of confidence in the process is many times adversely affected by their lack of knowledge and help through the process.”

CPM Mom:“The current status quo of the family court system has forced many domestic abuse victims to self-represent as pro se; not only due to the financial burden and lack of resources, but due to the current climate of “don’t mention domestic abuse it’ll look bad for your case and cause you to potentially lose custody,” being told by attorneys representing these victims. I myself have 150,000 in attorney fees debt, while my ex depleted our retirement and stocks, all while affording high cost representation, not only could I not afford to pay an attorney anymore but I wasn’t being adequately represented. There seems to be this fear amongst attorneys to bring up domestic abuse or a court appointed professional's misconduct, no matter what the evidence, it will be suppressed and effectively ignored. Pro se seems to be the only way to be heard and “call out” on the record not only the harm to our children, but the gross misconduct in how these court appointed professionals are conducting themselves. I have a GAL that perjured himself on the stand multiple times and two attorneys were concerned with filing to recuse him, due to it “never working and concerns over how highly regarded he is in the judge’s eyes. Going pro se allowed me to state the facts and file the necessary motions.”

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

CPM Mom: “Experts on child trauma can be the expert voices on their behalf. Children exposed to family violence need time away from the abuser to heal and re-establish boundaries and feelings of safety. (This is especially important so that they do not align with and mimic the abuser, which is common with male children in particular.)”

CPM Mom: “Unqualified court professionals often view a child’s fear of an alleged abuser as an obstacle to the co-parenting and parent-child relationship courts seek to promote. In reality, fear is a warning that such a relationship is harmful and dangerous to the child, at least until the abuser makes the necessary changes. ACE tells us that most of the harm from abuse is caused by the fear that domestic abuse and child abuse creates. The well-being and future of the child depend on reducing the fear and stress the abuser caused. Today, this need is far from the priority that it should be.”

CPM Mom:

“The courts shouldn’t be willing to destroy a safe parent’s relationship with their child, just so the abusive parent has a relationship with them. Outcomes show that as long as a child has one healthy relationship with a parent they can have a good, and healthy upbringing.”

ISSUES

● Children’s physical and emotional safety and their civil rights should trump the rights of litigants in a custody case. In fact, in Jennifers’ Law, child custody statute Sec. 46b-56 was revised to elevate domestic abuse (formerly factor #14) to become the primary factor, to be examined and adjudicated first. By first determining whether there is abuse in the family, a judge is better equipped to understand the family dynamic, prioritize the child’s safety and weigh the fifteen other custody factors with clarity. The judges are not using Jennifers’ Law (CSG 46b-56) in their assessment of family conflict.

• ●  Although parents have a presumptive constitutional right to have a relationship with their children, those rights at times must yield to the best interests of those children. In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 347-48 (1999). The court has a parens patriae responsibility to consider the welfare of the child in resolving disputes over custody and the terms and conditions of parenting time. Borra v. Borra, 333 N.J. Super. 607, 611-12 (Ch. Div. 2000).

• ●  ACE Findings of Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence The ACE research demonstrates that exposure to domestic abuse can increase risk for physical, mental health, and substance abuse conditions. Furthermore, research on children who witness domestic abuse found that they face an increased risk for mental health issues related to juvenile delinquency, antisocial behavior, and escalated rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD (Alpert, 2010). The impact of chronic domestic abuse exposure in childhood was found to have long-term effects throughout the life span.

  SOLUTIONS

• ●  Children should be seen, heard and believed.

• ●  There should be no limitations or objections to hearsay

  testimony when discussing a minor child’s disclosures made to a trusted caregiver, school teacher, social worker, or therapist. This limits a protective parent from being able to prove the abuse they have endured and how it has affected the children.

• ●  A case for “primary caregiver presumption.” The National Organization for Women (NOW) NY has always favored a primary caregiver (usually the mother) presumption to ensure stability and continuity of care for children.

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES RESEARCH

• ●  Use ACE study research findings to promote prevention, policies, programs, and intervention for children, mothers, and families affected by domestic abuse.

• ●  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges seeks to train judges about ACE. The ACE Research comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The endorsement of ACE by these highly reputable organizations can be mentioned to the court to encourage judges to be open to this information.

• ●  The original ACE Study considered ten adverse childhood experiences. These included three forms of child abuse; physical, sexual and emotional; two forms of neglect; physical and emotional; and five household dysfunctions; domestic violence, separation from parents; substance abuse of parents, mental illness of parents and the separation of the parents.

• ●  Assign children an ACE score of 1 for each category of ACE (not each incident). The higher the ACE score, the more negative consequences are likely to impact the child. As an example, a score of 6, on average will result in reducing life expectancy by 20 years.

• ●  The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study is one of the largest retrospective studies to examine the links between traumatic childhood experiences and current adult health and well-being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012). Over 17,000 adult patients receiving health care at a major health care organization completed confidential ACE surveys. The study sample was a cross- section of middle class, ethnically diverse, women and men, ranging in age from 19 to over 60 years (CDC, 2012). According to the CDC, the ACE Study provides detailed information about past history of abuse, neglect, and family dysfunction, as well as links to risk factors and current adult health status, mental health, quality of life, and deaths (CDC, 2012). Furthermore, the research draws awareness to a noticeable cogent relationship between ACEs, health

  risk behaviors, mental health, and substance abuse conditions (Larkin & Records, 2007).

ADDITIONAL CPM MOM OBSERVATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Law Enforcement of RO and PO Needs to be Addressed

CPM Mom:

“Law enforcement should include stronger reactivity to insidious violations of restraining orders. Financial abuses. Breaking court orders, etc. And be automatically arrested as a violation. All of this already falls under the law of coercive control being domestic violence and falls under harassment. These are often the only precipitating acts leading up to homicide. It shows an ongoing pattern of asserting control and aggression toward the protected party. The new law defines coercive control as abuse and on its own these are acts of harassment but police will not arrest on these as violations of restraining orders because it’s not spelled out in the RO in black and white”

Rehabilitation of Abusers Does Not Work

CPM Mom:

"There is a push to rehabilitate and reunify the domestic abuser. This needs to stop. A zero tolerance policy needs to be implemented. Yes, the abuser should do intensive therapy specific to domestic violence and take responsibility. But the decisions to reintroduce and how, should be up to the safe parent in unison with a trusted therapist. Children’s desires, needs, and best interests should be the only driving factors in these decisions. Sometimes that may mean never. Other times it may be after significant rehabilitative steps, slow and supervised access with revaluation along the way. There may even be times where the situation deems faster and less restrictive access. It should be a private matter the safe parent carefully weighs with assistance and guidance of the trusted

60

family therapist. So long as the safe parent is deemed fit and able to do so.”

Communications with an Abuser Parent

CPM Mom:

“In-person contact between an abuser and their victim must be minimized in cases of shared custody. Court ordered communication only regarding the children must be enforced. If one parent continually sends harassing and derogatory messages, those communications must be considered when modification is requested by an abuser. And all other methods in which abusers seek to control their victims must be considered, not written off when an abuser gives excuses for the behavior.”

Abusers Minimize Harm

CPM Mom:

“Contested custody cases are often the last chance to save children from the life-altering consequences of exposure to ACEs. In order to save children, they will need medical treatment and therapy both to respond to problems as they develop and to reduce the stress. The problem is that abusers want to minimize the harm they caused and don’t want children in therapy where their abuse might be revealed. Accordingly, abusers use shared parenting to prevent children from getting the treatment they need and this takes away their last chance to overcome the effects of domestic violence and child abuse.”

Coercive Control is the Foundation of all Domestic Abuse CPM Mom:

“Unqualified professionals seek to dismiss the issue as “he-said-she-said” so they can move on to less important issues that they are more comfortable with. COERCIVE CONTROL IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL domestic abuse and the abuser’s sense of entitlement. The intent is not to inflict the most pain, but to enforce the rules the abuser feels entitled to make.”

Domestic Abuse is Hard to Prove

CPM Mom:

“Other common domestic abuse tactics include emotional, verbal, psychological, and economic abuse, isolating tactics, monitoring, litigation abuse, and attempts to deprive children of their primary attachment figure and harm children as the best way to hurt their victim. These other tactics are often easier to prove because they are more likely to have witnesses, documentary proof, or admissions because the abuser sees nothing wrong with these harmful tactics. These additional incidents would make it easier for courts to recognize domestic abuse and his motives if only courts understood this information’s significance. ACE tells us that these non-physical tactics cause fear and stress in children and are a reminder of any past physical abuse.”

CPM Mom

“Since most abuse occurs in the home, behind closed doors, with no witnesses, properly trained advocates must evaluate each situation.Custody Evaluators in CT Family Relations are trained to look at custody cases from the lens of these two loving parents that simply can’t get along. When domestic abuse is involved, that lens should be changed to seeking to identify which parent is seeking power and control and which parent is seeking safety. Abuse – in the state of CT –can no longer be validated by bruises and hospital visits. Since the scope has legally expanded, the validation must as well. A history of violence and threats, the presence of a PO, DCF allegations, and litigation abuse – for example – should without a doubt be taken into account when these evaluations are done.”

CPM Mom:

“The courts are currently burdened with “high conflict” divorce proceedings and custody modifications. In cases where domestic abuse is alleged, all court professionals involved must be educated in the dynamics of domestic abuse and the specific means abusers use to manipulate the judicial system to their advantage (including accusing victims of “parental alienation” in order to gain increased custody access). This training should also educate on how the trauma of abuse affects a victim’s psychological state, PTSD, which is often used by abusers in court to discredit their victims.”

THE KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE FROM FAMILY VIOLENCE ACT OR "KAYDEN'S LAW"

The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden's Law" in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA ) provides federal funds to states which improve their child custody laws to better protect at-risk children.

Kayden's Law" is named after Kayden Mancuso, a 7-year-old girl from Bucks County, Pennsylvania who was murdered by her father during his court-ordered unsupervised parenting time. Kayden’s mother, Kathy Sherlock, submitted evidence to the court of the father’s abusive, violent history – including criminal records and a protection from abuse order for having threatened to kill family members. A professional recommended that he be required to have mental health treatment before receiving unsupervised access, but he was nevertheless granted unsupervised contact with little Kayden. The father beat Kayden to death, tied a bag over her head, left a note of retribution on her body, and then killed himself.

As Congress has now recognized, Kayden's story is not unique: many U.S. children – estimates are in the tens of thousands - have been put at risk and even killed by a dangerous parent, many after a family court rejected safety concerns voiced by a protective parent. Furthermore, it is well-documented that abusive parents frequently use family courts as a means of continuing their abuse post-separation to hurt and control their former partners by taking away or harming the children. Profound system problems in U.S. family courts have been reported and studied, yet children continue to be sent into harm’s way.

The Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act or "Kayden's Law" in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA ) provides federal funds to states which improve their child custody laws to better protect at-risk children by:

1. Restricting expert testimony to only those who are appropriately qualified to provide it: Evidence from court- appointed or outside professionals regarding alleged abuse may be admitted only when the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and experience in working with victims of the types of abuse at issue, whether domestic violence, child abuse, or child sexual abuse.

2. Limiting the use of reunification camps and therapies which cannot be proven to be safe and effective: No “reunification treatment” may be ordered by the court without scientifically valid and generally accepted proof of the safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value of the particular treatment.

3. Providing evidence-based ongoing training to judges and court personnel on family violence, including: (i) child sexual abuse; (ii) physical abuse; (iii) emotional abuse; (iv) coercive control; (v) implicit and explicit bias; (vi) trauma; (vii) long and short-term impacts of domestic violence and child abuse on children; and(viii) victim and perpetrator behaviors.

4. Requiring that family courts making parenting time decisions consider past evidence of abuse, including protection orders, convictions and arrests for domestic violence or child abuse.

Next Steps:

For State Lawmakers: Policy and legal experts from the National Family Violence Law Center at GW Law who provided the technical expertise for Kayden's Law, in both the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and in Pennsylvania, are available to answer questions and provide technical assistance to interested state lawmakers.

Email: dpollack@law.gwu.edu | www.law.gwu.edu/national-family-violence-law-center

● On January 28, 2022, the UN Women Commission on the Status of Women officially confirmed receipt of the Complaint, submitted by 100+ women (organized by One Mom’s Battle, Custody Peace, and Movement of Mothers) in the U.S. addressing human rights violations waged against women & children via our family court systems. Read the press release and complaint: here.

● Grant Wyeth in The Facilitating System of the Family Court

Globally there are a number of common traits that family courts are exhibiting. — These three structural issues are leading to brutal and sometimes fatal outcomes for women and their children.”

• ●  Courts’ reckless dismissal and doubt of child physical and sexual abuse claims brought by protective mothers;

• ●  Systemic discouragement of protective mothers from bringing legitimate child abuse or domestic violence reports to the courts’ attention;

• ●  Protective mothers and domestic violence victims being told that bringing domestic violence and/or child abuse concerns to the attention of the judge will hurt their case and being expressly discouraged from doing so by their attorneys;

• ●  Abusive fathers’ use of excessive filings and vexatious litigation to harass and control domestic violence victims, to financially strangle them and to gain leverage to avoid child support;

• ●  An abuser’s history of domestic violence being discounted and not considered for child custody considerations;

• ●  Battered and abused women being forced to cooperate and regularly interact with their abusers and courts’ punishment of any women who appears resistant to cooperating in “shared parenting” ideals with her and/or her child’s abuser;

• ●  Children being placed in custody and/or unsupervised visitation settings with fathers with documented incidents of domestic violence against the mother or child abuse against the child;