1. PITFALLS IN ADJUDICATIONS OF CUSTODY AND ABUSE Joan Meier, DV LEAP George Washington University Law School D.C. Family Court Conference 2009

2. THREE CAUTIONARY TALES The O Case Long history of violence, separations PAS evaluator treats violence as mutual conflict Evaluator sees mother’s flight to England with children and allegations of abuse as “shameless alienation” Repeated complaints of child abuse are “unfounded” by DHS Court adopts alienation finding; gives custody to father. APPEAL FILED.

3. O Case, cont’d Child’s new complaint of abuse is founded by DHS Court cuts off all visitation with mother Father arrested for felony child endangerment after recklessly evading arrest with children in truck. Court refuses to change custody Boy calls police in terror that father may “kill me in my sleep” and father is visibly under the influence Children are put in foster care

4. The H Case  Father has “rage attacks” and graphically threatens to kill mother (admits some incidents)  Evaluator does not evaluate dv but finds father harmless; mother has narcissistic personality disorder  GAL: Father not dangerous; mother controlling and factually unreliable  Court excludes expert opinions supporting risks  Court awards joint custody and warns mother against moving away

5. H Case, cont’d  2-year-old is sexually abused during visits  DHS: “unfounded”  Neutral child abuse evaluation agency validates sexual abuse; recommends only supervised visits  Court rejects finding; reinstates unsupervised visits  Child hysterical about having to see her father again; afterwards says disturbing things about his penis and her “gina,” and has bruise on cheek

6. Castillo Case  Father involuntarily hospitalized for threats of suicide and depression  Mother files for sole custody when father refuses further treatment  Father threatens “the worst thing he could do to [her] would be to kill the children and not [her]”  Father tells evaluator that mother, who was physician with 6-figure salary, had “so much control over me… I was so dependent on her”  Court’s evaluator and father’s therapist find “little evidence” of risk to children (despite “repressed anger”)

7. Castillo, cont’d  Mother seeks two emergency orders to restrict father’s visits  Court relies on evaluations re risk. Finds mother not credible because she slept with father after threats; and allowed him access to the children  Court denies requests to limit access  Mother is held in contempt for denying visit  Father drowns the three children in a hotel bathtub during unsupervised visitation, and tries to kill self. Later admits it was to hurt mother. NB: Finally pled guilty this month.

8. What is Happening Here? 1. Disbelief of Women’s and Children’s Fears Women characterized as vengeful or pathological Children not listened to - presumed to be brainwashed or coached by mothers Children’s emotional symptoms ignored or treated as product of brainwashing Fathers’ emotions and denials seem credible

9. What is Happening ? 2.Trivialization of Domestic Violence Known violence called “situational,” mutual, or conflict-based and trivial Mothers’ attempts to stop the abuse characterized as “controlling” When men denied, women and children were disbelieved Children presumed to be brainwashed Fathers’ documented problems minimized

10. What is Happening? 3.Evaluators Offered Unscientific Opinions Which Trivialized Abuse Evaluators who failed to actually assess dv, child abuse, or risk, rejected womens’ and children’s fears PAS, questionable psychological tests, and personal reactions to the parties were packaged as science (Jaffe, Dalton, NCJFCJ)

11. WHY? 1.Lack of real expertise in DV/CA Stereotypes of batterers don’t fit the people they are looking at Abusers are expert at eliciting sympathy (Jaffe, Dalton) Victims may be unappealing/combative Much of dv is counter-intuitive (children may love abusive parents, victims of abuse may accommodate abuser, etc)

12. WHY? 2.Resistance to Believing Fathers are Dangerous to Children Powerful felt need for fathers Strong push toward joint custody and “friendly parents” Denial of unpleasant things is natural Vengeful ex-wife an easier explanation Child sexual abuse is particularly difficult to accept

13. WHAT ARE THE REALITIES? 1. DV is the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation (Jaffe; Johnston; et al)  80 % of custody cases settle out of court 20 % are filed, but roughly ¾ of these settle 4 % go to contested custody trials It should be no surprise that many of these involve abuse.  Domestic violence is highly correlated with child abuse (Jaffe, Edleson)

14. WHAT ARE THE REALITIES? 2. Fabrication of Abuse Claims is Rare  Child abuse research consistently shows vast majority of allegations are in good faith and majority are valid.  Primary fabricators are non-custodial fathers. Children and mothers least likely to fabricate. (Trocme and Bala; Thoennes & Tjaden)  There is no empirical support for the belief that women’s abuse allegations in custody litigation are frequently fabricated

15. WHAT ARE THE REALITIES? 3.No scientific basis for disbelief or pathologizing of women’s fears PAS is widely recognized as scientifically invalid (Meier) Gardner had no scientific basis for his theory that women/children can be convinced of dangers that are objectively non-existent or that they frequently concoct blatant falsehoods about abuse When evaluators treat women’s and children’s fears as invalid, it is typically based on PAS/PA thinking In contrast: “Our clients are skilled liars” and adept at “justifying their actions and making excuses” by shifting blame to their partner (Bancroft & Silverman)

16. HOW CAN WE DO BETTER?  Require expert evaluation of abuse before full custody evaluation  Require evaluators to be genuinely skilled in adult and child abuse (Ca. model), including lethality assessment  Do not assume women’s allegations of risk are vengeful (rather than protective)  Be suspicious of claims that women’s abuse allegations are pathological, where there is no independent mental illness history

17. HOW CAN WE DO BETTER, cont’d  Don’t forget that partner abuse undermines the children too ( Jaffe), and that batterers are a high risk for abusive/neglectful parenting  Don’t forget that perpetrators of abuse (and victims) come in all classes, races, and walks of life  Remember that credibility can be counter- intuitive in this field – batterers are skilled presenters, and personalities tell you relatively little