Justice Abused

Justice Abused

Call me with your Stories M-F 1p.m.-8p.m. EST. (203)491-0065

Listen to internet radio with American Mothers Political Party on Blog Talk Radio

A personal note to my readers

There comes a moment in a protective mothers life, when she realizes her children are no longer hers. This moment is something that will forever scar both children and mother. As mothers we are born with the knowledge that keeping these children safe and nurtured is simply,the act of a mother. For us we have been in the biggest fights of our lives. The fight to save our children from abuse, perpetrated by controlling, abusive, manipulative men. This is not a propoganda ploy of man hating women, this is a fight to show the world that this is real, children, women, sisters,mothers,daughters,sons,brothers,men are being killed, abused,assaulted and torn from the very Mother's and Women put there to nuture and protect them. Please take a look, Educate yourself with facts, and help us stop the horror of not being heard or believed. And moreover keep our children and our selves safe. The only way to do this is to expose the truth of Judicial Misconduct in the Family Court System. The abuse of power perpetrated by our very own Federal and State Governments.Listen, please readers,I acknowledge that this happens to men as well, understand this. I have witnessed with my own eyes the sad, hurtful,destructive things that have been slung at men. I know beyond this that we must come to some mutual understanding! Educate yourselves, then make the decision. I enjoy hearing from you.















































Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Claudine Dombrowski The True Story

So here comes some more truth to suck on, If you have been wondering just what would motivate a woman to spend her days talking about abuse, here it is. Her name is Claudine. She has been a victim of domestic violence. The horrific damage done to her is here in the pictures i will share with you.



My God Do You See That?  **************

What would possibly posses someone to smash someone in the face like that?






Okay Now Take A Look At This 


You must be wondering now.....but wait I am not through. Oh what sweetness, holding her premature baby in the infant NICU. Oh My, look at that eye! What a nice punch that must have been! Smile Claudine! ........


Are you sick yet? No?  Well let me tell you something, For 11 years Claudine has been fighting for custody of her daughter. The man who did this was given CUSTODY of the minor child RIKKI.

Now understand this is happening here in the U.S.A. It isn't some foreign country, right here in the midwest. Kansas State for a fact. Seems to me something really ugly is going on there, well everywhere to be factual.
Now if these photos are not enough let me show just one more.

Unreal, a child's casket being used as a coffee table, and behind the sofa on the wall a gun! What is most disturbing is that the man who did this has total custody. So folks let the facts speak for themselves. Disturbed yet?


                                                                                                                                                               

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Maternal Alienation Syndrome or Maternal (Deprivation) Syndrome


                                            Maternal Alienation Syndrome


Maternal Alienation Syndrome (MAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. MAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the mother, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate her. Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, in addition to removing a mother from the home, a DV restraining order also "temporarily" bars the mother from seeing her children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent. Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the mother out of the picture. A mother who can't see her kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie "Mommy doesn't love you anymore. That's why she left you." Nor can she rebut the alternate lie, "Mommy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That's why she can't see you." Often, if an accused mother is allowed to see her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. "The demeaning of the 'visiting' mother is readily visible from the minute that she enters the 'secured facility' with armed guards, officious case workers with their clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impression is that all of these authority figures see Mommy as a serious and dangerous threat. The only time a child sees this type of security is during the visits." Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the "visiting"mother is a bad person, if children decline to see their mother under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. More perversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to see the mother, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to see the mother. The more time a child spends away from the mother, the worse the alienation will become. As psychologist Jenna A. Maxwell remarked "the old adage that time heals all wounds, such is not the case with MAS, where the passage of time worsens rather than heals the affliction. This is not to say that time is unimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all the players. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with the mother to continue and repair the meaningful association that existed since birth. This continued communication also serves as a reality check for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home. Likewise, the mother needs time with the child to ensure that contact is not completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroying what may be left of a normal, loving relationship.... The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child without interference.


The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time to prevent 'contaminating' contact with the mother, depriving both of their right to spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation. Unlike cases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps in repairing a damaged relationship, in MAS time away from the mother furthers the goal of alienation. The usual healing properties of time are lost when it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the mother by alienating the child." A parent willing to falsely accuse the mother of domestic violence would be willing to poison a child against her. Add to this the problem that a judge willing to "err on the side of caution" by entering a DV restraining order based on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do what was necessary to prevent the development of MAS. MAS is heart-wrenching and, tragically, common. If the system could be reformed so that only real victims obtained restraining orders, I predict that the number of MAS cases would be greatly reduced. Let's try to get there.









Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Domestic Violence by Proxy vs. Parental Alienation Syndrome


From the time that Richard A. Gardner came out with his theory detailing Parental Alienation Syndrome, there has been a great deal of controversy over whether it was real or not. Parental Alienation Syndrome occurs when one parent pulls the children in as allies against the other parent. It may involve false allegations of abuse but is often abused as a defense where real abuse has occurred. When it is used as a defense in a case where real abuse has occurred, the children are the ones who suffer. They lose touch with a parent who was trying to protect them, and become pawns in the ongoing abuse of their other parent. This is when it becomes Domestic Violence by Proxy. The children are often forced into the position of becoming abusive themselves, although they probably do not see their own actions as being abusive. Most often, the mother is the one in this unfortunate position. She may feel trapped into taking the abuse because she loves her children and doesn't want to lose them. Her abuser, who is drunk on control, has found yet another way to control her by using the children. He thus continues his onslaught of abuse, making it domestic violence by proxy. The mother may have any number of reasons for having lost custody of her children. She may have given them up to him voluntarily, hoping that if she did, they would have a better life since he was more abusive to her than to the children. She may have been intimidated into giving up because he seemed to always win every battle, even when she knew she was right. She may not have had the strength and fortitude to carry on in what seemed to be a never-ending battle. He may have won in front of the judge because he seemed more in control of the situation.

The abuser may seem very charming to the children. All of a sudden, the children who were starved for attention by their father previously, have become the apple of his eye. He may tell the children that their mother never wanted them, while he was excited at the prospect of having children, when often, the exact opposite is true. He may shower them with expensive gifts that their mother cannot afford, and compare her gifts to his, finding hers lacking. He may prevent, or make it very difficult for the mother to see her children, then tell the children if she really loved them, she would be there. All of these things and more he uses to create the illusion that she does not love her children. If she spends any time with her children at all, he will often stalk her during the time that she is with them. He tells the children that this is "for their protection." They have no choice to believe him, although prior to the divorce they had no reason to ever be frightened when they were alone with their mother. Any information that the children bring back from their mother's home is twisted in such a way that it can be used against her in attempts to get her in trouble with the law. This makes it dangerous for the children to be in her home, although she desperately wants to welcome them with open arms. The biggest problem with domestic violence by proxy is that the courts all too often fail to recognize it or do anything about it. In fact, for all the lip service that we hear about helping victims of domestic violence in any form, there is very little done about it at all. Domestic violence is a huge problem that way too many people turn a blind eye to. It's time to do something about it. Learn the signs, especially if you are in any kind of a position of power. If you are a judge, a lawyer, police, or anyone who can start the seeds of change, do so. Even if you are just the average layperson, report it when you see it. Don't let your neighbors get away with it.  If I can change the world in one way, it will be that no person will ever lose their children to domestic violence again. This is the most painful loss as the children are still there, but unable to be a part of a loving mother's life. The men that perpetrate this need to be held accountable for their actions.

The Dynamics Of Murder Suicide The Real Truth

                                The Dynamics of Murder-Suicide
                                       in Domestic Situations
                               Katherine van Wormer, MSSW, PhD.


This paper explores dynamics involved in the commission of homicide followed by suicide.

British and U.S. government and advocacy sources are used in addition to news accounts to examine this phenomenon.
Domestic violence-related crimes are contrasted with elderly ‘‘altruistic’’ murder-suicide, school shootings, and political terrorism.
Suicide is argued to be a primary motive in many domestic homicide situations.
Limitation of the availability of firearms is seen as an important means of prevention in conjunction with a harm reduction safety plan.
In the United States and Britain, as elsewhere, a woman is more vulnerable to violence in her home than in public.
In the United Kingdom, domestic violence costs the lives of more than two women every week (Home Office, 2005b), and in the United States, with a much larger population, estimates are that more than three women a day are killed by their intimate part- ners (Rennison, 2003).

Sunday, August 15, 2010

The Batterer As A Parent

                                                The Batterer As Parent
                                                     by Lundy Bancroft

Research on children's exposure to domestic violence has tended to focus primarily on two aspects of their experience: the trauma of witnessing physical assaults against their mother, and the tension produced by living with a high level of conflict between their parents.1 However, these are just two elements of a much deeper problem pervading these children's daily life, which is that they are living with a batterer. The parenting of men who batterer exposes children to multiple potential sources of emotional and physical injury, most of which have not been recognized widely.
This article looks at the characteristics of men who batter and identifies ways in which these characteristics also influence their ability to parent appropriately. Additionally, the article will address the implications of such parenting for child protective and custody determinations.

Gaslighting How It Happens And What You Can Do To Make It Through

                                                      GASLIGHTING


It refers to an abuser creating self-doubt in his victim to make her appearcrazy, both to the outside world and to herself. It can be frustrating for the victim as she begins to doubt her own memories, opinions and thoughts.  Ambient abuse is the stealth, subtle, underground currents of maltreatment that sometimes go unnoticed even by the victims themselves, until it is too late. Ambient abuse penetrates and permeates everything – but is difficult to pinpoint and identify. It is ambiguous, atmospheric, diffuse. Hence its insidious and pernicious effects. It is by far the most dangerous kind of abuse there is. It is the outcome of fear – fear of violence, fear of the unknown, fear of the unpredictable, the capricious, and the arbitrary. It is perpetrated by dropping subtle hints, by disorienting, by constant – and unnecessary – lying, by persistent doubting and demeaning, and by inspiring an air of unmitigated gloom and doom ("gaslighting"). Ambient abuse, therefore, is the fostering, propagation, and enhancement of an atmosphere of fear, intimidation, instability, unpredictability and irritation. There are no acts of traceable explicit abuse, nor any manipulative settings of control. Yet, the irksome feeling remains, a disagreeable foreboding, a premonition, a bad omen. In the long term, such an environment erodes the victim's sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Self-confidence is shaken badly. Often, the victim adopts a paranoid or schizoid stance and thus renders himself or herself exposed even more to criticism and judgment. The roles are thus reversed: the victim is considered mentally deranged and the abuser – the suffering soul.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

The Outcome of Sibling Seperation

Not all children get to continue to grow up with their bothers or sisters. Many times the Family Court System takes children and seperate siblings, giving not a thought to the innocent lives they are destroying. Seperating siblings happens often in the custody realm, and no body cares.

                                                            SEPARATING SIBLINGS

.
The Powerful Sibling Bond

Loss has become all too familiar to 35-year-old Amy. First, it was the loss of her childhood. At nine, because her parents were not capable of caring for her and her younger sister, she became the care giver to six-year-old Anne. Two years later, she lost her parents and her home. She and Anne were moved by the authorities into foster care after it became clear that their parents could not provide a safe and nurturing environment for them. It was an especially difficult move for Amy, who had to relinquish her "parental" role to her new foster mother.
But the most wrenching loss of all came when Amy was 12. Her social worker believed it would be in her best interest to live in a home with girls her own age. For the first time in her life, she and her sister were separated.
It was devastating for both of them. Amy's self-esteem plummeted because so much of it revolved around her ability to take care of her younger sibling. Anne, too, was destroyed by the move for she no longer had the only constant in her life. Her sister, in addition to being her best friend, had also been her consistent source of advice and approval.
Anne was later adopted by her foster parents and moved with them to another State. The sisters lost touch with each other. They also lost their ability to trust and to form lasting relationships when they became adults.
At 35, Amy says, "I will never forget the day I had to leave my sister. We were both crying, and I felt like the world was a terrible and hostile place. As the months went by, I could feel myself close up. The more I thought about what had happened to me, the more angry and bitter I became. If the social worker who was supposed to be concerned for me had the power to take away my sister, I could never trust anyone again."
Today, Amy and Anne are in contact with each other. They see each other from time to time, but they do not have the close relationship that they might have had they not been separated. Amy lives alone, insists she will never marry, and prefers living a solitary existence where no one can hurt her. Anne has been divorced twice and says that intimate relationships are impossible for her to manage. When someone gets too close, she unconsciously sabotages the relationship.

Battered Women Are Being Abused By Family Court

In no other area of family law are battered women and their children inadvertently subjected to greater physical and emotional harm than in the child custody and visitation context. Battered women are often forced to participate in custody arrangements that require mediation, unsupervised custody and visitation, and other types of exchanges that leave them and theirchildren vulnerable to continued abuse and control at the hands of their batterers. Women who try to protect themselves and their children by seeking sole custody or modifications in custody arrangements such as cessation of visitation, supervised visits, or who flee with their children are penalized by having custody taken away and given to their batterers. Despite the perception that mothers always win custody, when fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody in 40% to 70% of the cases. Indeed, even in cases where abuse is reported, a batterer is twice as likely to win custody over a non-abusive parent than in cases where no abuse is reported.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Seeking help difficult for domestic violence victims | Northwest News - The News Tribune

Seeking help difficult for domestic violence victims Northwest News - The News Tribune

Power And Control


Power and Control Trailer from Peter Cohn on Vimeo.


Please take a moment and watch this. And if you are in a abusive relationship get help! You can even leave me a message and i will do my best to help you. Stay safe. Alexandra Lovechild

Friday, July 2, 2010

Genetic, Scientific, Reasons, For Getting Away With Murder

                         This was just posted on another web spot.  Interesting Reading!

02.Jul.2010   Dr. William Bernet’s Excuse for Abusive Murdering Husbands:   The “Warrior Gene”

Parental Alienation Disorder proposer Dr. William Bernet recently testified in a horrific murder trial in Tennessee.
When the police arrived at Bradley Waldroup’s trailer home in the mountains of Tennessee, they found a war zone. There was blood on the walls, blood on the carpet, blood on the truck outside, even blood on the Bible that Waldroup had been reading before all hell broke loose.
Assistant District Attorney Drew Robinson says that on Oct. 16, 2006, Waldroup was waiting for his estranged wife to arrive with their four kids for the weekend. He had been drinking, and when his wife said she was leaving with her friend, Leslie Bradshaw, they began to fight. Soon, Waldroup had shot Bradshaw eight times and sliced her head open with a sharp object. When Waldroup was finished with her, he chased after his wife, Penny, with a machete, chopping off her finger and cutting her over and over.
“There are murders and then there are … hacking to death, trails of blood,” says prosecutor Cynthia Lecroy-Schemel. “I have not seen one like this. And I have done a lot.”
Prosecutors charged Waldroup with the felony murder of Bradshaw, which carries the death penalty, and attempted first-degree murder of his wife. It seemed clear to them that Waldroup’s actions were intentional and premeditated.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Classic signs of emotional abuse

Takeaways Not all abuse involves being hit or being physically abused, but all abuse hurts. Have you ever wondered if you are insane? Emotional Abuse, in its extreme forms, can cause the victim insanity. Sometimes, this is the intended result of the abuser! There is a type of pain a woman experiences when, after years of faithful marriage, she begins to witness changes in her husband that, when confronted, are then said to be the creation of the wife's imagination, a plot to hide her own actions, or the perception of a woman in need of psychiatric help. To describe the pain endured by victims of emotional abuse with written words is like trying to explain what a person experiences when facing the realization of certain, impending death. It seems quite impossible. There are rips, tears, stabs & agonizing pain within her heart. Sometimes she panics, believing she is losing her soul mate forever. Sometimes her husband may actually tell her that the suspicion, the digging around for answers, or the accusations involved in the panic are the actual things causing the couple to have distance in the first place. If a man does this, he is using a manipulative, cruel technique known as Gaslighting. Emotional abusers who partake in the horrific methods of Gaslighting have an agenda of which society may presently be unaware. The term "Gaslighting" was introduced to the public in an old movie entitled "The Gas Light" (1940) & its remake of the same title (1944). In these movies, a woman who receives a large inheritance is courted by & marries a man who has a secret agenda. He intends to drive her crazy in order to obtain the hefty estate she has. "Gaslighting" is so called due to the story unfolding with the husband routinely igniting the gas lamps in the loft of the house, which causes the other lamps in the house to dim. Upon question from the wife as to why the lamps were dimming, the good husband would tell her she was imagining things. In the movie, it is obvious the man knew he was driving his wife insane. Sometimes, however, this is not the case where intention is concerned. Some emotional abusers do not realize they are Gaslighting.
 Whether he intentionally chooses to actually drive his wife crazy or not, the statements & lack of concern a husband displays over them even after they cause pain are forms of emotional abuse. They are normally used to cover up actions for which he does not want his spouse/girlfriend to discover. A husband or emotional abuser who is Gaslighting may have something like this to say: **How could you believe I would ever have an affair with your best friend?! **You must be preoccupied with an affair, yourself! **You're just being suspicious! **When you accuse me of things that I pride myself with always upholding, it makes me not want to be around you! **That's what our distance & unhappiness is all about, right there! You are always thinking I'm having an affair! **Your disbelief in me is what has come between us! **If you could just believe in me, everything would be the way it was before. In the above statements, it is undeniably clear that genuine love does not demand complete trust without inquiry, test, or proof. A healthy relationship produces spouses who are more than happy to comfort & prove the amount of love they hold for their partner until there is complete clarity on whatever subject for which the questioning party needs the explanation & reassurance. I would be much more concerned with the pain my husband was feeling at the time than I would be with any offensiveness it may cause me over him having doubted my faithfulness. I would try everything within reason to make the uncertainty go away, while most likely blaming myself for having been too busy for him the week prior to that. I would not be overwhelmed with anger over the possibility that he may doubt my faithfulness to him. Doubt happens, especially in a world where there is evil, hate & insecurity. As well, we live in a country where many channels on the television are trying to attract consumers to their wide range of products to create a perfect appearance. Although wise people know that they do not need to look like Pamela Anderson Lee or The Rock in order to be desirable, our society is obsessed with "Being Beautiful." When one adds to that the notion that affairs are tolerated & sometimes even encouraged (especially on the Internet at certain "we help you cover up your affair" sites) in our society, anyone, especially the one who adores & loves you, should understand why there is doubt at times. When no sympathy or support for the hurt feelings are available, more times than not it is due to the Gaslighting abuser not wanting to empathize with their spouse/girlfriend because he would then have to take responsibility as having been the one who caused the hurt.

Brainwashing as a tool to gain control over the intended victim

I am not sure how many women out there have been the object of brainwashing, however i do know that brainwashing is used regularly as a tool to gain control over the victim. This is a piece on just that. One aspect of emotional abuse is that it eventually brainwashes the victim.

                         THE PROCESS OF BRAINWASHING (MIND CONTROL)
1. The brainwasher keeps the victim unaware of what is going on and what changes are taking place. Your partner might control your finances, make plans for you, or not tell you what his plans are until the last minute. He may talk about you to others behind your back, to isolate you from them.
 2. The brainwasher controls the victim's time and physical environment, and works to suppress much of the victim's old behavior. The victim is slowly, or abruptly, isolated from all supportive persons except the brainwasher. Your partner might have insisted that you stop certain social, hobby, or work activities. You might have gotten moved to a new location, farther away from your family and friends. Or you may have been asked (or told) to reduce or stop contact with specific supportive people in your life.
 3. The brainwasher creates in the victim a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependency. Verbal and emotional abuse creates these emotions, and they become stronger and stronger over time.
 4. The brainwasher works to instill new behavior and attitudes in the victim. Your partner trains to you behave in ways that he wants you to behave. He gradually makes you feel differently about yourself, and erodes your confidence in yourself.
 5. The brainwasher puts forth a closed system of logic, and allows no real input or criticism. In other words -- What he says, goes.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

The Most Fatal Of Emotional Abuse



                                                                        Gaslighting

Any negative comments that she makes against him, he convinces the children that the negative comments were actually directed toward them, causing them to resent their mother for things that she did not say or do to them The attack against the mother is geared toward her skills as a mother. He tells her that she was never a good mother. He tries to make her believe that she is lying to the children when she says that certain things happened or didn't happen. If she says that he hit her, threw her, shoved her, or held her prisoner, he claims that it didn't happen if there is no police report. She knows that she must have a police report to prove to a judge that it happened, but does not need it to prove it to herself, especially if she lives with pain nearly every day of her life because of it.


Her children may have been witnesses to any number of these acts, but either don't remember, or won't admit they remember because of fear of the repercussions. He may make an agreement with her about custody only to come back later and tell her that there was no agreement made. If the agreement benefits him, he remembers every detail. If the agreement benefits her, he claims to have never made it. After the divorce, he conveniently forgets everything that he agreed to and only remembers what she agreed to or sometimes even things that she didn't agree to, but he wants her to do. If he wants it from her, he will claim she agreed to it whether she actually did so or not.

If he has custody of the children after this, which is likely due to the fact that he made her doubt her own memories and actions, making her feel like a fool in court, he will continue to use the children in his effort to control and manipulate her. When she goes to pick the children up, he will use it as an opportunity to create unnecessary drama. Perhaps she didn't give him the right name for her apartment complex. Perhaps she has requested that she be given some measure of privacy, so he tells the children that this is a sinister act, so suddenly they need a cell phone to "escape" their evil mother. He tells lies to the children then accuses her of being the liar and teaching the children to lie. Covering up a surprise that she wishes to give the children suddenly becomes an act of pure evil.

The mother is left thinking, "I know I didn't lie to the children, why is he accusing me?" She finds herself questioning her own motives. A person like this can turn a fun trip into an act of pure evil. He will convince the children that they are being manipulated by her, when he's the one doing the manipulation.

All of this sounds pretty scary, and it actually does happen to both mothers and fathers, although more frequently to mothers than we'd like to admit. The good news is that there is light at the end of the tunnel. Although the relationship with the children may never be the same as it was, the longer you are away from a gaslighter, the stronger you become. You stop questioning your own memory as his hold on you is loosened. You learn to think clearly again without his constant influence. You learn to tell the truth in spite of the fact that he's accusing you of lying and false allegations for doing so. You keep hope alive that

someday your children will understand all that you are going through and have gone through, and love them unconditionally, even if you don't like everything they do under their father's influence. You may also use it as a learning experience to pass on to others so that others don't have to suffer as you have.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Points that should be taken seriously with administrative judges

These talking points were designed for domestic violence advocates and other allies of protective mothers to speak with administrative judges in the hopes of convincing them to use the research contained in the new book to train judges and other court professionals and reform custody practices to improve the safety and
potential of children in domestic violence custody cases. Feel free to use any part of the material in any order that makes sense to support your efforts. Use your own knowledge and concerns and focus the discussion based upon the local circumstances and situations the domestic violence community is concerned with. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact Barry Goldstein at BarryG78@aol. com The
information in parenthesis at the end of each paragraph are the authors of chapters in the book that provide the information in the paragraph.

1. In recent years, the court system has developed many practices that are designed to help parents work together. These ideas include mediation, shared parenting, parenting coordinators, parenting classes, friendly parent approaches and programs to promote communication skills and compromise. These may work well in other cases, but are harmful in domestic violence cases (see Zorza, Fields)

2. Over 95% of cases eventually settle more or less amicably. Some of these involve domestic violence and could be handled better with domestic violence knowledge, but the real problem are the less than 5% of the cases that cannot be settled and will require a trial and often much more. Courts usually refer to these as "high conflict" cases and literally they are, but 90% of these cases are actually domestic violence cases that can't be settled because it reflects an abusive father's tactic of using the children as a way to get access to his victim or punish her for leaving. The court system has been very slow to recognize this tactic and instead frequently use approaches that collude with abusers to help them maintain control over their ex-partners. Frequent mistakes in these cases have resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers. (see Zorza, Fields and Goldstein)
3. If there was a scientific basis for the custody evaluations regularly relied on by the custody courts, the evaluators could tell the courts how their recommendations have worked out for children based upon outcome studies. In fact they have no such research. This flaw is obscured in part by the assumption that once a court makes a decision, the findings are confirmed. Many of these decisions have been discredited by
later convictions of abusers found to be safe, poor outcomes for children and reports by children of horrific abuse after they age out of court orders giving custody to abusers. This is not surprising because the research demonstrates the custody court system regularly uses flawed methods that make it difficult for judges to recognize domestic violence and child abuse or understand the consequences proposed orders are likely to have on the children. (see Yeamans, Anderson and Waller)

4. The Truth Commission and the research in the book, recommends that court professionals receive not just generalized training in domestic violence, but specific training in Recognizing Domestic Violence, Gender Bias and The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children. It is hard to imagine any objection to these recommendations. The courts can't protect battered mothers and children if they miss the signs of domestic
violence. Gender bias is particularly difficult because professionals acting in good faith often engage in gender bias without realizing they are doing so. The problem is compounded because some good professionals have suffered retaliation for pointing out examples of gender bias. Children who witness domestic violence, including non- physical abuse can face long-term harm as a result, but courts can't protect the children
if they don't understand the risk. (see Hannah, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Schwaeber, Dragiewicz and THE BATTERER AS PARENT).

5. Judge Mike Brigner writes that when he trains judges about domestic violence he often is asked what to do about women who are lying. When he asks what they mean they refer to women who return to their abuser, withdraw petitions for restraining orders, fail to make police reports or seek hospital treatment and the myth (obviously they don'trealize it is a myth) that women frequently make deliberately false allegations of abuse. All of these actions are normal responses by women partnered with abusers for safety and other reasons. In no way do they support the assumption that the woman is lying. Nevertheless the widespread belief by judges, lawyers and inadequately trained mental health professionals that it does, results in thousands of valid claims of abuse to be disbelieved and other evidence ignored. Similarly, unqualified professionals often look only to evidence of physical abuse and in doing so miss a lot of other evidence of
controlling behavior courts could use to confirm abuse allegations. (see Araji and Bosek, Brigner, Schwaeber and Goldstein)

6. One of the ways we know there is a problem in the custody court system is the frequent finding of circumstances that are rare. It is certainly possible for a woman to make a false allegation of abuse, an abuser to commit one act or a few acts and then stop without any intervention or for a mother to suffer from Munchausen by Proxy. Accordingly, we can't tell if an individual case was wrongly decided without substantial investigation, but when researchers look at hundreds and thousands of cases it is easy
to see patterns of results that cannot possibly be accurate. The improper practices confirm how courts get so many cases wrong. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek, Dragiewicz and Goldstein)

7. Most abusers do not beat their victims frequently. Instead they commit one or a few physical assaults and then use other coercive and intimidating tactics to maintain their control. Their purpose is not to enjoy beating their partners but rather to maintain control and exercise what they believe is their right to make the major decisions in the relationship. Inadequately trained professionals fail to see the abuser's use of excessive litigation, strategies that bankrupt his victim and use of the children to gain access to her as a continuation of his pattern of abuse. When a woman seeks to limit contact with her abuser because she understands his tactics she is labeled as uncooperative or unfriendly when better practice would be for courts to use their
authority to discourage abusive men from intimidating and scaring their ex-partners. (see Schwaeber, Fields, Goldstein and Araji and Bosek).

8. Many professionals in the custody court system believe they have the ability to determine who is telling the truth just from observing them. There is no research to support this belief and only a very few elite CIA and FBI agents have demonstrated this ability. In the context of domestic violence custody cases this is particularly dangerous because abusers are very manipulative and plan out their tactics to fool the
professionals. At the same time women's normal reaction to their partners' abuse tends to be anger and emotion and this is used to discredit their concerns. The false belief by professionals that they can tell who is truthful, just from watching them creates a false sense of confidence in these wrong judgments and favors abusers. ( see Schwaeber, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Washington Post article).

9. Over forty states and many other judicial districts have created court-appointed gender bias commissions. These commissions have found widespread gender bias particularly against women litigants. They have found the courts give women less credibility than men, blame victims for her abuser's actions and create higher standards of proof for women. We see this when courts punish women for seeking to limit contact with abusers instead of pressuring abusers to stop their intimidating tactics. We see it when they expect mothers to provide better care of children but don't reward them for their care or punish women more severely than men for extramarital affairs. (see Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek and Zorza).

10. In one case, the trial court used a certainty standard for the mother and a probability standard for the father. Even a first year law student would know this was a fundamental violation of due process and equal protection that demands reversal. The use of the higher standard for the mother was in writing in the evaluator's report and the transcript of her testimony. Using a the proper probability standard she admitted the father abused the mother physically, emotionally and verbally throughout the marriage, did so in front of the children and abused her so badly as to cause PTSD. Accordingly the court could not claim the mistake did not affect the outcome. In the two related cases between 15 and 20 different judges reviewed the case but failed to object to the biased approach. Clearly the judges were smart enough to recognize the mistake and it is not possible they were all corrupt or in favor of abusers. The problem is that for thirty years the court system has been using invalid practices and the often inadequately trained professionals they rely on have reinforced misinformation so that the judges could not imagine a trial judge could be so unfair to a battered mother. They permitted a decision where a safe mother was denied any contact with her children and the
abuser received custody. Only in a broken custody court system could so many judges make such an obvious mistake. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Fields)

11. More commonly, the higher standard of proof for mothers is not put in writing, but is demonstrated by the many double standards women face. Frequently protective mothers are punished because they seek to restrict the father's contact because he is abusive. Courts give custody to the alleged abuser on the grounds that he is more likely to encourage the relationship between the mother and children. Once he receives custody, abusive fathers interfere with visitation and take mothers out of their children's lives, but the same courts fail to require the father to facilitate visitation. (see Dragiewicz, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Hannah)

12. In a typical domestic violence case, the protective mother claims to be the primary attachment figure to the children and that the father abused her and/or the children. The father claims alienation. Primary attachment refers to the parent who provided most of the child care for the first couple of years of the child's life. Children who lose their primary attachment figure are significantly more likely to commit suicide, suffer
depression, low-self-esteem and other problems. Accordingly it doesn't make sense to separate a child from their primary attachment figure unless the parent is unsafe. Children affected by domestic violence are as likely as children directly abused to engage in a wide range of dysfunctional behavior. There is no research that children who hear negative remarks about the other parent (as occurs in most intact families) or have mothers who seek to protect them by limiting contact with an allegedly abusive father experience any long-term harm as a result. At the same time almost all children have a primary attachment figure which is usually the mother because in this still sexist society, mothers continue to perform most of the child care. Despite the myths, mothers rarely (1-2% of the time) make deliberately false allegations of abuse. False or exaggerated complaints of alienation by fathers are very common and is taught by male supremacist groups as a tactic to obtain custody. Although the mothers' complaints are more likely to be true and significantly affect the safety and potential of the children, courts are granting custody or joint custody to the fathers in these cases between 70 and 83% of the time. (see Sussman, Erickson, Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and Bosek).

13. Courts tend to emphasize the belief that children do better with both parents in their lives. This belief is supported by research, but not if one of the parents is abusive. "Fathers' rights" groups have sought to promote and courts have accepted the idea that when the parents come to court they should have equal rights to the children. On the surface this sounds reasonable, but only if their history of parenting supports this
practice. There is no reason to treat the parents the same if one has performed significantly more child care, has better parenting skills or if one parent has been abusive. The best predictor of future parenting is past parenting, but courts often treat mothers based on past parenting and fathers on expectations of future parenting. These kinds of gender biased practices place an unfair burden on mothers and more
importantly result in decisions harmful to children. (see Zorza, Erickson, Araji and Bosek)

14. The widespread use of mental health professionals for evaluations and expertise developed at a time when it was widely believed domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse or the victim's behavior. Courts assumed that the mental health professionals had expertise in domestic violence. At the time there was no specialized body of knowledge about domestic violence. Mental health professionals can help custody courts understand the circumstances when there is credible information that one of the parties or the children suffer from a mental impairment that significantly affects the ability to parent. There are a few mental health professionals who also have substantial knowledge and experience in domestic violence and are familiar with up-to-date research. The problem is that most mental health professionals relied on by custody courts have at most a few hours of domestic violence training and are unfamiliar with the up-to-date research. The research demonstrates they often fail to recognize domestic violence because they don't know what to look for and tend to minimize its significance. This is particularly harmful because they provide a false confidence that there is a scientific basis for their recommendations. (see Yeamans, Erickson, Araji and Bosek, Zorza and Fields)

15. Best practices are for mental health professionals to consult with domestic violence experts when handling a case involving allegations of domestic violence. There have been several demonstration projects including Rockland County, New York where child protective agencies work with the local domestic violence shelter on cases involving suspected domestic violence. The agencies cross-train each other and when caseworkers have a potential domestic violence case they consult with a domestic violence advocate. This practice has proven effective in helping caseworkers recognize and respond appropriately to domestic violence cases. Psychologists and psychiatrists are ethically required to consult with experts when they are handling a case that involves a subject they are not expert in. It should be a standard practice for evaluators
to consult with domestic violence experts when they respond to domestic violence cases. Unfortunately, these professionals, often with only a couple of hours of trainingin domestic violence and unfamiliar with the specialized body of research about domestic violence wrongly believe they don't need to consult with a genuine expert. Many lawyers don't know to raise this issue when questioning evaluators, but even when the issue is raised, judges rarely discredit an evaluators testimony for failing to consult a domestic violence expert or have familiarity with up-to-date research. (see Zorza, Fields, Goldstein and Hannah)

16. The use of psychological tests increases costs, delays cases and creates a false assumption that there is a scientific basis for recommendations. Psychological tests were developed for populations very different than those engaged in custody disputes. They cannot determine issues like domestic violence or parenting skills. They were designed to determine mental illness. Psychologists rarely tell the courts that the findings are based on probabilities and most tests reach conclusions accurate in 55 to 65% of the cases. Other factors such as not being part of the intended population for the test, domestic violence or the stress of litigation further reduce the percentage of accuracy. Mothers' normal response to their partners' domestic violence is often
misinterpreted as paranoia or delusion. This is particularly a problem where inadequately trained evaluators fail to recognize domestic violence and then pathologize the victim for believing she was abused. (see Yeamans, Zorza, Erickson and Fields)

17. Mental health professionals relied on in custody cases often use a family systems approach which is not appropriate and in fact is dangerous in domestic violence cases. The approach seeks to have the parties forget past problems and develop new ways to work together in the future. This does nothing to change the belief system of abusers who are skilled at manipulating professionals who use such an approach. The
professionals are usually unfamiliar with scientific research including the fact that only accountability and monitoring have been shown to change abusers' behavior. At the same time protective mothers are punished because they couldn't overcome their fear caused by a long history of their partner's abuse. This is another example of blaming the victim for her normal reaction to the father's abuse. (see Fields, Zorza and Crooks,
Jaffe and Bala).

18. Context is particularly important in understanding and recognizing domestic violence. Repeatedly we have seen cases in which the court initially determines a mother's domestic violence allegations are false. When the father commits new abusive tactics (such as limiting contact between the mother and children after he gets custody or using the visitation exchanges to harass his victim, the courts usually refuse to consider the new information in the context of prior evidence of abuse on the ground that the court already denied the abuse. Courts often miss that the same acts should be treated very differently depending on motivation. There may be evidence that each party hit the other, but they may not be equivalent. One party may hit harder, one party may hit in self defense or to stop his abuse and the other to maintain control, and particularly important only one party may fear the other. Both parties may file complaints about professionals in the case. While they both would claim they have valid objections it is important to see the context of whether one of the parties had previously sought to isolate their partner from friends and family. (see Dragiewicz, Goldstein and Zorza)

19. Not all children react the same to domestic violence and child abuse. Inadequately trained professionals expect abused children to have serious social or academic problems as a result of the abuse. Some children react by taking on adult roles, being the good child or zoning out. On the surface it appears the children are doing well, but the problems play out years later. Such unexpected reactions often lead to courts assuming valid abuse complaints are false. (see Crooks, Jaffe and Bala, Araji and Bosek)

20. We are particularly concerned with cases involving retaliation against protective mothers and extreme results that give custody to alleged abusers and supervised visits or no contact with children to the mothers. Unless the mother is unsafe (drug addict, beats the children) such extreme results are virtually always harmful to children. Many mothers have been punished for continuing to believe the father is dangerous after the
court fails to find he committed abuse. Fathers are not similarly punished when they continue to deny their abuse after the court finds against him. Given the frequency in which courts fail to confirm valid claims of abuse, courts should be extremely reluctant to penalize motherswho continue to complain of their partner's abuse. (see Zorza, Araji and Bosek)

21. Surprisingly there have been some judges who object to training about up-to-date research in domestic violence based on the belief that somehow neutrality requires judges to stay ignorant of this information. In reality such ignorance is not neutral as the myths, stereotypes and misinformation used instead of scientific research strongly favors abusive fathers. The training of judges and other court personnel in domestic violence should be conducted by domestic violence advocates and other experts familiar with the kind of
up-to-date research contained in this book. It is important that administrative judges foster an attitude that the present system has resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers so judges must be open to the likelihood that many of the beliefs and practices they have long used have been wrong. Courts should consider holding an evidentiary hearing about domestic violence early in custody proceedings. If the allegations of domestic violence are true and the other parent is safe (alienation allegations are not about safety), the non-abusive parent should receive custody and the abusive parent held accountable. This procedure would save courts time and money while achieving results that benefit children. Courts should consider not appointing an evaluator unless there is substantial reason to believe one of the parties or the children have a mental condition that would significantly interfere with parenting. If an evaluator is used judges should seek experts with substantial domestic violence training or at least have the evaluator consult with such an expert. Mediation and joint counseling are always inappropriate in cases with abuse allegations. The safety of the parties and the children must always be the first priority. Research demonstrates that the best way to prevent domestic violence is to hold the abuser accountable and monitor his behavior. Abusers tend to be extremely manipulative and court professionals must be careful to avoid colluding with an abuser. Most important, we are not seeking to challenge or criticize judges, but rather to work together to support the policy and laws of every state which is to prevent domestic violence.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Truth About Battered Women And Custody

In no other area of family law are battered women and their children inadvertently subjected to greater physical and emotional harm than in the child custody and visitation context. Battered women are often forced to participate in custody arrangements that require mediation, unsupervised custody and visitation, and
other types of exchanges that leave them and their children vulnerable to continued abuse and control at
the hands of their batterers. Women who try to protect themselves and their children by seeking sole custody or modifications in custody arrangements such as cessation of visitation, supervised visits, or who flee with their children are penalized by having custody taken away and given to their batterers. Despite the perception that mothers always win custody, when fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody in 40% to 70% of the cases.1 Indeed, even in cases where abuse is reported, a batterer is twice as likely to win custody over a non-abusive parent than in cases where no abuse is reported. 2 Domestic violence
While there is no uniform law that governs child custody, all states use the same standard in determining custody arrangements, called the “best interest of the child” standard. Under that standard, courts look at a number of factors in determining what type of custody arrangement would best suit the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual needs. Most states have separate statutes governing child custody and domestic violence. Although many states require the court to consider domestic violence in making temporary or final custody determinations, others do not. Moreover, a number of state custody
statutes make no mention of domestic violence as a factor to be considered in making custody awards. Of
equal concern are joint custody provisions that do not take into account how domestic violence puts both the
survivor and her child/children at further risk. See the section of this Legal Resource Kit entitled
“State Custody Laws That Consider Domestic Violence” for a complete list of custody statutes in the
different states. Indeed, for the battered woman, the custody and visitation processes often become a means by which a batterer furthers his abuse through attempts to continue to maintain control. Most forms of shared custody and visitation involve some type of proximity or contact between the battered woman and her abuser during the exchange of the child between parents. During these exchanges battered women are often subjected to verbal and physical harassment, stalking, assault, and threats, including the threat of child kidnapping.4 Women who deny visitation or who go to court to request a modification or supervised visitation in order to protect themselves and their children are frequently accused of trying to alienate the
child from the abusive parent.

                            Myths and Facts About Domestic Violence and Child Custody

The unfair treatment of battered women in custody disputes results from myths about the impact of domestic violence on women and children, as well as the widespread failures of civil protection agencies in taking women’s experiences seriously. Here are some of the common myths that persist:

Myth: It is easy for a battered woman to leave her abuser or to stop the abuse.

Fact: Fear of losing her children, pressures from religious communities to stay in the relationship, financial
dependence, the insensitivity and unresponsiveness of the justice system, and the escalation of abuse that occurs when women try to leave make it difficult for a woman to separate from her abuser. Even when a battered woman appears to “just accept” the violence, she is often making different attempts to avoid and stop the violence. Such attempts include complying with (or anticipating) a batterer’s demands, demanding that the batterer stop hisabuse, orchestrating the environment (e.g., keeping children quiet), leaving the home, calling the police, and fighting back with or without weapons.5

Myth: Battered women who take their children and flee an abusive relationship are safe from further harm.

Fact: Studies find that domestic violence escalates when battered women leave their abusers, and that
terminating a relationship results in a greater risk of fatality for battered women and their children.6 This
abuse takes the form of threats and actual violence to the mother and her children. Further, women and their
children risk additional (and sometimes fatal) harm during court ordered visitation or joint custody
arrangements. This occurs as many batterers discover that the children are a means of continuing the abuse of
a former partner. Five percent of abusive fathers threaten to kill their children's mother during visitation
with their children and 25 percent of abusive fathers threaten to harm their children during visitation.7

Myth: Domestic violence between parents does not impact their children
.
Fact: While most mothers in abusive relationships take precautions to shield their children from the harmful effects of violence, it is extremely difficult for them to protect their children from witnessing or
experiencing abuse. It is estimated that 87% of children who come from homes plagued by domestic violence
actually witness the abuse.8 Most children are adversely impacted by the abuse, although how they are affected may vary. Research suggests that child witnesses of domestic violence are more likely than other children to feel helpless, fearful, depressed, and anxious. They suffer both emotional and physical developmental problems, and are more likely than children who do not grow up in homes plagued by domestic violence to suffer from anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression.9 Many experts believe that child witnesses of domestic violence internalize the fear and trauma that results from witnessing violence, and are themselves likely to become perpetrators of violence in the future.10

Myth: Abuse of one parent by another parent does not mean that the abuser poses any harm or danger to the children.
Fact: While research results vary, studies have found that child abuse occurs in 25% to 70% of the families that experience domestic violence.11 Further evidence linking domestic violence to the heightened risk of harm to children can be found in a report to the Florida Governor’s Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, which identified over 300 domestic violence fatalities in 1994; 73 of those victims were children. Most of the children were killed by their biological fathers. In some cases, male abusers killed their entire families, including themselves.12

Myth: Batterers who seek custody do so out of love for their children and a desire to be good parents.

Fact: Abusive fathers continue to abuse and exert control over women after separation by vigorously pursuing custody of the couple’s children.13 Batterers are twice as likely as non-physically abusive fathers to seek sole custody of their children,14 and frequently refuse to pay child support as a way to continue the financial abuse and dependence of the mother.15

Myth: Battered women raise the issue of abuse in an attempt to turn their children against the other parent in order to gain sole or primary custody.

Fact: This allegation is often leveled at women who are simply trying to make judges aware of separation violence, their children’s concerns, and other abuses by the batterer. These assertions may be in the form of so-called “syndromes” like “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) or “Divorced Mother Syndrome.”16 Regrettably, however, judges, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed custody evaluators often rely on these theories to discount the very real fears and concerns that battered women and their children bring before the court.17See the section in this Legal Resource Kit on the “A Guide to Parental Alienation Syndrome” for information on how to address these assertions (212) 226-1066

 Legal Resource Kit: Domestic Violence and Child Custody

The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children

Copyright © 2005 Legal Momentum.

                      I. Overview

In recent decades, our society has slowly and reluctantly begun to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding family life and intimate relationships to reveal the shocking pervasiveness of domestic violence. Studies have shown
that more women are abused by their husbands or boyfriends each year than are injured in car accidents,
muggings, or rape.81 Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a
partner during adulthood.82 An estimated 4 million American women experience a serious assault by an
intimate partner during an average year.83 Although these statistics reflect the large number of women who are battered by their intimate partners, the numbers only begin to account for the population of women who suffer from domestic violence, which frequently includes psychological abuse and patterns of coercion and control that may not be reflected in these statistics. Women who experience domestic violence fail to report the crime to law enforcement personnel six times more often than do women who experience violence that is perpetrated by a stranger.84

                II. Spouse Abuse and Child Abuse

Psychological studies have found a significant overlap between spouse abuse and child abuse. For example, one survey found that 45% of assaults on women are accompanied by physical assaults on a child in the
family,85 and an article revealed that in 30% to 60% of families where either child abuse or spouse abuse was identified, the other form of violence was also present.86

                III. Children Caught in the Crossfire

Whether they are the intended targets of the abusive parent or not, children are harmed both physically and
psychologically by the abuse of their mothers. Batterers often deliberately abuse children both physically and
verbally, in order to hurt and control the mothers. Children are also accidentally harmed by blows or flying
objects aimed at their mothers, by seeing their mothers abused, and by the constant disruption that such abuse causes. There are several additional ways that children experience adult domestic violence. These include hitting or threatening a child while in its mother’s arms, taking the child hostage in order to force the mother to return to the home, forcing the child to watch assaults against the mother or to participate in the abuse, and using the child as a spy or interrogating him or her about the mother’s activities.87 Children are also told by their abusive fathers that if not for their mother’s behavior their families would be together.88 This is frequently an attempt to put pressure on the mother through the children to return to
the batterer or to drive a wedge between the mother and her children.89

               IV. Witnessing the Aftermath of Violence

In addition to seeing, hearing, or being directly subjected to physical violence, many women and their children describe the aftermath of a violent event as traumatic. Children may be forced to see their mother injured and in need of help, may have to live with a father who alternates between physical violence and loving care, may witnesspolice intervention to remove a father from the home, or may have to move to a shelter for battered women.90 They may observe blood, bruises, torn clothes, broken glass, and injuries to their mother’s person as well as experience an atmosphere of tension and fear in their homes.91 Any
definition of “witnessing violence” must include all of these various ways in which children experience a violent event.92 They may see the violence or be used as a part of it. Even when they are not present, children often are aware of the violent event and experience its aftermath.93 Reports by battered mothers indicate that 87% of children witness the abuse.94 Many children actually see their father, stepfather, or mother’s boyfriend not only beat their mothers but rape them as well.95 Although some parents believe that they succeed in shielding their children from the batterer’s aggression, children often provide detailed accounts of the very events which adults report they did not witness.96 Reports by children and by adults of their memories of childhood experiences indicate that parents severely underestimate the extent to
which their children are exposed to violence.97

         V. Physical and Emotional Effects of Domestic

Violence on Children Subjecting children to their mother’s victimization is a form of emotional abuse. Exposure to threats of injury, suicide attempts, verbal assault, and threats to kill evoke in children a combination of intense feelings,98 including: fear that their mother will be killed, guilt at not stopping
the violence, divided loyalties, and anger at their mother for not leaving.99 Even one episode of violence can
produce post-traumatic stress disorder in children.100 Batterers must be held responsible for causing such
trauma in children.101 Studies indicate that children who witness their fathers beating their mothers suffer emotional problems, including slowed development, sleep disturbances, and feelings of helplessness, depression, and anxiety. Many of these children exhibit more aggressive, antisocial, fearful, and inhibited behaviors. They also show lower social competence than other children.102 Children from homes
where their mothers were abused have also shown less skill in understanding how others feel and in examining situations from the other’s perspective when compared to children from non-violent households.103 Research has found that many of these children also suffer somatic symptoms. They are hospitalized more, have more colds and sore throats, and are more prone to bedwetting than children from homes without violence.104 Witnessing abuse as a child also has long-term effects. In one study, witnessing violence as a child was associated with adult reports of depression, low self-esteem among women, and trauma-related symptoms among men.105 Studies also indicate that growing up with domestic violence increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to abuse his spouse.106

               VI. Abuse by Battered Women

Battered women may displace their anger at their abusers onto their children. In one study, sixteen percent of women who lived with an abusive man reported that they directed their anger toward their children. Five percent expressed this anger through violence.107 However, data from the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect show that where there is child abuse concurrent with spouse abuse, 70% of the
violence is committed by the man.108 In most cases of child abuse, removing the children from the batterer’s
environment and placing them with the mother ends the abuse.

Will He Kill A Lethality Assesment

 JUNE 2010


Dept. Justice Report: Implications of Domestic Violence Research, for Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Judges:

According to research by Katherine van Wormer, Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa, certain patterns have emerged in cases in which men have ended up murdering their spouses and/or children as well as in the common "murder-suicide" cases.

Violence Against Women Is On The Rise

June 15, 2010
         By Judy Silverclose

The Chicago Tribune says that domestic violence calls to the Indianapolis police department are up 13% this year over last. The Honolulu Advertiser says that Hawaii’s Domestic Violence Action Center is fielding a third more calls this year than last. Rates are up in Arizona and Texas, too. The economy is down; stress and violence are up.  A new Department of Justice study on Domestic Violence and Law Enforcement states that, while over the last decade the percentage of women who call the police after physical assault by an intimate partner seems to be rising from 30 to 60 percent, 40  percent of assaults still go unreported.
If police are called, either by the victim or by a third party (such as a neighbor or hospital) the study says: Researchers found 29% of victims reported “no assault.” Ironically, their alleged assailants were more likely to admit the assaults, with only 19% reporting “no assault”. Law enforcement officers may find that the most severely traumatized victims, behave least, as law enforcement officers expect of them. They may also be the least able to cooperate with law enforcement. Addressing the question of whether arrest is the best response to intimate-partner violence, the report says: Arrest deters repeat abuse, however, all actions taken by responding officers , including providing victims with information pamphlets, taking down witness statements, and helping victims secure protective orders were associated with reduced cases of reoffending abuse.
If an arrest is made, the percentage of cases prosecuted varies wildly, from 46% in Milwaukee to 94% in Cincinnatti, with the average being about 60%. Sometimes police arrest an abuser for a lesser charge (disorderly conduct) instead instead of assault. However, the report warns, reducing  charges to non-assault charges allows convicted abusers to retain firearms otherwise prohibited. One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal violence is to disarm abusers and keep them disarmed. A commenter on our site, Sheri Ferber, a former member of Rick Warren’s, Saddleback church, was also a victim of Domestic Violence.The story is heartbreaking. Four years ago, [Ferber] approached a Saddleback pastor for protection against her husband, who’d violently attacked her while they were driving home from church. Instead of protecting her, Ferber says, the pastor called her husband to warn him that Ferber had been “gossiping about their marriage.” Ferber, it seems, had run into Saddleback’s teaching that the sanctity of marriage prohibits divorce in all but a few circumstances, and domestic violence is not one of them. Author Kathryn Joyce goes on to explain: Jocelyn Andersen, was severely battered by her assistant pastor husband. She argues that submission teachings don’t create abusers, but allow violent men to justify their abuse as biblical. The real danger, though, is in how the teachings impact devout women, who may conclude they can’t leave their marriages and remain committed Christians. Fortunately, there is evidence of people fighting for change, even in very conservative churches. In fact, the same author, Kathryn Joyce, also wrote on the Saddleback domestic violence issue for Religion Dispatches, where she quotes conservative Christian author Barbara Roberts: “I think Saddleback’s teaching is profoundly and dangerously wrong,” says Roberts, offering them her book’s findings that ,1 Corinthians 7:15-a verse commonly interpreted as applying solely to an unbeliever: Deserting a believing spouse-provides the biblical grounds for abused wives to consider their union nullified. “The key question is not ‘who walked out’ but ‘who caused the separation?’ Of course, many churches already teach that violence abrogates the marital covenant and refer congregants to abuse specialists. And Christians don’t have a monopoly on the issue.  Jewish, Muslim and interfaith women also suffer Domestic Violence. Thankfully, for victims who don’t feel comfortable calling the police, there are trained specialists available. The National Domestic Violence Hotline, provides crisis intervention, information, and referrals to shelters and programs. Calls are free, confidential, and anonymous. The Number Is 1-800-799-7233.

The New Agenda welcomes readers who have a background in this area, If you are interested in writing about it, in more detail. Contact us at:  blog@thenewagenda.net.
As “Lived It” said,  may God have mercy on us all.

Heartbreak And Loss ...Why?





Sunday, June 13, 2010

What happens in Domestic violence and Child custody, Visitation: The Truth

In no other area of family law are battered women and their children inadvertently subjected to greater physical and emotional harm than in the child custody andvisitation context. Battered women are often forced to participate in custody arrangements that requiremediation, unsupervised custody and visitation, and
other types of exchanges that leave them and their children vulnerable to continued abuse and control at
the hands of their batterers. Women who try to protect themselves and their children by seeking sole custody or modifications in custody arrangements such as cessation of visitation, supervised visits, or who flee with their children are penalized by having custody taken away and given to their batterers. Despite the perception that mothers always win custody, when fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody in 40% to 70% of the cases. Indeed, even in cases where abuse is reported, a batterer is twice as likely to win custody over a non-abusive parent than in cases where no abuse is reported.

                                              Domestic violence

While there is no uniform law that governs child custody, all states use the same standard in determining custody arrangements, called the “best interest of the child” standard. Under that standard, courts look at a number of factors in determining what type of custody arrangement would best suit the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual needs. Most states have separate statutes governing child custody and domestic violence. Although many states require the court to consider domestic violence in making temporary or final custody determinations, others do not. Moreover, a number of state custody
statutes make no mention of domestic violence as a factor to be considered in making custody awards. Of equal concern are joint custody provisions that do not take into account how domestic violence puts both the
survivor and her child/children at further risk. See the section of this Legal Resource Kit entitled

“State Custody Laws That Consider Domestic Violence” for a complete list of custody statutes in the different states. Indeed, for the battered woman, the custody and visitation processes often become a means by which a batterer furthers his abuse through attempts to continue to maintain control. Most forms of shared custody and visitation involve some type of proximity or contact between the battered woman and her abuser during the exchange of the child between parents. During these exchanges battered women are often subjected to verbal and physical harassment, stalking, assault, and threats,including the threat of child kidnapping.4 Women who deny visitation or who go to court to request a modification or supervised visitation in order to protect themselves and their children are frequently accused of trying to alienate the
child from the abusive parent.

                               III. Myths and Facts About Domestic Violence and Child Custody

The unfair treatment of battered women in custody disputes results from myths about the impact of domestic violence on women and children, as well as the widespread failures of civil protection agencies in taking women’s experiences seriously. Here are some of the common myths that persist:

Myth: It is easy for a battered woman to leave her abuser or to stop the abuse.
Fact: Fear of losing her children, pressures from religious communities to stay in the relationship, financial
dependence, the insensitivity and unresponsiveness of the justice system, and the escalation of abuse that occurs when women try to leave make it difficult for a woman to separate from her abuser. Even when a battered woman appears to “just accept” the violence, she is often making different attempts to avoid and stop the violence. Such attempts include complying with (or anticipating) a batterer’s demands, demanding that the batterer stop hisabuse, orchestrating the environment (e.g., keeping children quiet), leaving the home, calling the police, and fighting back with or without weapons.5

Myth: Battered women who take their children and flee an abusive relationship are safe from further harm.
Fact: Studies find that domestic violence escalates when battered women leave their abusers, and that terminating a relationship results in a greater risk of fatality for battered women and their children.6 This
abuse takes the form of threats and actual violence to the mother and her children. Further, women and their
children risk additional (and sometimes fatal) harm during court ordered visitation or joint custody
arrangements. This occurs as many batterers discover that the children are a means of continuing the abuse of
a former partner. Five percent of abusive fathers threaten to kill their children's mother during visitation
with their children and 25 percent of abusive fathers threaten to harm their children during visitation.7

Myth: Domestic violence between parents does not impact their children.
Fact: While most mothers in abusive relationships take precautions to shield their children from the harmful effects of violence, it is extremely difficult for them to protect their children from witnessing or experiencing abuse. It is estimated that 87% of children who come from homes plagued by domestic violence actually witness the abuse.8 Most children are adversely impacted by the abuse, although how they are affected
may vary. Research suggests that child witnesses of domestic violence are more likely than other children to
feel helpless, fearful, depressed, and anxious. They suffer both emotional and physical developmental
problems, and are more likely than children who do not grow up in homes plagued by domestic violence to
suffer from anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression.9 Many experts believe that child witnesses of domestic
violence internalize the fear and trauma that results from witnessing violence, and are themselves likely to
become perpetrators of violence in the future.10

Myth: Abuse of one parent by another parent does not mean that the abuser poses any harm or danger to the children.
Fact: While research results vary, studies have found that child abuse occurs in 25% to 70% of the families that experience domestic violence.11 Further evidence linking domestic violence to the heightened risk of harm to children can be found in a report to the Florida Governor’s
Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence, which identified over 300 domestic violence fatalities in 1994; 73 of those victims were children. Most of the children were killed by their biological fathers. In some cases, male abusers killed their entire families, including themselves.12

Myth: Batterers who seek custody do so out of love for their children and a desire to be good parents.
Fact: Abusive fathers continue to abuse and exert control over women after separation by vigorously pursuing custody of the couple’s children.13 Batterers are twice as likely as non-physically abusive fathers to seek sole custody of their children,14 and frequently refuse to pay child support as a way to continue the financial abuse and dependence of the mother.15

Myth: Battered women raise the issue of abuse in an attempt to turn their children against the other parent in order to gain sole or primary custody.
Fact: This allegation is often leveled at women who are simply trying to make judges aware of separation violence, their children’s concerns, and other abuses by the batterer. These assertions may be in the form of so-called “syndromes” like “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) or “Divorced Mother Syndrome.”16 Regrettably, however, judges, guardians ad litem, and court-appointed custody evaluators often rely on these theories to discount the very real fears and concerns that battered women and their children bring before the court.17See the section in this Legal Resource Kit on the “A Guide to Parental Alienation Syndrome” for information on how to address these assertions

(212) 226-1066

Children Learn What They Live

Children Learn What They Live