BenchGuideDV and CustdyJudges Gude

8/8/2019 BenchGuideDV and CustdyJudges Gude

1/38


2/38

This docum ent w as de veloped under grant nu mber SJI-03-N-103 from the Sta te Jus t ice Ins t i tu te . The points of v iew expressedare those of the authors and do no t necessa r i ly represent the offic ia l pos i t ion o f the Sta te Jus t ice Ins t i tu te .


3/38


4/38

Adviso ry Co m m itte e Me m be rsNadia Abdelazim, JDStaff AttorneyCustody Advoca te ProgramChildrens Law CenterCharlotte, North Carolina

Michael W. Arrington, JDManaging Par tnerParkow ski, Guerke & Sw ayze, P.A.Wilmington, Delaw are

Jacqu elynn e Bowm an , JDDeputy DirectorGreater Boston Lega l ServicesBoston, Massachuset ts

Cecelia BurkeDirectorTravis Cou nty Dom estic Relations O fficeAustin, Texa s

Hon. Mike Den tonJudgeCounty Court at Law 4Austin, Texa s

Shirley Dobbin, PhDAssistan t DirectorPerman ency Plann ing for Children Depar tmentNational Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt JudgesReno, Nevada

Lisae C. Jordan, JDLegislative CounselMarylan d Coa lit ion Agains t Sexua l AssaultWashington, DC

Hon. Phyllis D. KoteyCounty Judge

8th Judicial Circuit of FloridaAlach ua Coun ty CourtGainesville, Florida

Nancy W. Olesen, PhDPsychologistSan Rafael, Californ ia

Hon . Nancy S. Salyers (Ret.)Co-DirectorFostering ResultsChildren an d Fam ily Research CenterUnive rsity o f Illino is

Chicago, Illinois

Erika Sussm an , JDSen ior Attorn ey, LAPTOPPenn sylvan ia Coalit ion AgainstDomestic ViolenceWashington, DC

Hon. Frances Q. F. WongSenior JudgeFamily Court, First CircuitState of Hawa iiHono lulu, Hawa ii

Consu l t an t sClare Dalton, LLMGeorge J. and Kathleen Wa ters Matthew sDistinguished University Professor of LawNortheas tern University Schoo l of LawBoston, Massachuset ts

Leslie M. Drozd , PhDPsychologistNewport Beach, California

Shelia Han kinsConsul tantRoche ster Hills, Michigan

Hon. William G. Jones (Ret.)Senior JudgeCharlotte, North Carolina

Graphic Consul tantLarry Wink ler

Creative Hou seReno, Nevada

Specia l tha nks to Martha Steketee , Senior Cour t Rese arch Associa te , Nat ion al Cen terfor Sta te Cour ts , for he r con tr ibut ions to the e valuat ion of th is project .


5/38

Natio na l Cou nc il o f Juve nile an d Fam ily Co urt Judg e sFamily Violence Department

While the re are rules of eviden ce to d irect judge s in determ ining w ho qua lifiesas a n e xpert , practical resou rces are lacking to help judges crit ically review theexpert testimon y of child custod y evaluators, determ ine wh ether the e valuator s

tes t ing m ethods were accurate an d re l iable , or tease out the b iases of individualclinician s, pa rticularly wh en dom estic violence is involved. This pub lication isdesigne d to be a pra ctical too l for judge s on h ow to order, interpre t , an d act upo nchild cus tody evaluat ions and includes ben ch cards a nd supplemen tary mater ia ls .

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t sThis project wou ld no t have bee n po ss ible w ithout the gen erous su ppor t of the

State Justice Insti tute an d i ts continuing leade rship in s eeking to im prove th equa lity of justice in s tate cou rts an d the outco m es for fam ilies in crisis. The Fam ilyViolence Departm en t of the Nation al Coun cil of Juven ile an d Fam ily Court Judge s(NCJFCJ) is indebted to all of the people who helped make this publicationposs ible. Special than ks go to the a utho rs, Clare Dalton, Leslie Drozd a nd JudgeFran cis Won g, for their dedication; to the Advisory Comm ittee m em bers for theirguidan ce; to our co nsu ltan ts, Shelia Han kins an d Judge William Jon es, for the iren thusiasm an d expe rtise; to Larry Winkler for his graph ic design; to the judge s of the Child Victim s Act Model Courts Project an d o ther p rofessionals for serving a sreviewers o f the docu m en t, and to the sta ff of the NCJFCJ Perma ne ncy Plan ning forChildren Departm en t for i ts con tributions to this project.

The Family Violen ce Depa rtmen t wo uld also l ike to tha nk the U.S. Depa rtmen tof Health an d Hum an Services (HHS) for helping to su ppo rt this importa ntende avor. Much of the groundw ork for th is tool wa s done through the ResourceCenter on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody, a project of NCJFCJan d fun ded by HHS.

3


6/38

4


7/38

Navigating Cus tody andVisitation Evaluations in Casesw ith Do m e st ic Vio le nce:A Judge s Guide

Table o f Co ntents

Intro du ction: Why a Tool with a Dom estic Violence Focus ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Org a n iza tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

How to De fin e Do m es tic Violen ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

The Legal Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

The Ethica l Con tex t: Safety First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Ordering an Evalua tion : When Is Dom estic Violen ce Experience Neces sary? . . . . . . . . . .11

Wha t If The re Are No Reso urce s for a n Eva luation ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

If Reso urce s Are Availab le, Shou ld I Orde r an Evaluation ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Is There an Addition al Need for an Emergen cy/ Interim Evaluation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

What Do I Need to Know, from Wh om , and How Do I Ask? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Fram e th e In qu iry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Cho os e th e Exp ert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Be Spe cific abo ut th e Inform ation You Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Articulate Expe cte d So ur ces of Inform a tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Comm un icate Expectations a bou t Inform ation-Gathe ring Proced ures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Fram e th e Pro ce ss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Define the Obligations of the Participa nts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Rea din g th e Re po rt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Sa fety Firs t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..23

On ce Adm itted , How Do I Make Mo re Effective Use of the Repo rt? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

How Do I Asse ss th e Reco m m en da tions ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Sug ge ste d Res ou rce s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

I

II

III

5


8/38

6


9/38

Why aTo o l

w it h aD o m e s t i c

Vi o l e n c eF o c u s ?

Naviga ting Cus to dy and Vis itatio n Evaluatio ns inCas e s w ith Do m e s tic Vio le nc e : A Judge s Guide

Introduction

It is m ore l ike ly than not , ac cording to curren t resea rch , 1 tha t judgespres id ing over con tes ted cus to dy case s w ill ha ve to grapple wi th twore la ted ques t ions : wh ether the paren ts relat ionsh ip has be en ph ysical ly violent or otherwise

abusive, and, if so, how tha t v io lence or abuse should affec t the cour t s dec isions a bout

ongoing custody and visi tat ion arrangements.

In a t leas t som e case s, you prob ably use forma l custody evaluations toassist you in an sw ering those two qu est ions: to fram e the issues, gather therelevant evidence, ana lyze a nd s ynthesize i t, and o ffer i t to you in a forma ttha t w ill facilitate your de cision m aking. The prim ary fun ction o f this tool is tohelp you m ake m ore e ffect ive us e of those custody evaluationsno t just incases in wh ich there is a record of dom estic violence, but also in cases in

wh ich dom estic violence is alleged, or w here th e prese nce o f other red f lagsraises a suspicion of dom estic violence.The qua lity of custody evalua tions is of critical im porta nce . Yet, not a ll

the exper ts on w hom cour ts re ly have the t ra in ing a nd e xper ience n eeded tocollect ade qua tely an d evaluate com peten tly the e viden ce, or offer therecom m enda tions , that will provide a solid bas is for deciding one of thesecomplex cases .2

This to ol w ill he lp you : de termine whether the case is one tha t requires an evalua t ion; de termine what the content of the evalua t ion should be ; se lec t the r ight person to conduct the evalua t ion;

ta ilor the evalua t ion to your needs ; and know, a t the end, whe ther or to wha t ex tent you can re ly on the

evaluator s report.

By becom ing a mo re dem an ding consum er, you will also assist theevaluators o n w hom you rely to increase their expert ise in this difficult work.

If you find yourself in the not u ncom m on si tuat ion tha t nei ther the pa rt iesno r the court has the reso urces to pay for a thorou gh evaluation, or inde ed foran y evalua tion, the tool ma y st ill be of assistance . This is a topic covered inthe su ppleme ntary m aterial to Card I.

Organiza t ionIn the be nch ca rds provided he re , as w el l as in these su pplem en tarym ater ia ls , we guide you chrono logica l ly through the proce ss , ask ingwi th you:

I. Is this a case that wou ld benefit from a n evaluation that includes a dom esticviolence focus?

7

1 See Peter G. Jaffe et a l., Com m on Misconceptions in Addressing Dom estic Violence in Child Custody Disput54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 57 (2003).2 For purpose s of this Guide, evalua tion refers only to the wo rk produ ct of tho se profession als qua lifieto evaluate the data an d form a n opinion abou t the part ies in a contested custody case based upo n theirt raining an d experience.

T h e h a n d s y m b o l

i s u s e d t h r o u g h o u t

th i s too l to br ing

readers a t ten t ion

to i s sue a reas

re la ted to sa fe ty

for v ic t im s o f dom es t ic v io lence

and the i r ch i ldren .


10/38

Ho w t o D e fin e D o m e s t ic Vio le n c e

II. What should the scope of the evaluation be, an d wh om should I ask to conduct it?III. How sh ould the fina l product itself be eva luated? How sh ould I use it?

The cards an d the supp lemen tal text use a n identical form at, al low ing you to referea si ly from o ne to the other. The text expan ds upon the cards, whe re addit iona lexplan ato ry m ate rial is offered . At the e nd of these m ate rials, you will also find a listadditional resources, many of them available on the NCJFCJ website, at www.ncjfcj.or

The rem ainder o f this introduction offers a context for the tool , by defining do m estiviolence a nd highlighting crit ical aspe cts of the legal an d ethical fram ew ork governinan y case in wh ich dom estic violence is known to be, or may be, an issue.

Dome stic violen ce is a complex and confusing phen om en on. For purposes of thistool , as w ill becom e clear, we a re defining it as a dynam ic betw een p aren ts whe rebyon e partne r seeks to control the other through the u se of abusive pattern s of beha viotha t opera te at a variety of levelsem otion al, psychological, an d physical. Thepresen ce of this abu sive dynam ic will alwa ys be relevan t to the ques t ion o f wh atcustody or visi tat ion a rrangem ent w il l serve the b est interests of any children sh ared the a dult part ies.

In so m e ca ses, there will be a p ublic record of violence o r abu se (police repo rts; 911

calls; crimina l, civil, or prote ctive o rder litigation) an d private re cords (from m edical,m enta l hea lth, substan ce abu se, shelter, and oth er service providers); in m an y othersthere will be explicit allegations, and often counter-allegations; in still others there wibe indicat ion s of disturban ce in the fam ily that m ay or m ay not , upon further invest igt ion, be related to violence or abu se. We have cal led these the red flag issues thatshou ld prom pt further inquiry into the presen ce or abs ence of dome stic violence.

The untrained e ye and e ar do n ot rel iably detect the a busive dyna m ics in relat ion-ships whe re violence is hidden , or whe re m ost of the abuse is not physical in n ature.Abusive partne rs can often appe ar cha rming, in charge, an d sincere in their comm itm ent to their fam ilies even w hen their behavior, i f we knew i t, wou ld tel l an other stopar tners who have suffered abuse can be unre l iab le wi tnesses , and a ppear una ppeal -ing, disorga nized or em otion ally un sta ble. The parties often ho ld radica lly differe nt

perceptions of their relat ionships an d of one an other; and a busers a re often m otivateto den y or minimize their abu sive beh avior. It is part icularly importan t in thes e case sto test wh at the pa rt ies say aga inst other available evidence.

8

The Le ga l Co n te x t

In ca ses involving know n o r suspected dom estic violen ce, as in al l conteste dcustody cases, the courts fun dam enta l task is to determ ine h ow each ch ild ha s beenaffected by what has gone on inside the family, the quality of the childs relationshipwith each paren t , each paren ts capa city to m eet the ch ilds nee ds, and h ow best toassu re the childs ph ysical , psychological an d e m otional w ellbeing going forw ard. Theevaluator ca n o ffer crit ical assistance to the judge in gathering the information n eedeto answ er these ques t ions .

Even w hen they are no t them selves physical ly or sexually abused, wh en the re isviolence a t hom e, children a re aw are o f it an d affected by it , although paren ts wo uldprefer to think, and m ay say, that they are not . As a significan t and grow ing body of resea rch at tests , exposure to physical violence a t hom e hu rts children, al though theexten t of that injury differs from child to child,3 even wi th in the sam e hom e. We areusing the term exposure to signal that children a re affected n ot on ly when they are

3 PETER G. JA FFE E T A L., CHILD CUSTODY & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A CALL FOR SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 21 (2003).See also , Jeffrey L. Edleson, Problem s Associated with Childrens Witnessing o f Dom estic Violence (April 1997revised April 1999) at ht tp :/ / vaw.umn .edu / documents / vawnet / wi tness / wi tness .pdf.


11/38

presen t at the violen t incident , but also whe n they hea r it , or see the afterma tha paen t injured o r in distress, furniture kno cked over, things broken, blood o n the wa ll.They are a ffected, too, whe n they are forced to live in an a tmo sphere o f threat a nd fecreated by violence. And they are affected, as the rese arch is increa singly demo nstraing, by a p aren ts use of abusive beha viors tha t s top sh ort of physical violence, wh eththose b eha viors are directed prim ari ly tow ards a partne r, or chara cterize the a busiveparen ts relat ions hips with partn er an d children al ike.

This is why judges a re no w almo st universal ly under a statutory obligation to con sier dom estic violence as a factor whe n de termining the best interests of children. It iswhy m any judges are under a s ta tu tory obliga t ion to presum e tha t a perpe t ra tor of

dom estic violence is not som eon e w ho sh ould be given e ither joint or sole physicalor legal custod y of a child. The definitions of dom estic violen ce un derlying the sespecific s tatutory obligations m ay be n arrow er, and m ore focused on physical violencthan the broa der defini t ion w e have propose d. But because do m estic violence in thebroade r sen se h urts children, i t is incum bent on every judge in e very custody or visi tat ion decision base d on the be st interests of a child, regardless of part icular s tatutoryobligations, to have a n a ccurate picture of an y violence or a buse in the pa rentsrelat ions hip, and to consider i ts im plicat ions for the child a fter the p aren ts sepa rate.

The Eth ic a l Conte xt : Safe ty Firs t 4

When you ma ke a de terminat ion or approve a pa renta l agreem ent about cus todyan d visitat ion, you a re trying to create a cl im ate in w hich children can flourish,physical ly and em otionally. The safety of the part ies and their children is a para m ounconsiderat ion. Children do no t flourish if they are no t , or do not perceive them selvesbe sa fe, or if they perceive their paren ts to be a t r isk. Parents w ho a re fearful for theiow n s afety ma y have a difficult tim e pro viding sa fety, security, and effective pa ren tingfor their children .

Cases involving dom estic violence can create acute r isks, for children an d forparen ts; an d we can not de termine w ith an y certainty, especially at the outset , exactlywh ich cases, or which circum stance s, conta in or create those r isks. Contra ry to earl ithinking, in m an y cases se para t ion increas es, rather than re duces, the r isks of ha rm ta vulnerable parent or to children. Letha l violence betw een p artners occurs m ore oftduring and a fter separa t ion th an wh en the couple is s t il l together, and ch ildren a reoften ca ught up in that post-sepa rat ion violence.5

It ma y be he lpfu l to th ink abou t three con texts in w hich con cerns a boutsafe ty can be a ddressed:

At the ou tset of the case, if an exist ing record of violence prom pts im m ediate conceabou t the safety of one or both o f the pa rt ies or their children. This is addressed onCard I.

During the l it igat ion an d evaluation process, which can (a) create i ts own risks, an d(b) uncover inform ation tha t t r iggers imm ediate con cern a bout the safety of thepa rties or the ir children. This is a ddre sse d on Cards II an d IIA.

In fram ing final custody and visi tat ion orders, which must en sure the on going safetof the pa rties and th eir children. This is ad dres sed on Card III.

4 When we s peak o f safety, we a re including both physical and em otional safety.5 JA FFE E T A L., supra note 3, at 8. See also Jacq uelyn C. Cam pbell et al., Risk Factors for Femicide in Abu sive Relationsh ips: Results from a Mu ltistate Case Control Study , 93 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1089-97 (2003), and Walter S. DeKeseredy et al.,Separation/ Divorce Sexual Assau lt: The Current State o f Social Scientific Know ledge , 9 AGGRESSION & VIOLENT BEHAV. 67 5(2004), available at ht tp :/ / www.ncdsv.org / images / Separa t iondivorcesexua lassau lt .pdf.9


12/38

10


13/38

11

Ordering an Evaluation: When Is DomesticViolence Experience Necessary?

What If There Are No Resources for an Evaluation?

As Card I suggests, this tool offers you a checklist of information that will be impor-tan t to your decision m aking in a ny case in wh ich dom estic violence is know n, al lege

or suspected. If nei ther the part ies nor the court ha s the resou rces for an e valuation, will s t il l be possible for you to requ est th at informa tion from the part ies at torne ys,from the pa rt ies them selves if they are un represen ted, and so m etimes direct ly from thsource. Child abu se/ CPS reports , cr im ina l records, an d records o f court act ivity may fall into the latter ca tego ry.

The tool may also help you de termine w hich avenue s of inqu iry are the m ost cruciaan d ho w to m aximize the productivity of an inquiry, so tha t i f you ha ve resou rces for lim ited evaluation , you can a lloca te thos e reso urce s effectively. If, for exa m ple, thecase involves young children, you m ight decide to ask a m enta l hea lth professiona lwith expert ise in child developm ent a nd d om estic violence to obse rve the children w iea ch paren t and a lone , and eva luate the childrens functioning an d their relat ionshipswith ea ch pa rent . This l im ited eva luation w ould add s ignifican tly to the inform ation

the parents provide.If you order a limited inquiry, it will be important to ensure that the evaluator s con-

c lus ions or recomm endat ions do not presum e m ore know ledge than the l im ited inquha s in fact produ ced. It is critical in such ca ses for you to fram e the inqu iry care fully,an d to use the cou rts au thori ty to m ake relevan t collateral resou rces available to theevaluator. This ma y be especial ly crucial in case s whe re the part ies are un represen tean d ha ve a l im ited cap acity to ad dress effect ively an y negative conclusions draw n bythe eva luator. Exercising critical judgm en t in your read ing of an e valua tor s report is topic ad dres sed e xten sively on Card III.

I

If Re s o urce s Are Available , Sho uld I Orde r an Evaluatio n?The Clearest Cases

In the m ost egregious cases, it ma y no t even be ne cessary to order an eva luation inorder to de cide tha t a childs best interests w ould not be served by al low ing con tactwi th a v io lent an d abus ive parent . However, even a parent w ho i s not an a ppropr ia tecan didate for custody m ay desire visi tat ion; and a careful evaluation m ay inde ed bene cessary to determ ine (a) the m otivation for that requ est , (b) what impa ct ongoingconta ct will have on the children, an d (c) whethe r and h ow visi tat ion can be structureto assu re the sa fety of the vulnerable paren t and th e children.

There w ill be othe r case s involving a limited record of dom estic violence in wh ichon e of the pa rt ies w ill contest the legit im acy of that record, or i ts relevan ce to cu stodan d visi tat ion determ ination s. And there w il l be case s involving a llegations, an dperha ps coun ter-al legations, of domes tic violence in w hich there are n o public recordto serve a s substa ntiat ion. These cas es w ill alwa ys benefit from careful invest igat ionand evalua t ion .

When Vict ims Have a Histo ry o f Physical ViolenceA history of physical violence in the parents relationshipand especially a history

of police or criminal just ice system involvem entalmost a lways wa rrants a n e valua-tion, if reso urce s are a vailab le. In su ch case s, it is crucial tha t the history be sub ject tcareful review a nd to supplem enta t ion , as app ropriate. In part icular, conce rns arefrequen tly raised tha t ne ither the stan dards go verning the issuan ce of civil restrain-ing/ protect ion orde rs, nor the stan dards use d by prosecutors in crim ina l dom estic


14/38

The Re d Flag Cas e sPerha ps the m ost difficult and im porta nt cate gory is the red flag cas e. This is the

case in w hich no record o r al legation of dom estic violence surfaces w hen thepart ies first come to cou rt , an d yet the children m ay have been exposed to do m esticviolence, and m ay be at r isk in the future un less you order a n eva luation to explorethat history an d factor your f indings into your best- interests a na lysis .

s Substan ce abu se, while i t does n ot caus e or excuse do m estic violence, oftenco-occurs w ith i t , an d can certainly precipitate pa rt icular incidents. Substan ce abuon the p art of an a bused pa rtner can be a form of self-m edication .

sMental illness can produce violence, but i t can also be the product of exposure toviolence or abu se.

s Current research suggests that between 30 and 60 percent of households (dependinon the s tudy) in w hich there is child abuse are a lso hou seho lds in which one pa rtnis abu sing the other.6

s Children are affected by paren tal conflict an d sepa rat ion, as w ell as by the kinds ofdisruption in their lives those a ct ions e ngen der. However, when children a reexhibit ing sympto m s con sistent w ith post t rau m atic stress disorder (whichinclude thos e l is ted on Card I : s leep disturban ces, bedw ett ing, excessivesepa rat ion a nxiety, hyperactivity, aggression or o ther b eha vioral problem s,depression or a nxiety, or regressive be haviors), it is im portan t to test w hethe r thossymptom s are the conseque nce of abuse or exposure to parenta l v io lence .

s Children w ho a ppea r al iena ted from a paren t ma y have legit im ate an d substan tiarea son s for being a ngry, distrustful, or fearful.7 That possibility should be explored,before one paren t is blam ed for indu cing that al iena tion. How to understan d issueof estrangem ent, protect ion, and a lienation in case s involving do m estic violence istrea ted m ore fully in the supplem en tary ma terials to Card III. The frequ en cy w ithwh ich a pe rpetrator of dome stic violence a ccuses his or her pa rtner of aliena ting thchildren from him o r her is an indicator of the importan ce of test ing for dom esticviolence in an y case in w hich that al legation is ma de.

s If paren ts are e ntan gled in an abu sive relat ion ship, they ma y both be inat ten tive tothe childrens nee ds. The perpetrator of abu se m ay be focuse d on his or her ow nnee ds, rathe r than the ne eds of others in the fam ily. The parent vulnerable to abusma y be focused on m eet ing the pe rpe t ra tor s dem ands in o rder to conta in theviolence, or m ay be too p hysical ly or em otionally depleted to m eet th e childrensnee ds a ppropriately.

s The lop-sided agreem ent in an u ncon tested case, part icularly wh en bo th part ies,or the party who seems to be giving most away, are unrepresented, raises theconcern that the losing party is incapa ble of protect ing h is or h er ow n interests ,wh ich m ay be be cause of pat terns o f violent or co ercive con troll ing be havior inthe re lat ionship.

6 Se e, e.g., National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse & Neglect Information , In Harms Way: Dom estic Violence an d Child Maltreatm ent 1 (1999).7 Se e Leslie M. Drozd & Nancy W. Olesen, It is Abuse, Alienation, an d/ or Estrangem ent? A Decision Tree , 1 J. CHILD CUSTO(Nov. 2004).

assa ult cases, sufficiently dist inguish be twee n the p rim ary perpetrator of violence in aabu sive relat ion ship, and a partne r wh o m ay be using violence defensively.

In the civil restraining/ protect ion orde r an d criminal contexts , the focus is on speciacts of violence . The fam ily court system h as bo th the luxury an d the obligat ion to lom ore broad ly at the dynam ics within the fam ily, and to ask w hethe r one pa rtner isabus ing the o ther as a me ans of power and con t ro l and wha t the implica t ions o f tha tabu se are for ea ch me m ber of the fam ily. A careful exam ination ma y reveal thatal though both paren ts have a record of violence, only one of the pare nts pose s an yon going r isk to the children o r the othe r paren t , or tha t the parent w ith a record of violence is actua lly the vict im ized partne r within an abu sive relat ionship, rather than

the abuser.

12


15/38

Is The re an Additio nal Ne e d for an Em e rge ncy/ Interim Evaluation?

Other Case sOne pa rty m ay be request ing perm ission to relocate w ith the children, an d the othe

m ay be resist ing that relocation, for a nu m ber of reaso ns, m ore or less persuasive.In a t least so m e cas es, the des ire to m ove is promp ted by a pa rtys desire to protecthim- or herself, an d the children, from o ngoing abuse o r harassm ent. If there is an yhint that the ca se m ay involve dom estic violence, or the case is one in which a clearm otivation for the relocation a ppea rs to be missing, an eva luato r asked to addre ssthe relocation issue wo uld be rem iss if he o r she did not explore the possibili ty of dom estic violence as a n un derlying rea son for the request .

If a c a s e s e e m s d a n g e r o u s fr o m t h e o u t s e t , a n d I F t h e s i t u a t io n h a s n o t a lr e a db e e n s t a b iliz e d , y o u m a y n e e d t o t a k e i m m e d ia t e a c t io n .

In f raming temporary orders, you m ay wan t to draw on an in ter im safe ty assessmenperformed by a qua lified e xpertin other w ords, an interim e valuation with a l im itedan d specific focus on safety. The expert asked to con duct this type of evaluation m usbe som eon e w ith specific expert ise an d experience in dom estic violence a nd r isk a s se s smen t .

Resea rch into dom estic violence hom icides u nde rscores the fact tha t our a bili ty tom ea sure risk is still quite impe rfect. This in itself sugge sts tha t caution is advisable.However, the research doe s provide som e valuable guidan ce, and suggests the following areas of inqu iry as m ost im portan t for an e m ergency evaluation:

the abus ive par tner s em ployment s ta tus (unem ployment i s the m ost s ignificantsocio-dem ographic r isk factor);

whether the abus ive par tner has access to a gun, has m ade previous threa ts wi th awe apo n, or ha s previously threatene d to ki ll ;

whether the a bus ive par tner uses drugs (drug use , but not a lcohol use , appears toincrea se the r isk);

the level of control exercised by the abusive partner: the m ore con trolling a partner

has b een in the relat ions hip, the greate r the r isk created by a sepa rat ion; wh ether there is a child in the ho m e wh o is no t the abusive partner s biological chil whe the r the abused pa r tne r has a new re la t ionsh ip ; and / o r whether there ha ve been inc idents of vio lence or threa tening beha vior s ince the

separa t ion .8

13 8 Se e Campbell et al., supra note 5 .


16/38

14


17/38

What Do I Nee d to Know, fro m Who m ,and How Do I Ask?

Frame the Inquiry

When you order a custody evaluation, everyone affected by that orderthe part iesto the ca se, their children, the e xpert wh o is to condu ct the inquiry, and you a s theult im ate recipient of the experts rep ortis best se rved w hen you a rt iculate clearlywha t you ne ed to know, when there i s a m atch be tween the scope of the inqui ry andthe qua lificat ions of the person a ssigne d to condu ct it , and w hen the process to b efollow ed is well defined a nd m an aged.

Invest igat ion, Evaluation, RecommendationWe sw eep und e r t he gene ra l rub r ic o f cus to dy eva lua t ion m an y ve ry d iffe r en t

k inds o f in fo rm a t ion ga the r ing . We ask evaluators to process the inform ation theycollect , interpret i t an d draw conclusions from i t , without alwa ys stopping to considerwh ether the part icular assessm ent requires special ized expert ise. And we often ask evaluators for recomm enda tions , while app reciat ing that m aking custody and visitat ideterm inations is a judicial function, and no t one that can b e delegated. The guide-l ines o n the ca rds accom pan ying these m aterials offer assistance in n egotiat ing thistreacherous terrain.

All cus to dy eva lua to r s inves t iga t e . Their core function is to gather inform ationan d report tha t inform ation to the judge . Howe ver, differe nt skill sets w ill be us eful indiffere nt investigatory conte xts. A lawyer s fam iliarity w ith the lega l proce ss m ay eashis or her a ccess to po lice, court or child abu se/ CPS records, an d the ta sk of compilinand repor t ing on the informa t ion con ta ined in them . Both lawyers and me nta l hea l thprofession als are l ikely to be com peten t in interview ing a dults and older children, a ndsynthesizing an d report ing wha t is said. Obtaining inform ation from youn ger childrenand understanding the limits of its reliability, is a task which a mental health clinicianwith expert ise in child developm ent w ill be better qua lified to perform than som eon ewithout that expert iseeven tho ugh the task is invest igatory, i t requires special izedskills.

The l ine be tween inves t iga t ion and evalua t ion ( in i t s technica l sense) i sc l ea re s t w he n the e va lua t ive t a s k r equ i r e s spec i fic m en ta l he a l th expe r t is e .Suppose a ch ild, or a paren t talking a bout a child, reports tha t the child is sufferingfrom n ightm ares, has h ad trouble conce ntrat ing on schoo l wo rk (reflected in poorgrades) , complains of frequen t s tom ach pa in, an d ha s been in trouble for aggressivebeha vior in the playground. Any com peten t invest igator could collect and rep ort thatinform ation, but on ly a m enta l health professiona l wou ld be qualified to conclude frothat informa tion that the child is , or might be, suffering from post- traum atic stressdisorder. Any diagnosis of a partys or a childs m enta l health status, in o ther w ords,is an evaluation req uiring part icular e xpert ise.

By the sa m e token , it wo uld not be inapprop riate for either an invest igator or anevaluator to report tha t a p arty seem ed l is t less, or ho st ile , in the cou rse of an intervie

or that a child wa s rest less. Those are lay opinions within the com peten ce of anyrespon sible professiona l. It would, how ever, be ina ppropriate for som eon e withoutm enta l health expert ise to sa y that a pa rty appe ared cl inically depresse d, or to besuffering from borderl ine pe rsona li ty disorder. Those opinions are co nclusion s thatm ust be reserved for experts .

What lay an d technical opinions ha ve in com m on , how ever, is tha t they shou ldboth be ful ly supported in the e valuator s report by an accoun t of the facts on wh ichthat opinion wa s based . The facts provide you, as the judge, with a basis to reviewsuch opinion, to determ ine w hethe r the facts suppo rt it , an d to confirm tha t theevaluator had the necessary expert ise to make i t .

II

15


18/38

Recommendat ions to the Cour tMany judges a nd cou rts feel that even as king an evaluator to offer recom m en dation

at th e con clusion o f his or her rep ort is an inappropriate de legation of judicial au thoriOthers fear that i t will encourage too he avy a reliance on the evaluato r, an d discoura judges from the ir ow n care ful assessm ent of how the best interests of the child can bserved. Stil l others require evaluators to offer recom m end ations, and feel that arepo rts utility is significan tly redu ced if it doe s no t include the m . Given th e sh arp divsion of opinion on this issue, we offer suggest ions for how a judge can review an dwo rk with an e valuator s recom m enda tions , withou t ina ppropriately ceding decision-m aking au thori ty.

Cho o se the Expert

Fam ily courts use a w ide va riety of m echa nisms to identify the poo l of expertsavailable for appointment as custody evaluators and select an evaluator in each case.Your pra ct ice w il l therefore be de pend ent o n the m echa nisms available to you; you wha ve mo re or less f lexibili ty depen ding on how those m echa nisms a re structured.Within those co nstraints , as w ell as the constra ints impo sed by l im ited resou rces, yougoal will be to find a pe rson w ho h as th e qua lificat ions be st sui ted to the pa rt icularinquiry. In so m e case s, that expert ise m ight l ie in an area relevant to cultural contextor a spec ia l ty such as subs tan ce abuse .

First a nd Forem ost , Training an d Experienc e in Dom estic ViolenceDome stic violence is its own special ty. Qualificat ion as a n expert in the m enta l

hea lth field does not n ecessa rily include com peten ce in assessing the presen ce of dom estic violen ce, its imp act o n th ose directly an d indirectly affecte d by it, or itsimplicat ions for the pa renting of each party. And even tho ugh som e jurisdict ions a renow requiring custody evaluators to take a minimum amount of t raining in domesticviolen ce, that basic training by itself is unlikely to qua lify an e valua tor a s an expe rt,or even necessari ly competent , in such cases.

Ideally, your jurisdiction will already have a way of designating evaluators who havepart icular com peten ce in dom estic violence. Where that is not the case, you might te

the evaluator s level of experience and expertise, despite the difficulties inherent in ansuch inquiry, by asking:

whether the evalua tor has been cer tified as a n exper t in , or competent in , issues of dom estic violence by a profession al agen cy or organizat ion;

wha t courses or t ra in ing (over wha t per iod of t ime ) the evalua tor has taken focusedon do m estic violence;

the num ber of cases involv ing dom est ic v io lence in w hich the evalua tor has beenappointed; and

the num ber of cases in which the evalua tor has been qua lified as a n exper t indom estic violence .

Be Spe cific a bo ut the Info rm atio n Yo u Nee d

The exposu re o f ch i l d r en : As explained in the introductory mate rials , exposureincludes m ore tha n d irect ly witnessing violence, beca use children are affected bywh at they hea r as w ell as by wh at they see, by the afterma th of violen ce, and by thea tmo sphere of fear a nd threa t tha t charac ter izes a n a bus ive househo ld .S h o r t- a n d l o n g - t e r m s a f e t y c o n c e rn s fo r c h i ld re n a n d / o r p a re n t s :The evalua tor can g lean th is informa t ion from wha t has happene d in the pas t , and btalking w ith the part ies an d, as ap propriate, the ch ildren a bout explicit threats tha thave been m ade an d threa tening behaviors . It is a l so impor tant to know wha t the

16


19/38

part ies and ch ildren fear, both becau se they m ay be in the best posi t ion to p redictwh at w ill happen , and be cause even if their fears a re exaggera ted, their s tates of m ind are relevant to the inquiry.

Im p a c t o f a b u s i v e b e h a v io r s o n e a c h p a re n t , e a c h c h i ld , a n d e a c hpa re n t / ch i ld re l a ti ons h ip : A list of com m on sym ptom s of traum a in children isiden tified in the introduction to these m aterials . See page 5, Red Flag Cases. Whathas n ot yet been said is that these sym ptom s can interfere w ith cognit ive andem otional developme nt in children, affect their relat ionships with adu lts an d pee rs,im pact their school perform an ce, and n egatively affect their physical health. Theim pact of abu se o n ch ildrens relat ions hips with their abusive an d their vulnerable

paren t is explored further below in the context of the discussion of parenta l alienatiThe mo st crucial point here is that reports based so lely on interview ing and/ orobserving the part ies an d their children w il l almo st never produce a n a dequa teevaluation in a ca se kno wn or suspected to involve dom estic violence.

Articulate Expected Sources of Information

Since a busive partners routinely deny an d m inimize their use of violence a ndother con trolling behaviors, even to them selves, they ma y presen t as sincere andcaring partne rs an d parents . Their expressed concern s about the paren ting capacityof their abused p artne rs ma y be consistent with a longstan ding habit of relentlesscriticism.9 Alterna tively, the vulnerable partne r m ay inde ed prese nt a s a less tha ncompetent parent , but his or her deficiencies may be because of the emotional andphysical toll the ab use ha s taken, an d m ay to that extent be tem porary in n ature.10

Children m ay, in self-protect ion , have iden tified with the ir a busive paren t rathe r tha nthe parent who appears unable to offer protect ion, and express their anger at beingun protected in the form of reject ion o r blam e.11

In this confusing environment, an evaluation that reaches conclusions based onthe he sa id/ she sa id of con flict ing a ccoun ts without recourse to other corrobora t ingsources m ust be regarded a s inhe rently unre l iable.

He lp fu l co l la t e r a l sou rces m ay inc lude : o ther fam ily me m bers , fr iends , ne ighbors , or comm uni ty m em bers who ha ve had

regular interact ions with the fam ily or bee n involved in pa rt icular inciden ts relevato the inqu iry. Care m ust be taken in these instance s to guard the flow o f inform ation so that n ei ther an adu lt party nor a child is put at increased r isk;

profess ionals wi th whom the fam ily has had o ngoing associa t ions , such as doctorteache rs, clergy or coun selors;

professiona ls ( including shelter advocates, child we lfare w orkers, or at torneys) whhave be com e involved with the family because o f reported incidents of, or concerabo ut, dom estic violence o r the safety or well-being of the children involved.

Pe r t i nen t r eco rds may inc lude : po lice repo r ts ; child abuse / child pro tect ion repor ts ;

court files in the presen t case a nd a ny relevan t prior civil or crim inal casesinvolving e ither pa rty;

me dica l, menta l hea lth , and den ta l records; and schoo l r eco rds.

9 Se e LUNDY BANCROFT & JAY G. SILVERMAN, THE BATTERER AS PARENT: ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON FAMILYDYNAMICS (2002).10 Se e Cris M. Sullivan et al., Beyond S earching for Deficits: Evidence th at Physically and Em otionally Abuse d Wom en Are Nurturing Parents , 2 J. EMOTINOAL ABUSE 51-71 (2000).11 Clare Dalton et al., High Conflict Divorce, Violence, an d Abu se: Implications for Custody an d Visitation Decisions , 54 JUV& FAM. CT. J. 11, 20 (2003).17


20/38

In a l l c a se s , t he r e l evan t qu es t ions a r e : whe ther there have bee n inc idents of phys ica l vio lence or o ther forms of abuse in

paren tal relat ionship, wha t impa ct tha t v io lence or abuse ha s had on the par t ies and the i r parent ing , an wha t impa ct tha t v io lence or abuse has had on the chi ldren .

The im portan t quest ions ra ised by reque sts for part ies to provide the evaluator w ithaccess to privileged inform ation is dea lt with b elow, in the context o f the obligat ions the pa rt ies. Here we discuss two co ntroversial issues: the va lue of psychological test-ing for custody an d visitat ion determ inations, and al legations o f parental al iena tion.

The Role of Psychological Test ingOn occa sion, you m ay determ ine, or the expert m ay decide, that psychological test in

wo uld provide a h elpful supplemen t to the inform ation obta ined through interview san d exam ina tion of the writ ten record. This is an area to ap proach w ith caution.12

The r e levan t ques t ions t o a sk a r e t he fo llow ing : Wha t is t he t e st be ing used to measu re? How is the test relevant to issues o f custody and visitat ion? Is the test val id for the purpo ses for which it is being used? Is the tes t recognized and accepted by exper ts in the fie ld? What a re the qua lifica t ions n ecessary to use the ins trumen t?

Does the exper t have those qual ifica t ions?

In de termining the re levance and re l iab i l i ty of psychologica l tes t ing ,con s ide r t he fo l low ing :

The m ore ta ilored tes t s , developed in the pas t decade to address the ques t ions m orelevant in the custody context, such as the Bricklin Perceptual Scales (BPS),Perception of Relationships Test (PORT), Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for ParentEvaluation of Custody Test (ASPECT) and Paren t Aw are ne ss Skills Survey (PASS)tests , have n ot bee n e valuated w ith en ough rigor to esta blish the ir val idi ty orreliab ility. These tests do not provide answ ers. At bes t, they raise hypoth ese s inthe m ind o f the evaluator to be validated o r invalidated in subs eque nt explorat ion

The stan dard psychological tests m eas uring person ality, psychopa thology, intel li-

gence or a chievemen t, including the Minneso ta Mult iphas ic Persona lity Inven tory(MMPI-2), Millon Clinical Mu ltia xial Inve nt ory (MCMI-III), Perso na lity Asse ssm en tInventory (PAI), Rorschach Inkblot Test, Childrens Apperception Test (CAT),Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III), anWide Ran ge Achievem en t Test (WRAT-3), do n ot directly ad dress the psycho- legalissues relevant to m ost child custody casesissues abou t paren ts relat ionsh ipswith children, or pa rents child-rearing at t i tudes an d capa cit ies . In a part icularcase, a s ta nda rd test m ay offer inform ation tha t is related to pa rent-child interac-t ion s, paren t function ing o r child function ing; but tha t inform ation sh ould beincluded in the e valuation on ly if the exam iner m akes c lear the connect ionbetw een the test resu lts an d the issue th at is legally relevan t in the custody contexa n d on ly if the tes t resu lt s a re ba cked up by and in tegra ted wi th o ther da ta a boutrea l-life be ha vior.

Some o f these s tandard tes t s may a lso mea sure and con fuse psychologica l dis t resor dysfunction induce d by exposure to dom estic violence w ith perso na lity disordeor psychopa thology. While there m ay be cases in w hich traum a induced by abusehas a n egative im pact on paren ting in the s hort term , it is cr it ical ly im portan t not at tach a damaging label prematurely to a parent whose functioning may improvedram atically once sh e or he is safe, and the a cute stress has be en a lleviated andthe t raum a t rea ted .

12 See, e.g., Daniel W. Shuman, The Role of Men tal Health Experts in Custod y Decisions : Science, Psychological Testsand Clinical Judg em ent , 36 Fam . L.Q. 135 (2002).18


21/38


22/38

Cau t ion : In ca ses w here v io len ce i s no t an i s sue , an e va lua to r m ay, fo rcon ven ience o r be cau se it w ill yie ld u se fu l in fo rm a t ion : conduct a jo in t in terv iew wi th the par t ies ; ask to observe children in terac t ing w ith both parents together ; crea te s itua t ions w here one parent over laps the o ther, such as me et ing in a w ai tin

room for a schedu led interview, or bringing children to or co llect ing the m from anappointment ;

crea te s itua t ions w here parents a re required to coordina te w ith one an other to makchildren available to the evaluator; and

share informa tion o btained from one party, or from ch ildren, with the other partysitua tions wh ere the source o f the informa tion is easy to identifyin order to s eek corroborat ion or refutat ion .

These pract ices, which can be u seful, routine an d harm less in m an y cases, are highl problem atic, and poten tially dange rous or traum atic , in cases of known or suspecteddom estic violence. They also se riously underm ine the integri ty of the informationobta ined , because adul ts or ch i ldren w ho ha ve exper ienced or been exposed toviolence are unlikely to talk openly about it if they are fearful that the perpetrator willha ve op portunit ies for reta liat ion.

With care, the e valuator wil l be a ble to shield the pa rt ies from a ny contact o r unsa fecomm unica t ion w ith one a nother dur ing the evalua t ion process . In m any cases , theevaluator w ill also be able to see k corroborat ion o f nega tive inform ation disclosed byon e party about the other w ithou t disclosing the sou rce of tha t informa tion.

Alt e rna t ive a va i lab l e co r robora t ion s t r a t eg i e s inc lude : seeking corrobora t ion from th ird par ty sources , where avai lab le ; and invit ing the o ther par ty to g ive a n o pen-ended account of a pa r t icu lar inc ident a nd

asking follow up quest ions, w ithout revealing detai ls sh ared by the f irst pa rty.

If it becom es clear that inform ation m ust be disclosed tha t ma y put one of thepart ies at r isk, that pa rty shou ld be alerted to the disclosure in advan ce, so that he orshe m ay take wha tever safe ty precaut ions a re w arranted an d avai lab le .

Special considerat ions a pply to interview s of children an d the use of informa tionobtained from children. First , interview strategies should be non -suggest ive andapprop riate to the age and developm enta l s tage of the child. Second, the evaluatorm ust build into his or her repo rt the un derstan ding that , while children m ay provideaccura te inform ation, their an sw ers m ay also involve m isinterpreta t ions (or develop-mental ly appropriate but immature interpretat ions) of events, s tatements or dynamicsor be influenced by inpu t from on e or both pa rents . From a sa fety perspective, i t is alcrit ical that the evaluator n ot at tr ibute direct quo tes to children to reduce the r isk thaparen t will use the childrens wo rds against them or against the othe r parent .

An evaluator who does n ot respect the safety-driven procedu res lis ted on th e cardaccom pan ying these m aterials is no t qualified to con duct an e valuation in a dom esticviolence case. An evaluation that has bee n condu cted without fol low ing thoseprocedure s w il l no t yield rel iable inform ation or recom m end ations.

Communicate Expectat ions about Information-Gathering Procedures

2 0


23/38

Fram e the Pro ce ss

In the sample order referenced in these materials , we propose thespe cific inclusion of: the t im eline you expect the evalua tor and the par t ies or the i r a t torneys to com ply

with; an d the obligations of the part ies, their at torne ys, an d the evaluator with respect to the

com pletion o f the evaluation.

Define the Obligations of the Participants

The Obligat ions of the PartiesBy stressing the n eed for the pa rt ies to a ssist the e valuator in accessing relevant

inform ation, we do n ot me an to discoun t the sensi t ivity of the decision w hethe r or noto w aive a privilege at taching to informa tion th at m ight be obta ine d from a collatera lsource, or m ight be glean ed from a writ ten record. It is the res pon sibili ty of the pa rt iat torne ys, if they are repres ented , an d of the evaluator, part icularly if they are not represen ted, to ensure th at the pa rt ies fully und erstan d the implicat ions of both choosingan d declining to wa ive a privi lege an d ma ke an informed de cision. It ma y also be useful to issue th e rem inde r that a paren t m ay not w aive the privilege at taching to a chilrelat ions hip with a thera pist; only the childs ow n repre senta t ive can take tha t s tep.

The Obligat ions of the Evaluato rThe quest ion o f wh en , if ever, it wo uld be appro priate for a m enta l health professio

al to ente r a the rapeu tic, coun seling, or othe r professiona l relat ionsh ip with a party ochild, subseq uen t to providing a custody evaluation in a case involving those individuals, is a vexed on e. Becaus e no cu stod y cas e is truly closed, at least un til the childrreach the a ge of m ajority, and beca use the e valuator ma y be aske d to return to court assist in su bsequ ent proce edings, the safest course o f act ion is for the e valuator toavoid an y subseque nt professional conta ct , alon g with the conflict of interest i tinevitably crea tes. If, in a sm all com m un ity, that guideline is too re strictive, thenit ma y be a ppropriate to ado pt a less restr ict ive but clear wa iting period todiscourage th e crea t ion of conflict at leas t during the period during w hich rel it igat ion

is most likely.

Cou rt InitiativeWe also recomm end that the cou rt take the ini tiat ive in orde ring, at the t ime o f

appo intm ent of the evaluator, any records available to the court , such a s crim ina lreco rds, court activity reco rds an d child abu se/ CPS records. All the se step s will facilitate the eva lua tion proce ss, and preven t the delays that fol low wh en the e valuatoran d/ or the part ies are forced to return to court to clarify the term s of the appo intmen

21


24/38


25/38

Once Admitted, How Do I Make More Effective Useof the Report?

Reading the Report

Safety First

III

Consistent with the emphasis on safety throughout these materials , we suggest that the judge, on receipt of the evaluator s report , ma ke an im m ediate determ ination wh ether threport identifies r isks that sh ould be p rom ptly addressed, or wh ether disclosure of thereport to the part ies m ay create r isks that shou ld be prom ptly guarde d against . Therespon ses su ggested on Card III are m ean t to be i llustrat ive only; there m ay be ad ditiona l

steps ava ilable to you depen ding on the ru les governing your court .

The checklist provided on Card III offers a recap of much of the material included onCards I and II, offering you a f ina l opportunity to as sess h ow we ll the e valuation ha s bee nperform ed, an d the e xtent to w hich you ca n feel comfortable relying on i tsconclus ions an d recomm endat ions .

O n e c o m m o n fla w in r e p o r t s prepare d by custody evaluators that deserves specialme nt ion is conf i rmatory b ias . I t appears when the evaluator develops a hypothesis

form s an opinion abou t som e issue in the caseearly in his or her proces s, finds da ta tosupport i t , confirms the h ypothesis , an d then stops test ing i t against new or differen t datathat m ight unde rmine the h ypothesis or effect a chan ge of m ind.

As th e j udge , you c an t e s t fo r t he p re se nce o f t h is con firma to ry b ia s by : looking a t the extent to which the evalua tor has m ade use o f co lla te ra l sources and

available docum enta t ion to co rroborate im portan t findings of fact on w hich his orher conclus ions an d recomm endat ions are based;

looking a t w hether the evalua tor has m ade a vailab le to you a ll the re levant da taglean ed in the co urse o f the inquiry: both the da ta tha t supports the evaluator sconclus ions a nd recom me ndat ions , and the da ta tha t might have led to com pet ingconclusions or recom m enda tions . If the report seem s suspiciously one -sided, you

m ight conclude that the eva luator has left out data tha t did not supp ort his or herconclus ions a nd recom me ndat ions ; and

looking a t whe ther the evalua tor has ident i fied areas w here he or she has beenuna ble to obta in informa t ion or to reconci le o r choose be tween compet ingaccounts .

Ho w D o I As s e s s th e Re c o m m e n d a tio n s ?

A final test of the eva luato r s expert ise is w hethe r his or her recom m end ations take intaccoun t the need to prote ct the physical and em otional safety of a vulnerable paren t andchildren involved in the case, and w hethe r the recom m end ations m ake full use of therange of alternatives available in such ca ses by:

postpon ing visitat ion unti l the vulnerable paren t and th e children h ave ha d anopportun ity to establish their safety an d hea l from an y traum a a ssociated w ithviolence or abuse;

postpon ing visi tat ion unti l the violent or abusive parent ha s successfully com pletedapprop riate treatm ent (wh ich sh ould alwa ys include treatm en t specifical ly targetingdom est ic v io lence , ra ther than m ore gener ic and often inappropr ia te a nd inadequa tet rea tment for anger ma nagem ent , as wel l as t rea tmen t for subs tance abuse an dmental health issues where those have been identif ied);

2 3


26/38

al low ing relocation to a confiden tial address (or, if that ha s already occurred, m akinsure tha t the a ddress is kept confiden tial from the violent o r abus ive paren t);

restraining the violent or abusive parents comm unication with or proxim ity to theother parent ;

restraining the violent or abusive parents comm unication with or proxim ity tochildren, e xcept in the context o f authorized visitat ion;

structuring visi tat ion with appropriate levels of restr ict ion a s seem s appropriate:x visits in a formally structured supervised setting;x visi ts informa lly supervised by ap propriate family m em bers, provided the court

establishes condit ions to be fol low ed during visitat ion;x

den ial of overn ight visits;x visits limited to a spe cific loca tion or loca tions;x restr ict ion s on th e presen ce of specific person s other tha n the pa rent w hile the

paren t is w ith the ch ildren;x prohibit ion on the violen t or abu sive pa rent u sing alcohol or drugs during or

within a specified time period prior to a visit; easing those restr iction s over time if the violent or abusive parent has rem ained in

com plian ce w ith the con ditions an d i t appe ars to be in the interests of the children allow less restrictive visitation ;

exchanging chi ldren through an in termediary, or in a pro tec ted se t t ing; and/ or requir ing a v io lent or abus ive paren t to pos t a bond to secure the re turn of ch ildren

after a visi t, or to secure a ny other pe rform an ce on wh ich visitat ion is condit ione d.20

It goes w ithout sa ying tha t s ince th e best interests o f the children m ust alwa ys be th judges h ighest priori ty, there will be o ccasional ca ses wh ere the on ly wa y to expressthat priority will be to de ny the violent or ab usive paren t an y future co ntact w ith his oher ch ildren, w here it seem s tha t less restr ict ive al ternatives will not secu re the safetyof the children an d/ or the o ther parent .

2 4

20 This list draws heavily on the list of appropriate measures contained in 2.11(2) of the AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTESPRINCIPLES OF THE LAW O F FAMILY DISSOLUTIONS: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2002) a nd 405 from NCJFCJS MODEL CO DEDOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE (1994).


27/38

2 5

Naviga ting Cus to dy & Vis itatio n Evaluatio ns inCas e s w ith Do m e s tic Vio le nce : A Judge s Guide

S u g ge s t e d Re s o u rc e s

Re a d i n g M a t e ria lAMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION , VIOLENCE AND THE FAMILY: REPORT OF THE AMERICANPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON VIOLENCE AND THE FAMILY (1966).

Association o f Fam ily and Conciliation Courts, Model Stan dards o f Practice for Child Cus tody Evaluation s at http:/ / ww w.afccnet .org/ pdfs/ Child_Model_Standa rds.pdf.

LUNDY BANCROFT & JAY G. SILVERMAN, THE BATTERER AS PARENT: ADDRESSING THE IMPACT OFDOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON FAMILY DYNAMICS (2002).

Carol S. Bruch , Paren tal Alienation Syn drom e an d Alienated Children getting it wron g in child custody cases , 14 CHILD & FAM. L.Q. 381-400 (2002).

Jacq ue lyn C. Cam pbe ll, Danger Assessm ent (2003) at ht tp :/ / ww w.son.jhm i.edu/ research/ CNR/ Hom icide / Danger03.pdf.

Jacq ue lyn C. Cam pbe ll et a l., Risk Factors for Fem icide in Abu sive Relation sh ips: Resu lts froma Mu ltistate Case Control Stud y , 93 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1089-97 (2003).

Clare Dalton e t al. , High Con flict Divorce, Violence, an d Ab use : Im plication s for Custod y an d Visitation Decisions , 54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 11 (2003).

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES O F CHILDREN: THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH, INTERVENTIONS, AND SOCIALPOLICY (Sandra A. Graha m -Berm an n & Jeffrey L. Edleson eds ., 2001).

Leslie M. Drozd & Nancy W. Olese n, Is it Abus e, Alien ation , and/ or Estran gem en t? A Decision Tree , 1 J. CHILD CUSTODY 65 (Nov. 2004).

Jeffrey L. Edles on et a l., Parenting in th e Context of Dom estic Violen ce (March 2003) at ht tp :/ / ww w.cour t info .ca .gov/ program s/ cfcc / resources / publica t ions .

Jeffrey L. Edleson, Problem s Associated w ith Children s Witness ing of Dom estic Violence (April1997, revised April 1999) at h tt p:/ / w w w. va w.u m n . e du / d o cu m e n t s / v aw n e t / w it n e ss / w it -ness.pdf.

Andrea C. Farn ey & Roberta L. Valen te, Creating Jus tice throu gh Balance: Integrating Dom estic Violen ce Law into Fam ily Cou rt Practice , 54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 11 (2003).

Lore tta Frede rick, Effective In terven tion in Dom estic Violence Cases : Con text Is Everything(2001), at ht tp :/ / ww w.bwjp .org / docume nts / context%20is%20everyth ing .h tm

PETER G. JAFFE ET AL., CHILD CUSTODY & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A CALL FOR SAFETY ANDACCOUNTABILITY (2003).


28/38

Pete r G. Jaffe et al., Com m on Misconceptions in Addressing Dom estic Violence in Child Custody Disputes, 54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 4 (2003).

NCJFCJ, Sample Order Appointing Custody Evaluator at ht tp :/ / ww w.ncjfc j.org / dept / fvd .

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCESTRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITY INTERVENTION (Peter G.Jaffe et al. eds., 2004).

JAMES PTACEK, BATTERED WO MEN IN THE COURTROOM: THE POWER OF JUDICIAL RESPONSES (1999).

MARIA D. RAMOS & MICHAEL W. RUNNER, CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES: ANATIONAL JUDGES BENCH BOO K (1999).

Lynn Hecht Schafran, Evaluating th e Evaluators: Problem s w ith Ou tside Neu trals , 42 JUDGES J.10 (Winte r 2003).

Daniel W. Shum an , The Role of Mental Health Experts in Custody Decisions: Science,Psycho logical Tests, an d Clinical Jud gem en t , 36 FAM. L.Q. 135 (2002).

Lin k s t o O rg a n iz a t io n sAme ri can Ba r Ass oc i a ti on (ABA) , h t tp :/ / ww w.abanet .org , seeks to provide a t torneys and judges w ith the kn ow ledge an d tools nee ded to assist them in the ir legal profession. The ABAhas s everal program s targeted to spe cial ized a reas o f interest , wh ich are h ighlighted below.

Center on Chi ldren and the Law , h t tp :/ / ww w.abanet .org/ child / hom e2.h tm l, providestechnical assistance, t raining, and resea rch that [address] a broad spe ctrum o f law an dcourt-related topics a ffect ing children. These topics include ch ild a buse an d n eglect ,custody an d suppo rt , guardians hip, an d childrens exposu re to dom estic violence .

Co m m i s s i o n o n D o m e s t ic Vio l e n c e , h tt p :/ / ww w.abane t .o rg/ domvio l/ home .h tml,

wo rks to m obilize the legal profession to provide acces s to just ice an d sa fety for victims odom estic violence. The Com m ission produces publicat ions tha t assist professiona ls in th efield, including the newest edition of THE IMPACT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON YOUR LEGALPRACTICE: A LAWYERS HANDBOOK, 2ND ED. (2004).

Fam i ly Law Se c t ion , h ttp :/ / ww w.abanet .org/ fam ily/ hom e.html, has a miss ion to Serveas th e Nationa l Lea der in the Field of Marital and Fam ily Law . Amo ng its stated go als isto improve the pu blic and professiona l un derstan ding about m ari tal an d fam ily law issuesand practi t ioners.

Ame rica n Judge s As s o cia t ion (AJA) , h t tp :/ / a ja .ncsc .dni .us / domviol/ page1.h tml , seeks toim prove the e ffect ive a nd im part ial administrat ion of just ice, to en han ce the indepen den cean d status of the judiciary, to provide for continuing educa tion of its m em bers, an d to prom otethe interchan ge of idea s of a judicial nature a m ong judges, court organizat ion s and the pub-lic. The AJA offers pu blication s to a ddre ss do m estic violen ce issue s, including a Special Issu eon Dom estic Violence , 39 CT. REV. 4-51 (Fall 2002) and Dom estic Violence & The Courtroom :Understanding The Problem Know ing The Victim , both of wh ich can be dow nloade d fromits w ebsite.

26


29/38

2 7

Associa t ion of Fami ly and Conci l ia t ion Cour ts (AFCC) ,ht tp:/ / ww w.afccnet .org/ index.html, is an interna tiona l an d interdiscipl ina ry asso ciat ion of fam ily, court , an d co m m un ity professiona ls dedicated to constructive resolution of fam ilydisputes . Amo ng its sta ted purp ose s, the AFCC see ks to provide an inte rdisciplinary forum fothe excha nge o f ideas an d the de velopmen t of procedu res to a ssist fam ilies in con flict an d todevelop and improve parent education, mediat ion, custody evaluation, and other processes toaid families in resolving their disputes.

Bat t e r ed Wom e ns Ju s t i c e P ro j ec t , Civil Office, http:/ / bw jp.org, wo rks to en ha nce justice

for bat tered wo m en an d their children in the civil legal aren a by improving ba ttered w om en sacce ss to civil justice o ptions a nd qua lity lega l represe nta tion in civil court proce sses . BWJPwo rks with professiona ls on issues such as divorce an d suppo rt , child custody, separat ion vio-lence, m ediat ion , and protect ion orders.

Family Vio lence Prevent ion Fund (FVPF) , h t t p :/ / www.endabuse .o rg/ p rograms / ju s t ice ,wo rks to prevent violence w ithin the hom e, and in the com m unity, to help those wh ose l ivesare devastated by violence because everyone has the right to live free of violence. FVPFsJudicial Educa tion Project, in pa rtne rship w ith the Nation al Council of Juven ile a nd Fam ilyCourt Judges, condu cts education se m inars for judges a cross the cou ntry in orde r to enh an cetheir skills in handling criminal and civil domestic violence cases.

Minneso t a Cen te r Aga ins t Vio l ence and Abuse , h t tp :/ / ww w.mincava .umn .edu, opera tesan electronic clearinghouse that provides research, education, and access to more than 3,000violence-related reso urces on such issues a s child abu se, dom estic violence, dat ing violence,stalking, sexua l violen ce, and elder abu se.

Nat iona l Asso c i a t io n o f Counse l fo r Ch ild re n s (NACC) , h t tp :/ / naccchild law.org,m ission is to imp rove th e lives of children an d fam ilies throu gh lega l advoca cy. The NACCprovides training and tech nical assistance to at torne ys and othe r professiona ls , serves as apublic inform ation an d pro fessiona l referral cente r, and enga ges in public po licy and legislat ive

advocacy.

Nat iona l Ce n te r fo r S ta t e Court s (NCSC) , h t tp :/ / ww w.ncsconl ine .org , providesup-to-da te informa tion a nd ha nds-o n a ssistan ce that helps [court leade rs] bet ter serve thepublic. NCSC offers solut ions that en han ce court op erat ions w ith the latest technology; col-lects an d interprets the latest data on court opera t ions n ationw ide; an d provides inform ationon proven best pract ices for improving court ope rat ions in m an y areas, such as civil casemanagemen t .

Natio nal Co unc il of Juve nile and Fam ily Co urt Judg e s (NCJFCJ) , ht tp: / / ww w.ncjfcj.org,is dedicated to serving the nations children and families by improving the courts of juvenile

an d fam ily jurisdiction s. NCJFCJ ha s de dicated p rogra m s a ddres sing fam ily violence , childabu se a nd n eglect , vict im s of juvenile offende rs, alcoho l and drug a buse, term ination of paren tal r ights , child support en forcem en t, adoption a nd foster ca re, and juvenile de linquen cy.

O ffi c e o n Vio l e n c e A g a in s t Wo m e n , h t tp :/ / ww w.ojp .usdoj.gov/ vawo, provides on- l ineresources w ith up-to-da te informa tion o n interventions to stop violence aga inst wom en forcrim ina l just ice pract i tioners, advoca tes, an d so cial service professiona ls with the latest inresea rch an d dom estic violence, s talking, bat terer intervention program s, child custody [an d]protect ion, sexua l assault , and w elfare reform.


30/38

2 8


31/38

Is t h i s a c a s e w h e r e I n e e d a s s is t a n c e in d e t e r m i n in g : the prese nce a nd exten t of physical violence o r other abu sive

beha viors in the paren tal relat ionship;

its im pact on the children;

its effect on the pa renting of each p arty; an d its implications for decisions abo ut how to structure cu stody and visi tat ion?

Many lit igan t s a r e u n a b l e t o a f fo r d ev a lu a t i on s , an d m a ny co u r t s h a v e l im i t ed

e v a lu a t i o n r e s o u r c e s . If r e s o u r c e c o n s t r a in t s p r e c lu d e a n e v a l u a t io n i n a

pa r t i cu l a r c a se , t h i s t oo l m a y s t ill a s s is t yo u t o :

iden tify categories of evidence that the part ies at torne ys should berequired to produce;

outline for pro se l it igan ts the informa tion they nee d to provide to a ssistyour decision m aking;

allocate l im ited eva luation re sources to m aximum effect; an d ma ke sa fe a nd respon s ib le de c is ions even in s i tua t ions whe re you lack

com plete informa tionthere is value in kno wing wh at you do not kno w.

Th e a n s w e r is YES w h e n : the facts tr igger a s tatutory obligation to obtain a n e valuation; there is a do cum ente d history of physical violence in the paren ts

relat ionship;D a n d / o r

there a re a l lega t ions tha t a par ty has ha rmed or threa tened to ha rm him- orherself or the othe r party, or otherwise abu sed the o ther party.

Th e a n s w e r is also YES w h e n : The case ha s, as yet , no proven or al leged violence , but has other evidence or

other a llegations that raise RED FLAGS because o f the ir comm on

co-occurrence with domestic violence.

RED FLAGS i n c lud e :s a docu m ente d history or al legations of men tal il lne ss, substance abu se,

or child a buse by ei ther pa rty;s indications that the children a re exhibit ing sym ptom s con sistent w ith, al though

not ne cessa rily the resu lt of , abu se or expo sure to pa renta l violence, such a s

sleep disturban ces, bedw ett ing, age-inap propriate sepa ration an xiety, hyperac-

t ivity, aggression or othe r beh avioral problems, de pression, or a nxiety; Ds the presen ce of one or m ore prior court orders restr icting a paren ts access

to an y of his or h er children, in this or an other relat ionship;s a history of court or s ocial services involveme nt w ith the fam ily;s allegations o f al ien ating beha vior by a pa rent; ands indications that on e or both pa rents a re inattentive to the childrens ne eds.

[See also FACTORS Side 2, and INFORMATION, Card II , Side 2.]

Orde ring a n Evaluatio n: Whe n Is Do m e s ticViolence Exper t ise Necessary?

Th eF u n d a m e n t a l

Q u e s t i o n :

What If There Are No

Re s o u rc e s f o ran Eva lua t ion ?

If Re s o u rc e sAre Available,

Shou ld IOrder an

Eva lua t ion?

I

D As t e r i sk s d e n o t e p o i n t s a t wh ic h i t

m ay be p a r t i cu l a rl y

helpful to refer to

t he ac co mp a n y i ng

s u pp l e m en ta r y

m a te r i a l s .

C a r d I S i d e 1

E v a l u

a t i on


32/38

And t h e a n s w e r m a y also be YES w h e n : one o r both par t ies ha ve a l ready re ta ined on e or m ore exper t s ; one or both p art ies, or the ch ildrens lawyer or gua rdian ad litem , has reques ted

an eva lua t ion tha t ra i ses concerns a bout dom est ic v io lence or m ay ra i se

red f lags wa rranting an investigation of dom estic violence;

a pa rty seeking custody is also ma king a con tested reque st to relocate,part icularly if the m ove w il l take him o r her to a nothe r jurisdiction;D a n d/ o r

a st ipulated o r me diated agree m ent he avily favors on e pa rty, raising concern sof int imidation or coe rcion, e special ly if one or bo th of the part ies are

unrepresented .

NO, if a restraining/ protection order is in place, the party against wh om it wa s

issued is in co m plian ce, and the si tuation is s table.

YES, if an exist ing restra ining/ protection order ha s bee n violated, or if there

is no res t ra in ing/ pro tec tion order in p lace , you ha ve reason to be con cerned a bout

the safety of one or both of the pa rt ies an d/ or their children, an d

tem porary orders are n eede d to stabilize the situation pen ding a final

resolution o f the con tested issues.

FACTORS tha t might prom pt an in te r im e valua t ion inc lude:

credible a l lega tions of child a buse ; one or m ore con victions of dome stic violence -related or other violent offense s; a record of one or m ore 911 calls; posse ssion of, acce ss to, or threa ts to use firearm s; evidence of stalking; evidence of harm or threats of harm to self, partner, or children; evidence o f suicide threa ts; evidence o f threa ts of abduction o f children ;

a documented history of drug or alcohol abuse; a pr ior record of res t ra in ing/ pro tec tion orders ; and/ or evidence o f violat ions of prior or e xist ing restra ining/ protection orders.

An in te r im evalua t ion should :

be l imi ted to an assessm ent of what m easures a re needed to m inimize therisks to al l conce rned pe nding the reso lution o f the con tested issues in

the case ;

be con ducted by an eva luator with experience in dome stic violenceand r i sk assessment ; and

consider, at a m inim um , the a dvisabili ty of the following al ternatives:x suspending a l l contac t be tween the parent w hose be havior ra i ses

concerns a nd h is or h er par tner a nd ch i ldren un t il an in te r im hear ing

can b e con ducted, or pending a f ina l resolution o f the case ;x providing for appropriately supervised visits; andx structuring the e xchan ge of children in a s afe set t ing w ithou t contact

be tween the parents .

Is Therean Addi t iona l

N e e d fo r a nE m e rg e n c y /

Interim

Evaluat ion?

If Re s o u rce sAre Available,

Shou ld IOrder an

Evaluat ion?(con t . )

D As t e r i s k s deno t e po in t s a t w h i ch i t

m ay be p a r t i cu l a r ly

helpful to refer to

t he acc o mp any in g

supp l em e n t a ry

m a te r i a l s .

C a r d I S i d e 2

This document w as developed u nder gran t numb er SJI-03-N-103 from the State Justice Institute. The points of viewexpressed are those of the authors an d do not necessarily represent the official position of the State Justice Institute.

StateJusticeInst i tute


33/38

Fram ing the Orde r: What D o I Ne e d to Kno w,fro m Who m , and How Do I As k?

Sa fety Firs t

Framethe Inqu iry

REMEMBER: Even if you a re not o rdering a n e valuat ion, you can use this toolto guide you in requiring the production of evidence by attorneys, providing pro selitigants with a checklist of needed information, and assessing your own ability toma ke safe an d respon sible decis ions in l ight of both the informa tion you have a nd

the informa tion you do not .

Yo ur h ighe s t pr ior ity in fram ing your orde r, and the eva lua tor s h ighe s tpr ior i ty in conduct ing the inqui ry, i s to make sure tha t :

no one is en dangered by how the informa t ion i s co llec ted or sha red; and safety conce rns that em erge in the course of the inqu iry are promp tly

addressed .

I nves t i ga t i on , Ev a lua t i on , Rec ommenda t i on DYou n eed informa tion to guide your own applicat ion of the relevant legalprinciples a nd rules. Your cho ice of expert to provide you with the inform ation

will be influenced by the type of informa tion you ne ed.

Inves t iga t ion:You n eed an investigation w hen the qu estions are purely or prim ari ly factua l.For example:

x What h as h appe ne d in this fam ily?x What do the relevan t records show ?x Does the child express co nce rns a bout visit ing w ith his m other o r fathe r?

Evalua t ion:You n eed a m enta l hea lth professiona ls evaluation to ans we r these que stions :

x

Wha t is the qua lity of a re lationsh ip?x What a re the person ality, chara cterist ics, functioning, or symp tom s of a party

or ch ild?x What is the ps ychological im pact o f parenta l behavior on a ch ild?

R e c o m m e n d a tio n s t o t h e C o u rt :Court pract ice is sharply divided o n th e qu est ion of asking e valuators to m ak erecomm endat ions . Howe ver, op in ion is unanim ous tha t the judge , no t theeva lua tor, m us t m ake the u l timate be s t -in te res t s de te rm ina t ion . If you or you rcour t permi ts or requi res eva lua tors to m ake recom me ndat ions , be sure tha t youcan s t ill ma ke your own independe nt assessm ent . Make sure you unders tand:

x the fac tua l bas is for the recom me ndat ion;x how the recomm endat ion wa s der ived from the fac ts (wha t theory and

methodology l ink the facts to the recommendation); andx the level of support for the theo ry and m ethodo logy in the relevant

professional community.

II

D A s t e r i sk s deno t e

po in t s a t w h ich i t

m ay b e pa r t i c u l a r ly

helpful to refer to

t he ac co mpa ny ing

supp l em e n ta r y

m a t e r i a l s .

C a r d I I S i d e 1

T o K n o w- C

a r d I I


34/38

It is imp or t an t t o c ho os e a n eva l ua t o r wh o h a s t r a in i ng a nd e xp e r i e nc e i n :D

x the dyna m ics of abusive relat ionships, including the dan gers ass ociatedwith separation;

x the l inks be twee n par tner a buse an d chi ld abuse ;x the impa ct of exposure to do m estic violen ce on ch ildren; an dx the impact of abuse on parent ing .

You w i ll a lso n eed t o m a t ch t h e e va l ua t o r s t r a i n i ng a nd s k i lls t o t h epar t icu lar inqui ry :

x A case w ith exten sive docu m enta tion m ay require the investigatory skil lsof an at torn ey.

x Obtaining sen sitive information from relat ively young ch ildren m ay require am en tal health clinician with a ba ckground in child developm ent a nd childpsychology.

x A diagn osis or eva luation will require m enta l health expert ise.x Inqu iries regarding a part icular cultural com peten ce, or special ized

exper t ise in an other a rea , such as subs tan ce a buse , wi ll requi re som eone wi ththa t com petence or e xper tise .

A lthou gh t he p a r t i cu la r a r ea s o f inq u i ry m a y d i ffe r fr o m ca s e t o c a s e , a r ea st h a t a r e u s u a lly im p o r t a n t in a c a s e in w h ic h d o m e s t ic v io le n c e h a s o r m a yhave occu r r ed , and t h a t yo u w i l l w a n t t o d i r ec t t h e e xp e r t t o i n q u i r e i n t o ,inc lude the fo l lowing:

the re cord o f any criminal or civil legal proce eding or police involveme nt; an y facts tha t wou ld tr igger a sta tutory presum ption or specific statutory

obligations;

an y specific cultural context tha t is relevan t to the inquiry; inciden ts of physical violence, se xual ab use, threa ts , s talking, or int im idation; the e xposure of children to an y incidents o f physical violence , sexual abu se,

threats , s talking, o r int imidation; D beha viors de signe d to m ake a pa rent fearful for the childrens sa fety or fea rful

that the children w il l be a bducted;

short- an d long-term safety conce rns raised by the be havior of a pa rent; D patterns of coercive or controlling beh avior, including em otionally abus ive

beha vior; ina ppropriately l im iting acce ss to f ina nces , education, or em ploy-m en t; and isolat ion from friend s or fam ily;

beha viors that a ppea r designed to, or likely to, underm ine a pare ntsrelat ionsh ips with the children or ca pacity to paren t effectively;

the impa ct of al l these be haviors on ea ch paren t , ea ch child, and there la t ionship be tween each parent a nd ea ch ch i ld ;D

the curren t situation an d nee ds of ea ch child;

ea ch pa rents a bili ty to me et ea ch childs n eed; an d the na ture of the com mu nica tion be twe en the pa rents .[See also the RED FLAGS and FACTORS listed on Card I .]

Be Spe c i ficabou t t he

Informat ionYo u Nee d

IIACon t inued o n C a rd

C h o o s ethe Exper t

D A s t e r i sk s de no t e po in t s a t wh ich i t

m ay be p a r t i cu l a rl y helpful to refer to

t he a cc om p a n y i ng

supp l em e n ta r y

m a te r i a l s .

C a r d I I S i d e 2

This document w as developed u nder grant number SJI-03-N-103 from the State Justice Institute. The points of viewexpressed are those of the authors an d do not ne cessarily represent the official position of the State Justice Institute.



35/38


36/38

To f ac i lit a t e t he eva l ua t i o n a nd inc r e a se t he u t i lit y o f t he f ina l p r od uc t ,a r t i cu l a t e c l e a r l y t h e o b l ig a t i ons o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e i r a t t o rn ey s , a n dt h e e v a l u a t o r :

A . Th e p a rt ie s s h a ll: D

provide information as requested and appropriate; sign requested conse nts or w aivers, after ful l cons idera t ion o f the

implications and advisability of waiving any privilege involved;

ma ke them selves a va ilab le to the eva lua tor; provide a ccess to their children ; and m ake t im ely paym en ts if respo nsible for so doing.

B . Th e a t to r ne y s s h a ll:

as sist the ir clien ts in fulfilling the ir respo ns ibilities; an d provide information and documentary material to the evaluator in an

organ ized and t ime ly fash ion.

C. The eva lua to r sha l l: D

m ake the sa fety of the pa rt ies a nd the ir children a priority at everystage of the process;

accep t the appo intm ent only if qualified; accep t the appo intm ent only if unaffected by an y conflict of interest ; com m it not to en ter into an y conflicting professiona l relat ionship with

anyone involved in the case after accepting the appointment;

condu ct the inquiry giving eq ual we ight to the claim s an d conce rns of each party;

condu ct the inquiry in a t im ely fash ion, according to the sched uleprovided by the o rder; and

with the perm ission of the court , draw on a ny neces sary specializedresources .

D e fin e t h eObl iga t ions

o f thePar t ic ipants

D As t e r i s k s d eno t e po in t s a t wh ic h i t

m ay be p a r t i cu l a r ly

helpful to refer to

t he a cc om p an y i n g

supp l e m en ta ry

m a te r i a l s .

C a r d I IA S i d e 2This document w as developed u nder gran t numb er SJI-03-N-103 from the State Justice Institute. The points of viewexpressed are those of the authors an d do not necessarily represent the official position of the State Justice Institute.



37/38

Re ading the Re po rtSa fety Firs t

O n c eAdmi t t e d ,Ho w D o I

Make MoreEffe c t ive Us e

o f theRepor t?

Does the con tent of the repo rt in a nd of itself raise im m ediate conce rns abo utthe existing safety of the p art ies or their children?

Does the fact that ea ch party will be given a ccess to the re port raise new safetyconcerns tha t sho uld be addressed before the repor t is shared?

Apa r t fr om th e t a sk o f fr am in g f ina l o rde r s , i mm e d ia t e s a f e t y c on ce rn sm a y r e q u ir e y o u t o :

schedu le a hea ring an d propose a protective order, or ma ke a referral forsafety planning or othe r nee ded se rvices; or

base d o n your states rep ort ing law s, involve ch ild prote ctive se rvices if you conclude from the repo

BenchGuideDV and CustdyJudges Gude

Documents

Transcript of BenchGuideDV and CustdyJudges Gude