Search results

A troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts' failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive. Family courts' errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented. A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA). Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father, they are doing so illegitimately, to alienate the child from the father. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women's and children's reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited. However, the term parental alienation is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. However, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court.

The first goal of the study was to ascertain whether empirical evidence indicated that parental alienation is also gender-biased in practice and outcome. Drawing from courts' own reports of facts, findings, and outcomes, such research could inform advocates and the courts regarding the validity or invalidity of relying on PA to strip mothers of their children and potentially subject children to ongoing abuse. Second, inspired by some tentative findings, the study sought to explore outcomes in custody/abuse litigation by gender and by differing types of abuse. The study relied solely on electronically available published opinions in child custody cases; to date, the researchers have identified 240 cases involving alienation and alienation plus abuse. The researchers sought to expand the database to include non-alienation abuse cases as a comparison, and to address additional questions about custody/abuse adjudications.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The major aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that legal representation of the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victim in child custody decisions leads to greater legal protections being awarded in these decisions compared to similar cases of unrepresented IPV victims. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among King County couples with minor children filing for marriage dissolution in King County, Washington between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who had a history of police or court documented intimate partner violence (IPV). The study examined the separate effects of private legal representation and legal aid representation relative to propensity score-matched, unrepresented comparison subjects. Primary study outcomes were measured at the time the first "Final Parenting Plan" was awarded. Researchers also examined the two-year period post-decree among the subset of cases with filing between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 for post-decree court proceedings indicative of continued child custody or visitation disputes.

Among divorcing and separating parents referred by family courts to mediation to resolve issues, over half report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether family mediation can be safely offered to cases with a history of IPV is a major controversy that has not been examined previously with empirically sound research. This study was a randomized controlled trial, the "gold standard" for assessing interventions, of family mediation cases with levels of IPV that would, historically, be considered inappropriate for mediation at our study site, a court-attached mediation center in Washington, D.C. Study cases were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: traditional court-based litigation (n=67), shuttle mediation (n=49), or videoconferencing mediation (n=50).

Researchers conducted a randomized control trial to compare immediate and one year outcomes for three dispute resolution processes (i.e., traditional court-based litigation, shuttle mediation, and videoconferencing mediation) among family law cases seeking to resolve parenting related issues and self-reporting a level of IPV history that would typically prohibit joint mediation as an option at the court-annexed mediation program where the study was conducted.

The mediation intake interview included an IPV screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Applegate, 2010). There is initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC (Pokman et al., 2014) and research demonstrating that the MASIC leads to higher levels of detection of IPV among parents seeking mediation than other methods of IPV screening (Rossi, et al., 2015). The MASIC is a behaviorally specific measure, listing a series of abusive behaviors on subscales (e.g., psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual violence, stalking) and consequences of abuse (e.g., fear of the partner, injury). Each item is assessed for occurrence twice-- ever in the relationship and in the past year. The questions ask the party about their victimization from the other party.

Based on party responses to the Multi-Door intake interview, including the MASIC, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the level of IPV reported by either or both parties was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. No specific level of IPV for study eligibility was set, for two reasons. First, no previous empirical data are available to guide decisions regarding what level of IPV would make joint mediation inappropriate. Second, the DRSs were well trained and experienced and wanted to retain the right to use their clinical judgment. However, the Multi-Door staff and research team agreed that DRSs would pay particular attention to level and types of IPV, presence of risk factors empirically related to lethality (e.g., weapons), whether IPV was escalating in frequency or severity, IPV-related injuries, and whether a party was fearful of the other party or expressed IPV-related concerns about participating in mediation.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This study was a secondary analysis of Custody Evaluators' Beliefs about Domestic Abuse Allegations, 2009-2010 [United States] (ICPSR 30962 - https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR30962.v1). The purpose of this study was to conduct further analysis of a recent, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored national survey of professionals to better understand the relationship between family law statutes and professionals' recommendations for child custody and visitation in cases of intimate partner violence. The samples involve 512 child custody evaluators and 200 judges from 46 states. Evaluators and judges responded to a case vignette of serious intimate partner violence (IPV). They indicated recommendations they would make for custody and visitation and the perceived risk of future harm. Evaluators also reported on their history of actual recommendations in IPV cases. The original study investigated beliefs about custody, value-laden beliefs, knowledge professionals had acquired on IPV, the number of survivors they had known, and their work setting, education, and other demographics. In the current study, statutory provisions with sufficient sample sizes of professionals with and without the provisions were used in the analysis.

The purposes of this study were (1) to examine factors associated with New York City Family Courts' visitation decisions and conformity to the provisions of the Model Code of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges when there was a history of abuse of the mother by the father, (2) to compare the different visitation conditions in regard to reabuse -- both psychological and physical, and (3) to examine children's psychological well-being as measured by maternal report on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), given their exposure to abuse.

Two hundred forty-two participants were recruited from the Family Courts and supervised visitation centers in the five counties in New York City. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. There were two interviews with the mother, with an average interval of six months between interviews. Baseline interviews were conducted in person, at the court, or visitation center from 2002 to 2004. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 168 of the participants from 2003 to 2005 and were conducted over the phone, except on the rare occasions when a participant requested an in-person interview.

Information in the the baseline interview included demographic information on the participant as well as on the father of the child(ren), information on the level of physical violence and the children's exposure, how often particular acts of violence took place, threats and coercion, an injury index, information regarding court orders, information regarding custody petitions, information regarding visitation orders, and visitation experience. The follow-up interview asked about abuse since the previous interview and included updates, changes, and modifications to the information provided in the baseline interview.