Why is Domestic Violence a Problem in Co Parenting?
Anyone who has been through domestic violence can tell you exactly why: because the abuser is not interested in cooperation or meeting others' needs.
It's that simple.
The assumption behind using co parenting classes to deal with all divorce related parenting conflict is that even if there is domestic violence or severe mental instability, these issues will not affect the parent's ability to take care of the children or to work with the other parent. Courts do not generally recognize domestic violence or severe mental instability as reasons that a couple should not co parent. Take a look at these excerpts from a court ordered co parenting class manual:
Take a look at some of the passages here:
"Domestic violence should never be tolerated, even in a culture promoting extensive family restructuring and the continuing involvement of both parents...Recent research on conflict in separating families reveals at least two levels of violence that appear when couples divorce. The findings are encouraging. They suggest the tendencies toward physical violence only preclude coparenting in extreme instances. In most cases, dangerous conflict can be reduced when certain steps are taken. Women or men who are afraid to to maintain an alliance with a threatening ex-spouse, therefore, need guidelines for determining when special safety precautions must be taken and, in the extreme, when principles of cooperative parenting should be abandoned."
So they are saying that even in a divorce or separation where one spouse or partner is abusing the other, co parenting should still be the expectation in all but the most extreme circumstances. And note that this does not take any precautions for spouses or partners who are manipulative and use financial threats or access to the children as weapons. People who are abusive, violent, manipulative, aggressive, and hostile are still considered great candidates for coparenting by this definition. Though the authors of this coparenting class manual claim that their uncited research about coparenting in abusive divorces is promising, here is what cited research says about co parenting and abuse:
- The research often used to support joint custody presumptions do not distinguish between arrangements that are voluntarily reached by the parents and those that are imposed by a court (Allen, 2014; Pruett & Barker, 2009). No research has yet suggested that joint custody leads to positive outcomes when it has been mandated, and some research has found negative outcomes accrue disproportionately among families faced with mandated joint custody (Irving et al., 1984).
- Multiple studies have found pre-divorce differences between parents who chose joint custody as opposed to sole custody arrangements (Bauserman 2002; Ehrenberg, Hunter, & Elterman 1996), suggesting that joint custody may not be a good fit for all families.
- While the potential benefits from cooperative parenting may be stronger in joint custody situations, the potential negative effects of conflict have been found to be stronger, as well (Johnston et al., 1989; Pruett & Barker, 2009; Tschann et al., 1989). In their review of joint custody literature, Pruett and Barker (2009, p.445) reflect that “the benefits of joint custody may be lost and the process of custody decision making may become even more costly when it is imposed on parents who are not ready to undertake it.”
- Many presumption of joint custody proponents argue that paternal parenting time has been found to be positively related to father-child relationship quality (e.g. DeGarmo, Patras, & Eap, 2008; Dunn, Cheg, O’Connor & Bridges, 2004), however those study are correlative not causative. The way the studies were carried out, it is unclear whether fathers with high quality relationship to their children sought out more parenting time or whether more parenting time led to higher quality relationships between fathers and their children.
- Presumptive joint custody may place a child with a parent who lacks experience with his/her children or who may not desire the level of involvement joint custody would impose (Pruett & Barker, 2009; Schepard, 2004).
- Child custody decisions should be made on the basis of what is best for the child, not what is best for the parent. In re Marriage of Hansen (2007), the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that “Physical care issues are not to be resolved based upon perceived fairness to the spouses, but primarily upon what is best for the child” (par. 62).
- Joint physical custody requires a level of economic security and employment flexibility that not all parents enjoy (Juby, Le Bourdais, & Marcil-Grattan, 2005; Pruett & Barker, 2009), and the presumption of joint custody could place an especially heavy burden on low-income or economically marginalized parents.
- Presumed joint physical custody arrangements reduce or eliminate children’s abilities to inform the court about their preferences or needs (Pruett & Barker, 2009; Schepard, 2004).
- Researchers Pruett and Barker (2009) reviewed joint custody literature and concluded, “There are too many complexities in child development, family transitions, work schedules, and life courses to impose a social policy that assumes one pattern for all families over time” (p. 443). (Goodman-Williams, 2017).
"Earlier in this guide we listed problematic stress reactions separating spouses display at the time of the break-up. Violent episodes can occur as one of these symptoms, even in families with no history of such serious lack of control. Here abusiveness is really uncharacteristic of either partner's behavior. Triggered mainly by the trauma of separation, it is not a reflection of the offending spouse's abusive nature."
None of the parents that murdered their children or former partners had ever murdered anyone before either. Just because someone hasn't reacted in an extreme way during the breakup of a relationship before doesn't mean that they are safe and stable. Reacting to the breakup of a relationship by becoming violent is not a sign that someone is a stable individual, let alone a stable parent. It's a sign that someone is unstable.
Let's look at the reasoning here: "If someone has never been violent toward their partner before, it's out of the their nature and will never occur again and it isn't really a big problem". The cited research about violence in divorce and separation does not point to violence and abuse being small, passing matters:
- Stalking, harassment, and emotional abuse often continue and may increase after separation (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Leighton, 1989; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000a); and
- The risk of homicide increases after separation (Saunders & Browne, 2000). (Saunders et al, 2012). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf
Going back to the coparenting class manual:
"Individuals with long histories of being violent have more serious psychological problems and are less able to change. When there has been a serious pattern of abuse throughout the marriage, the offending spouse may never become a workable coparent." (emphasis theirs)
So here, despite the previous rosy claims that coparenting will work in all but the most extreme abuisve circumstances, they admit that it won't. Again their words and their emphasis: "the offending spouse may never become a workable coparent." If the offending spouse with a long term pattern of abuse is not going to become a workable coparent, then why are courts ordering the couples to coparent? The body of scholarly literature does not support the idea that abusive people will ever be able to coparent effectively, at least without serious rehabilitation on their part. In fact, they justify coparenting with abusers this way:
"Even in families where chronic violence is a problem, however, the abusive co parent often has loving feelings for the child, and the child usually loves the parent as well. Therefore it's important to continue the relationship if possible."
So we're going to rely on the children's and the abuser's feelings to make an informed decision about safety here and the parent who has suffered abuse and wants to protect the children from abuse is the problem? That solution defies all the literature on abuse and domestic violence. Here is what the scholarly literature says about abusers as parents:
- Regardless of whether children are the direct targets of physical abuse, exposure to domestic violence often leads to serious psychological trauma for many children (e.g., Edleson, 1999; Graham-Bermann & Edleson, 2002; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2004)
- half of men who batter also physically abuse their children (Straus, 1983)
- of men who batter, more than fifty percent in one study, become abusive in a subsequent relationship (Woffordt, Mihalic, & Menard, 1994); therefore, separation does not necessarily end children’s exposure to violence
- Offenders may be able to continue their abuse of their ex-partners and children due to unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation arrangements (Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Radford & Hester, 2006)
- Abusers are often mentally and emotionally unstable (Saunders et al., 2012)
"Though the problem of abuse is serious, the number of families who experience violence in our country is still relatively small. This means that by far most separating parents should readily adopt the cooperative premise and continue looking for progress. The worst thing a willing coparent can do is to withdraw or. entirely or lose the determination to carry on."
Actually there is something worse than losing the determination to carry on co parenting with an obdurate and/or abusive ex partner or spouse. When a parent or child ends up dead at the hands of the abuser, that is far worse than losing the determination to carry on in one-sided "coparenting". At least, some of us think it is. Possibly family courts and mandated co parenting advocates think that is a small price to pay or that it's an impossibility? Is this a situation where they feel that you have "break a few eggs to make an omelette"? If a few people are killed or a lot of people are abused, it's worth it so that we can all pretended that court ordered co parenting works? That's an acceptable price for family courts and court ordered co parenting advocates? The true number of abusive families is hard to know because of the secrecy and manipulation that is often involved and the fact that verbal and emotional abuse (and frequently sexual abuse) don't leave physical evidence. In my own estimation based off of sitting through dozens of court hearings and conferences over the four and a half years of my divorce proceedings, I think that all or almost all couples who are in court for divorce proceedings have at least one abusive spouse. Most of the couples who are fairly rational and have the ability to think of the feelings of the other party and the children in the divorce have probably been able to work out an agreement without a lot of court proceedings.
"In every case, coparenting is a business relationship."
Abusers are Often Mentally and Emotionally Unstable...
The books from these court ordered co parenting classes talk from both sides of the mouth. On the one hand, they say that abuse isn't an obstacle to coparenting, but on the other hand, they acknowledge what every abuse victim and serious scholar on the topic knows: Abusers are mentally and emotionally unstable people. They are not capable of the skills required to maintain a healthy relationship, which is probably why they are getting divorced and why coparenting isn't working.
A great deal of the psychological literature on abusers has focused on men, though it has looked at the issue of personality disorders as a significant factor in abuse, which is very useful. Most of the studies which have evaluated the psychopathology of male domestic abusers have focused on personality disorders (PDs). These personality disorders are categorized in the DSM-IV-R-Axis II23. They often have their origin in childhood and are referred to as perception and social relationship patterns that are relatively chronic, generalized and rigid. As a result, people showing these disorders often have dysfunctional social relationships. These individuals do not spontaneously seek help and when they do, it often has been imposed to them (Calvete, 2008). However, a 2019 meta analysis by Spencer et al looked at female and male abusers and victims. It found that abusers frequently had anxiety, antisocial personality disorder and borderline personality disorder. Female abusers frequently had borderline personality disorder. A 2021 meta analysis of personality disorders in abusers by Collison and Lynam found that antisocial personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder were the most commonly associated with abusers. They also discussed research showing that relationships where one partner has a personality disorder symptoms frequently have much lower satisfaction. (Which probably is a precursor to the break up of the relationship.)
According to the National Institute of Mental Health (n.d.), about 9.1% of the population has a personality disorder. This means that almost one in ten people will have difficulties going into a marriage that might result in marital problems, family dysfunction, or abuse. Abusers’ mental health problems are associated a number of problems in custody proceedings including false allegations of abuse and neglect and malicious CPS reports (all of which will be discussed in other pages on this blog).
Personality disorders like borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder (colloquially called sociopathy or psychopathy) demonstrate features such as low empathy, a high tendency to manipulate others, unstable personal relationships, controlling and abusive behavior, self destructive behaviors, problems with employment and a willingness to go to extreme lengths to prevent real or perceived abandonment. All of these behaviors become serious problems in custody disputes as one or both parents fight for control and abusers use the legal proceedings to continue to control the other parent and the children.
...And for Family Courts That's a Feature, Not a Bug...
In family courts, abusers are often seen not as just adequate parents, but as the better parent. Research shows that when domestic violence is an issue in a divorce, the abusive parent frequently gets significant custody-- and this is only accounting for divorces where the abuser is a man and not divorces where the woman is an abuser and the abuse is often verbal, psychological and emotional instead of physical and probably goes undocumented.
Courts Will Often Join in on the Abuse
Abusers will often say that they don't want to be in court and they just want to move on and have everybody happy, but they will file order after order, motion after motion and drag out the proceedings. Of course they will tell you to your face that they don't want to be in court. They don't want to admit that they love being in court and using court proceedings as a weapon. Being in court gives them a way to get important and powerful people to give them undivided attention and gives them access to an important and powerful person who isn't personally familiar with the situation who might more easily be deceived or manipulated into helping the abuser get what he or she wants. A person who admits to that would be seen as abusive and abusers don't want to be seen as abusive. But despite what they say, it's what they do that shows how they really feel. Abusers will use the legal system to control and coerce their partners. When the legal system is used as a method of the abuse, it is called legal abuse. Courts will often fail to prevent harm to the abused partner and children and will enact orders that cause harm. This causes significant damage to a partner who is leaving an abusive relationship (Gutowski and Goodman, 2023).
Family Courts: "You Know What Would Be Really Healthy For a Child in a Divorce? Being Raised By a Mentally Unbalanced, Abusive Parent!"
Courts Often Favor Abusers Over Victims in Child Custody
Saunders et al., (2012) discussed how courts frequently fail to see the value in protecting battered women and their children from abusers and often favor abusers as better parents: "Ironically, battered mothers’ attempts to protect their children may be used against them in custody and visitation decisions. Despite the potential for negative outcomes, little is known about the extent to which abusers get custody. No representative national or international studies have investigated the rates at which abusers are awarded sole or joint custody. However, some representative studies have been conducted in states and local jurisdictions. For example, a study of domestic violence survivors involved in child custody mediation in California revealed that only 35 percent of survivor mothers received primary physical custody—lower than the 42 percent of non-victims who were awarded primary custody (Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). This is in contrast to a representative study of case files in Washington state found that, excluding cases awarded joint custody, approximately 90 percent of the DV survivor-mothers received primary custody (Kernic, Monary-Ernsdorff, Koepsell, & Holt, 2005)."
California's politicians will talk all day about how bad domestic violence is, but at the end of the day, the state has few guardrails to protect victims and children in custody cases. Domestic violence is horrible and awful and the men who abuse women are pathetic and toxic, they will say... unless the couple has children together. If the couple has children together, then all of the sudden that pathetic, toxic man is a great father and the horrible, awful abuse isn't dangerous at all. In fact, the abuser is a better parent in the courts' view than the mother who leaves to protect herself and her children. And of course, this doesn't even account for female on male abuse which is often emotional, verbal and psychological instead of physical.
Saunders et al. (2012) further found that courts often recommend these shared custody arrangements and most custody evaluators don't see a problem with joint custody in domestic violence: "A record review of DV cases in New York City found that 77 percent of mothers and 13 percent of fathers were given residential custody, and 6 percent shared custody (Davis, O’Sullivan, Susser, & Fields, 2010). One study of DV cases across six states found that in 64 percent of cases mothers were granted sole physical custody. In another 24 percent of cases, they were granted primary or shared physical custody (Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005); only 39 percent were granted sole legal custody, while 56 percent were granted joint legal custody. Custody evaluators in one survey—primarily psychologists in private practice—indicated that, in half of cases with a single DV perpetrator, they recommended the victim receive sole legal and physical custody. In 39 percent of cases, however, they recommended joint legal custody and primary physical custody for the victim (Bow & Boxer, 2003). One widely cited educational booklet from the American Judges Association states that, 'studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases' (American Judges Association, n.d., p. 5). However, the Association did not conduct original research on this topic or provide references to support the statistic". From my personal experience, I would not be surprised if they 70% statistic from the American Judges Association was true though.
Saunders et al. (2012) also pointed out in their review that:
- One study that interviewed survivors who had documented abuse demonstrated frequent failures to consider the documented domestic abuse and/or child abuse in the custody decision. In addition, unsupervised visitation or custody was often recommended or granted to men who used violence against their partners and/or children (Silverman, Mesh, Cuthbert, Slote, & Bancroft, 2004).
- One study found that battered and non-battered women were equally likely to be awarded custody, and that offenders were no more likely than non-offenders to be ordered to supervised visits (Kernic et al., 2005).
- Similarly, in a random sample of 82 court cases, only minor differences existed between the custody evaluation process and recommendations for domestic violence versus non-domestic violence cases (Logan, Walker, Jordan, & Horvath, 2002).
- In one study, most fathers with protection orders against them were not awarded custody (Rosen & O’Sullivan, 2005); however, this did not hold true when mothers withdrew their petitions for protection orders, which they may have done because of pressure from their abusers.
- Mediators in another study were about equally likely to recommend joint legal and physical custody for both domestic violence and non-domestic violence cases; rates of supervised and unsupervised visitation also did not differ between violent and non-violent cases (Johnston, Lee, Olesen & Walters, 2005).
- Similarly, O’Sullivan and her colleagues conducted two studies showing that a history of domestic violence had little effect on courts’ visitation decisions (O’Sullivan, 2000; O’Sullivan, King, Levin-Russell, & Horowitz, 2006). Evidence for the reverse also exists: When abuse is properly taken into account by the courts, court decisions that awarded custody to abusive fathers are often reversed on appeal (Meier, 2003).
Custody Evaluators Often Don't Regard Domestic Violence as a Problem in Custody
Custody evaluators often seem to see domestic violence as a little speed bump in the road or even as no problem at all in custody cases. Saunders et al (2012) found that of supported domestic violence cases, evaluators reported that DV typically impacted their evaluation or recommendation as follows: extremely (12%), greatly (40%), much (27%), some (17%), a little (3%), and none (2%). Furthermore, the evaluators estimated that 17% of the fathers and 22% of the mothers made false allegations of domestic violence. That's right, more than 1 in 5 custody evaluators in a study responded that domestic violence was of little to no importance in a custody case. A spouse or partner who hits, berates, controls, stalks or harasses the other parent is not a problem in raising children or co parenting to more than 1 in 5 custody evaluators.
Domestic Violence Screening and Knowledge is not Uniform Among Family Court Professionals
Saunders et al (2012) reported that "94% of the evaluators reported that they always or almost always directly inquired about domestic violence. However, 38% never used instruments or standard protocols to screen for DV, and another 24% used them only some of the time. Some evaluators (15%) used only a general personality-psychopathology instrument, such as the MMPI, rather than a specific instrument to assess DV. Those who used such general personality-psychopathology instruments were more likely to believe that false DV allegations are common... They were less likely to have learned about screening for DV or assessing dangerousness." They also found that among family court professionals such as custody evaluators, there were a wide variety of experiences and credentials. There was no uniform training that these evaluators went through to ensure that they understand the dynamics and dangers of domestic violence in custody cases. In my experience going through divorce in California, the domestic violence screening was simply a questionnaire about whether your partner had done certain things and then asked if you identified as a victim of domestic violence. I marked several items that I had experienced that I suppose were domestic violence, but I marked "no" for identifying as a victim of domestic violence because my husband hadn't ever hit me. No one ever followed up with me or asked me about my answers.
References
Goodman-Williams, R. (2017) Know the facts: Research on joint custody. MCEDSV. https://mcedsv.org/2017/09/presumptive-joint-custody-research-findings/
Gutowski, E. R., & Goodman, L. A. (2023). Legal abuse and mental health: The role of judicial betrayal. Psychology of Violence, 13(6), 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000483
Saunders, D.G., Faller, K.C., and Tolman, R.M. (2012). Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody- Visitation Recommendations. Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment