Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About

Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship

to Evaluator Demographics, Background,

Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody-

Visitation Recommendations

Author: Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D., Kathleen C. Faller,

Ph.D., Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D.

Document No.: 238891

Date Received: June 2012

Award Number: 2007-WG-BX-0013

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-

funded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.

Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations:

Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence

Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations

Final Technical Report Submitted to the

National Institute of Justice,

U.S. Department of Justice

October 31, 2011

Principal Investigator: Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.,

Co-Investigators: Kathleen C. Faller, Ph.D. and Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D.

University of Michigan, School of Social Work,

1080 S. University Ave., Ann Arbor MI 48109-1106 USA

This project was supported by Grant No. 2007-WG-BX-0013 awarded by the National Institute of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Findings and conclusions of the

research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official

position of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 4

PURPOSE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................. 15

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 16

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES .............................................................................. 29

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................................................... 33

PART 1: SURVEY OF PROFESSIONALS ................................................................................... 34

Methods .................................................................................................................. 34

Results of Survey ...................................................................................................... 49

PART 2: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVOR .................................................. 101

Methods ................................................................................................................. 101

Preliminary Findings ................................................................................................ 102

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 116

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY ...................................................................................................... 127

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ............................................................................................ 128

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ............................................................................................. 129

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 136

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 150

A. Survey for Child Custody Evaluators Regarding Family Violence ........................... 150

B. Survey on Custody Evaluations and Domestic Violence for Judges, Attorneys

and Domestic Violence Survivor Programs ........................................................... 158

C. Semi-Structured Interview with Survivors: Custody Evaluations and

Outcomes ............................................................................................................ 165

D. Survivor Interview: Rationale for Questions and Sequence of Questions .............. 173

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 175

DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS ........................... 175

List of Figures

1. Original Conceptual Model for the Relationship Among Beliefs about False Allegations,

Outcomes, & Core Beliefs

2. Final Conceptual Model for the Relationship Among Beliefs about False Allegations,

Outcomes, & Core Beliefs

3. Among Alleged DV Cases: Estimated Percent that Mothers Makes False Allegations of DV,

by Professional Role

4. Among Alleged DV Cases: Estimated Percent that Fathers Make False Allegations of DV, by

Professional Role

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

5. Recommendations for Sole Legal and Physical Custody to Mother in Vignette, by Role

6. Recommendations for Sole Legal and Physical Custody to Father in Vignette, by Role

7. Recommendations for Joint Legal and Physical Custody (shared parenting) in Vignette, by

Role

8. Means for Evaluators’ Estimated Rates of False Allegations and Domestic Violence

9. Means for Estimated Rates of Child Abuse: Evaluators

10. Means for Estimated Rates of Parental Visitation Recommendations: Evaluators

11. Means of Custody Recommendation Responses to Vignette: Evaluators

12. Means of Visitation Recommendation Responses to Vignette: Evaluators

List of Tables

1. Demographics and Experiences of Professional Groups

2. Experience with Custody Cases by Primary Role

3. Areas of Knowledge Acquired by Professional Group

4. Personal Knowledge of Victims/Survivors of Domestic Violence by Professional Role

5. Frequency of Custody Recommendations by Evaluators

6. Bivariate Correlations: Beliefs Among Custody Evaluators About False Allegations of

Abuse, Parental Alienation, and Parental Action in Vignette

7. Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Custody-Visitation Recommendations in Past

Cases

8. Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Vignette Custody-Visitation Responses

9. Custody-Visitation Recommendations and Beliefs by Evaluator Gender and Setting

10. Custody Beliefs and Recommendations by Types of DV Knowledge Areas Acquired

11. Pearson Correlations Between Evaluator Beliefs and Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

12. Use of DV Assessment Instruments by DV Knowledge Acquisition

13. Bivariate Correlations Between Core Beliefs and Custody Beliefs and Recommendations

14. The Amount of Variance Explained (R Squared) by Separate Sets of Variables in Predicting

Major Outcomes

15. Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Major Outcomes: R Squared Increase with

the Entry of Each Block

16. Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Vignette Custody-Visitation Responses:

Judges

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

High rates of domestic violence exist in families referred for child custody evaluations. These

evaluations can produce potentially harmful outcomes, including the custody of children being

awarded to a violent parent, unsupervised or poorly supervised visitation between violent parents

and their children, and mediation sessions that increase danger to domestic violence victims. Past

research shows that domestic violence is frequently undetected in custody cases or ignored as a

significant factor in custody-visitation determinations. Previous research also indicates that

violence—and its harmful effects on victims and children—often continues or increases after

separation. Little is known, however, about child custody evaluators’ beliefs, background,

knowledge about domestic violence, and other factors that may shape their recommendations

regarding custody and parent-child visitation arrangements.

The purpose of this study was to further our understanding of what child custody evaluators and

other professionals believe regarding allegations of domestic abuse made by parents going

through a divorce. The study had several major goals:

 to investigate the extent to which child custody evaluators and other professionals who

make court recommendations believe allegations of domestic violence are false;

 to explore the relationship between these beliefs and (a) knowledge of domestic

violence and (b) recommendations about custody, supervised visitation, and mediation;

 to examine whether beliefs about false allegations of domestic violence are related to

beliefs that false allegations of child abuse are common; abuse of parents should not be

a criterion in custody and visitation decisions; and that parents often alienate their

children from the other parent;

 to examine the relationships between beliefs about false allegations and beliefs about

patriarchal norms, social dominance, and justice in the world.

We also conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 24 domestic abuse survivors

who

experienced negative custody-visitation outcomes, such as losing custody of their children. The

information gathered helped us interpret our quantitative findings, uncover new areas of concern,

and learn of recommendations the survivors had for changing the custody determination process.

The term recommendation includes recommendations that professionals actually made or would have made if in a

position to make recommendations in custody or visitation cases. In line with some professional standards and the

The term survivor is used interchangeably with the term victim to refer to those victimized by domestic violence.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Methods

The study had two major components. In Part 1, we surveyed professionals who had experience

with custody cases: child custody evaluators, judges, attorneys, and domestic violence program

workers. In Part 2, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with domestic abuse

survivors who had lost child custody or experienced a similar negative outcome during family court

proceedings.

We used postal mail, e-mail, and web sites to recruit professionals to participate in the survey.

They were asked to share:

 their demographic characteristics;

 whether they personally knew survivors of domestic violence;

 how they had acquired knowledge of domestic violence;

 their experiences with custody cases involving domestic violence;

 their beliefs about custody and domestic violence, including beliefs about parental

alienation, the importance of domestic violence in custody cases, victims’

reluctance to co-parent, and the extent of false domestic violence allegations;

 their responses to a case vignette involving serious, coercive-controlling domestic

violence;

 beliefs about gender norms, justice and equality.

Respondents to the survey included 465 custody evaluators, 200 judges, 131 legal aid attorneys,

119 private attorneys, and 193 domestic violence program workers. More than one fourth of the

custody evaluators worked in county court-based settings, enabling us to compare their responses

with those of private custody evaluators. Many custody evaluators were psychologists and social

workers, allowing us to compare the responses of these two professional groups.

In Part 2 of the study, we conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 24 domestic

abuse survivors in four states. They were recruited through legal clinics and supervised visitation

programs. Interviews focused on their experiences with the custody-visitation determination

process and their recommendations for changes in policies and practices.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Findings

We first present findings that compare how the five professional groups acquire knowledge about

domestic violence and their beliefs about false domestic violence allegations. We then examine

the extent to which each of the professional groups recommended different custody and visitation

arrangements. Finally, we focus on findings for the custody evaluators, specifically the

relationships between their backgrounds, knowledge, and beliefs, and their custody and visitation

recommendations.

Domestic Violence (DV) Knowledge

The most common areas of knowledge across professional groups were children’s exposure to

domestic violence and prevalence of domestic violence. The least common areas—especially

among judges, evaluators, and private attorneys—were knowledge of post-separation violence,

screening for domestic violence, and assessing dangerousness (although the majority still acquired

knowledge in these areas). Domestic violence workers had the highest rates of knowledge

regarding all topics.

Belief in False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

Professionals were asked to estimate what percent of domestic violence allegations by mothers

and fathers they believed to be false. Among the major findings:

 Judges, private attorneys, and custody evaluators were more likely than domestic violence

workers and legal aid attorneys to believe that mothers make false allegations.

 After we controlled for background (number of custody cases, survivors known, and

training) and demographic variables (age and gender), judges did not differ from legal aid

attorneys and domestic violence workers regarding their estimate of what percentage of

mothers’ domestic violence allegations were false.

 Domestic violence workers and legal aid attorneys gave the highest estimates of the

percentage of fathers’ making false domestic violence allegations, while judges and

custody evaluators gave the lowest estimates.

 On average, evaluators estimated that one fourth to one third of child abuse allegations

were false.

 On average, evaluators estimated that 26 percent of mothers’ domestic violence

allegations were false and 31 percent of fathers’ allegations were false.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

 Evaluators “supported” the allegations of domestic violence in approximately half of their

cases alleging domestic violence.

 Among domestic violence cases, evaluators were more likely to estimate that fathers try to

alienate children from mothers than the reverse.

Custody Evaluators’ Custody Recommendations

Evaluators were asked to estimate how often they recommended seven different custody

arrangements when “one parent was clearly the perpetrator” of domestic violence. Of those

surveyed, 65 percent reported recommending sole legal and physical custody to victims “half of

the time” to “always.” Approximately 40 percent of evaluators recommended joint legal custody,

with sole physical custody to victims, at least “half of the time” to “always.”

Ten percent of evaluators estimated that at least “half of the time” they recommended joint

physical and legal custody to the couple. Another 10 percent estimated they recommended joint

physical custody and sole legal custody to the victim at least “half of the time” or more. Legal or

physical custody to the perpetrator was rarely recommended: 49 to 70 percent reported “never”

making this recommendation and 26 to 41 percent reported “seldom” doing so.

In response to the case vignette of domestic violence, evaluators reported the highest likelihood

(47% on average) that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding legal custody to

both parents and physical custody to the battered mother. Awarding the mother sole legal and

physical custody was chosen almost as often (40% average likelihood). Joint legal and physical

custody was chosen at a somewhat lower average likelihood of 30%.

Visitation Recommendations

We asked custody evaluators to report on the visitation recommendations they made in past

custody cases that involved domestic violence. Evaluators reported that, when recommending

visitation for a parent who was “clearly the perpetrator,” they recommended supervision by a

professional or paraprofessional in nearly half of the cases, supervision by a friend or relative in

one fourth of the cases, and no supervision in nearly one third of the cases.

In response to the case vignette depicting serious domestic violence, unsupervised visitation was

recommended the most (47% average likelihood), with supervision of visits by friends and relatives

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

(35% average likelihood) and professionals or paraprofessionals (38% average likelihood) being

recommended less often.

Belief in False Domestic Violence Allegations Related to Other Custody Beliefs

Among custody evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence (DV) by mothers are

false was strongly related to four other beliefs: (1) DV survivors alienate children from the other

parent; (2) DV is not an important factor in making custody decisions; (3) children are hurt when

survivors are reluctant to co-parent, and (4) DV survivors falsely allege child abuse. Similar results

were found among judges.

The belief that fathers falsely allege DV was related to the belief that fathers also falsely allege

child physical and sexual abuse and to the belief that fathers alienate children from the other

parent.

Evaluator Hypotheses About the Causes and Consequences of DV Related to Custody Beliefs

The vignette case of DV described the wife’s reports of her husband’s controlling behavior and

severe violence and her psychological test results showing anxiety, depression, and paranoia.

When describing the initial hypotheses they would be likely to explore in the vignette, 23% of the

evaluators said they would explore coercive/controlling behavior, 17% would explore the mother’s

psychological symptoms as the result of DV, and 5% would explore the father’s alcohol use as a

cause of DV. Those who mentioned coercive-controlling behavior were more likely to view DV as

the cause of the mother’s psychological symptoms.

Evaluators who said they would explore hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior and

mental health consequences of the DV were more likely to believe:

 DV is important in custody decisions;

 mothers do not make false DV allegations;

 victims do not alienate the children;

 victims do not hurt the children when they resist co-parenting;

 the father in the vignette will harm his son psychologically;

The percents add to more than 100% because respondents were asked to answer three separate questions about

the likelihood of visitation arrangements being in the child’s best interest without requiring the three percents equal

100%.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

 the father in the vignette minimized his violence;

 the mother in the vignette did not exaggerate her reports of abuse.

Evaluators who made initial hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior were more likely to

believe fathers make false DV allegations.

Beliefs About Custody Related to Custody Recommendations

Among evaluators, beliefs about custody were related to the two measures of custody

recommendations: past case recommendations and the recommendations for the domestic

violence case vignette. Favoring the offender over the victim in custody arrangements was

significantly related to several beliefs: (1) DV victims alienate children from the other parent; (2)

DV allegations are typically false; (3) DV victims hurt children if they resist co-parenting; (4) DV is

not important in custody decisions; and (5) coercive-controlling violence in the vignette was not a

factor to explore. These same beliefs were related to the belief that the couple in the vignette

would benefit from mediation. Recommending supervised parent-child visits for the offender in

evaluators’ own cases and in the vignette case was related to evaluators’ beliefs that DV is

important in custody decisions and DV caused the mother’s mental health problems in the

vignette. Judges were also asked about their responses to the domestic violence vignette case.

Findings similar to those for evaluators were found for the judges’ beliefs about DV and custody.

Gender Differences

Male evaluators were more likely than female evaluators to believe that DV allegations are false,

DV victims alienate their children, DV victims hurt the children when resisting co-parenting, and

DV is not an important factor in custody decisions.

Female evaluators were more likely to believe that perpetrators alienate children from their

mothers. They were also more likely than male evaluators to believe that supervised visits for the

father in the vignette case were in the best interest of the child and mediation would benefit the

hypothetical couple.

Knowing or Being a Survivor

If the evaluator’s mother was a DV survivor, the evaluator was more likely to have recommended

(or would have recommended) that the DV victim receive custody and that visits with the

non-custodial parent be supervised. Having any family member who survived DV was related to

the belief that domestic violence is an important consideration in custody-visitation

determinations and that mothers do not make false DV allegations. Being a DV survivor was not

related to beliefs or recommendations.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Knowledge of Domestic Violence Related to Custody-Visitation Recommendations

Possession of specific areas of DV knowledge was related to particular custody and visitation

recommendations in evaluators’ actual cases and in the case vignette. First, we found that

evaluators with knowledge of DV prevalence and DV danger assessment were more likely to

recommend sole custody to DV victims. Those who knew about post-separation violence were

more likely to believe the mother in the vignette should have sole custody. Finally, knowing about

children’s exposure to domestic violence was related to recommendations for supervised visits.

Most areas of knowledge were also related to the five beliefs about custody: allegations of

domestic violence are likely to be true; DV victims do not alienate children from the other parent;

victims do not harm children if they resist co-parenting; DV is an important factor in custody

decisions; and fathers are likely to make false DV and child abuse allegations. Knowing how to

screen for domestic violence and knowing about post-separation violence were the factors most

strongly associated with these five beliefs about custody. Knowledge about screening was also

related to considering the father’s controlling behavior in the vignette as an important factor in

the evaluation process.

How Methods of Acquiring DV Knowledge Relate to Custody Recommendations

None of the methods of learning about domestic violence were related to actual custody and

visitation recommendations made by evaluators. However, more frequent workshop and lecture

attendance were related to recommending custody to the mother-survivor and supervised visits

for the father-offender in the vignette. More frequent workshop and lecture attendance were also

related to all four beliefs about DV and custody: false DV allegations are uncommon, victims do

not alienate the children, domestic violence is an important factor in custody decisions, and

children are not harmed if victims do not co-parent.

Professional consultations and reading books and articles were related to the beliefs that DV is

important in custody decisions, false DV allegations are uncommon, victims do not alienate the

children from the other parent, and the vignette mother’s psychological problems may be caused

by DV. Learning about domestic violence by reading web sites was associated with the beliefs that

DV is an important factor in custody decisions, the vignette offender’s visits should be supervised,

and DV is a likely cause of the vignette mother’s psychological symptoms.

Court Versus Private Settings

Court-based evaluators were less likely than private evaluators to believe that false DV allegations

are common, victims alienate children from the other parent, or victims hurt the children by being

reluctant to co-parent.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Professional Degree

Evaluators with degrees in social work and marriage and family therapy were more likely to have

recommended custody to the DV victim in their custody cases and the vignette than evaluators

who were psychologists and counselors. Social workers were more likely than psychologists to

recommend supervised visits, rather than unsupervised visits, for the father in the vignette. Social

workers were also more likely than psychologists to believe that DV is important in

custody-visitation decisions, false DV allegations are uncommon, victims alienate the children, or

victims hurt the children when they resist co-parenting. In addition, counselors were less likely

than psychologists to believe that mothers make false DV allegations.

Inquiring and Screening for Domestic Violence

Ninety-four percent 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 and the father in the vignette

should have joint or sole custody. They were less likely to have learned about screening for DV or

assessing dangerousness.

Core Beliefs: Patriarchal Norms, Just World, and Social Dominance

Beliefs in patriarchal norms (i.e. women have reached equality with men), a just world (i.e. the

world is basically a just place), and social dominance (i.e. social hierarchies are good) were

correlated with each other and with custody beliefs and recommendations. For example,

patriarchal norms correlated with all of the custody-belief measures: DV is not important in

custody decisions; fathers do not make false DV or child abuse allegations; and alleged DV victims

make false allegations, alienate the children, and hurt the children because they resist

co-parenting. More importantly, patriarchal norms were related to the five outcome measures,

specifically: (1) recommendation for sole or joint custody to the perpetrator, (2) recommendations

for unsupervised visits, (3) belief that sole or joint custody for the case vignette perpetrator would

be in the child’s best interest, (4) recommendation for unsupervised visitation for the father in the

vignette, and (5) belief that mediation is beneficial for the couple in the vignette.

The belief that the world is basically just was related to the belief that DV is not an important

factor in custody decisions, as well as the beliefs that DV allegations by mothers are frequently

false and that these mothers alienate the children and harm them if they resist co-parenting.

Belief in a just world also was related to evaluators’ estimates of how many actual

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

recommendations they had made for sole or joint custody to the perpetrator and to belief that

mediation would be useful for the couple in the vignette. The belief that social hierarchies are

good (social dominance) was not related to custody-visitation recommendations. However, belief

in social dominance was related to the beliefs that alleged DV victims make false allegations and

alienate their children, and that fathers do not falsely allege abuse.

The Impact of Groups of Variables

The core beliefs (patriarchal norms, just world, social dominance) and the custody beliefs

contributed to recommendations independent of each other, although custody beliefs were

partially explained by core beliefs. Thus, both types of beliefs are useful in understanding how

professionals make custody and visitation recommendations. Overall, demographic and

background variables had little effect on the relationship between the sets of core and custody

belief variables and the four outcome variables.

Interviews with Survivors of Domestic Violence

Interviews with survivors who had negative experiences during the child custody process revealed

several themes: Domestic violence was ignored or minimized in the evaluation; evaluators gave

too much weight to survivors’ mental health or alleged mental health symptoms; and evaluators

performed one-sided and rushed evaluations. Among other negative experiences, survivors

mentioned being reprimanded for reporting child abuse. The survivors made recommendations in

several areas. They specifically urged (1) fair and thorough custody evaluations, (2) expansion of

supervised visitation and exchange programs, (3) thorough enforcement of child protection laws

and investigation of all child abuse reports, and (4) mandatory DV training for custody evaluators,

court professionals, and guardians ad litem.

Parallels between survivor reports and survey results appeared in a number of areas. For example,

the survivors’ recommendations for training are consistent with the survey findings on the links

between what evaluators know about domestic violence, and their beliefs and recommendations.

Some survivors’ reports of a double standard regarding mental illness in mothers versus fathers

suggest that mothers are being held to a higher standard. These survivor reports may illustrate the

significant relationship between endorsing patriarchal norms and making custody

recommendations that favor offenders. The survivors also highlighted the need for evaluators to

understand the traumatic effects of the emotional abuse they suffered.

Limitations of Study

Limitations of this study include:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

 It is not known the extent to which the samples of professionals are

representative of each professional group. Therefore, the group comparison

findings need to be interpreted carefully.

 Reports of beliefs about controversial topics, even on anonymous surveys, may

be influenced by social desirability response bias or by attempts to prove or

disprove hypotheses.

 Some measures were created for this study, and although they showed good

construct validity, some internal reliabilities were at the low end of

acceptability.

 The study focused on all forms of domestic violence in order to build upon

prior research. However, evaluators’ responses are likely to vary depending on

the type and severity of domestic violence.

Implications for Practice

Despite the limitations described above, the results of this study have important implications for

practice.

Knowledge of Specific DV Topics

The majority of professionals responding to the survey reported knowledge of post-separation

violence, screening, and assessing dangerousness. However, judges, evaluators, and private

attorneys reported the least amount of these forms of knowledge. More DV training for judges,

evaluators and private attorneys on these topics would probably be helpful. Respondents who

reported more knowledge of these topics were less inclined to believe that allegations of DV are

false or that victims alienate the children. Workshop and lecture attendance were the methods of

knowledge acquisition most often associated with positive outcomes such as believing DV is

important in custody evaluations and recommending custody to the victim and supervised visits

for the father in the vignette. Information obtained through web sites, a low-cost means of

training, is also related to some positive outcomes, specifically the belief that DV is an important

factor to consider when making custody determinations, recommending supervised visits for the

violent parent in the vignette, and viewing DV as the likely cause of mental health symptoms of

the mother in the vignette. All professional groups involved in custody evaluations need DV

training prior to involvement in DV custody cases, as well as yearly continuing education.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Information on False Allegations of Domestic Violence

On average, the professionals as a whole estimated that 35 percent of fathers and 18 percent of

mothers falsely allege DV when the allegations are made in custody disputes. The evaluator

sub-group estimated that approximately one fifth of mothers and one fifth of fathers made false

allegations of DV in their cases. Future research should investigate and substantiate the actual

rates of false allegations in domestic violence cases. One study showed that mothers’ claims of DV

were substantiated at higher rates than fathers’ claims. But the study did not investigate the

extent of false allegations (Johnston, Lee, Oleson & Walters, 2005). A possible concern in our

findings is the higher estimates of false allegations by custody evaluators and private attorneys,

compared to those of the other professional sub-groups.

Information on False Allegations of Child Abuse

Evaluators gave higher estimates of false child abuse allegations than prior research shows (for a

review see Johnston, Lee, Oleson, & Walters, 2005), indicating that evaluators need more

information on this topic.

Custody Recommendations

Although the most common recommendation was, by far, that sole legal and physical custody be

awarded to victims, some evaluators reported that they recommended this option only

“occasionally” (19%). Of particular concern was the relatively high percentage of evaluators who

recommended that the victim receive physical custody and the parents share legal custody. The

potential negative implications of this arrangement need to be explained to evaluators given the

likelihood that many abusers will use the arrangement to continue harassment and manipulation

through legal channels.

Beliefs About False Allegations of Domestic Violence in Relation to Other Beliefs and

Recommendations

Among evaluators, the belief that allegations of domestic violence are usually false was part of a

constellation of beliefs, including beliefs that false allegations of child abuse and parental

alienation by DV survivors are common. DV educators need to provide accurate information on:

the rates and nature of false allegations and alienation; the ways in which survivors are reluctant

to co-parent out of fear of future harm; the mental health consequences of DV; and the

importance of understanding coercive-controlling forms of violence. In addition, the significant

relationships between beliefs about custody and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice,

and social dominance suggest links to deeper values. Professional educators can use value

awareness exercises that may help change beliefs and behavior. These recommendations apply to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

judges as well, since their beliefs about DV and custody were significantly related to the outcomes

recommended in the case vignette.

Professional Degrees, Roles, and Settings

Information emerged from this study regarding differences in beliefs and recommendations based

on evaluation settings, professional roles, and evaluators’ advanced degrees. If further analysis

and research supports the findings of this study, important implications emerge: (1) legal aid

attorneys and domestic violence workers hold very similar beliefs and are likely to collaborate well

as individual and system advocates; (2) characteristics and methods of social work evaluators need

to be studied more carefully to understand the reasons for their strong support of victims; (3) due

perhaps to the high proportion of social workers employed in court-based settings, county-court

evaluators’ beliefs supported survivors more than private evaluators’ beliefs. Additional analysis is

required to determine whether county-court evaluators’ beliefs lead to supportive practices.

Inquiring About and Screening for Domestic Violence

We found it reassuring that almost all evaluators directly inquired about the presence of domestic

violence when conducting a custody evaluation. However, only one third of evaluators consistently

used a screening instrument or standard screening protocol. A more consistent use of instruments

and standard protocols for DV screening is likely to increase the rate of DV detection, as they have

in other settings (e.g., Magen, Conroy, Hess, Pandiera, & Simon, 2001).

Of evaluators who reported using an instrument to “assess domestic violence,” 15 percent

reported using only general measures of personality-psychopathology. Although such measures

can detect personality disorders that might help place known abusers into typologies useful for

assessment and intervention, they may also lead to false conclusions about the psychopathology

of abusers and survivors (Erickson, 2006). Evaluators using general measures of

personality-psychopathology were more likely to recommend sole or joint custody to the abusive

father in the case vignette.

Selection of Custody Evaluators by Judges

Judges can use the findings of this study as a guide for selecting child custody evaluators. For

example, those who believed that domestic violence was an important factor in custody

evaluations were characterized by having particular types of domestic violence knowledge.

Guidance on selecting custody evaluators with adequate knowledge of domestic violence is

available (Dalton, Drozd & Wong, 2006).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Expanding Supervised Visitation and Exchange Programs

Many evaluators reported never recommending supervised visitation by professionals. A possible

reason is that supervised visitation programs are not available in evaluators’ communities.

Survivors emphasized the need for more supervised visitation programs to help keep them and

their children safe, both physically and psychologically.

In conclusion, this study reveals the extent to which evaluators and other professionals differ in

their beliefs regarding false allegations, alienation of the children, the importance of DV in custody

decisions, and the reasons that victims are reluctant to co-parent. Findings on the training

methods and domestic violence topics likely to be most effective will improve the training of

professionals. Such trainings are likely to lead to safer custody and visitation arrangements.

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Although the prevalence of domestic violence and child maltreatment has decreased over the last

three decades, both remain major crime and health problems affecting millions of families

(Catalano, 2006; Finkelhor & Jones, 2006; Straus & Gelles, 1990). This violence also seriously

affects victims’ mental health (Anderson & Saunders, 2007; Campbell & Kendall-Tackett, 2005;

Wolfe,

Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2004). Early interventions for domestic abuse focused

on victims’ immediate needs for safety through shelter, restraining orders, and arrest of offenders.

Systems advocacy focused primarily on changing the criminal justice system. Today the family law

arena is increasingly identified as needing reform to protect battered women and their children

(Goodmark, 2011). Research has documented the ongoing and sometimes escalating dangers

faced by victims and their children after they leave violent relationships. Homicidal threats,

stalking, and harassment affect as many as 25 to 35 percent of survivors who have left a violent

relationship (e.g., Bachman & Saltzman, 1995; Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000a). In addition, as many as one fourth of battered women report their ex-partners threatened

to hurt or kidnap their children (e.g., Liss & Stahly, 1993). Many abusers also use the legal system

to maintain contact with and harass their ex-partners (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).

Domestic abuse survivors and their children may experience serious harm as a result of family

court decisions. 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); sole or joint custody of children may be awarded to a violent or

potentially violent parent rather than a non-violent one; and mediation may be recommended or

mandated in a way that compromises victims’ rights or places them in more danger. Tragically, in

some cases post-separation contacts end in the homicide of a mother and/or her children

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

(Saunders, 2009; Sheeran & Hampton, 1999). 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 they occur.

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) DV survivors involved in

child custody mediation in California revealed that only 35 percent of survivors received primary

physical custody—lower than the 42 percent of non-victims who were awarded primary custody

(Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). In contrast, 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). 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.

Research also is needed to help inform debates in the field. For example, victim advocates and

family court professionals are often at odds over whether all domestic violence is the same and

whether mediation and shared parenting should be allowed in some cases (Salem &

Dunford-Jackson, 2008). Researchers and practitioners also continue to debate the extent to

which domestic violence is best described as violence against women and the extent to which it is

best described as “mutual combat.” For some, evidence that different patterns of abuse (mutual

combat vs. male-to-female violence) exist in different types of samples (Johnson, 2008) has

resolved this fundamental question. But others insist that when evaluators are taught that women

are the primary victims, they may produce biased evaluation outcomes (Dutton, 2006). In some

portions of the present study we investigate domestic violence against women. We take this

approach for several reasons, among them:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

 bias in the courts, as revealed by many gender-bias commissions, almost always finds

greater bias against women, which often increases risks to battered women and their

children in the context of custody determinations (Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2003);

 women use violence more often in self-defense than men, especially in lethal situations;

 women are more severely injured physically and psychologically than men;

 women are sexually assaulted and stalked at much higher rates than men; and

 women have more difficulty than men leaving violent relationships (Kimmel, 2002;

Saunders, 2002).

In addition, some of the most rigorous studies show gender disparities. In a large-scale,

representative study of the U.S. population, for example, 20 percent of women and 7 percent of

men reported experiencing intimate partner violence during their lifetimes (Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000b). Within the custody evaluation context, there is also evidence of some gender disparity.

For example, custody evaluators, primarily psychologists in private practice, reported their cases

to be comprised of the following types: 51 percent male instigator, 17 percent bidirectional mostly

male, 14 percent bidirectional mutual (both male and female instigators), 11 percent female

instigator, and 7 percent bidirectional mostly female (Bow & Boxer, 2003).

Gender Bias in the Courts

Battered women are at higher risk of negative custody-visitation outcomes due to gender bias by

courts, as documented by many federal, state, and local commissions that have studied such bias

since the 1980s (e.g., Abrams & Greaney, 1989; Czapanskiy, 1993; Danforth & Welling, 1996;

Dragiewicz, 2010; Meier, 2003; Zorza, 1996)

. Negative stereotypes about women seem to

encourage judges to disbelieve women’s allegations about child abuse (Danforth & Welling, 1996;

Zorza, 1996). A lack of understanding about domestic violence also leads judges to accuse victims

of lying, blaming victims for the violence, and trivializing the violence (Abrams & Greaney, 1989;

Maryland Special Joint Committee on Gender Bias, 1989).

Gender bias is frequently uncovered in custody disputes (Rosen & Etlin, 1996) and often leads to

mistrust of women—in particular to the belief that they make false allegations of child abuse and

domestic violence. Dragiewicz (2010) provides a comprehensive summary of gender bias reports

pertaining to custody decisions. In addition to the tendency to disbelieve or minimize women’s

reports of abuse, or to disregard evidence for it, Dragiewicz also describes other problems

uncovered during investigations. These include mothers being punished for reporting abuse, unfair

See also a list of gender bias reports from 43 states and 7 federal districts at

http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/njep/njep-task-forces.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

financial settlements, and mothers being held to higher standards than fathers. In a study of

appellate state court decisions, sole or joint custody was awarded to an alleged or adjudicated

batterer in 36 of 38 cases, several of which involved severe battering and multiple convictions.

However, two thirds of these cases were reversed on appeal (Meier, 2003).

Failure to Understand the Nature of Domestic Abuse

Judges, child custody evaluators, and others involved in determining custody and visitation

arrangements may simply be unaware of the factors that indicate actual or potential harm. For

example, they may be unaware that:

 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);

 battered women’s risk of abusing their children is also above the norm, but is half

that of men who batter and seems to be more situational (Saunders, 2007);

 many 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;

 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).

Practitioners may also have serious misconceptions about custody cases and domestic abuse. For

example:

 Practitioners may not understand why survivors stay in the relationship. A woman

might stay in the relationship because she believes that it is the best way to protect

her children—a decision that can be interpreted as a failure to protect her children.

Failure to protect is a claim that can be used against her in custody disputes. On the

other hand, if she flees suddenly with the children or wants to live far from her

abuser, her actions are often interpreted negatively (see Saunders, 2007, for a

review). Researchers have found women may stay for a variety of reasons related

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

to concerns for the children: fear of financial loss; belief that the children need their

father; fear that she will lose custody to a father who is a likely child abuser; fear

that she and her children will be stalked, abused, and/or killed; and family pressure

(Hardesty & Chung, 2006; Hardesty & Ganong; 2006; Radford & Hester, 2006).

 Practitioners may misinterpret the demeanor of battered women. Due to the

trauma of the violence and the added stress of fearing the loss of child custody to

an abuser, survivors may be extremely emotional. Alternately, they may seem

indifferent, due to the numbing effects of posttraumatic stress (APA, 1996;

Erickson, 2006; Crites & Coker, 1988). The hostility some victims show can be a sign

of posttraumatic stress disorder or a reaction to injustices they have endured.

Regardless, such an affect is at odds with the courts image of a “good mother”

(Neustein & Lesher, 2005). What may seem like chronic emotional instability,

however, is likely to be situational and caused by past and current trauma (Erickson,

2006). Gender bias might also lead evaluators to interpret the same psychological

symptoms very differently for fathers and mothers (Lesher, 2010). Careful

assessment is needed to determine the extent to which a victim’s psychological

symptoms interfere with parenting and how quickly they will abate once she is safe

(Geffner, Conradi, Geis, & Aranda, 2009).

 There is a misconception that false allegations of abuse are common in custody

cases. Studies show that rates of false allegations of child abuse are quite low in

divorce cases (e.g., Faller, 2005; Trocme & Bala, 2005). Two studies have revealed

that, contrary to the view that mothers are more likely to falsely allege domestic

violence, mothers are more likely to have their abuse allegations substantiated than

fathers (Davis, O’Sullivan, Susser, & Fields, 2010; Johnston, Lee, Oleson, & Walters,

2005). In a 1997 study of evaluators, nearly half of the abuse allegations (physical,

sexual, emotional abuse with family member not specified) were seen as false or

inflated (LaFortune & Carpenter, 1998). In only 20 percent of cases that included

allegations did evaluators find clear evidence of abuse. More male than female

evaluators believed allegations to be false (57 and 34 percent, respectively). In a

preliminary analysis of supervised visitation professionals’ beliefs about false

allegations, we found that the stronger the belief in false allegations of domestic

violence, the stronger the beliefs that (a) safety of the child is unrelated to the

safety of the parent; (b) men who abuse their partners in front of the children do

not need supervised visitation; (c) a child who does not want to visit an accused

parent has been manipulated by the other parent; and (d) conditions of visitation

should only be based on the parent’s treatment of the child and not of the other

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

parent (Saunders, Sullivan, Tolman, & Grabarek, 2007). Therefore, a constellation of

beliefs related to the perceived trustworthiness of parents appears to exist.

Failure to Detect or Document Abuse in Custody Determinations

Several studies reveal that, in many custody-visitation proceedings, domestic violence remains

either undetected or is not documented when it is detected (e.g., Araji & Bosek, 2010; Davis,

O’Sullivan, Fields, Susser, 2011; Johnson, Saccuzzo, & Koen, 2005; Kernic, Monary-Ernsdorff,

Koepsell, & Holt, 2005; Voices of Women, 2008). Some survivors do not report abuse. They may

fear the report will be used against them, or do not report the abuse at the urging of their

attorneys or mediators (O’Sullivan, 2000; Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004; Voices of Women, 2008).

Rates of DV detection differ considerably across jurisdictions and these differences are likely the

result of different court procedures (Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson, & Spinozza,

1997).

Even if domestic violence is detected, it is often ignored as a factor important in determining

custody and visitation arrangements. 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).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Friendly Parent Statutes

The majority of states include a “friendly parent” factor that must be considered in custody

determinations (Zorza, in press; 2007). Parents are expected to facilitate a good relationship

between the children and the other parent. Despite a reasonable reluctance to co-parent out of

fear of harm to themselves or their children (Hardesty & Ganong, 2006), survivors may end up

being labeled “unfriendly” or “uncooperative,” thereby increasing the risk of losing their children

(American Psychological Association, 1996). The friendly-parent standard works against survivors

because any concerns they voice about father-child contact or safety for themselves are usually

interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Zorza, 1996).

Survivors are therefore placed in a no-win situation: If they do not report abuse, then protections

for them and solid grounds for custody are not available; yet reporting the abuse may be viewed

as raising false allegations in order to gain advantage in divorce proceedings (Dore, 2004).

Research shows that parents who raise concerns about child sexual abuse can be severely

sanctioned for doing so (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). The sanctions include loss of custody to the

alleged offender, restricted visitation, and court orders not to report further abuse or take the

child to a therapist (Faller & DeVoe, 1995; Neustein & Goetting, 1999; Neustein & Lesher, 2005;

Voices of Women, 2008). In practice, friendly-parent provisions, together with statutes presuming

joint custody, tend to override presumptions against awarding joint legal custody with the abuser

(Morrill, Dai, Dunn, Sung, & Smith, 2005). Fortunately, some states provide exemptions to the

application of the friendly-parent factor in cases of domestic violence.

Further compounding victims’ experiences are contradictory messages from criminal courts, family

courts, child protection investigations, and visitation services (Hester, 2009). For example, criminal

courts support victims’ testimony about the abuse, but in family court the same testimony might

be interpreted as non-cooperation. To overcome these inconsistencies some states have

introduced integrated DV courts (Aldrich & Kluger, 2010).

Labeling Survivors as “Alienating Parents”

Similar to the emphasis on cooperative parenting, use of the label “parent-alienation syndrome”

(Gardner, 1998) or, more recently, “parental-alienation disorder” (Bernet, 2008; Bernet, von

Boch-Galhau, Baker, & Morrison, 2010) can also place battered women in a no-win situation.

Battered mothers are vulnerable to these labels when they make formal child abuse allegations or

raise concerns about the possible abuse of the children by an ex-partner. Many child abuse

professionals believe that mothers coach their children to make false allegations in contested

custody disputes (Faller, 2007). As noted earlier, they may even face court sanctions and lose

custody as a result of raising such concerns (Faller & DeVoe, 1995). However, research indicates

that although false allegations may occur more frequently in divorce-access disputes, the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

non-custodial parent (usually the father), not the custodial parent (usually the mother) tends to

make more false reports (Trocme & Bala, 2005). Practitioners who apply parent-alienation

syndrome (PAS) or parent-alienation disorder formulations tend to automatically label a parent as

an “alienator” without a thorough investigation of the allegations (Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, &

Sheehan, 2000; Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2001; Meier, 2009). As a result, battered

mothers may be viewed as both pathological and abusive.

Although reviews of court decisions and legal reviews generally find that “parent alienation

syndrome” is not admissible in court testimony (Bruch, 2001; Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006; Meier,

2009), there are notable exceptions. Bernet and colleagues documented 22 court cases in which

parental alienation syndrome or disorder was permitted in court testimony (Bernet, von

Boch-Galhau, Kenan, Kinlan, Lorandos, Sauber, Sood, & Walker, 2008). Recently, there have also

been attempts to include parental alienation disorder in the DSM V (Bernet, et al.), and rebuttals

of those attempts have appeared (Walker & Shapiro, 2010).

Nevertheless, there is a new focus on the reasons that children may feel alienated from a parent,

including the experience of seeing their fathers abuse their mothers or being directly abused by a

parent (Johnston, 2006; Johnston, et al., 2005). Many professionals are also skeptical about the

empirical basis for parent-alienation syndrome and parent alienation. In one survey of

professionals involved with custody decisions (evaluators, judges/trial attorneys, and court

facilitators), most rated themselves as very knowledgeable about parent alienation (Bow, Gould, &

Flens, 2009). The majority did not believe that parent alienation had much empirical support and

they believed that parent alienation syndrome had even less empirical support. As a group, survey

participants estimated that parent alienation occurred in 26 percent of their cases, with mothers

more frequently being reported as alienators than fathers (66 vs 34 percent). A low percentage (12

percent) believed that parent-alienation syndrome met the Daubert criteria for admissibility in

court proceedings. On the other hand, about half of the evaluators in Baker’s (2007) survey

believed that PAS met the Daubert criteria. Three fourths believed it was very important to assess

for PAS but only 16 percent believed that it was very important to add to the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual. The differences between the Bow, et al. findings and the Baker findings might

stem from the different samples: The former included a diverse range of professionals and the

latter included only evaluators.

Professional Training, Guidelines, and Standards

The effect that education and training have on custody evaluators and judges has received very

little attention. Evaluators and judges may need more training on the continued safety risks to

children from abusive fathers, the likelihood of post-separation violence, and concerns about the

use of mediation, parent alienation syndrome, and false allegations (Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson,

2003; Saunders, 1994; Saunders, 2007). A 1996 survey conducted by Ackerman and Ackerman

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

(1996) found that psychologists who conducted child custody evaluations listed mental illness of a

parent and the couples’ inability to communicate, cooperate, or resolve conflict as the major

reasons to prefer sole custody in all cases (61 and 56 percents, respectively), compared with 38

percent who listed evidence of physical or sexual abuse. A parent’s attempt to alienate the child

and alcoholism problems were rated as more important factors in recommending custody than

physical abuse allegations. In 2008 Ackerman & Ackerman repeated the study, but discovered very

different results. Indeed, 64 percent of respondents listed physical or sexual abuse as a major

reason for sole custody, compared with 42 percent, who cited communication problems and 38

who cited mental illness of a parent. In a 2001 survey of psychologist evaluators, the three most

important criteria for custody recommendations were parent-child emotional ties, willingness and

ability of parents to encourage a close relationship with the other parent, and domestic

violence—regardless of whether it was directed at the child (Bow & Quinnell, 2001; 8.1 to 8.4 on a

9 point scale with 9 = “extremely important”).

Bow and Boxer (2003) found that almost all evaluators had some DV training and that evaluators

appeared to follow established standards for custody evaluations when evaluating DV cases.

Evaluators tended to use multiple sources of information, but they did not use specialized

domestic violence questionnaires or instruments. Detection of domestic violence was crucial since

the evaluators indicated that a history of domestic violence weighed heavily in their

recommendations. Of those responding, 76 percent listed it as “greatly” or “extremely” important.

Power/control issues and jealousy/possessiveness were weighed more heavily than physical abuse

in the evaluation process. Psychological testing was given a moderate amount of weight—less

than interviews with family members, observing parent-child interactions, reviewing police and

medical records, and contacting therapists.

Evaluators’ theoretical orientation appears to play a role in shaping their evaluations. An analysis

of custody records of DV cases in one city showed that evaluators who viewed “power and

control,” as opposed to family system dynamics or psychoanalytic factors, as the basis for DV,

were more likely to recommend parenting plans with higher levels of safety (Davis, O’Sullivan,

Susser, & Fields, 2010). Women were more likely than men to have a power-and-control

orientation. In a qualitative study of 23 evaluators, clear differences were found between “family

violence” and feminist perspectives (Haselschwerdt, Hardesty, & Hans, 2011). The feminist group

had much more DV training, used a power-and-control orientation, and differentiated among

types of DV. They believed spouse abuse is highly relevant to custody evaluation, false allegations

are relatively rare, and recommendations should emphasize safety over co-parenting.

In a study of 60 judges, those with domestic violence education were more likely to grant sole

custody to abused mothers (Morrill et al., 2005). This education was not related to the extent of

DV knowledge or attitudes about domestic violence and supervised visitation. However, only the

past three years of education was included, its extent was not fully measured, and there were only

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

eight judges in the untrained group. An evaluation of the judges education program “Enhancing

Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases,” developed by the National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, showed that judges overestimated

their skills and competence prior to the training (Jaffe, 2010). Six months after training, the

majority of judges saw specific behavior changes in the areas of victim safety, batterer

accountability, and judicial leadership.

Increasingly, training and resource manuals on domestic violence are available for judges and

court managers, including guidelines for selecting custody evaluators and guardians ad litem

(Dalton et al., 2006; Maxwell & Oehme, 2001; Goelman, Lehrman, & Valente, 1996; Lemon, Jaffe,

& Ganley, 1995; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1995; National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2006; Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson, & Spinozza,

1997). One resource for judges addresses cultural considerations for diverse populations (Ramos &

Runner, 1999). Some states require initial and/or continuing domestic violence education for

judges, attorneys, mediators, and custody evaluators. Other states require the development of

curricula but stop short of requiring training.

Standards and guidelines have also been developed for custody evaluators and

supervised-visitation monitors. Most commonly cited are those from the American Psychological

Association (2010), the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (2006), and the Supervised

Visitation network. One article recommends custody evaluation guidelines for clinical social

workers (Luftman, Veltkamp, Clark, Lannacone, & Snooks, 2005). The American Law Institute’s

principles are offered as a guide for judges and advocates to bring greater justice to DV cases

(Sussman, 2010). Some researchers have attempted to assess the extent to which evaluations

adhere to general, professional standards (e.g., Horvath et al., 2002 Zelechoski, 2009).

Differential Assessment and Recommendations

Recently, research on different types of domestic violence (Holtzworth-Munroe, Meehan, Herron,

Rehman, & Stuart, 2000; Johnson, 2008; Swan & Snow, 2002) has been used to suggest more

individualized guidelines for custody and visitation decisions (e.g., Jaffe & Crooks, 2007; see also

special issues of Family Court Review, Olson & Ver Steegh, 2008, and Journal of Child Custody,

2009). The main types described are (a) coercive-controlling forms of violence that tend to be

chronic and severe (often referred to as “battering”) and (b) violence that appears to arise from

conflicts within the relationship and tends to be non-severe. Separation-instigated violence is a

third type, although it has much less empirical support than other types (Johnson, 2008; Stark,

2009). A single incident of minor violence during the separation process tends to be viewed much

differently than repeated, severe, and coercive violence (Gould, Martindale, & Eidman, 2008).

However, scholars debate whether such minor violence is typical of “separation violence” and

whether attention to minor violence could lead to complacency (Dalton, 1999; Stark, 2009), given

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

the increased risk for domestic homicide after separation, in some cases with no prior violence

(Nicolaidis, Curry, Ulrich, Sharps, McFarlane, Campbell, Gary, Laughon, Glass, & Campbell, 2003).

Misconceptions and ambiguities about “situational violence” exist as well, and more research is

needed to understand this type of violence (Johnson, 2008). Contrary to some descriptions, this

situational violence is not necessarily “mutual.”

Fathers’ Rights Groups

The influence of fathers’ rights groups on evaluators and judges is unclear outside of anecdotal

accounts (Kurth, 2010). Some types of groups lobby for the presumption of joint custody and

co-parenting and doubt the validity of most domestic violence allegations (Dragiewicz, 2008;

Williams, Boggess, & Carter, 2004). For example, the National Fathers’ Resource Center (NFRC),

along with Fathers for Equal Rights, “demands that society acknowledge that false claims of

Domestic Violence are used to gain unfair advantages in custody and divorce cases” (NFRC, 2006).

They further state:

Fathers’ organizations now estimate that up to 80% of domestic violence

allegations against men are false allegations. Since society offers women so many

perks for claiming that they are victims of DV (we call these perks “warm milk and

cookies”), false or staged DV allegations now appear to be even more frequent in

family court cases than false sex abuse allegations. . . . Simply stated, women

know, and are often advised by their attorneys, that if they want to get custody of

the children, they had better try to nail dad with some sort of domestic violence

accusation (NFRC, 2006).

A quantitative study of 236 fathers’ rights web sites found that 35 percent of sites included claims

that mothers falsely allege child abuse, and 27 percent included claims that wives falsely allege

domestic violence (Rosen, Dragiewicz, & Gibbs, 2009). Interestingly, states with statutes favoring

joint custody were associated with a higher number of web sites supporting fathers’ rights themes.

Father Engagement

When abusers do not have custody, they may be required to participate in supervised visitation,

monitored by a professional, paraprofessional, friend, or relative. Supervised visitation programs,

using professional and/or paraprofessional monitors, have grown considerably in the last 15 years

(United States Department of Justice, 2006). Courts may set conditions prior to or concurrent with

visitation. Conditions can include substance abuse and mental health assessments and completion

of batterer intervention and parent education programs. Special parenting programs for men who

batter have developed in recent years, either as modules within existing intervention programs or

as stand-alone programs (Edleson, Mbilinyi, & Shetty, 2003; Edleson & Williams, 2007). The

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

evaluation of these programs is in its infancy (e.g., Scott & Crooks, 2007). In the 1980s, however,

two studies of programs for men who batter investigated the reduction of actual or potential

violence toward children (Myers, 1984; Stacey & Shupe, 1984). Both studies showed promising

results.

Background Factors and Core Beliefs

It is likely that some traits and background factors are related to beliefs about false allegations,

similar to findings about victim-blaming attitudes (Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987). For

example, a professional with a history of being abused as a child or adult may be more likely to

show positive attitudes and behavior toward victims (Yoshihama & Mills, 2003). Firsthand

acquaintance with survivors can influence professionals’ responses, for example with increased

detection of DV (Saunders & Kindy, 1993). In one study, male college students who did not have a

history of childhood trauma involving betrayal were more skeptical of reports of child sexual abuse

when compared with male college students who did experience betrayal (Cromer, 2006).

Women are consistently less likely than men to blame victims of domestic violence and sexual

assault (e.g., Saunders, Lynch, Grayson, & Linz, 1987). In one study, female family court judges

showed more knowledge of domestic violence and greater support for victim protections (Morrill

et al., 2005). As noted in the gender bias reports, patriarchal attitudes seem to play a major role in

the treatment of battered women. Clear evidence demonstrates connections between sexist

beliefs (patriarchal norms) and blaming battered women for their abuse (Saunders et al., 1987).

Such attitudes are likely related to minimizing abuse or doubting the veracity of abuse reports.

Underlying the patriarchal beliefs and victim blaming are likely to be deeper, “core” beliefs (i.e.

general, value-laden beliefs) about justice and equality. For example, the belief that the world is

basically a just place has been related to various forms of victim blaming or denigration. It asserts

that good things can happen only to good people and bad things can happen only to bad people

(Rubin & Peplau, 1975). Likewise, holding a basic belief that hierarchies are an inherent part of

society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and having inequality as a core value (Ball-Rokeach, 1976) are

related to beliefs supporting gender inequality. Men are more likely than women to have a

social-dominance orientation across various contexts and demographic groups (Sidanius & Pratto,

1999). An understanding of such core beliefs can be useful in educational programs designed to

change attitudes by creating dissonance between core beliefs (terminal values) and attitudes

(Grube, Mayton, & Ball-Rokeach, 1994), and in understanding more fully the connection between

attitudes and behavior (Crano & Prislin, 2006; Wray, 2006). This understanding can also be helpful

in developing educational information, as it has been in countering rape myths (e.g., Foubert &

Perry, 2007; Gidycz, Layman, Rich, Crothers, & Gylys, 2001).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Macro Context: State Laws

Other than Morrill and colleagues’ (2005) findings on friendly-parent provisions, research has not

focused on the influence of state laws. However, state laws may have considerable impact on

practice, given the variety of legal innovations intended to protect survivors and their children.

Every state now lists domestic violence as a factor to be considered in custody decisions, and in

many states it is given special weight. The custody/visitation section of the Model Code on

Domestic and Family Violence—developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges (NCJFCJ, 1994)—has now been adopted by the majority of states. These statutes use the

model’s wording, or similar wording, that there exists a “rebuttable presumption that it is

detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint

legal custody, or joint physical custody with the perpetrator of family violence” (p. 33). Although

statutes have become increasingly precise regarding definitions of domestic violence, they may

leave children vulnerable to psychological abuse when exposure to DV is not included in the

definition (Dunford-Jackson, 2004).

Statutes also address other issues related to custody and visitation. These often include:

 standards for supervised visitation and exchange programs;

 exempting domestic violence cases from mandated mediation (Dunford-Jackson,

2004; Girdner, 1996);

 protecting battered women from charges of “child abandonment” if they flee for

safety without their children (Cahn, 1991); and

 making it easier for victims to relocate for safety reasons.

Recent statutory innovations have been implemented in a few states. For example, a mediated

agreement can be declined by the court if domestic violence affected the victim’s ability to make

the agreement (NCJFCJ, 2005). Moreover, if a parent alleges that a child is exposed to domestic

violence, such allegations cannot be used against the parent bringing the allegation (NCJFCJ,

2004).

Other countries, most notably New Zealand, Australia, and some Canadian provinces also have

passed laws intended to add protections. New Zealand law includes a broad definition of domestic

violence that incorporates “various tactics of power and control that perpetrators commonly

employ,” including “threats, intimidation, harassment, damage to property” (Busch and

Robertson, 2000, p. 274). It also specifies protection for domestic violence victims from the

accusation they failed to protect their children from the abuser (Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003),

stating that “the person who suffers the abuse is not regarded as having allowed the child to see

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

or hear the abuse.” The law further includes a requirement that the court consider safety

measures for the victim when the abuser is granted visitation (Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson 2003); and

a rebuttable presumption against granting custody or unsupervised access to a parent who used

violence towards a child or the other parent. The court is required to weigh specific criteria such as

the likelihood of further violence, the physical and emotional harm caused to the child by the

violence, and steps taken by the violent party to prevent further violence from occurring (Busch &

Robertson, 2000).

Resources for Survivors

The outcomes for domestic violence survivors may depend greatly on the resources available to

them. Some survivors and advocates see lengthy court battles as attempts by abusers to drain

survivors financially. The availability of pro bono representation and legal aid services for poor

women is likely to have important benefits. Despite the development of improved protections,

some parents and children experience serious problems with the legal system. These parents

sometimes form grassroots support and advocacy groups that conduct court watches and help

parents share common court experiences. Such groups are especially supportive when parents

lose custody while trying to protect children and themselves from abuse (Anderson, 2010). In

2007, ten mothers and a victimized child (now an adult) and national and state organizations filed

suit against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. They claimed

that the human rights of abused mothers and children were not protected because custody was

awarded to abusers and child molesters (Klein, 2007).

CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES

Based on the outcomes, beliefs, and background factors reviewed above, we constructed a

conceptual model for this study, linking these factors to the belief that false allegations are

common. This model is shown in Figure 1 below, but for the sake of simplicity only the major

relationships are shown. During both the pilot and regular studies we were able to add and modify

some variables. A revised conceptual model is also shown below (Figure 2).

Based on the review of the literature and our preliminary studies, we formulated the following

hypotheses:

1. The belief that there is a high rate of false allegations of domestic violence will be

positively correlated with other beliefs: that there is a high rate of false allegations

of child abuse; that the abuse of a parent is not relevant in custody/supervision

decisions; that parents alienate children from the other parent; and that parents do

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

not need to be protected as much as children do. In contrast to the more general,

value-laden core beliefs about patriarchal norms, just world, and social hierarchies,

we label these surface beliefs.

2. There will be a positive correlation between belief in false allegations of domestic

violence and two recommendations: awarding joint or sole custody to a domestic

abuser and unsupervised visitation for abusive, non-custodial parents.

3. There will be a positive correlation between attitudes blaming domestic violence

victims and belief in false allegations.

4. There will be a positive correlation between a belief in high rates of false allegations

and belief in a just world, a social-dominance orientation, and patriarchal norms.

5. The positive correlation between beliefs in a just world and social dominance,

and a belief in high rates of false allegations will be explained (mediated) by

patriarchal norms.

6. Males, those with little or no history of family violence, and/or those with little

or no training about abuse, will more strongly believe that false allegations are

made during custody evaluations.

7. Custody evaluators and others involved in decisions about custody and

supervision will have stronger beliefs in false allegations than will advocates for

domestic abuse survivors.

We are also able to explore the overall contribution (percent variance explained) of sets of

variables—beliefs about custody, core beliefs, and background—in explaining custody-visitation

recommendations. The qualitative analysis of interviews with survivors helped us to interpret the

quantitative findings.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 1. Original Conceptual Model for the Relationships Among Beliefs about False Allegations, Outcomes, and Core Beliefs

CORE BELIEFS SURFACE BELIEFS OUTCOMES

Justice:

Belief that

the World is

Just

Equality:

Belief in

Social

Hierarchies

[Social

Dominance

Orientation]

Patriarchal

Beliefs

[Gender

Inequality]

• Domestic

abuse

victims are

to blame

•Abuse is

not serious

BACKGROUND & TRAITS

 Gender: Male

 No history of own

victimization

 No training re:

abuse

Belief in high rate of

false allegations of child

abuse (emotional,

sexual, and/or physical)

Belief in high rate of

false allegations of

domestic violence

 Custody criteria: abuse of child,

not of parent, as sole criterion

 Parents alienate child from

other parent

 Child, but not parent, needs to

be protected

Unsupervised or under-

supervised visits or

exchanges

Joint or sole custody to

offender

Mediation

Divorce counseling

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 2. Final Conceptual Model for the Relationship Among Core Beliefs, Beliefs about False Allegations, & Outcomes

CORE BELIEFS MACRO CONTEXT SURFACE BELIEFS OUTCOMES

Equality:

Belief in

Social

Hierarchies

[Social

Dominance

Orientation]

Patriarchal

Beliefs

[Gender

Inequality]

DV as coercive-

control & as

having mental

health

consequences

BACKGROUND & TRAITS

 Gender: Male

 No history of own

victimization

 Not knowing victims

 Private vs. county

setting

 Little training re: DV

Belief in high rate of

false allegations of child

abuse (emotional,

sexual, and/or physical)

Belief in high rate of

false allegations of

domestic violence

 Custody criteria: abuse of child

but not parent important

 Parents alienate child from other

parent

 Parents psychologically harm child

Unsupervised or under-

supervised visits or

exchanges

Joint or sole custody to

offender

Mediation

Screening for

domestic violence

State statutes

Justice:

Belief that

the World is

Just

Equality:

Belief in

Social

Hierarchies

[Social

Dominance

Orientation]

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study had two major parts. Part 1 was a survey of professionals, primarily custody evaluators.

Part 2 used qualitative, semi-structured interviews with domestic abuse survivors who

experienced negative outcomes in family court, such as losing custody of their children. Prior to

conducting these parts of the project we conducted a six-month pilot study in order to test the

implementation of the mailed and web surveys, conduct psychometric analyses of survey scales,

and test and refine our survivor interview questions and procedures.

Seventy-six professionals, likely to include a substantial number of evaluators, were recruited by

letter (seven were returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address). They were given the

options of mailed or web-based survey completion. We recruited 266 more professionals through

two waves of e-mail invitations (26 e-mails were undeliverable and two professionals reported

they were not evaluators). This group was given the option of a web-based survey. We followed

the Dillman (2005) procedure for recruitment by mail: an introductory letter followed by the

survey with a cover letter, then by a postcard reminder/thank you, and then by another copy of

the survey. For the e-mail invitation, we sent two reminder e-mails within 10 days of the initial

one. More information on the lists used in recruitment and the invitation procedures are given

below for the regular study.

Sixty-two usable responses were obtained from evaluators through both methods of recruitment.

For the survivor interviews, we completed five pilot interviews at four sites. They were conducted

by four different interviewers.

We accomplished several goals through the pilot study:

1. We were able to substantially reduce the number of survey items by eliminating

those that did not add to the reliability of a scale. For example, one scale was

reduced from 15 to 5 items. Other items that we had created were eliminated

because they were not part of reliable subscales. By shortening the survey from 25

to 20 minutes, we hoped to increase the response rate.

2. We observed that even with a relatively small sample, almost all of the hypotheses

were supported.

3. We found that 90% of the evaluators were in private practice. In order to

understand possible differences between private practitioners and evaluators in

county court-based settings, we decided to over-recruit the latter group in the main

study to achieve a sufficient sample size for analysis.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4. We observed that the response rate for both the mailed and e-mailed invitations

was much lower than expected, and we needed to develop our invitation lists and

modify our procedures with that in mind.

5. The scale variance for the Inventory of Beliefs About Wife-Beating (Saunders, Lynch,

Grayson, & Linz, 1987) was not great enough for use in the main study. Only a few

of the respondents held victim-blaming beliefs, perhaps reflecting either changing

attitudes in the 20 years since the scale was developed or an increased tendency to

give politically correct responses.

6. We revised the victim interview protocol. Most notably, we embedded the history

of violence into the section on the custody evaluation in order to increase the

chance that we would cover the custody material thoroughly.

7. We provided feedback to the interviewers to help them improve their interview

methods, in particular helping them meet the challenge of balancing emotional

support with information gathering.

PART 1: SURVEY OF PROFESSIONALS

Methods

Sample

The original plan involved the participation of 445 custody evaluators, 70 family court judges, and

70 domestic violence advocates in the United States. We added a sample of legal aid attorneys

because of their frequent involvement in battered women’s custody cases. Private attorneys were

also added for comparison purposes. There were 1,246 professionals who responded to either a

web-based or mailed survey, and 1,187 had enough responses to be included in analyses. Of those

with usable surveys, there were 465 evaluators, 200 judges, 131 legal aid attorneys, 119 private

attorneys, and 193 domestic abuse survivor program workers. There were also 4 attorney

educators, 12 attorneys who could not be classified, 28 from other professions (e.g., law

enforcement, probation, therapist, mediator, rehabilitation counselor, abuser intervention

worker), and 34 with missing information on professional role. The five largest groups were used

in the analysis comparing professional groups.

The tables below show demographic characteristics and experience levels for the five major

groups. Different subscripts in the tables indicated significant differences between groups in a

pair-wise comparison. Almost all of the domestic violence (DV) program workers were women, as

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

were the majority of custody evaluators and attorneys; 43% of the judges were women. The

majority of judges, evaluators, and private attorneys were more than 50 years old. All

professionals had advanced degrees except for 6% of the evaluators and 52% of the DV program

workers. Among those with advanced degrees, half of the DV workers had masters degrees

compared with 42% of the evaluators; 6% of the DV workers with an advanced degree had a

doctorate compared with 40% of the evaluators. The judges had the most experience with custody

cases, followed by the two attorney groups, then by the evaluators, with the DV program workers

having the least amount of experience. However, in the past year the evaluators and DV workers

did not differ in the number of cases with which they were involved. The two attorney groups

showed the most similarity, with no significant differences on gender, education, type of advanced

degree, and the total number of custody cases with which they were involved.

Evaluators were categorized by the type of advanced degrees they had. Approximately half (52%)

were psychologists, 24% were social workers, 7% counselors, 6% marriage and family therapists,

3% lawyers, 2% psychiatrists, and 6% “other or multiple” (e.g., criminal justice, human

development, divinity, education, public administration).

Recruitment Procedures and Response to Invitations

Multiple procedures were used for recruiting the different professional groups. The procedures

differed somewhat across the groups.

Custody evaluators. We used several methods to locate custody evaluators. There are no national,

regional, or state organizations of evaluators. Therefore we relied on indirect methods for

generating lists for invitations, as follows: (a) locating members of the Association of Family and

Conciliation Courts (AFCC) who were psychologists, since they are likely to conduct custody

evaluations; (b) doing web searches for evaluators; (c) using a list used by another researcher

conducting a similar survey that was based primarily on web searches, with telephone

confirmation that the people conducted evaluations; and, (d) making e-mail and telephone contact

with the directors of court-based custody evaluation units. From these county court contacts we

also learned which states and counties had county court-based evaluators and often obtained

information on their roles, training, education, and professional affiliations. We wanted to

over-recruit court-based evaluators because we were informed by some DV advocates and by the

court unit directors that court workers usually had different levels of DV training and educational

backgrounds than private evaluators. Our final sample included 54% who worked in private

settings, 29% in court settings, and 14% in both. A small percentage (3%) worked in other settings,

such as hospitals and university training clinics. Some of those reporting both “private” and

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 1

Demographics and Experiences of Professional Groups (n = 1,107)

Variable

Primary Role

Evaluators

(n = 465)

Judges

(n = 200)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Program

Workers

(n = 192)

Gender

Female

59.9%

43.4%

75.4%

73.1%

97.3%

Male

40.1%

56.6%

24.6%

26.9%

2.7%

Age

18-29

0.9%

0.0%

0.8%

12.3%

17.8%

30-39

6.5%

2.0%

8.5%

24.6%

20.9%

40-49

17.8%

13.1%

24.6%

28.5%

18.8%

50-59

39.9%

49.0%

39.0%

21.5%

30.9%

60+

35.0%

35.9%

27.1%

13.1%

11.5%

Education

High school

0.0%

2.6%

Some college

0.7%

0.0%

16.2%

Four years of college

4.4%

0.0%

33.5%

Advanced degree

94.9%

100.0%

47.6%

Advanced Degree

Masters

42.0%

0.0%

0.8%

1.5%

52.2%

Ph.D.

40.3%

0.0%

6.5%

Psy.D.

5.8%

0.5%

0.0%

M.D.

1.2%

0.0%

J.D.

0.2%

97%

90.7%

90.8%

31.5%

Other

10.5%

2.5

8.5%

7.6%

9.8%

Note. Different subscripts indicate significant differences between groups.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 2

Experience with Custody Cases by Primary Role (n = 1,107)

Variable

Primary Role

Evaluators

(n = 465)

Judges

(n = 200)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Program

Workers

(n = 192)

Total custody cases

involved/ evaluated

0.0%

3.2%

1-25

14.6%

1.0%

5.1%

8.5%

28.3%

26-50

13.3%

1.5%

4.2%

10.0%

13.4%

51-100

14.6%

4.0%

15.3%

13.1%

18.2%

101-500

37.1%

24.5%

40.7%

40.8%

24.6%

501-1000

14.2%

26.5%

19.5%

16.9%

10.7%

Over 1000

6.1%

42.5%

15.3%

10.8%

1.6%

Number of custody cases

involved/evaluated per year

9.1%

3.0%

0.8%

1.5%

7.4%

1-5

30.4%

5.0%

12.6%

13.1%

28.2%

6-20

34.3%

13.0%

42.0%

24.6%

35.6%

21-50

16.7%

22.0%

30.3%

30.0%

18.6%

51-100

6.3%

21.5%

7.6%

20.8%

8.0%

Over 100

3.0%

35.5%

6.7%

10.0%

2.1%

Note. Different subscripts indicate significant differences between groups.

Item wording for evaluators:

Approximately how many custody evaluations have you completed altogether in your career? Item wording for

other professionals: Approximately how many custody and visitation cases, if any, have you been involved

with in your career (in all your roles and positions combined)?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

“court” settings might have meant they worked privately but received court referrals, since it is

unlikely someone could be employed by county government while in private practice. The

question was, “In what settings do you conduct evaluations?” rather than asking the source of

employment.

We used both e-mail and mailed invitations because some sampling bias can occur if only one

method is used (Dillman, 2005). We found that those who responded by mail were significantly

older, had conducted custody evaluations for a greater number of years, and had less domestic

violence training than those who responded by e-mail. Therefore, the use of both methods of data

gathering added variation to the sample.

We sent 4,017 e-mail invitations after removing from the list seven project consultants or

potential consultants and five staff of a national organization who we knew were not evaluators.

The e-mail invitations were sent in 35 separate waves from May 31, 2009, through March 29,

2010. There were 302 e-mails with “undeliverable” notices sent back to us, 196 who reported they

were not custody evaluators, and 24 who said they did not want to participate. We suspect that

there were many more non-evaluators on the invitation list who did not e-mail or call us to say

they were not evaluators.

We sent 1,665 invitation letters to people for whom we did not have e-mail addresses. We

shortened the Dillman procedure used in the pilot study, sending an initial letter with a link to the

web survey, followed by a copy of the survey in the mail 7-10 days later and then a postcard

reminder 10 days later. There were 196 undeliverable mailings with no forwarding address. We

forwarded any mail that did have a forwarding address.

For both the e-mail and mailed invitations, two incentives were offered for survey completion: a

$5 donation on their behalf to one of four child abuse/child trauma organizations of their choice

and a chance to win a $100 gift card for a purchase at Amazon.com.

Judges. Several organization lists and listservs were used for recruiting judges: (a) The National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) sent an e-mail invitation to its 15-member

Family Violence Committee (14 judges and one judicial educator) with a request to forward the

invitation to their colleagues. (b) The NCJFCJ Family Violence Department sent an e-mail invitation

to 522 judges who had received training through their National Judicial Institute on Domestic

Violence. (c) Web searches for evaluators located 98 judges, some of whom responded to our

e-mails by saying they did not have family law cases. (d) Members of AFCC received requests. (e)

State judicial education program directors in Texas, Georgia, and Michigan sent e-mails to their

lists. (f) The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence posted an invitation for several months

on its home web page; only two judges responded to this invitation. (g) The Juvenile and Family

Law Department of NCJFCJ sent an e-mail invitation; 1,443 of its members received the e-mail (328

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

were not judges). This department uses software that can track the responses of those sent

e-mails. Only 24% opened the e-mail, and only one-third of those opening it clicked on the link to

look at the survey. Therefore only 8% of those who were sent e-mails opened the survey.

For invitations sent by others, no reminder emails were sent.

No letters or surveys were sent through the mail to judges, attorneys, or domestic violence

workers. On the advice of our consultants, incentives were not offered for judges or for the

attorneys and domestic violence workers. Judges and attorneys were offered the opportunity at

the end of the survey to send a message and a link to the survey to their colleagues. We were not

able to track how often they sent this message.

Legal aid and private attorneys. We developed invitation lists from web searches and the

membership list of AFCC and sent 895 invitation e-mails from these lists. In addition, the state

training coordinators for legal aid attorneys in Ohio and Michigan sent an e-mail invitation to legal

aid attorneys on their listservs. Finally, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)

posted an invitation on its website for several months and included a notice in its email

newsletter. Twelve private attorneys and seven legal aid attorneys responded to the NCADV

invitation. A total of 366 attorneys responded to all of the invitations.

Domestic violence program workers. Most of the domestic violence program workers (159 out of

193) were recruited from an invitation posted on the website of NCADV from December 2009 until

May 2010 and from a notice in the monthly NCADV e-mail newsletter sent to approximately

11,000 individuals. These domestic violence workers included advocates, counselors, crisis

workers, and other front-line workers; attorneys who worked at domestic violence programs; the

directors of local programs; and state coalition directors and resource coordinators. Some of the

program workers completed surveys after receiving invitations that were sent primarily to judges

(n = 2) and attorney groups (n = 32). This was not a problem since the survey forms were identical

except for one question about their primary role (initially the attorney version specified the type

of attorney and this was added later to the NCADV version). Some DV program workers who were

not attorneys (n = 31) completed the form meant for attorneys after the link for the attorney

version was circulated on an advocacy listserv. As described above, the NCADV e-mail newsletter

notice and website notice also invited judges and attorneys to complete the web-based survey.

Non-responders. We obtained some information on likely non-responders by comparing some

characteristics of those who completed a small portion of the survey and those who completed all

or almost all of the survey. An initial finding is that non-completers reported a lower percentage of

domestic violence cases in their caseload. This may indicate that non-completers viewed the

survey as less relevant. Experience conducting evaluations was not related to completion.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Measures of Independent Variables

Beliefs about family violence, custody, and visitation. The 20 items in this section focused

primarily on four types of beliefs: (a) that alleged domestic violence survivors and offenders make

false allegations of abuse, (b) that survivors and offenders alienate children from the other parent,

the reluctance or resistance of battered women to co-parenting will hurt the children (see

Appendices A and B for copies). Some of the items were used in the pilot survey and some were

used in the National Evaluation of Safe Havens Demonstration Initiative (Saunders, Sullivan,

Tolman, & Grabarek, 2006). In the latter study, a subscale on the belief in false allegations had an

internal reliability coefficient of .79. One of the items on alienation and exaggerated reporting was

modified from an unpublished survey by Jennifer Hardesty; the original item was, “In the many

divorce cases where women allege domestic violence, the claim is exaggerated to alienate fathers

from their children.” One item on batterers’ contact with children was modified from a survey by

Morrill and colleagues (2005); the original item was, “If there is no evidence that a batterer has

directly abused his/her child, restricting his/her contact with the child is not justified.”

Five subscales were formed based on the results of principal component factor analysis (varimax

rotation, with eigenvalues greater than 1). The subscales created were:

 DV Survivors Make False DV Allegations. This three-item scale had an alpha internal

reliability coefficient of .80. A factor score was used in order to standardize the

items since they used different scales;

 DV Survivors Alienate Child. This four-item scale had an alpha internal reliability

coefficient of .75 (although beliefs about alienation and false allegations loaded on

the same factor in the evaluator and total samples, they were kept as separate

scales on logical grounds because they are conceptually distinct);

 DV Offenders Make False DV and Child Abuse Allegations. This two-item scale had

an alpha internal reliability coefficient of .79;

 DV Survivors’ Resistance to Co-Parenting Hurts Child. This two-item scale had an

alpha internal reliability coefficient of .70;

 DV Not Relevant in Custody-Visitation Decisions. This two-item scale had an alpha

internal reliability coefficient of .70.

Reliabilities from .70 to .80 are considered good to excellent. Of note is that one item did not load

as one might expect with the items on reluctant-resistant survivors: “Victims of domestic violence

are often reluctant to share parenting roles with ex-partners because they fear further abuse.” The

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

addition of the motive of fear may have made a difference. It is also interesting that the two items

on the mother and father deserving to lose custody for disrupting the child’s relationship with the

other parent did not correlate with the other items on parental alienation (“When a mother

claiming to be a victim of domestic violence tries to disrupt a child’s relationship with the father,

that is a good reason to award sole custody to the father” and another item with the father

claiming to be a victim). The extreme outcome suggested in the item may have caused the low

correlation. As expected, a single item on whether men and women are equally violent did not

correlate with other items, and this item will be used in separate analyses. The items on the

estimated percentages of false allegations of child physical abuse by the mother and of false

allegations of child sexual abuse by both parents were highly correlated with each other and with

the false DV allegation items. However, we did not combine these items into a single scale because

we wanted to maintain important conceptual distinctions.

Blaming victims and knowledge of domestic violence. We were not able to use the Inventory of

Beliefs About Wife-beating (Saunders et al., 1987) as intended because it did not show enough

variance in the pilot study, as mentioned above.

Belief in hierarchies/non-equality: Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Social Dominance

Orientation (SDO) is a measure of a general desire for group-based dominance (Levin, 2004;

Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Studies have found moderate to strong associations

between SDO and sexism (average r = .34-.66) and between SDO and racism (average r = .37-.68)

(Foels & Pappas, 2004). People who have a high SDO tend to support hierarchy in groups and

believe that social groups differ in value. People who have low SDO tend to support group equality

and oppose group differentiation based on status or power. The SDO6, used in this study,

correlates in expected ways with attitudes toward sexism, ethnic prejudice, gay rights,

environmental policies, and capital punishment (Pratto et al., 2000). The scale has also been

shown to have discriminant validity in predicting conservative attitudes and has been shown to

have external validity in relating to several specific intergroup attitudes (Pratto et al., 2000). The

16-item version used in the pilot study was pared down to three items in this study based on the

results of our pilot study. In the final study it had a reliability coefficient (alpha) of .69.

Modern Sexism Scale (MSS). The Modern Sexism Scale (MSS) assesses less overt forms of sexist

attitudes than traditional scales and has been shown to be conceptually distinct from other

measures of sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). It is an eight-item unidimensional scale

designed to measure a subtle form of sexism that takes the form of believing that gender

inequality is no longer a social problem. Cronbach alpha coefficients are reported in other studies

to be between .74 and .82 (Garos et al., 2004). Based on our pilot data analysis, we pared the scale

to five items, and the reliability coefficient was .78 in the regular study.

Belief in a Just World (BJW) Scale. Just world theory posits that people have a need to believe that

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

the world they live in is just: that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to

good people. Rubin and Peplau’s (1975) 20-item BJW scale was used in the pilot study. The scale

has been used in numerous studies and Cronbach’s alphas range from .79 to .81 (Furnham &

Gunter, 1984; Rubin & Peplau, 1975). The scale has been found to have a significant correlation

with Dalbert and colleagues’ six-item scale of belief in a just world (Loo, 2001). Based on pilot

study results, we pared the scale to four items and achieved an internal reliability coefficient of

.66.

The above three measures of social justice and equality were administered only to the custody

evaluators because they were the group of primary interest in the study, with the main

hypotheses applying to them. We also wanted to keep the survey as short as possible for others in

order to increase response rates. These measures were placed near the end of the evaluators’

survey.

Background and practice measures. A series of questions, similar to those used in other

research on custody evaluations (Bow & Boxer, 2003; LaFortune, 1997), asked about the

approximate number of custody evaluations completed (evaluators’ version) or cases involved

with (other professionals’ version) in their entire careers and in the past year. Evaluators were

asked in what setting they practiced, whether private practice, court, public mental health

clinic, psychiatric hospital, or other setting. All professionals were asked in what state they

practiced the most, their gender, age, educational level, and type of advanced degree, if any.

Screening and assessing for DV. Evaluators were asked three questions about screening and

assessment (adapted from Bow & Boxer, 2003): “In approximately what percentage of cases do

you directly inquire about the presence of domestic violence?” (0% to 100%); “In approximately

what percentage of cases do you use instruments or standard protocols to screen for domestic

violence?” (0% to 100%); and “What instruments, if any, do you use to assess domestic

violence?” In response to the last question, evaluators often listed domestic violence measures

such as the Conflict Tactics Scales, Danger Assessment Index, and Spousal Assault Risk

Appraisal. We also coded the response as a DV “instrument” if they wrote structured interview,

intake form, standardized interviewing, standard protocol screening, interview specific with DV

questions, screening questionnaire, DV intake form, and similar responses, as well as referring

parents to a DV specialist for assessment. In many cases, multiple types of instruments were

listed. Along with DV instrument, evaluators sometimes listed measures of anger, child abuse

potential, substance abuse, and similar measures. We noted that some evaluators (15%) listed

only a general measure of personality-psychopathology, most often the MMPI, as the

instrument they used for DV assessment. We coded 70% of the responses as containing a DV

instrument and another 6% as containing both DV and personality-psychopathology measures.

Criminal record checks were listed as “instruments” in many cases, and were the sole

instrument 5% of the time. We were interested in comparing evaluators who used only a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

general personality-psychopathology instrument with evaluators who used domestic violence

instruments on their beliefs and recommendations because professional guidelines caution

against the use of such measures out of context (APA, 2010) and because the MMPI in

particular can be misused in domestic violence cases (Erickson, 2006).

Knowledge acquired on domestic violence. All respondents were asked the approximate

number of times they used various sources to acquire knowledge about domestic violence,

including workshops, lectures, consultation, articles, books, and other sources. In other

research this measure was found to have two interpretable factors based on the intensity of

the activity (e.g., Saunders & Anderson, 2000). Such was not the case in this study, because

factor analysis showed only a single factor. For most analyses, each form of knowledge acquired

was treated as a separate variable.

The frequency options for four knowledge acquisition activities (books, radio programs, films and

videos, workshops) differed from the other four (articles, lectures, professional consultations,

websites read) based on the results of the pilot test (0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, Over 20 and 0, 1-10,

11-25, 26-50, 50-100, Over 100, respectively).

Areas of knowledge acquired. Respondents were asked to check whether or not they had

acquired knowledge in seven areas: (a) prevalence of domestic violence, (b) causes of domestic

violence, (c) types of perpetrators, (d) post-separation violence, (e) screening for domestic

violence, (f) assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases, and (g) children’s exposure to

domestic violence. These seven areas were measured dichotomously and each one was used

separately in analyses in order to uncover the specific effects of each area.

Knowledge of victims. As in past research (Saunders & Kindy, 1993), we used a simple checklist for

respondents to indicate that they had personally known a victim/survivor of domestic violence.

They could check “father,” “mother,” “sibling,” “other relative,” “friend,” “coworker,”

“acquaintance,” or “neighbor.” There was also an option to check “myself.” The four items on

family members and “myself” formed a factor, and the remaining four items formed another

factor. Summing all of the family items formed a scale, and summing all of the

friends-coworkers-acquaintance-neighbor items formed another scale. Most analyses, however,

used each of the victim types separately, and the item “myself” was always used separately.

Measures of Dependent (Outcome) Variables

Outcome was measured in two ways: with reports of practitioners’ histories of making

recommendations for custody and visitation and with their responses to a case vignette.

Practice history. Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of their child custody

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

cases that involved allegations of domestic violence and the percentage of these cases they

estimated involved false allegations by each parent. They were also asked to estimate the

percentage of cases with violence by each parent or both. These items were modified from

custody evaluator survey instruments used by Bow and Boxer (2003) and LaFortune (1997).

Evaluators were then asked how often they supported the allegations of domestic violence and,

when they found support, to what extent did domestic violence “typically impact your

evaluation or recommendations”? These items were the same as those in a survey by Bow and

Boxer (2003).

The main outcome measures in this section were items regarding custody arrangements and

visitation, similar to items used by Bow and Boxer (2003). Respondents were asked to “estimate

the percentage of times that you recommend, or would have if in that position, the following

custody arrangements” in cases in which “one parent was clearly a perpetrator”. Seven options

followed, composed of various combinations of legal and physical custody to each parent.

Possible responses were “never,” “seldom,” “occasionally,” “half of the time,” “most of the

time,” “almost always,” and “always.” The options were: (1) SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody

with VICTIM of domestic violence; (2) SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody with PERPETRATOR of

domestic violence; (3) JOINT LEGAL custody & PRIMARY PHYSICAL custody with VICTIM; (4)

JOINT LEGAL custody & PRIMARY PHYSICAL custody with PERPETRATOR; (5) SOLE LEGAL

custody with VICTIM & JOINT PHYSICAL custody; (6) SOLE LEGAL custody with PERPETRATOR &

JOINT PHYSICAL custody; and (7) JOINT LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody.

Some evaluators commented that it was difficult to make these estimates and therefore “can’t

estimate” was given as an option and treated as a missing value. To reduce the number of

variables for analysis and to increase variance, a single, weighted scale of custody

recommendations was created. Weights were assigned to the options, with 7 assigned to sole

legal and physical custody given to the perpetrator and -7 to sole legal and physical custody

given to the victim.

Evaluators were then asked to estimate the percentage of times they recommended different

forms of visitation: with no supervision, supervision by a friend or relative, and supervision by a

professional or paraprofessional. Weights were assigned to the visitation options to create a

scale of “least safe supervision”: 3 was given if “no supervision of visits” was chosen, -2 was

given to visits supervised by friends and relatives, and -3 was given to visits supervised by

professionals or paraprofessionals.

Vignette responses: Beliefs about parental behavior, future harm, best interest of the child, and

causes and consequences of domestic violence. As in our studies of child protection workers and

welfare workers (Saunders & Anderson, 2000; Saunders, Holter, Pahl, & Tolman, 2006), we used a

case vignette to which survey respondents reported the likelihood that each parent would harm

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

the child and that the best interests of the child would be served by various custody and visitation

arrangements. The likelihood ratings were on a scale from 0% to 100%. We modified a vignette

that was published by Dalton, Carbon, and Olsen (2003) intended to stimulate thinking among

judges. It includes three incidents of severe violence, apparent controlling forms of violence, and

contrasting claims by the parents. We added to the case description some psychological test

results for each parent, school reports on their seven-year-old son, and the employment status of

each parent. The final vignette read as follows:

A couple has been married for eight years and separated for six months. Upon separation,

the mother moved with their seven year old son to a nearby city and for a few weeks

denied the father any contact with him, even phone calls. The father filed a motion for

emergency temporary custody. In the interview with the evaluator, the father maintains

that he wants a normal father-son relationship and believes that his wife is interfering with

his right to be with his son. He says that he is better suited to care for his son and will

ensure liberal and frequent contact with the mother.

The wife responds in her interview that she left the marital home when the husband was

out of town for the weekend for fear that he would otherwise prevent her from leaving.

She states that he has been controlling her every move throughout the relationship. She

states that during her pregnancy he once punched her; that on another occasion he

“body-slammed” her against his truck; and on a third occasion strangled her. He maintains

that on these occasions he was drinking and out of control, the incidents were isolated,

and not part of any larger pattern. He also claims his wife has exaggerated her reports of

the incidents and that she never received any injuries.

The wife tells you that she never called the police or went to the hospital after any of the

assaults. She says her husband never physically harmed their son, but due to his controlling

and abusive behavior she is fearful of him having physical custody of their son. She wants

to maintain physical custody. Reports from the son’s new school indicate that he is doing

well.

The husband makes a good salary as an engineer. The wife has never worked more than

part-time. His psychological tests do not show evidence of any major mental illness. Her

tests show definite indications of anxiety, depression and paranoia.

In our pilot study and discussion with consultants, we learned that some evaluators can present

their findings but are not allowed to make recommendations to the court. In addition, evaluators

are extremely reluctant to make any recommendations based on the small amount of information

in the vignette. Therefore, unlike other vignette studies that ask about a likely course of action

professionals might take, we first asked evaluators, but not other professionals, an open-ended

question—“What initial hypotheses would you want to explore in this case?”—and asked for up to

three responses. For the evaluators and other professionals we asked another open-ended

question—“What information included or not included in this vignette would potentially be the

most important for a child custody evaluator to use in conducting an evaluation in this

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

case?”—and also asked for up to three responses.

The responses to the question about possible hypotheses were independently grouped into

themes by two doctoral students and the Principal Investigator. Seven themes emerged.

Responses were initially coded by two masters-level social work students. Re-coding by these

students occurred after definitions were clarified and examples of responses were provided to

coders. The coding of three themes achieved adequate inter-rater reliability. They were

categorized as follows:

1) Coercive or Controlling Violence/Behavior. Responses were coded in this category if the

respondent mentioned “controlling,” “coercive,” or “dominating” violence or behavior not

necessarily involving violence. Examples of responses in this category include: “That this is coercive

controlling violence”; “Father shows a pattern of dominating and controlling mother”; “That

Aversive Controlling dynamics are present – assess for the pattern of instrumental violence and

coercive control. Dad’s descriptions are consistent with the defensive minimization that often is

observed in coercive controlling DV perpetrators.” “Father is abusive and controlling - this is

pattern of more intense and controlling pattern of DV.”

2) Mother’s Mental Health Problems Are Result of Domestic Violence. Responses were placed in

this category if they described the mental health problems of the mother in the vignette as being

caused by DV or the consequence of DV. Responses were not coded in this category if the mere

assessment of mental health problems were proposed or if mental health problems were seen as

producing false or exaggerated reports. Examples of responses in this category include: “I would

certainly take the wife’s claim seriously for a number of reasons… her psyc tests are not unusual

for women who are abuse victims…”; “Mother is anxious, depressed, and suspicious due to fear of

her controlling partner”; “She was victim of domestic violence. Her test results are from the

victimization”; “Domestic violence claims are true and mom’s paranoia test results due to real

incidents and fears.”

3) Alcohol Causes Domestic Violence. Responses were coded into this category if there was an

indication the evaluator believed that alcohol causes domestic violence. Responses were included

if alcohol was viewed as disinhibiting the father’s violent behavior. They were not included if the

evaluator merely wants assessment for alcohol abuse. Specific examples of these responses

include: “That the domestic violence is alcohol related and that they were isolated incidents,

related to Father’s drinking. That the threat of future violence would be eliminated if the

substance abuse is addressed” and “Alcohol-related diagnosis on the part of father which provides

an explanation for reported aggressive behaviors.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The inter-rater agreement for the coercive-control category was 94%, for mental health category

was 98%, and for the alcohol abuse category was 85%. Disagreements between the two coders

were resolved by the Principal Investigator. Because there were only 24 evaluators who viewed

alcohol as the cause of domestic violence and it had a relatively low inter-rater agreement, this

category was not used in the analysis.

The two open-ended questions above were followed by 15 questions with the likelihood, from 0%

to 100%, that: either parent would cause psychological harm to the child in the future, the mother

was exaggerating, the father was minimizing, mediation would be beneficial, and various custody

and visitation arrangements would be in the best interest of the child. The custody arrangements

included five combinations of legal and physical custody. There were three options for visitation:

no supervision, supervision by a friend or relative, and supervision by a professional or

paraprofessional.

The five items on custody arrangements were formed into a weighted scale. To create a scale of

“father custody,” sole legal and physical custody to the father was presumed to be the most

negative recommendation for the mother and assigned a weight of 5; sole legal and physical

custody to the mother was presumed to be the most positive recommendation for the mother

and assigned a weight of -5. Intermediate weights were: 2 for joint legal custody with primary

physical custody to the mother, 3 for joint legal and physical custody, and 4 for joint legal

custody with primary physical custody to the father. The weighting was based on the results of

correlational analysis. The weights were multiplied by the likelihood score for each item. There

is good evidence of cross-validation for the vignette and actual recommendations for custody

from the high correlations across these two methods: The correlations for the same items

ranged from .22 to .52 and averaged .36. The two weighted scales had a correlation of .52.

The same weights used for the practice history responses were used with vignette responses: 3

was given to no supervision of visits, -2 to visits supervised by friends and relatives, and -3 to

visits supervised by professionals or paraprofessionals. Correlational analysis guided the

assignment of weights. The correlations across the same items between the vignette and actual

practice averaged .40, and the two weighted scales correlated .50 with each other, again

providing support for the validity of the measures.

We used a single item to measure the propensity to use mediation. In response to the vignette, all

respondents were asked, “What do you think is the likelihood that the parties would benefit from

mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution?” Less emphasis was placed on

mediation as a recommendation because its definition and procedures differ greatly from one

jurisdiction to another. For example, an assumption cannot be made that mediation involves

face-to-face meetings between the parties. In some locations, the parties are screened carefully to

determine whether face-to-face mediation is appropriate (MAOC, 2009; Ver Steegh, 2003).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Multivariate Statistical Power Analysis

In determining the optimal sample size for predicting outcomes based on beliefs, we set the effect

size in the “small” range (R sq. = .04) due to the exploratory nature of the study and our desire to

detect findings that may lead to further hypothesis development. We used the traditional values

of power equal to .80 and significance level of .05. The necessary sample sizes differ depending on

the hypothesis and the type of exploratory analysis. A sample of 331 was required for exploratory

hierarchical regression with five surface beliefs entered into the prediction equation after entry of

the seven core beliefs and background variables. We increased the necessary sample size of the

evaluators to 445 to allow for other exploratory analyses, such as further interactional analyses

and more complex mediational analyses (up to 12 independent variables can be accommodated).

For some specific hypotheses, a lower sample size was required (for example, a four-variable

mediational analysis requires a sample size of 274). The comparisons among professional groups

can accommodate up to 12 explanatory variables.

Analysis

Several analytic strategies were used to test the hypotheses. The bivariate statistics of simple

correlations (hypotheses 1-4) and t-tests (hypotheses 6-7) were used. Multiple regression was

used to test the mediational hypothesis (5) to see if an initial relationship is explained by another

variable. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the extent to which surface beliefs

contribute to outcomes beyond the contribution made by other sets of variables, in this case, by

core beliefs and background/demographic variables. Because of its implications for policy and

practice, the possible impact of knowledge acquisition was analyzed with both bivariate and

multivariate methods.

The percentage of missing values was assessed separately for the custody evaluators and other

professionals because the evaluators had a larger set of variables. Fifty-five out of 520 evaluators

(11% of the sample) had between 73% and 98% of the variables missing and were excluded from

analysis. Four of the other professionals (1%) had a rate of missing values in this same range and

were excluded from the analysis. The excluded respondents usually stopped completing the survey

prior to the demographic variables, thus the analysis with these cases would have been very

limited.

A very small percentage of the non-evaluator professionals had more than 15% of the values

missing (0% of legal aid attorneys; 1% of judges; 1% of private attorneys; 2% of domestic violence

workers). In contrast, 14% of the evaluator sample had more than 15% of the variables missing.

Because of the larger number of missing values in the evaluator sample, an

Expectation-Maximization (EM) procedure was conducted using all of the numeric variables in the

evaluator sample. Correlations were compared for data sets with and without the EM imputation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

There were no significant differences between the correlations (32 correlations between

knowledge acquisition methods and custody recommendations and 24 correlations between

custody beliefs and custody recommendations).

An outlier analysis was conducted and one case, a child custody evaluator, was removed. This

respondent marked “Almost Always” for all seven of the custody arrangements offered to describe

one’s history of making custody recommendations.

Results of Survey

We begin the presentation of results with some descriptive findings for the main variables.

Personal and Professional Knowledge of Domestic Violence: Comparisons Across Professional

Groups

We begin with information on the background and self-reported knowledge acquisition of the five

professional groups. Table 3 shows the percentage of each professional group that acquired

specific forms of knowledge. More than 90% in all groups reported they had acquired knowledge

on children’s exposure to domestic violence and approximately 90%, except for private attorneys,

had acquired knowledge on the prevalence and causes of domestic violence. A lower percentage

had acquired knowledge of post-separation violence, screening, and assessing dangerousness—in

particular judges, evaluators, and private attorneys (62%-79%). Ninety percent or more of DV

workers reported every type of knowledge acquisition. Comparing professional groups on the

highest number of knowledge acquisition areas in total, 88% of the DV workers had six or seven

areas, 79% of legal aid attorneys had six or seven areas, and approximately 65% of each of the

other groups had acquired knowledge in six or seven areas.

For the frequency of using different methods to acquire knowledge (e.g., books, lectures, videos,

workshops, web sites), DV workers used all the methods significantly more often than the other

four groups. Across the other four groups there were no differences in frequency of using the

radio, workshops, or lectures to acquire knowledge (One-way ANOVA, Bonferroni Post Hoc Test).

Custody evaluators were significantly more likely than the attorney groups and judges to use

books, more likely than the attorney groups to use films/videos, and more likely than judges to use

articles, professional consultations, and web sites.

Groups differed significantly on whether a family member, friend, co-worker, or others they knew

had been victimized by domestic violence (see Table 4). The one exception was that all

professional groups reported the same percentage of their fathers having been

victimized—approximately 5% in each group. Most often they knew a friend, acquaintance, or

co-worker who had been victimized (73%-81%), and this was especially true of DV workers. Nearly

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

half of the DV workers also knew a relative who had been victimized. They also reported a much

higher rate than other groups of being a victim/survivor of domestic violence (44% vs. 18% across

the other groups).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 3

Areas of Knowledge Acquired by Professional Group

Professional Role

Area of Knowledge

Judges

(n = 200)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

Program

Workers

(n = 193)

Custody

Evaluators

(n = 457)

Total

(n = 1100)

Chi-sq.

Prevalence of domestic violence

87.5%

90.1%

77.3%

96.9%

86.2%

87.8%

28.9

p = .000

Causes of domestic violence

90.5%

89.3%

84.9%

96.9%

91.0%

91.1%

14.3

p = .006

Types of perpetrators

84.5%

82.4%

79.8%

89.6%

88.0%

86.1%

9.1

p = .058

Post-separation violence

75.0%

87.8%

73.9%

90.7%

83.8%

82.8%

26.1

p = .000

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 3 (continued)

Professional Role

Area of Knowledge

Judges

(n = 200)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

Program

Workers

(n = 193)

Custody

Evaluators

(n = 457)

Total

(n = 1100)

Chi-sq.

Screening for domestic violence

62.0%

87.8%

77.3%

94.8%

84.2%

81.7%

81.0

p = .000

Assessing dangerousness in domestic

violence cases

73.0%

84.7%

66.4%

96.4%

78.8%

80.2%

54.9

p = .000

Children’s exposure to domestic

violence

92.0%

91.6%

96.4%

94.5%

93.7%

5.7

p = .220

Six or Seven Areas of Knowledge

61.0%

79.6%

64.0%

88.6%

65%

74.1%

91.3

p = .000

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 4

Personal Knowledge of Victims/Survivors of Domestic Violence by Professional Role

Primary Role

Variable

Judges

(n = 200)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

DV Program

Workers

(n = 193)

Custody

Evaluators

(n = 457)

Total

(n = 1100)

Chi-sq.

Father

5.0%

3.8%

5.0%

5.7%

4.6%

4.8%

0.1

p = .953

Mother

15.0%

16.8%

28.0%

11.2%

16.1%

28.7

p = .000

Sibling

12.5%

14.5%

16.8%

30.6%

15.8%

17.7%

27.9

p = .000

Other relative

31.5%

29.0%

28.6%

49.2%

28.9%

32.9%

28.7

p = .000

Friend

51.5%

68.7%

53.8%

81.3%

52.7%

59.5%

58.4

p = .000

Acquaintance

50.0%

45.0%

49.6%

67.4%

52.3%

53.4%

20.6

p = .000

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 4 (continued)

Primary Role

Variable

Judges

(n = 200)

Legal Aid

Attorneys

(n = 131)

Private

Attorneys

(n = 119)

DV Program

Workers

(n = 193)

Custody

Evaluators

(n = 457)

Total

(n = 1100)

Chi-sq.

Co-worker

37.5%

41.2%

27.7%

73.1%

35.4%

42.3%

95.9

p = .000

Neighbor

21.5%

20.6%

22.7%

42.5%

22.1%

25.5%

35.9

p = .000

Myself

6.5%

16.0%

17.6%

44.0%

13.8%

18.5%

110.1

p = .000

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Belief in False Allegations of DV: Comparison Across Professional Groups

For all groups combined, the estimate for false DV allegations by the mother was 18% on average

and by the father was 35% on average. There were significant differences across the groups for the

belief that mothers made false allegations of domestic violence (see Figure 3). Evaluators gave the

highest estimates of false allegations by mothers, private attorneys gave the next highest

estimates, and judges gave the lowest of those three groups (see figures below). These differences

were significant. DV program workers and legal aid attorneys gave the lowest estimates of all

groups. They differed from the others but not from each other (significant differences with

One-way ANOVA, Student-Neuman-Keuls comparisons). To understand what might explain the

differences in beliefs about false allegations by mothers, covariate analyses were conducted with

five covariates: gender, age, DV knowledge (methods and areas of acquisition), number of victims

known, and total number of custody cases involved with or evaluations conducted. The original

results remained the same with two exceptions: In separate analyses using gender and knowledge

acquisition as covariates, the differences between judges and DV workers and legal aid attorneys

disappeared.

For the belief in false allegations by fathers, domestic violence program workers and legal aid

attorneys gave the highest estimated percentages (see Figure 4). They differed from the others

but, similar to the belief about mothers, did not differ from each other. Private attorneys gave the

next-highest estimate and differed from judges but not custody evaluators. Judges and evaluators

gave the lowest estimates and did not differ from each other. Covariate analyses were conducted

to try to understand the above differences using the same five covariates as in the analyses about

mothers’ beliefs. With the addition of each of the covariates in five separate analyses, the

difference between judges and private attorneys disappeared. All other differences remained the

same.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 3. Among Alleged DV Cases: Estimated Percent that Mothers Make False Allegations of DV, by Professional Role

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Evaluators

Judges

Private

Attorneys

Legal Aid

Attorneys

DV Staff

Percent believed to make false allegations

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 4. Among Alleged DV Cases: Estimated Percent that Fathers Make False Allegations of DV, by Professional Role

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-

100%

Evaluators

Judges

Private

Attorneys

Legal Aid

Attorneys

DV Program

Workers

Percent believed to make false allegations

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Responses to DV Case Vignette: Comparison Across Professional Groups

The five professional groups were asked about the likelihood that the interests of the child in the

DV case vignette would be served the best by various custody arrangements. There were

significant differences across the groups (using Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test). Compared

with the other groups, custody evaluators and private attorneys were the least likely to report the

sole legal and physical custody to the mother would be best (see Figure 5). Judges were

significantly more likely than these two groups to think full custody to the mother was best, and

legal aid attorneys even more so. Domestic violence workers were more likely than all the other

groups to think full custody to the mother was best for the child.

Professionals’ beliefs that the best interests of the child would be served by sole legal and physical

custody being given to the father also differed across groups. Custody evaluators were significantly

more likely than the other groups to believe this, followed by judges and private attorneys, and

then by DV workers and legal aid attorneys (see Figure 6). For the belief that the couple should

have joint legal custody, with primary physical custody going to the father, custody evaluators

were significantly more likely than the other groups to hold this belief, and the other groups did

not differ among themselves. For the belief that it would be best for the couple to have joint legal

custody, with primary physical custody going to the mother, legal aid attorneys and DV workers

were more likely than the other three groups to hold this belief. Finally, for the belief that both

legal and physical custody should be shared by the parents, custody evaluators and private

attorneys were most likely to hold this view, and legal aid attorneys, DV workers, and judges were

least likely to hold it (see Figure 7).

Respondents were asked to imagine that the mother in the vignette was awarded custody, with

visitation awarded to the father. DV workers were significantly more likely than the other groups

to believe the best interests of the child and the safety of the family would best be served with

professionally supervised visits and least likely to believe “no supervision of visits” was best.

Private attorneys were the least likely to choose professionally supervised visits and most likely to

choose “no supervision of visits” (significantly different than all other groups). Private attorneys

were also the least likely to think that visits should be supervised by a friend or relative.

Furthermore, private attorneys were the most likely to believe that the parties would benefit from

mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution. Evaluators and judges were

significantly less likely than private attorneys to hold this belief, followed by legal aid attorneys

and then DV workers.

DV workers and legal aid attorneys were the most likely to believe that the father was minimizing

his abuse and the least likely to believe that the mother was exaggerating the extent of the

violence. Custody evaluators and private attorneys were the most likely to believe the opposite:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

that the mother was exaggerating and the father was not minimizing. The judges were between all

the other groups.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 5. Recommendation for Sole Legal and Physical Custody to Mother in Vignette, by Role

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Perceived likelihood best interests of the child would be served

Judges

Legal aid

attorneys

Private attorneys

Domestic

violence

programs

Custody

evaluators

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 6. Recommendations for Sole Legal and Physical Custody to Father in Vignette, by Role

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Perceived likelihood best interests of the child would be served

Judges

Legal aid

attorneys

Private

attorneys

Domestic

violence

programs

Custody

evaluators

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 7. Recommendations for Joint Legal and Physical Custody (shared parenting) in Vignette, by Role

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

60-70%

70-80%

80-90%

90-100%

Perceived likelihood best interests of the child would be served

Judges

Legal aid

attorneys

Private

attorneys

Domestic

violence

programs

Custody

evaluators

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Evaluators’ Reports of Domestic Violence and Various Types of False Allegations

We turn now to reports of domestic violence and false allegations in evaluators’ own cases (see

Figure 8). They estimated that 40% of their cases involved allegations of DV. Forty percent of these

alleged DV cases were estimated to be father-only violence; in 29% both parents were estimated

to be violent, and in 13% only the mother was estimated to be violent. Of the alleged DV cases,

evaluators “supported” the allegations in an estimated 46% of the cases. Of these supported

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, they estimated that 17% of the fathers and 22% of the mothers made false

allegations of domestic violence.

Figure 8. Means for Evaluators’ Estimated Rates of False Allegations and Domestic Violence

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Cases with

domestic

violence

(DV)

allegations

False

allegations

of DV by

father

False

allegations

of DV by

mother

Cases with

DV only by

father

Cases with

DV only by

mother

Cases with

DV by both

parents

Cases

where

evaluators

support DV

claims

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Evaluators’ estimates regarding other types of allegations and regarding parental alienation are

shown in Figure 9. On average, they estimated that about one fourth of both mothers and fathers

who made allegations about the physical abuse of a child made false allegations. They estimated

that approximately one third of both mothers and fathers who made allegations of child sexual

abuse made false allegations. On average, they estimated that 36% of the mothers alienated a

child against the father and 51% of the fathers alienated a child against the mother.

Figure 9. Means for Estimated Rates of Alienation and False Claims of Child Abuse: Evaluators

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

False child

physical

abuse

claims by

mothers

False child

physical

abuse

claims by

fathers

False child

sexual

abuse

claims by

mothers

False child

sexual

abuse

claims by

fathers

Cases where

DV survivor

alienates

child from

perp.

Cases where

DV perp.

alienates

child from

victim

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Custody and Visitation Arrangements Recommended by Evaluators

The custody recommendations of evaluators (or what they would have recommended if in a

position to do so) when “one parent was clearly the perpetrator” are shown in Table 5. The most

common recommendation by far was sole legal and physical custody to victims, with 35%

reporting “most of the time,” 17% “almost always,” and 3% “always” (64% of the evaluators

checked “half of the time” to “always”). However, 19% recommended this arrangement

“occasionally,” 9% “seldom,” and 8% “never.” The next most common recommendation was for

joint legal custody and physical custody to be awarded to victims: 40% of the evaluators reported

making this recommendation “half of the time” to “always.”

The two next most common recommendations, but much less common than the first two, were:

(a) sole legal custody to the victim, with joint physical custody, and (b) joint legal custody, with

joint physical custody. Only 10% of the evaluators reported these recommendations “half of the

time” to “always.” Thirty percent to 38% reported never making these recommendations, but

approximately one fourth marked “occasionally.”

Legal or physical custody to the perpetrator was rarely recommended. Seventy percent reported

never recommending sole legal custody to the perpetrator with joint physical custody, with 26%

reporting “seldom.” Fifty-eight percent reported never recommending sole legal and physical

custody to the perpetrator, with 36% reporting “seldom.” Forty-nine percent reported never

recommending joint legal custody to the couple with physical custody to the perpetrator, with

41% reporting “seldom.”

The average rates for the three visitation arrangements are shown in Figure 10. The option

recommended by evaluators the most was supervision by a professional or paraprofessional

(average = 43%; SD = 30.4). Much lower rates were given for informal supervision from friends and

family members (average = 25%; SD = 21.3) or no supervision (average = 30%; SD = 30.5).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 5

Frequency of Custody Recommendations by Evaluators

Custody

recommendations

(or would have

recommended)

Estimated Frequency of Recommendation

Never

Seldom

1%-9%

Occasionally

10%-49%

Half of

the

time

50%

Most of

the time

51%-89%

Almost

always

90%-99%

Always

100%

SOLE LEGAL &

PHYSICAL

custody to victim of DV

7.6%

9.4%

18.6%

8.9%

34.6%

17.4%

3.4%

SOLE LEGAL &

PHYSICAL

custody to DV

perpetrator

57.6%

36.2%

5.3%

0.2%

0.5%

0.2%

0.0%

JOINT LEGAL custody &

PHYSICAL

custody to victim of DV

12.4%

14.7%

32.8%

12.2%

21.6%

6.0%

0.5%

JOINT LEGAL custody &

PHYSICAL

custody to perp. of DV

48.6%

41.3%

8.7%

0.7%

0.5%

0.2%

0.0%

SOLE LEGAL custody to

victim

& JOINT PHYSICAL

custody

38.1%

28.7%

22.7%

4.4%

4.8%

1.1%

0.2%

SOLE LEGAL custody to

perp.

& JOINT PHYSICAL

custody

70.4%

26.1%

3.2%

0.0%

0.2%

0.0%

JOINT LEGAL &

PHYSICAL custody

30.5%

32.3

27.1%

5.7%

3.4%

0.9%

0.0%

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 10. Means for Estimated Rates of Parental Visitation Recommendations: Evaluators

The custody and visitation arrangements that evaluators believed would be in the best interests of

the child in the vignette are shown in Figure 11. Joint legal and primary physical custody with the

mother was supported the most (47% average likelihood), followed by sole legal and physical

custody with the mother (40%) and then by joint physical and legal custody (30%). Unsupervised

visitation was supported the most (47% average likelihood), with the two options for supervised

visitation being endorsed at a lower probability (34% for informal and 38% for formal; see Figure

12).

Evaluators reported on average a 40% likelihood that the couple would benefit from mediation. A

third of the evaluators reported a 50% or greater chance that the couple would benefit from

mediation.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 11. Means of Visitation Recommendations in Response to Vignette: Evaluators

Figure 12. Means of Visitation Recommendations in Response to Vignette: Evaluators

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Sole

legal/physical

custody to

mother

Sole

legal/physical

custody to

father

Joint legal

custody,

primary

physical

custody to

mother

Joint legal

custody,

primary

physical

custody to

father

Joint legal

and physical

custody in

every area

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

No Supervision of the

visits

Visits supervised by a

friend or relative

Visits supervised by a

professional or

paraprofessional

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Evaluators’ Beliefs About Vignette Hypotheses: Causes and Consequences of DV

When evaluators were asked to list the hypotheses they would explore after reading the vignette,

three reliable categories were found: (a) coercive and/or controlling violent or nonviolent

behavior; (b) the mother’s mental health problems were caused by DV; and (c) alcohol caused the

DV. Of the evaluators who responded with at least one hypothesis, 23% would explore hypotheses

related to coercive and/or controlling violence/behavior, 17% described hypotheses about the DV

causing the mother’s mental health problems, and 5% would consider alcohol as a cause of DV.

There was a significant overlap in responses for hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior

and about mental health consequences of DV. Of those who would consider a coercive-controlling

hypothesis, 27% would also consider mental health consequences of DV, compared with 13% of

those who would not consider a coercive-controlling hypothesis (Chi-square = 11.1; p = .001).

There was no overlap between these two types of hypotheses and the one that would explore

alcohol as the cause of DV. Because of the relatively small number of evaluators who would

explore alcohol as the cause of DV, we focused the results on the other two areas:

coercive-controlling violence/behavior and mental health consequences of DV.

Evaluators’ Beliefs in False Allegations Related to Beliefs About Custody

We found support for the hypothesis that there would be a relationship between a belief in false

DV allegations and several beliefs about custody and family violence. The belief by evaluators that

mothers make false DV allegations about DV was significantly and strongly related to several other

beliefs: that survivors make false allegations of child physical and sexual abuse, that DV is not

important in custody decisions, that survivors alienate children from the other parent, and that

children are hurt when survivors are reluctant to co-parent (four of these five correlations are

above .50; see Table 6).

The belief that mothers make false DV allegations was related to several beliefs about the

vignette: that the mother in the vignette would cause psychological harm to her child (r = .38),

that the father would not cause such harm (r = .39), and that the mother is exaggerating her

reports of violence (r = .50) and the father is not minimizing (r = .35).

The belief that fathers make false allegations of DV was significantly related to several beliefs as

well: that fathers make false allegations of child physical and sexual abuse and that fathers

alienate children from the other parent. The relationship with child physical abuse was especially

high (r = .61). There was no relationship between the belief that fathers make false allegations and

the belief that mothers make false allegations.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Evaluator Hypotheses About the Causes and Consequences of Domestic Violence Related to

Beliefs About Custody

The evaluators who responded to the vignette of domestic violence by saying they would explore

coercive-controlling behavior as a cause of the violence and would consider the mother’s mental

health symptoms as a consequence of DV were more likely to believe the following: domestic

violence is important in custody decisions, mothers do not make false DV allegations, victims do

not alienate the children, and victims do not hurt the children when they resist co-parenting. The t

values ranged from 2.3 to 3.6. The differences were highly significant (p value averaged .005). In

addition, evaluators who would explore coercive-controlling behavior were more likely to believe

that fathers make false allegations of DV (t = -1.6, p = .05).

Those who would explore coercive-controlling violence and the mental health consequences of DV

in the vignette were also more likely to believe the following: the father will harm his son

psychologically (t = -3.0, p = .002; t = -3.8, p = .001), the father minimized his violence (t = -2.8, p =

.005; t = -3.3, p = .001), and the mother did not exaggerate her reports of abuse (t = 2.2, p =.03; t =

2.0, p = .04).

Beliefs About False Allegations, Alienation, Friendly Parents, and Domestic Violence Related to

Custody-Visitation Recommendations

Of central importance to this study is the relationship between beliefs and practice. Valid and

reliable reports of the actual behavior of evaluators and other professionals are often difficult to

obtain. In this study, we used estimates of actual recommendations in the past, as well as

recommendations in response to a vignette of a domestic violence case.

Evaluators’ reported history of recommending custody that favored the offender over the victim

(weighted scale of 7 combinations of legal and physical custody) was related significantly with all

four beliefs about alleged DV victim-mothers: that they alienate children from the other parent,

that they make false DV allegations, that DV is not important in custody decisions, and that alleged

victims hurt children if they resist co-parenting (correlations from .25 to .36). Table 7 shows the

correlations with the composite scale, as well as the correlations with the separate custody

arrangements making up that scale. Whether an evaluator would explore hypotheses about

coercive-controlling behavior or mental health consequences of DV was not related to custody

determinations.

A preference for recommending “no supervision of visitation” over supervised visitation, using the

composite scale, was related to the belief that DV is not important in custody decisions (r = .21)

and was more likely among those who would explore coercive-controlling behavior as a hypothesis

in the vignette (t = -.24; p = .02). The preference in the vignette case of domestic violence to give

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

custody to the father was strongly related to all four beliefs: that survivors alienate children, that

mothers make false allegations of DV, that survivors hurt children when reluctant to co-parent,

and that DV is not important in custody decisions (correlations from .41 to .55; see Table 8). Those

who would explore coercive-controlling violence as a factor in the vignette were more likely to

give custody to the victim (t = 4.1; p < .001). The relationship between beliefs and the preference

in the vignette for professional supervision of visits was weaker. This preference was most strongly

related with the belief that DV is important in custody decisions (r = .43) and that the mothers’

mental health symptoms in the vignette were probably due to the domestic abuse.

Believing that mediation would benefit the couple was most strongly related to the belief that the

child is hurt when the victim refuses to co-parent (r = .51) and to a lesser extent to the beliefs that

victims alienate the children, that victims make false DV allegations, and that DV is not important

in custody decisions (r = .21 to .41). The belief in the benefits of mediation was less likely among

those who would explore coercive-controlling behavior and mental health consequences of DV in

the vignette (t = 3.5, p = .001; t = 1.8; p = .04). The mediation item did not correlate at all with the

belief that fathers make false allegations (see Table 8).

The beliefs that the mother and father would cause psychological harm to their son, that the

mother was exaggerating abuse reports, and that the father was minimizing them were related to

past custody recommendations in predictable ways, but with relatively low correlations (r = .15 to

-.27). These same beliefs (parents will psychologically harm son, mother is exaggerating, father

minimizing) were related in expected ways to the beliefs that DV is not important in custody

evaluations, and that mothers make false allegations, alienate the children, and hurt the children if

they do not co-parent (see Table 8). The relationship were especially strong with the belief that

mothers make false DV allegations (r = -.35 to .50).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 6

Bivariate Correlations: Beliefs Among Custody Evaluators About False Allegations of Abuse, Parental Alienation, and Parental

Action in Vignette

Est. % of

false

child

physical

abuse

claims by

mothers

Est. % of

false

child

physical

abuse

claims by

fathers

Est. % of

false

child

sexual

abuse

claims by

mothers

Est. % of

false

child

sexual

abuse

claims by

fathers

Est. % of

cases

where

DV perp.

alienates

child

from

victim

DV not

import-

ant in

custody

Est. % of

false

allegatio

ns of DV

by father

Aliena-

tion by

survivor

(4 item

factor

score)

Victim

hurts

child

when

resists/

reluctant

co-par-

ent

False domestic violence

allegations by mother

.52

.17

.52

.22

-.06

.40

.00

.72

.51

When fathers make

allegations of DV in

custody disputes, what

% do you estimate are

false?

.27

.61

.14

.42

.30

-.15

1.000

-.06

-.10

*p < .05 level (1-tailed); ** p < 0.01 level (1-tailed).

3 item factor score

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 7

Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Custody-Visitation Recommendations in Past Cases: Custody

Evaluators

Custody-Visitation

Recommendations

DV not

important in

custody

False DV

allegations

by mother:

3-item

scale

Parental

alienation

by mother

Victim hurts

child when

resists

co-parent-

ing

False

allegations of

DV & child

abuse by

father

Weighted Composite Scale:

Custody arrangements: sole or

joint to perp. vs. sole to victim

.25**

.20**

.36**

-.07

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL

custody to VICTIM of DV

-.21**

-.17**

-.18**

-.29**

.10*

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL

custody to DV perpetrator

.05

.07

.01

.04

-.01

JOINT LEGAL custody &

PHYSICAL custody to victim of

.10*

.12**

.11*

.26**

.01

JOINT LEGAL custody &

PHYSICAL custody to perp. of

.17**

.16**

.10*

.23**

-.04

SOLE LEGAL custody to victim &

JOINT PHYSICAL custody

.04

.09*

.07

.12**

.02

SOLE LEGAL custody to perp. &

JOINT PHYSICAL custody

.10*

.15**

.08*

.14**

.02

JOINT LEGAL

& PHYSICAL custody

.26**

.23**

.20**

.32**

-.08

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 7 (continued)

Custody-Visitation

Recommendations

DV not

important in

custody

False DV

allegations

by mother:

3-item

scale

Parental

alienation

by mother

Victim

hurts child

when

resists

co-parenti

False

allegations of

DV & child

abuse by

father

Weighted Composite Scale:

No supervised visits vs.

supervised

.21**

-.07

-.12**

-.04

-.08*

Estimated % of

recommendations for no

supervised visits for

perpetrator

.21**

-.07

-.13**

-.06

-.10*

Estimated % of

recommendations for visits

supervised by a friend or

relative

.01

.11*

.15**

.17**

.10*

Estimated % of

recommendations for visits

supervised by a professional or

paraprofessional

-.20**

.01

.04

-.05

.01

*p < .05 level (1-tailed). ** p < .01 level (1-tailed).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 8

Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Vignette Custody-Visitation Responses: Evaluators

Custody-Visitation

Vignette Responses

DV not

important in

custody eval.

False DV

allegations

by mother:

3-item scale

Parental

alienation

by mother

Victim

hurts child

when not

co-parent

False DV &

child abuse

allegations

by father

What is the likelihood of future

psychological harm to the son by

the mother?

.21**

.38**

.42**

.30**

-.10*

What is the likelihood of future

psychological harm to the son by

the father?

-.38**

-.39**

-.24**

-.34**

.16**

What is the likelihood that the

mother is exaggerating the extent

of the violence?

.23**

.50**

.43**

.31**

.09*

What is the likelihood that the

father is minimizing the extent of

the violence?

-.27**

-.35**

-.25**

-.29**

.19**

What is the likelihood that the

parties would benefit from

mediation?

.21**

.30**

.31**

.51**

.01

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody

to VICTIM of DV

-.34**

-.41**

-.39**

-.46**

.11*

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody

to DV perpetrator

.12*

.19**

.16**

.13**

-.02

JOINT LEGAL custody & PHYSICAL

custody to victim of DV

.08

.07

.04

.15**

.12*

JOINT LEGAL custody & PHYSICAL

custody to perp. of DV

.28**

.42**

.35**

.38**

-.03

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 8 (continued)

Custody-Visitation Vignette

Responses

DV not

important in

custody eval.

False DV

allegations

by mother:

3-item scale

Parental

alienation

by mother

Victim

hurts child

when not

co-parent

False DV &

child abuse

allegations by

father

JOINT LEGAL

& PHYSICAL custody

.35**

.36**

.44**

-.10*

Composite Scale: sole-joint to

father vs. sole to mother

.42**

.52**

.48**

.56**

-.09

No supervised visits

recommended for perpetrator

.41**

.18**

.14**

.19**

-.09

Visits supervised by a friend or

relative recommended

-.07

-.01

-.06

-.05

.03

Visits supervised by a

professional or

paraprofessional recommended

-.38**

-.19**

-.17**

-.23**

.12**

Composite Scale: No

supervision vs. supervised visits

.43**

.19**

.16**

.21**

-.13**

*p < 0.05 level (1-tailed); **p < 0.01 level (1-tailed).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Beliefs About False Allegations, Related Beliefs, and Custody/Visitation Recommendations by

Evaluator Demographics and Background

In this section we present findings on demographic and background variables as they relate to

beliefs about custody and domestic violence and to custody and visitation recommendations.

Gender. Men reported that they conducted custody evaluations for more years than women (t =

4.0; p = .000), but men and women did not differ significantly on the number of evaluations

conducted over their careers or in the past year. Women estimated that a significantly higher

percentage of custody cases involved DV allegations (t = -3.4; p = .001). Within the alleged DV

cases, men and women did not differ in their estimates of the percentage of cases with false

allegations of DV by the father or mother, of cases of domestic violence by the father, mother, or

both, or of cases in which they supported allegations of DV. They also did not differ on the extent

to which DV impacted their evaluations or recommendations.

Men were significantly more likely than women to believe that domestic violence is not important

in custody-visitation determinations, and that mothers alleging DV make false allegations about

domestic violence, alienate their children, and hurt the children by refusing to co-parent. Men

were significantly less likely to believe that perpetrators alienate children from their mothers.

There were no significant gender differences in the belief that fathers make false DV allegations.

The above differences in beliefs between men and women were explained to a small extent in our

statistical analysis (Analysis of Covariance) by differences in patriarchal beliefs and setting. The

differences were not explained by differences in DV knowledge acquisition or knowing a victim.

There were no gender differences in whether evaluators would recommend sole or joint custody

to perpetrators and no gender differences regarding the three options for supervised visitation. In

response to the vignette, men were more likely to believe that having unsupervised visits was in

the child’s best interest. The vignette responses about custody did not differ by gender (see Table

9), including exploration hypotheses by the evaluator about coercive-controlling behavior and the

mothers’ mental health symptoms. Women were more likely to think that mediation would

benefit the couple in the vignette.

Age. There were no significant relationships between age and custody-visitation beliefs and

custody-visitation recommendations.

Court versus private settings. Comparisons were made across three groups of evaluators working

in private, court, or private and court settings. The last group might actually have been private

evaluators who responded to the question, “In what settings do you conduct evaluations?” to

indicate they provided evaluations for the courts. The findings show that they responded similarly

to the way private evaluators responded. Evaluators in private or private-court settings, compared

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

with those in court settings, were more likely to believe that alleged victims make false DV

allegations, alienate children from the other parent, and hurt the children if they are reluctant to

co-parent (see Table 9). Court-based evaluators were somewhat more likely than private-court

evaluators to recommend sole custody to the perpetrator or joint custody, although the

frequencies were low (88% “seldom” and 12% “occasionally” for sole custody). Court-based

evaluators were more likely to recommend supervised visitation. However, these differences do

not occur when the Bonferroni statistical adjustment is made, and therefore the findings need to

be viewed with caution. The private-court group was more likely than either the private group or

court group to believe that the couple in the vignette could benefit from mediation. The groups

did not differ on other vignette responses.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 9

Custody-Visitation Recommendations and Beliefs by Evaluator Gender and Setting

Custody arrangements:

sole to perp. or joint vs.

sole to mother

Visitation recommended:

no supervision

Vignette custody

arrangements weighted:

sole-joint to father vs.

sole to mother

Vignette supervised visits

weighted:

No supervision

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Men

20.4

18.5

-83.1

175 .3

38.1

59.4

-5.1

36.3

Women

18.0

19.7

1.3

-94.9

177 .4

0.7

30.3

60.2

1.2

-12.8

38.4

1.9*

Court

22.1

18.7

-55.0

163 .1

26.9

61.3

-9.9

36.6

Private

18.8

19.9

1.5

-103.1

181 .9

2.5**

35.3

56.0

-1.2

-9.6

38.5

-0.1

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 9 (continued)

DV not important in

custody

False domestic violence

allegations by mother:

factor score - 3 items

Alienation by survivor -

factor score - 4 items

In what percentage of

cases do you estimate that

domestic violence

perpetrators try to

alienate the child from the

other parent?

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Men

6.2

2.5

0.7

1.1

0.5

1.0

10.5

4.9

Women

5.6

2.6

2.3*

0.3

0.9

3.5***

0.2

0.9

2.8***

11.7

5.1

-2.3*

Court

5.7

2.5

0.3

0.9

0.1

0.9

11.3

5.3

Private

5.9

2.5

-0.6

0.6

1.0

-3.2***

0.4

0.9

-2.7**

10.9

5.0

0.7

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 9 (continued)

When fathers make

allegations of domestic

violence in custody

disputes, what percentage

do you estimate are false?

False DV & child abuse

allegations by Father

Victim hurts child when

resists/reluctant to

co-parent

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Mean

t value

Men

7.4

4.7

7.1

4.1

7.8

3.1

Women

7.3

5.0

0.3

6.9

4.2

0.5

6.8

3.1

3.5***

Court

7.2

5.2

7.0

4.3

6.5

3.0

Private

7.0

4.5

0.5

6.7

3.9

0.6

7.4

3.1

-2.9**

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Survivor status and knowing survivors. Beliefs about custody-visitation and recommendations and

vignette responses regarding custody-visitation did not differ by whether the evaluator was a

survivor of domestic violence. However, several significant differences were found based on

whether one’s family member was a survivor (using independent t-tests, one-tailed significance

level). Those with a father, mother, or sibling who was a survivor were significantly more likely to

believe that domestic violence is important in custody-visitation determinations (t = -3.1, p < .001;

t = -3.0, p < .01; t = -2.3, p < .01) and that mothers do not make false DV allegations (t = 11.8, p <.

05; t = -1.9, p < .05; -1.8, p < .05). In addition, the belief that alleged DV victims alienate children

from the other parent was less likely if a sibling was a victim of DV (t = 1.8, p < .05). Beliefs about

co-parenting and false allegations by fathers were unrelated to having a family member as a

victim.

Those with a father, mother, or sibling who was a survivor of DV were more likely to believe that

the child in the vignette needed supervised visitation versus no supervision (t = 2.7, p < .01; t = 3.2,

p < .001; t = 2.3, p < .01). In addition, those with a mother who was a survivor of DV were more

likely to have recommended sole or joint custody to a DV survivor and supervised visits for the

offender (t = 1.6, p < .05, t = 3.7, p < .001).

Knowing a friend who was a victim of DV was related to the beliefs that alleged DV victims do not

make false DV allegations and do not alienate children from the other parent (t = -2.4, p < .02; t =

-1.8, p < .05). Knowing a co-worker who was a victim was related to the belief that DV is important

in custody determinations (t = -1.7, p < .05). Knowing an acquaintance or neighbor who was a

victim was not related to beliefs about custody-visitation.

Knowing a friend who was a victim was related to a greater likelihood of believing the best interest

of the child in the vignette would require supervised visitation for the father (t = 1.7, p < .05).

Knowing an acquaintance who was a victim was related to more recommendations for sole or joint

custody granted to the perpetrator (t = -2.2, p < .05). Knowing a co-worker or neighbor as a victim

was not related to custody-visitation recommendations.

Areas of DV Knowledge Acquired. The relationships between specific areas of DV knowledge

acquisition and beliefs and recommendations were examined (using independent t-tests,

one-tailed level of significance). Knowledge about DV covered seven areas: prevalence, causes,

types of perpetrators, post-separation violence, screening, assessing dangerousness, and

children’s exposure to DV. As shown in Table 10, those who acquired knowledge of DV screening

and post-separation violence were significantly more likely to show differences in beliefs and

recommendations than those who acquired other forms of knowledge. They were more likely to

believe that DV is important in custody cases, that alleged DV victims do not alienate children, that

they don’t hurt children if they resist co-parenting, and that fathers make false allegations. They

were also more likely to believe that custody to the victim in the vignette was in the best interest

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

of the child. Those with knowledge of screening were more likely to explore coercive-controlling

behavior in the vignette. Those who acquired knowledge of post-separation violence were also

more likely to believe that mothers do not make false DV allegations.

Other areas of knowledge acquisition were not related to as many beliefs and recommendations.

However, there were a number of significant findings, as follows:

 Those who acquired knowledge of the prevalence of DV were more likely to believe that:

DV is important in custody cases;

victims do not alienate children;

fathers make false allegations;

mental health symptoms of the mother in the vignette were caused by DV.

They were also more likely to recommend sole custody to victims.

 Those who acquired knowledge of the types of perpetrators were more likely to believe

that:

alleged victims do not alienate children;

victims do not hurt children if they resist co-parenting;

fathers make false allegations.

 Those who acquired knowledge on assessing dangerousness were more likely to believe

that:

mothers do not alienate children;

fathers make false allegations of DV and child abuse.

 Those who acquired knowledge on children’s exposure to DV were more likely to believe

that mothers do not alienate children. They were also more likely to recommend supervised

visitation in DV cases.

Knowledge of the causes of DV was not related to any beliefs or recommendations.

Methods of DV Knowledge Acquisition. Among the eight methods for acquiring knowledge, the

frequencies of workshop attendance and lecture attendance were related to the most belief and

outcome variables (see Table 11). The frequency of workshop and lecture attendance was related

to all four beliefs about custody and DV in expected directions: less likely to believe that alleged

victims make false allegations, that alleged victims alienate the child from the other parent, and

that alleged victims hurt the child by not co-parenting; workshop and lecture attendance was

related to the belief that DV is important in custody decisions. They were also related to two

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

vignette responses: seeing the best interests of the child and the safety of the family being

achieved by (a) custody to the mother and (b) supervised visitation for the father. Workshop

attendance was also related to making hypotheses in the vignette about the father’s

coercive-controlling behavior and DV causing mother’s mental health symptoms.

The frequency of professional consultations and reading books and articles were related to the

beliefs that DV is important in custody decisions, alleged victims do not make DV false allegations

or alienate the children, and the mother’s mental health symptoms may be due to DV. The

frequency of reading web sites was related to the beliefs that DV is important in custody decisions,

there should be supervised visits for the father in the vignette, and the mother’s mental symptoms

may be a consequence of DV. The frequency of film and video viewing was related only to the

belief that the couple in the vignette would benefit from mediation. The frequency of listening to

radio programs, the method used the least, was not related to any of the belief or outcome

variables. No methods for acquiring knowledge were related to recommendations evaluators had

made (or would have made) regarding custody and visitation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 10.

Custody Beliefs and Recommendations by Types of DV Knowledge Acquired

Types of DV Knowledge Acquired

Custody Beliefs &

Recommendations

Prevalence

of DV

Causes of DV

Types of

perpetrators

Post-

separation

violence

Screening

for DV

Assessing

danger in DV

cases

Children’s

exposure to

DV important in custody cases

Mothers do not make false DV

allegations

Mothers do not alienate children

***

Victim does not hurt child when

resists co-parenting

***

Belief in false allegations of DV &

child abuse by father

***

Recommended custody to victim

Recommended supervised visits

Vignette: custody to victim

***

Vignette: supervised visits

Coercive-controlling behavior

Mental problems from DV

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 11

Bivariate Correlations Between Evaluator Beliefs and Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

Custody Beliefs &

Recommendations

Books

Radio

programs

Films or

videos

Workshops

Articles

Lectures

Consulta-

tions

Web sites

read

DV not important in

custody

-.13**

.01

-.15**

-.10*

-.12*

-.11*

-.14**

False domestic violence

allegations by mother: factor

score – 3 items

-.11*

-.01

-.06

-.19**

-.08

-.15**

-.09*

-.04

Parental alienation by mother

-.08

.03

.02

-.16**

-.10*

-.15**

-.08*

-.07

Victim hurts child when

resists/reluctant to co-parent

-.01

.03

.04

-.16**

-.07

-.08*

-.00

-.03

Belief in false allegations by

father of DV & child phys.

Abuse

.03

-.02

-.01

.01

.02

.01

.06

.03

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 11 (Continued)

Methods of Knowledge Acquisition

Custody Beliefs &

Recommendations

Books

Radio

programs

Films or

videos

Workshops

Articles

Lectures

Consulta-

tions

Web sites

read

Custody arrangements: sole

or joint to perp. versus sole to

victim

-.01

-.02

-.01

-.03

-.06

-.07

.01

-.04

Visitation weighted: no

supervision

-.06

.01

.03

.04

.03

.04

-.03

-.08

Vignette custody

arrangements weighted: sole

and joint to perp. versus sole

to mother

.01

-.02

-.16**

-.03

-.10*

-.09*

-.03

Vignette supervised visits

weighted: no supervision

-.10*

-.00

-.02

-.13**

-.12*

-.10

-.09

-.11*

What is the likelihood that

the parties would benefit

from mediation or another

form of alternative dispute

resolution?

.05

.12*

-.08

-.02

-.03

.05

.03

*p < 0.05 level (1-tailed); **p < 0.01 level (1-tailed).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Professional Degree. Comparisons were made of the beliefs and recommendations among social

workers, psychologists, marriage-family therapists, and counselors (the samples of attorneys and

psychiatrists were too small for analysis). Psychologists were more likely than social workers to

believe that DV is not important in custody-visitation decisions and that alleged victims make false

DV allegations, alienate the children, and hurt the children when they resist co-parenting.

Psychologists were also more likely than counselors to believe that alleged victims make false DV

allegations. Groups did not differ on the belief that fathers make false allegations of DV and child

abuse.

Psychologists were more likely than marriage-family therapists to recommend joint custody or sole

custody to the perpetrator. Social workers were more likely than psychologists to recommend sole

legal and physical custody to victims. There were no other group differences on recommendations.

Because of the many differences between psychologists and social workers, we searched for

variables to explain these differences. Psychologists were more likely than social workers to be

male, older, have doctoral degrees, work in private practice, and have conducted evaluations for

more than 15 years. Social workers, on the other hand, were more likely to be survivors of DV, to

have a mother or co-worker who was a survivor, and to have acquired DV knowledge with five of

the eight methods. The differences in beliefs in false DV allegations by mothers was explained to a

small degree by gender, knowing survivors, DV knowledge, and private vs. court setting (Analysis

of Covariance). Differences in the custody recommendations could not be explained by such

background/demographic variables.

Experience Conducting Evaluations. The total number of evaluations conducted and the number

conducted in the past year had few significant relationships with belief and outcome variables. The

higher the number of total evaluations conducted and the higher the number in the past year, the

less likely evaluators were to believe that victims hurt children by being reluctant to co-parent (r =

-.13; r = -11). The more total number of evaluations conducted, the more likely evaluators were to

believe that supervised visits would be in the child’s best interest in the vignette (r = .20). The

more evaluators conducted evaluations in the past year, the more likely they were to recommend

unsupervised visits (r = .17) and sole or joint custody to the perpetrator (r = .14).

Inquiring and Screening for Domestic Violence. A very high percentage of evaluators, 89%,

reported that they always “directly inquire about the presence of domestic violence” and another

5% almost always asked (90% to 99% of the time). Only 2% said that there was less than a 50%

chance they would ask. Regarding the use of “instruments or standard protocols to screen” for DV,

38% said they always used them, 37% said they never used them, and the remaining 23% used

them at varying rates from 5% of the time to 95% of the time (average = 11% of the time; SD =

9.2). Such protocols and instruments are likely to increase the odds of detecting DV because they

provide specific, standardized questions.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Evaluators were asked to describe one or more instrument “to assess domestic violence.” Of the

214 evaluators who listed one or more instruments, 70% listed one or more DV instruments (e.g.,

Conflict Tactics Scale, Spousal Assault Risk Appraisal, Danger Assessment Index), sometimes in

conjunction with criminal record checks, and measures of anger, substance abuse, and child abuse

potential. Fifteen percent listed only a general measure of personality/psychopathology, most

commonly the MMPI; 6% listed both a DV and personality-psychopathology measure (sometimes

in conjunction with other measures); 6% listed only criminal record checks; and 3% listed other

measures as the only ones used (e.g., the Child Abuse Potential Inventory and measures of anger).

Those using only a general measure of personality/psychopathology were most likely to be

psychologists (81%). Two of the investigators coded these responses and achieved 94%

agreement, with the “disagreements” subsequently resolved through discussion.

In Table 12 we show that evaluators who used DV assessment instruments were more likely than

others to have acquired several types of DV knowledge. As might be expected, the differences

were most pronounced for the knowledge areas of “screening for domestic violence” and

“assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases.” Those who used DV instruments were the

most likely to directly inquire about the presence of domestic violence: 95% inquired all of the

time, 4% inquired 50–95% of the time, and 1% inquired less than half the time. Those who used a

mental health measure inquired about domestic violence almost as often: 88% inquired all of the

time; 9% between 50–90% of the time, and 3% less than half of the time. Of those who did not use

a DV instrument, 15% did not always inquire about domestic violence, with 5% inquiring less than

half of the time.

When making comparisons among those who used the two types of instruments or none, only a

few differences were revealed on beliefs and recommendations. Those who had used only a

personality-psychopathology measure were more likely than those using a DV measure to believe

mothers made false allegations and the victims hurt the child when reluctant to co-parent. Those

using only personality-psychopathology instruments were more likely than those using no

instrument or a DV instrument to believe the father in the vignette should have joint or sole

custody.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 12

Use of DV Assessment Instruments by DV Knowledge Acquisition

Type of Knowledge Acquisition

DV Instru-

ment

N = 134

No Instru-

ment

N = 173

Personality

-psycho-

pathology

instrument

N = 27

Chi-

Square

Prevalence of domestic violence

93%

84%

74%

9.8**

Causes of domestic violence

94%

90%

89%

1.7

Types of perpetrators

92%

83%

93%

6.4*

Post-separation violence

90%

83%

74%

5.3

Screening for domestic violence

95%

80%

74%

15.9***

Assessing dangerousness in

domestic violence cases

92%

70%

77%

21.1***

Children’s exposure to domestic

violence

96%

95%

93%

0.7

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Patriarchal, Just World, and Social Dominance Beliefs in Relation to Custody Beliefs and

Recommendations

As expected, the three general, value-laden beliefs were significantly correlated with each other.

Patriarchal norms, as measured with the Modern Sexism Scale, correlated with social dominance

orientation (r = .30; p = .000) and belief in a just world (r = .20; p = .000); in turn, social dominance

orientation correlated with belief in a just world (r = .10; p = .02). Patriarchal norms (sexist beliefs)

correlated significantly with all five custody belief measures and all five custody outcome

measures. Higher scores on the sexism scale were related to the beliefs that DV is not important in

custody decisions, that victims make false allegations, that victims alienate the children, and that

victims hurt the children because they resist co-parenting (r = .17 to .34; see Table 13). Sexist

beliefs also correlated with the belief that fathers do not make false allegations (r = .10). Sexist

beliefs correlated positively with recommendations for sole and joint custody to the perpetrator,

non-supervised visits; and in the vignette seeing sole or joint custody for the perpetrator and

unsupervised visitation and mediation as in the best interests of the child (r = .10 to .28).

The belief that the world is basically just was related to the following beliefs: that DV is not

important in custody decisions, that victims make false allegations, that victims alienate the

children, and that victims hurt the children by resisting co-parenting (r = .10 to .13) (see Table 13).

Belief in a just world was also related to recommendations for sole or joint custody to the

perpetrator in the past (r = .13) and seeing mediation as useful for the couple in the vignette (r =

.10).

The belief in social hierarchies was related to the beliefs that victims make false allegations (r =

.09) and alienate their children (r = .11) and that fathers do not make false allegations of abuse (r =

.12). The belief in social hierarchies was not related to any of the custody-visitation

recommendations.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 13

Bivariate Correlations Between Core Beliefs and Custody Beliefs and

Recommendations

Custody Beliefs &

Recommendations

Modern

Sexism

Scale

Belief in

Just World

Social Domi-

nance

DV not important in custody

.22**

.12*

-.01

False domestic violence

allegations by mother (factor

score)

.32**

.10*

.09*

Parental alienation by mother

.34**

.13*

.11*

Victim hurts child when

resists/reluctant to co-parent

.17**

.12**

-.02

Belief in false DV & child abuse

allegations by father

-.10*

-.07

-.12**

Custody recommendations: sole

or joint to perp. versus sole to

victim

.26**

.13**

.00

Visitation recommendation: no

supervision

.12**

.01

-.03

Vignette custody arrangements:

sole and joint to perpetrator

.28**

.08

.09

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 13 (continued)

Custody Beliefs &

Recommendations

Modern

Sexism

Scale

Belief in

Just World

Social Domi-

nance

Vignette: no supervised visits

weighted

.17**

.03

.07

Vignette: parties would benefit

from mediation

.10*

.00

* p < .05; ** p < .01

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Impact of Groups of Variables on Recommendations: Multivariate Analysis

The findings reported above show many significant findings between the independent variables

and dependent (recommendation) variables. We now turn to the question of the relative impact

of sets of independent variables on the four major recommendation variables. We also

investigated the way in which some variables appear to “act through” or “explain” other variables

in predicting the recommendation outcomes. Many of the independent variables have a great deal

of overlap (redundancy) with each other. We wanted to investigate the extent to which more

immediate or surface variables could be explained by more distant or core variables (e.g.,

background and core beliefs).

Table 14 shows the variance explained by the major sets of variables. The beliefs about custody

and domestic violence (e.g., false allegations, alienation, cooperative parenting) and beliefs about

the vignette case (e.g., future harm to the son, perpetrator minimizing, victim exaggerating) had

the strongest relationship with all of the recommendation variables. The one exception was the

relationship between the vignette beliefs and no supervision recommended for the perpetrator,

which was not significant. Core beliefs (e.g., sexism, just world, social dominance) had the next

strongest relationship with recommendations.

The knowledge acquisition methods and areas were significantly related to one outcome: the

vignette measure of custody arrangements. Because evaluators with particular demographics

(e.g., age, gender) or background (e.g., knowing a victim of DV) might be more likely to seek

knowledge about DV, we also conducted the analysis with these variables controlled. The variance

explained increased somewhat with these variables controlled (however, significance was not

achieved because of the large number of variables used: eight methods and seven areas). The

results indicate that the relationship between knowledge acquisition and recommendations could

not be explained by age and gender.

The demographics (e.g., age, gender), setting (e.g., private vs. other), and number of victims

known have the smallest relationship with recommendations, although there is a significant

relationship between these variables and the vignette measure of visitation.

Beta weights are not shown in the table because highly correlated independent variables cannot

be interpreted easily. The variable with the highest bivariate relationship will “speak for” its closely

related independent variables and make their beta weights uninterpretable (i.e., their contribution

is not clear because it is through another independent variable).

Table 15 shows the extent to which the core beliefs explain the impact of beliefs about custody

and the vignette beliefs on recommendations. The core beliefs are entered first in the equation,

followed by the custody beliefs and then the vignette beliefs. The results show that the impact of

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

the custody beliefs is explained partially by core beliefs, yet they both contributed independently

to the outcomes. The impact of the vignette beliefs was reduced drastically after controlling for

the core beliefs and custody beliefs. The ability to predict the two vignette outcome measures was

especially good. A total of 63% and 24% of the variance was explained, and each of the three sets

of variables contributed independently.

In the next equation, the impact of belief variables was assessed after controlling for the

demographic and background variables (victims known). The demographic and background

variables had little impact on the relationship between the sets of belief variables and the four

recommendation outcome variables.

We hypothesized that patriarchal norms would help to explain the relationship between the just

world and social dominance beliefs and the belief that victims make false allegations. In a

meditational analysis, sexist beliefs substantially explained the relationship between a belief in a

just world and the belief in false allegations (the beta weight fell from a significant .09 to a

nonsignificant .03 with sexism added to the equation). The indirect effect of sexism was significant

(effect = .06; p < . 001) using the Sobell test and a bootstrapping procedure (Preacher & Hayes,

2004). For the belief in social dominance, sexist beliefs entirely explained the relationship (the

beta weight fell from .09 to .00; indirect effect = .06; p < .001).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 14

The Amount of Variance Explained (R Squared) by Separate Sets of Variables in Predicting Major

Recommendations

Custody

recommended

to perpetrator

No supervised visits

recommend-

ed for perpetrator

Custody to

perpetrator in

vignette

No supervision

for perpetrator in

vignette

Beliefs about custody &

.15***

.09***

.40***

.18***

Vignette beliefs: harm to

child, minimizing,

exaggerating

.10***

.00

.57***

.12***

Demographics, setting,

& victims known

.01

.02

.04**

Core beliefs: sexism, just

world, & social dominance

.08***

.02*

.08***

.03*

Training: Methods &

areas

.03

.05

.09**

.05

Training: Methods &

areas, controlling for

demogr. & victims known

.05

.08

.10*

.07

Note. The sets of variables were entered separately and not in sequence.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Table 15

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Major Recommendations: R Squared Increase

with the Entry of Each Block

Blocks

Custody

recommended to

perpetrator

No supervised

visits

recommended

for perpetrator

Custody to

perpetrator in

vignette

No supervision

for perpetrator

in vignette

1. Core beliefs:

sexism, just

world, & social

dominance

.08***

.02*

.08***

.03**

2. Beliefs about

custody & DV

.11***

.10***

.34***

.17***

3. Vignette

beliefs: harm to

child, minimize/

exaggerate

.02

.00

.21***

.04**

Total R squared

.21***

.12***

.63***

.24***

(continued)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Predictors of Judges’ Responses to Vignette

Most of the above analyses pertained to custody evaluators. We also investigated the relationship

between beliefs about custody and the domestic violence vignette responses among the judges.

Table 16 shows that, similar to the evaluators, there were significant relationships between a

belief that mothers make false allegations of DV and the beliefs that DV is not important in

custody evaluations, that mothers alienate the children, and victims hurt children if they do not

co-parent. All of these beliefs were also related significantly to the beliefs that the mother in the

vignette was exaggerating the extent of the violence and the father was not minimizing it. All four

beliefs about DV and custody were related positively to the belief that the couple in the vignette

would benefit from mediation. The direction and strength of the above correlations were similar

to those among custody evaluators. The four beliefs about DV and custody were also significantly

related to the belief that the father in the vignette should receive sole or joint custody and that

supervision of visits was not needed. However, the size of these correlations was somewhat lower

than those for the custody evaluators.

Table 15 (continued)

Blocks

Custody

recommended to

perpetrator

No supervised

visits

recommended

for perpetrator

Custody to

perpetrator in

vignette

No supervision

for perpetrator

in vignette

1. Demographics

& victims known

.01

,02

.02

.04*

2. Core beliefs:

sexism, just

world, & social

dominance

.08***

.02

.07***

.03*

3. Beliefs about

custody & DV;

vignette beliefs

.13***

,10***

.55***

.20***

Total R squared

.22***

.14***

.64***

.27***

The blocks of variables were forced to enter the equations in sequence in three blocks as indicated.

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Regression analysis was used to further compare the judges and evaluators. In predicting sole or

joint custody being recommended to the father in the vignette, beliefs about the mother

exaggerating and the father minimizing the violence explained 41% of the variance among

evaluators and 39% among judges. The general beliefs about DV and custody added 12% more to

the variance for the evaluators and 5% more for the judges (all of the R sq. values and R sq. change

values were significant). In predicting unsupervised visits for the child in the vignette, the beliefs

about the parents minimizing or exaggerating the violence accounted for 6% of the variance

among evaluators and 18% among judges. The general beliefs about DV and custody added 15%

more for evaluators and 12% more for judges (all of the R sq. values and R sq. change values were

significant). These findings also highlight the similarities between the custody evaluators and

judges in predicting responses to the vignette case of domestic violence.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

100

Table 16

Bivariate Correlations between Beliefs and Vignette Custody-Visitation Responses: Judges

Custody-Visitation Vignette

Responses

DV not

important in

custody eval.

False DV

allegations

by mother:

3-item

scale

Parental

alienation

by mother

Victim

hurts child

when

resists

co-parenti

False DV&

child abuse

allegations

by father

False DV allegations by mother

(3-item scale)

.23**

.62**

.40**

.09

Likelihood the mother is

exaggerating the extent of

violence?

.19**

.50**

.38**

.36**

-.03

Likelihood the father is

minimizing extent of the

violence?

-.25**

-.31**

-.26**

-.27**

.19**

Likelihood the parties would

benefit from mediation?

.38**

.29**

.39**

.52**

-.02

Weighted Composite Vignette

Scale: sole-joint custody to father

(vs. sole to mother)

.25**

.40**

.38**

.44**

-.12

Weighted Composite Vignette

Scale: No supervision (vs.

supervised visits)

.44**

.30**

.28**

.39**

-.09

*p < .05; **p < .01

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

101

PART 2: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH SURVIVORS

In-person, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 domestic abuse survivors in order

to improve our understanding of some of the negative aspects of the custody determination

process. We sought the perspectives of survivors to help interpret the quantitative findings of this

study, uncover new areas of concern, and provide recommendations from those most affected by

negative custody and visitation outcomes. In studying “worst-case scenarios,” we might learn what

might have gone wrong in their encounters with various systems. Our aim was similar to the

assessments conducted by fatality review teams in family homicide cases. These women are likely

to be at one end of a continuum and therefore do not represent a typical case.

Methods

Recruitment

Survivors were recruited from domestic violence programs, supervised visitation/exchange

centers, and legal aid programs in four states. These communities were selected partly because of

their relatively high rates of non-custodial survivor-mothers in caseloads at visitation/exchange

centers. In one state, one domestic violence program made one successful referral. In a second

state, two supervised visitation programs and three domestic violence programs successfully

referred 14 women. In a third state, one supervised visitation program and three legal aid

programs referred eight women; and in the fourth state, one supervised visitation program and

one domestic violence program referred two women who were eligible. One interview was not

used in the analysis because the recording device malfunctioned in the middle of the interview

and the interviewer also relied heavily on an interpreter. Other women were referred but were

ineligible for the study because they had not experienced negative outcomes from custody

evaluations or procedures. For example, six women referred from one agency all lost custody of

their children in juvenile dependency court. Interviews took between 45 and 120 minutes to

complete, and most were approximately 90 minutes. All of the interviews except one were

conducted in English.

Program staff members received talking points to use for recruitment of survivors. Staff members

then provided researchers with first names, phone numbers, and information on the best way to

contact the women, or, alternatively, they worked out a time for the interviewer and survivor to

meet at the agency. Most of the interviews took place at the agency at which the women were

currently or formerly clients. These agencies had safety mechanisms in place for domestic violence

survivors. One interview took place in a private meeting room of a public library. At the end of the

interview, each survivor received a $30 gift card to a department store to thank her for her

participation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

102

Interview Protocol

The interview questions were adapted from past interview studies with survivors or were

developed for this study (see Appendix C for a copy and for the rationale for the nature and

sequence of the questions). Because many of the survivors were extremely traumatized from past

abuse and the loss of one or more children, and may experience current fear about ongoing abuse,

we wanted to provide an effective balance of emotional support and structure, along with

information-gathering. The interview guide included reminders to check on the emotional state

and safety of the interviewee and suggested prompts for more in-depth exploration of certain

areas.

Analysis

The interviews were transcribed by a professional transcription company. Research assistants

checked them for accuracy and changed or removed person and place names to help protect

confidentiality. We used thematic analysis, conducted by three research associates, to guide our

coding process (Aronson, 1994). Thematic analysis is useful in identifying themes or patterns of

particular experiences. First, interview transcripts were read and individually analyzed to discover

such patterns. Next, corresponding narratives that reflected each theme were compiled. Themes

were then divided into various subthemes. Since the primary focus of our analysis was on ways

that professionals involved in custody evaluations considered domestic violence in their

determinations, we looked in particular for signs that professionals’ decisions did or did not

increase the safety of the children and parents. We also searched for the existence of unexpected

subthemes throughout the narratives. Finally, themes and subthemes were combined to form a

comprehensive picture of survivors’ experiences in the custody determination process. Preliminary

findings from this analytic process are discussed next.

Preliminary Findings

We provide findings here from two general areas covered in the interviews: various types of

negative experiences women had in the custody process and the recommendations they made for

training professionals and changing practices

Survivors’ Interactions with Custody Evaluators and Court Professionals

Four themes related to negative outcomes emerged from survivors’ interviews. Specifically,

survivors perceived: (1) domestic violence (DV) being ignored or minimized in custody evaluations

and decisions, (2) an overreliance on maternal mental health issues to assess survivors’ credibility,

(3) ineffectiveness and bias of child custody determination procedures, and (4) negative child

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

103

custody outcomes being due to perceived limitations in child custody processes and family court

system.

DV being ignored or minimized in custody evaluations and decisions. In many cases, when

survivors raised the issue of DV their reports were immediately treated with skepticism. For

example, one custody evaluator reportedly expressed his skepticism in this way:

[The custody evaluator] made such derogatory comments to me about women. He [asked]

me what was wrong with me, why couldn’t I agree with my ex-husband, . . . why couldn’t I

agree to joint custody? What was wrong with me? His attitude was very much, “Yeah,

right,” and at one point, he told me that, essentially, “Why should I believe you?” He said,

“I call the chair that you’re sitting in right now the lying chair. I get so many women in here

who are crack head moms who tell me they’re wonderful mothers, so I don’t believe

anybody.”

In a few cases, survivors reported that judges had ruled past DV as being irrelevant to the current

custody case. One survivor recalled:

The first judge we had, it was awful. . . . She was very unsympathetic and, you know, just

very cold towards any of the women who were in [the courtroom]. . . . Before [my case was

called], there was a woman who I guess had a restraining order on the guy in that situation

and she wanted to extend it. And . . . she (the judge) was like, “No, he doesn’t need it.” And

I was shocked. You know, I didn’t feel like she was listening to some of these people and

their entire case. And she flat-out told me . . . “Yeah, we’re not gonna talk about his past

abuse. We’re just gonna talk about you.”

Only a minority of survivors reported such hostile reactions from professionals in their custody

cases. Most survivors perceived that judges and custody evaluators dismissed their DV reports in

more subtle ways. For example, several survivors said that their reports of DV were simply

overlooked or deemed insignificant by professionals in making custody determinations. One

survivor told how a custody evaluator had not given her the opportunity to disclose her

experiences of DV until her attorney intervened:

I wanted to tell [the custody evaluator] about the abuse and what happened. And she said,

“Oh, okay. Well, we don't have time.” And then she would just go to the next [item on the

list]. And so my attorney *had to+ jump in and say . . . “Well, you know, *she+ feels this is

important.” I think that if my attorney would have not been in that room with me, that

[custody] probably could have gotten turned around. Because at the beginning, I don't

think [the custody evaluator] really believed me. . . . I knew that she understood, but I just

think that she didn't really believe me.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

104

Similarly, several survivors believed that judges did not take DV reports seriously in the courtroom.

For example, when an ex-partner continued to harass a survivor with threatening letters, she

believed that the judge had questioned her credibility and minimized her ex-partner’s threatening

behaviors:

I had showed [the judge] everything, [the threats] he had wrote. And [my ex-partner’s+

attorney was like, “My client is just merely saying what is happening. He's not trying to

harass her. He’s just merely stating.” . . . And [the judge] made the decision . . . that the

PPO (personal protection order). . . *wasn’t warranted+. . . . I really feel like she *didn’t+ see

me as being truthful.

Conversely, even when DV was acknowledged in the custody evaluation process, many survivors

perceived that it was trivialized or not taken seriously by custody evaluators and court

professionals. One survivor discovered that her account of her ex-partner’s history of abuse was

excluded from the custody evaluator’s final report. For another, her disclosure of a prolonged

history of DV was misrepresented as a single isolated event in her custody evaluator’s report,

making her experience of abuse seem less serious than it was:

I believe that *the custody evaluator+ thinks that they’re just my allegations, because I want

to get custody of [my child]. . . . She said that in her one report . . . [that] this was just a

one-time incident.

Other survivors perceived that their reports and experiences of DV were trivialized when various

court professionals told them to “get over” the abuse. One survivor said:

It was pretty sad to me, how many times . . . that people would downplay [domestic

violence+. . . . To have gone through it, and to have somebody say to you, “Yeah, you need

to get over your victim status,” or, “You need to put that in the past” and, “You need to

co-parent,” . . . that was probably the most hurtful thing to me. Because that was the

solution to all of it for them, . . . just that [a survivor] needs to get over it. From the judge

on down to like the littlest person, *it+ was like “*Survivor+, get over it.”

Another way DV reports were trivialized was when survivors were blamed for staying in or

returning to their abusive relationships. Subsequently, some survivors felt that they were being

re-victimized by the custody and legal systems. For example, one survivor recalled, “The courts

were sitting here saying, ‘Well, if it was so bad, why didn’t you leave sooner?’” Another survivor

gave this account of the way her abuse was minimized:

One of the things his attorney said in court when the issue of the [marital] rape got brought

up was, “Yeah, but he only raped her (the survivor), and she went back with him.” That’s

how that was handled, that it was unimportant.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

105

Similarly, one survivor believed that her credibility was lowered because she stayed in an abusive

relationship:

At one point we talked about abuse and [the judge] kind of roll[ed] his eyes and was like

“Uh, whatever.” . . . *I+ think he looks at women as, “Well, if you were strong enough you

wouldn’t be there. You know, you should have left him and you should have called the

police.”

In summary, the interviews revealed that many survivors concluded that their DV experience was

ignored or minimized throughout the custody and legal process

Perceived overreliance on maternal mental health issues to assess survivors’ credibility. A small

number of survivors reported experiencing mental health symptoms such as depression,

postpartum depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. In many of these cases, some of these

symptoms emerged from trauma related to DV. Often the accounts of these survivors revealed

that custody evaluators and the court system apparently relied heavily on women’s mental health,

rather than other factors (e.g., parenting experiences), in assessing their credibility throughout the

custody and legal process. Thus, these survivors believed that their experiences as a sole or

primary caregiver carried little weight in custody decision-making. One survivor said:

*The court+ just think*s+ it’s so much better for *the child+ to be with her dad *because+ I

think that his attorney . . . made me look terrible. Because here I am broken and [I have]

lost my child, the child who I had always taken care of and done everything for. [My

ex-partner] never even so much as bottle-fed her. . . .[He] never did a thing.

Another survivor said,“*T+he thing [my ex-partner] has consistently used [against me] is mental

health. . . . The psych eval[uation] . . . [was] presented to me like I had all these mental problems.

And it was built up so much.” This survivor explained how a custody evaluator placed greater

emphasis on her mental health over her ex-partner’s criminal behavior in determining custody of

her children:

One of the things that *the custody evaluator+ said to me that I’ve never gotten over on

that day . . . was that it does not look good for me because I was hospitalized for

depression and that it did not look good for him, because he was a registered sex offender.

. . . How you can compare the two? And how you can hold [it] against somebody for getting

help for themselves? . . . Somehow they compared that and they chose him over me. . . . It

makes no sense to me.

In a few cases, custody evaluators and court professionals themselves concluded that a survivor

had a mental health issue simply from behavioral observation, regardless of whether these issues

were formally documented or diagnosed. One survivor shared her experience with a custody

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

106

evaluator who had reportedly “diagnosed” her with anxiety, which subsequently affected his

custody recommendation:

[The custody evaluator] said that I had an anxiety problem. He said that the boys’ sexual

acting out were a product of my delusions. He said that I had a mental illness, but he never

put a name on that mental illness. . . . [So] he recommended that [my ex-partner] have

physical custody [of the children].

In another case, one custody evaluator’s conclusions about the survivor’s mental health reportedly

led the evaluator to disregard the survivor’s reports of her children being abused by their father:

*The custody evaluator+ said that I was “hyperdiligent.” That’s because . . . she believed

[that] because I had been abused as a child, that that was the reason that I was insistent

that my children . . . were abused. That it was just a response to my own abuse. . . . There

was no truth to it. . . . She believed that I really believed it happened, but that it didn’t. It

was unfounded.

In summary, for these survivors, mental health issues (whether real or unfounded) weigh heavily

against them in their custody cases.

Perceived ineffectiveness and bias of the child custody and court system. Another theme that

emerged from survivors’ interviews was the perceived ineffectiveness of the child custody and

court system. Specifically, when survivors sought help from the system, they encountered negative

responses which led them to believe that they could not trust a system that had “failed to protect

me . . . *and+ my children.” Subsequently, many survivors believed that the current system was

ineffective or biased. One survivor perceived unfair treatment in court:

My ex-husband filed twice as many motions as I did. He had me in court over and over and

over again, and yet somehow this judge was allowed to accuse me of filing frivolous

motions when I had only filed two, one of which I was so afraid of [my ex-partner] that I

withdrew rather than be heard! . . . So that [accusation] is an enormous, weighted

injustice. . . . I’m essentially treated like a criminal and it’s continuing.

She further explained the basis of her mistrust:

I know that every legal system is imperfect. What frustrates me the most is that when I try

to move past all of this and I try to move forward, the court system will not allow me to

move forward, either. I’m completely stuck. I have absolutely no avenue where I can go to

improve any of these conditions that were unfairly and unjustly opposed to me to begin

with. So not only was the process unfair and did everything go wrong, but it’s still going

wrong.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

107

Another survivor said, “Because the system’s f____ me so hard, I don’t believe in your system

anymore. I don’t. I don’t believe in the justice system anymore, and I used to.” One simply

declared, “I don’t have a system to lean on. I really don’t.”

Several mothers expressed their frustrations with the ineffectiveness of the legal system,

particularly the courts, in keeping themselves and their children safe. When one survivor learned

that her ex-partner was abusing her children, she tried to stop him by taking him to court.

However, she reported that the judge not only ruled against her but further reprimanded her for

making “false” accusations about child abuse:

I remember turning to my lawyer and saying, “I don’t understand what just happened. I

walked in telling the judge that my children were being abused and I walked out losing

parenting time. How could that happen? How could he do that?” My lawyer’s like, “He can

and he did.” . . . The judge absolutely thought I was lying. He said the words; I have a

written transcript . . . where he said, “If you are lying, and I think you are lying . . . I will

make sure you never see your children again.”

Another survivor shared a similar experience when a judge rejected her plea for her children to

have supervised visitations with their father in order to protect them:

You know, I feel defeated. . . . I had some of the best lawyers try to fight the system and

you know, family court services even said this man should have supervised visits but the

judge [still] ignored those.

Indeed, due to the perceived ineffectiveness of the custody and legal system, one survivor thought

that she had no options for legal recourse to protect her children:

If my daughter were to say at any point when she came to visit me . . . , “Daddy’s abusing

me,” I would not be able to do the legal or moral right thing and contact anyone regarding

that, because they (the system) would not help my children.

Negative child custody outcomes being attributed to limitations in the legal system. Most

survivors attributed their negative child custody outcomes to several limitations in the legal

system. First, the custody evaluation process was described as “one-sided,” incomplete, or rushed.

A few survivors reported custody recommendations being made by taking only one person’s input

(often, their ex-partner’s) into account. For example, one survivor explained that:

In every single evaluation, [the custody evaluator] spoke to him, and not in all of them did she

talk to me. She didn’t talk to my children, she didn’t come to their home. She didn’t talk to

their teachers, she didn’t talk to their daycare provider, people that work with my children on

a daily basis. . . . She didn’t refer to any of the criminal records or anything. . . . She spoke to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

108

the public defender on the criminal case, who said . . . “Well, [my ex-partner] was acquitted on

the charges, and . . . the prosecutor decided to . . . give him this really nice plea bargain.” . . .

But she never talked to the prosecutor, that’s all what [the public defender] was saying. And

that’s the truth. . . . She was very one-sided on everything.

This quote also illustrates survivors’ perception that other pieces of information were being left

out in the custody evaluation process; thus recommendation reports were often seen as

incomplete assessments. In addition, a few survivors thought that they were being stereotyped for

past decisions made in their abusive relationships. For example, they perceived that custody

evaluators and judges had viewed them as bad mothers because of their decisions to stay with or

return to their abusive partners. Subsequently, many survivors believed that custody

determinations were made in response to these decisions. One survivor noted:

I hate the fact that I’m a stereotype, as far as a woman who went back to an abuser. But I

think . . . before you judge the woman and want to punish her for being stupid, or ignorant,

or naïve, or whatever it is that particular woman is, I think you have to take seriously the

background and the history for the sake of the kids.

Another survivor explained:

If it’s a situation that the woman has truly failed to protect her children, has truly failed to

step up to bat and chooses the man over the children, that’s a different situation. . . . But

to take children away from a good mom [who] made a bad choice [by staying in the

abusive relationship]. . . . If I was that horrible, or that bad, or that stupid, or whatever it is

that they think, the right thing to do in that case then, would have been to take our

children from both of us and to try to work on whatever issues they felt that I had, so that I

could be the mom that I’m supposed to be in their eyes.

In addition, some survivors said that a lack of father involvement or reports of prior child abuse by

abusers were excluded from custody evaluation reports. Thus, in several cases, this information

was unavailable to the court. One survivor recalled:

I did mention to the [custody] evaluator an incident that transpired with [my daughter].

When she had injured herself . . . I witnessed . . . some things . . . that [ex-partner] had did

to [my daughter]. I felt that that should have been elaborated in the report but that wasn't.

I don't think that was.

The incompleteness of the custody evaluation process may be due to its rushed nature and an

inadequate opportunity to understand the process. For one survivor, the lack of time spent on her

custody case led to the belief that her case was not assessed thoroughly:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

109

It’s like *the custody evaluator and judge+ just pushed everything real fast. . . . It was just

like a whole bunch of stuff was going on [that+ I didn’t understand. . . . *But+ they didn’t

even know what occurred with [my] situation. They didn’t know if I was in a domestic

violence situation or if somebody was making me do the things that I was doing or

whatever, but they didn’t even take the time out to see. They’re just looking at what they

got on paper, and then that was that.

In summary, the interviews with survivors who had negative custody outcomes revealed four

major themes: (1) DV being ignored or minimized in custody evaluations and decisions, (2) an

overreliance on maternal mental health issues or past substance abuse to assess survivors’

credibility, (3) ineffectiveness and bias of the legal system and custody proceedings, and (4)

negative child custody outcomes being attributed to perceived limitations in the legal system.

Again, these experiences reflect the worst outcomes and do not represent the experiences of all

survivors who are being evaluated for custody. Survivors also provided recommendations for

improvements, which we present next.

Survivors’ Recommendations for Policy and Practice

We asked survivors to share their recommendations for changes in policies, procedures, and laws

regarding child custody and visitations. Four recommendations were most frequently made: (1) to

conduct fair and thorough custody evaluations, (2) to establish safe visitation programs or facilities

for supervised visitations/exchanges, (3) to enforce child protection laws throughout the custody

and visitation process, and (4) to mandate DV training for custody evaluators, court professionals

and guardians ad litem.

Conduct fair and thorough custody evaluations. Most survivors highlighted the need for custody

evaluations to be conducted in a fair and thorough manner in order to serve the best interests of

their children. Indeed, one survivor viewed her custody evaluation process as a positive experience

because it was conducted fairly and thoroughly. She explained:

I felt that [the process] was . . . very organized. This is how it’s going to be, and this is how

it’s going to be done. They did a thorough investigation. They looked at the entire picture,

not just, “Well, this is only about the children, it’s not about what happened between the

two of you.” Because what happens between the two of you reflects your parenting, and it

reflects who you are . . . as an individual.

Survivors recommended several changes. First, most survivors recommended that custody

evaluators and judges obtain all possible information about both parents before making an

informed custody decision, in particular records involving DV or substance abuse. One survivor

said:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

110

[Custody evaluators] should do more investigating. Don’t just talk to the dad and the

mom in the case. . . . If there [are] police reports, do some investigating and get those

police reports. Read those. Don’t just take the word of the father or the mother.

Likewise, one survivor thought that:

. . . they (custody evaluators) need to look at *abusers’+ criminal records because I think

that reflects on what type of person they are and what kind of parent they’re going to be. .

. . They don’t see all of the documents. Like if you look at all his documents, anyone could

read his documents and see how manipulative and inconsistent his stories are.

Another survivor also spoke of the importance of gathering abusers’ medical and substance abuse

records, as illustrated in her quote:

[My ex-partner] almost overdosed, then was in the hospital. You get them records. I tell

them about that. He’s been arrested for over ten times for DUI. . . . Why would they put a

child [with] someone that’s an alcoholic, you know, and don’t even think twice about that?

Some survivors also recommended using other sources of information, such as reports from

family, friends, or children’s teachers. This survivor shared her advice:

Don't get caught up in appearances. [Abusers] use it to distract you. They manipulate and

use their charm to reel you in; that's how they got us. Ask for a story more than one time.

Pay attention to the details. Watch the kids. Watch the interaction with the kids and the

parent. . . . Ask a lot of questions. Talk to the teachers. Go to the school. Take it seriously.

Second, a number of survivors also recommended that custody evaluations and proceedings be

conducted thoroughly by taking the time to look at each custody case individually. Some survivors

believed that their cases received incomplete assessments by judges; in fact, as reported in the

previous section, DV was ignored or minimized in court for some survivors. For example, one

survivor provided a recommendation for judges:

I think [judges] should take a little bit more time . . . familiarizing themselves with the case .

. . before they . . . decide on a case. . . . And I experienced that with both [judges]. They

didn’t familiarize themselves [with my case]; they thought that domestic violence in the

past had no bearing on making their decision that day. Maybe they need to not look so

fresh at evaluating somebody that already has a clear-cut case of domestic violence and a

huge history [of violence], and to honor the parenting plan that’s been established by that.

Third, many survivors recommended conducting observations of interactions between fathers and

their children over an extended period of time, rather than one short observation. These survivors

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

111

believed that custody evaluators are only able to get a more realistic sense of how ex-partners are

as parents through follow-up observations or unannounced visits. One survivor said:

I think there should be some repeated [and] . . . unexpected visits. And I think, they should

be longer, not just an hour. . . . They (custody evaluators) only come for one hour and they

rubber stamp it, and they think everything is fine. But once the door is closed, all he does is

say, “I got away with it. I’m gonna do it again.”

One survivor recommended follow-up visits:

Maybe [have] more people to check up what’s going on. They need people that go into the

person’s house and hang out with the person for a little while to find out their true colors,

because [all] they [saw] was the holier-than-thou routine of him and the rough exterior of

me. Who are they gonna let [my] kid go to? The holier-than-thou routine, which they did,

and I’m not that bad.

Likewise, another survivor commented that:

It’s really important to see this on a broader scale . . . and see *abusers’+ parenting styles,

rather than when they know that they are being watched. . . . You can’t get to know kids

and their abusive probable fathers in 45 minutes.

Another survivor recommended surprise visits:

I think they should do surprise visits, you know? . . . Don’t call someone and say, “I’ll be

here at this day and this time,” so they can have the makeshift *illusion of a perfect family

life], you know . . . [where] everyone is home, baking cookies and [his illegal activities] are

hidden . . . down the street or something.

In summary, survivors recommended that custody evaluators and judges consider all possible

information regarding both parents from various sources, including criminal and medical records

and reports from other people in the children’s lives. Assessment that included observing

parent-child interactions over an extended period of time were recommended.

Establish safe visitation programs or facilities for supervised visitations and exchanges. Most

survivors in this study reported safety concerns for themselves and/or their children that persisted

beyond separation. Interactions with their ex-partners during child exchanges were opportunities

for more abuse by their ex-partners or for conflicts to arise, even if exchanges happened in public

settings (such as a public park or a police station). For example, one survivor said, “I still cannot

meet him in a public place because there have been instances when I’ve met *ex-partner] here or

at the [public location] center and something happens. There’s always a blow-up. There’s always

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

112

an argument.” One survivor was still threatened by her ex-partner during child exchanges at a

police station:

We’ll have to meet at the police station but we'll meet outside *where+ there’s nobody

around. [So my ex-partner+ just will . . . *say+ derogatory things, like, you know, “I wish I

could do this and that to you.” And he would ask me for sex, and say, “You know, this all

(court and custody battle) could all be over.”

Similarly, this survivor recounted her negative experience during child exchanges:

We were doing an exchange on Easter Day at the police station. . . . He asked me to sign a

paper stating that I was going to keep [the children] on one of his parenting nights. And so,

I said, “Fine,” and I would *sign the paper+. But I asked for a copy, because I know how he is

*and+ I didn’t want something to be changed in that agreement. . . . He was really upset

that I had asked that. He said, “You’re being difficult.” And he grabbed my wrist, held it

down, and held it really tight . . . and told me that, “I really need to do something to you.”

Because of these ongoing safety concerns during child exchanges, several survivors recommended

establishing more facilities where child exchanges may occur safely in the presence of trained

professionals. One survivor described the benefit of a safe visitation program that she uses:

I go to a specialized exchange place . . . called [agency]. It’s in *city+, and they’re like the

only place in the state that . . . are geared toward domestic violence [cases]. So they’re very

. . . careful with the perpetrator and . . . they have a very professional setup. I do the drive

*out there+ because it’s the only place that is safe for me and my kids. . . . I think that there

needs to be more places like [agency].

Most survivors reported that they wanted to limit most, if not all, contact with their ex-partners.

Indeed, all survivors who currently participated in a supervised exchange program at a safe

visitation facility in their communities decreased their contact with their ex-partners. As one

survivor said:

I think *agency+ helped me get over *my safety+ fear, because I know he’s there fifteen

minutes early [to drop off the children+ and I know he’s there fifteen minutes late *to pick

up the children+. . . . So I really haven’t ran into him.

It is important to note, however, that access to this resource may not be available to all survivors.

For example, one survivor’s request for supervised visitations was denied: “*I tried+ to get

*supervised visitation at the agency+ from the beginning *but+ the judge said no. . . . I don’t know if

that was [my ex-partner’s+ way of seeing me, *by+ taking me to court.”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

113

Thus, many survivors indicated the need for safe visitation programs to be established in their

communities in order to facilitate supervised child exchanges and visits with ex-partners. Survivors

who had used such programs reported decreased contact with ex-partners, thus further reducing

the opportunity for abuse.

Take reports of child abuse seriously. As described in an earlier section, a number of survivors

criticized the current system for its lack of enforcement of child protection laws. These survivors

wanted immediate legal recourse (e.g., a CPS investigation) to protect their children, but were

instead punished for reporting. For example, one survivor described losing custody of her child to

her ex-partner after reporting her suspicions of child abuse to her custody evaluator. Criticizing the

current custody process and legal system for its failure to adequately protect her child, this

survivor believed that any reports of child abuse should automatically trigger a thorough

investigation by the authorities:

I was always taught if you were ever molested or anybody touch[ed] you, you tell

[someone.] There’s a reason why my 3-year-old was telling me that (abuse), and he

should’ve been [assigned to] a psychologist to have him helped instead of taking him away

from me. . . . Where was that person that needs to be sitting down with him trying to figure

out if he’s telling me the truth or not? . . .The policies need to be changed because my

[child] slipped through the crack. . . . I couldn’t protect my son, and I still can’t protect my

son.

Another survivor’s reports of suspected child abuse yielded no response from the system. Similar

to the previously quoted survivor, she, too, believed that any allegations of child abuse warrant an

investigation:

When I had my lawyer give [the custody evaluator] that letter with charges of abuse, what I

would’ve liked was for that [letter] to trigger an investigation, and I think that’s what

should have happened. [The custody evaluator] should have said, “Hold off. . . . We need to

stop the legal process right now. . . . This is a serious enough charge that one parent has

brought, so what we need to do is to step in and have an investigative process.” What she

should have done was to interview my kids . . . [but she] has never even spoken to my kids

for more than [that] 30 seconds that it took her to bring them from the hallway to [the

judge]. She’s never met the kids [otherwise]. That’s ridiculous.

To further protect their children, a few survivors even recommended that an abusive partner with

a clear history of DV should not be allowed to have joint custody or unsupervised visitations with

their children. One survivor perceived that:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

114

When there’s domestic violence, I believe, automatically, that the [abusive] parent should

have supervised parenting time. I don’t think that the child should go back unsupervised. I

don’t know much about the law and I don’t know really much about the policies . . . [just]

what I’m just going through. But just from my experience, I think it should be law, when

there is domestic violence and when there’s proof and when someone is arrested and

there’s a child involved, that the parent shouldn’t have parenting time with that child.

In summary, these survivors believed that a complete investigation following any reports or

suspicions of child abuse is warranted. A few survivors also recommended that abusers should not

be allowed to have sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitations with children, given the

abusers’ history of DV.

Mandate DV training for custody evaluators, court professionals, and guardians ad litem. Many

survivors recommended mandated DV training for custody evaluators, court professionals, and

guardians ad litem, in particular training on the impact of DV on children and maintaining safety

throughout the custody and visitation process. One survivor explained, “I think trained evaluators

need to be knowledge[able] in domestic violence. I do not believe that a person can harm an adult

and not a child, especially when there's a history of it.” Some survivors believed that DV training

was necessary to understand the physical, emotional, and psychological impact of DV, as described

by this survivor:

Knowing what the mother goes through I think is very important, I think it’s very important

that if the mother is crying, that it doesn’t mean that she can’t take care of her child. It just

means that she may need some help, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she can’t take

care of her child. So I think they need to really understand what goes on psychologically,

like the mother can be traumatized [and may exhibit certain demeanors]. . . . Sometimes

they look at certain demeanors, and I think they’re trained, but they are not really trained

in the aspects of domestic violence. And if they knew that a mother who’s been abused

does certain things, they wouldn’t use it against her.

Several survivors also believed training was necessary to recognize that there are other forms of

abuse beyond physical abuse, such as emotional and psychological abuse. One survivor explained:

Domestic violence [and] all of that information should be considered [by custody

evaluators and the court system]. *Just+ because there’s not some physical evidence of

broken legs and bruises and maybe pictures of scratches and stuff, [doesn’t mean it should

not be acknowledged]. . . . Emotional pain. . .just as much . . . should be honored and

recognized.

Similarly, another survivor recommended that custody evaluators:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

115

. . . do need to be very educated in domestic violence . . . and also, emotional abuse.

Because just telling me that you can’t prove emotional abuse doesn’t mean that it’s not

happening. [In fact] I think . . . emotional abuse is far more worse than . . . physical [abuse].

One survivor further emphasized the need for specialized training to identify signs of emotional

abuse:

They should have . . . [court evaluation staff] who specialize in [physical] abuse and

emotional abuse [who] can pick up on things even when [abusers are] talking. Because I’m

sure when [my custody evaluator] talked to [my ex-partner], if she was a trained

professional, she would have picked up on some things. That's one of the things I would

definitely change. They really need trained professionals [court staff] in domestic and

emotional abuse.

In fact, a few survivors remarked directly on the need for training on DV for all custody evaluators,

court professionals, and guardians ad litem and were surprised that the professionals involved in

their cases did not have such training. In fact, a few survivors were surprised that not all custody

evaluators, court professionals, and guardians ad litem receive DV training. One survivor asked:

Why don’t custody evaluators have the same type of training? . . . If you’d asked me

before, I would assume that a [custody evaluator] was somebody who was really

knowledgeable in domestic violence and domestic issues, and stuff like that. I thought

those were the people that knew about that. . . . Even the last time, . . . [my custody

evaluator] was just like . . . my case is not a big deal . . . it’s a waste of her time to be there

or whatever. . . . And my biggest problem, I guess . . . is that there is the emotional abuse. .

. . I don’t think anyone pays attention to that in the court system. I don’t really feel like that

was heard at all.

Another survivor shared a similar thought regarding guardians ad litem:

I think there should be a rule or a law, honestly . . . about the guardian ad litems [sic]

having training. I don’t know if it’s just domestic violence training, because . . . I don’t think

[my guardian ad litem] had the training that was like, even below that. . . . She just was like

woman-off-the-street to me. . . . It was just like [a] random lady chosen to speak on your

behalf. I mean, if you’re going to be involved in it, then everyone involved in there should

have domestic violence training. . . . I think it’s ridiculous to have people working on a case

that aren’t *trained+.

Several survivors also believed that DV training was necessary to help custody evaluators, court

professionals, and guardians ad litem gain a nuanced understanding of possible tactics abusers

may use to control and manipulate their partners. One survivor said, “*With training+, they can get

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

116

a better understanding of these women and of these men, and . . . to what lengths [abusers] are

willing to go through to abuse these women physically *and+ mentally.”

Another explained:

I would want them to really know the tactics that an abuser used. Every single tactic. And I

would like for them to know and be trained on how to prevent the harasser from doing

that, and not putting the mother in danger. . . . I think it’s very important for them to

understand the tactics that they use, and to put protocols in place so they won’t be able to

do those things.

In conclusion, survivors made major recommendations for fair and thorough custody evaluations,

more programs for supervised visitations and exchanges, enforcement of child protection laws

throughout the custody and visitation process, and mandated DV training for professionals. Based

on these recommendations, it is apparent that the key issue for these survivors was safety for

themselves and their children as they experience the child custody process.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

In this section we summarize and discuss the major findings of the study.

Professionals’ Survey

Professionals Acquiring Knowledge on Domestic Violence

We compared the types of knowledge evaluators had regarding domestic violence to that of other

professionals. We also compared the methods used to acquire this knowledge. Across the

professional groups, children’s exposure to domestic violence and the prevalence of domestic

violence were the most common areas of knowledge. The least common area—especially among

judges, evaluators, and private attorneys—were post-separation violence, screening, and

assessing dangerousness (although the majority nevertheless had knowledge in these areas). Not

surprisingly, DV workers had the highest rates of knowledge on these topics.

Knowing Victims of Domestic Violence

Professionals often knew a friend, acquaintance, or co-worker who had been victimized, and this

rate was especially high for DV workers. In addition, nearly half the DV workers knew a relative

who had been victimized, and 44% had been victimized themselves. These rates were much higher

for DV workers than for other professionals.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

117

Belief in False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse

Respondents were more likely to estimate that fathers’ allegations of DV are false compared to DV

allegations by mothers (35 of the fathers’ and 18 percent of mothers’ on average). However,

differences existed in the estimates for these two types of allegations, depending on professional

role. Judges, private attorneys, and custody evaluators tended to give the highest estimates of

mothers’ false allegations, and domestic violence workers and legal aid attorneys gave the lowest.

Judges did not differ from DV workers and legal aid attorneys after controlling for background (DV

knowledge, victims known, number of cases) and demographic (age, gender) variables. The

hypothesis that evaluators and DV workers would differ was supported.

When estimating fathers’ false allegations, DV workers and legal aid attorneys gave the highest

estimates. Judges and custody evaluators gave the lowest estimates. Private attorneys fell

between the two groups and differed from judges, but not after controlling for background and

demographic variables.

Custody evaluators “supported” allegations of domestic violence in 46 percent of their cases. (This

determination was based on the item “Please estimate the percentage of your cases involving

alleged domestic violence in which you supported the allegation of domestic violence.”) This

compares with 57 percent of cases estimated to be “supported” as DV cases in the Bow and Boxer

survey (2003) and 20% of the cases in the LaFortune and Carpenter (1998) survey, which covered

child abuse as well as adult abuse. When support was found for DV, 52 percent of evaluators in

this survey reported that it “greatly” or “extremely” affected their recommendations or

evaluations. This level of support from evaluators compares with 76 percent found in the Bow and

Boxer survey (2003).

Evaluators estimated that 17 percent of fathers and 22 percent of mothers made false allegations.

However, these estimates do not control for the total number of domestic violence cases that they

estimated were perpetrated by fathers and mothers.

On average, evaluators estimated that one fourth to one third of child abuse allegations were

false. This finding raises serious concerns, because empirical findings about the rates of false child

abuse allegations in divorce cases are much lower than these rates (Faller, 2005; Trocme & Bala,

2005). Evaluators estimated that fathers and mothers were equally likely to raise false allegations

of child physical or sexual abuse, suggesting a lack of gender bias on this perception. However,

evaluators were more likely to estimate that, in domestic violence cases, fathers would try to

alienate children from mothers than the reverse (51% versus 36% estimation on average). In a

study of all types of custody cases, legal and mental health professionals reported that 26 percent

involved parental alienation; in the majority these cases, the mother was the alienating parent

(Bow, Gould, & Flens, 2009). A case review of DV custody cases in one city revealed that 40

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

118

percent of fathers alleged that the mother alienated the children; only 18 percent of mothers

made such allegations (Davis, O’Sullivan, Fields, & Susser, 2011). Among the cases with allegations,

the evaluators determined that alienation occurred for 75 percent of the mothers’ allegations and

50 percent of the fathers’.

Custody Recommendations

Evaluators’ most common recommendation when one parent was clearly a perpetrator was for

sole legal and physical custody to be awarded to victims. Sixty-four percent reported making this

recommendation “half of the time” to “always.” However, a substantial minority reported making

this recommendation “occasionally,” and nearly 10 percent reported “never.” By comparison,

evaluators recommended 50 percent of victims receive sole legal and physical custody in the Bow

and Boxer survey (2003). Evaluators’ next-most common recommendation was for parents to

share joint legal custody, and for victims to have sole physical custody; nearly half of evaluators

made this recommendation “half of the time” to “always.” Evaluators recommended this

arrangement in 39 percent of Bow and Boxer (2003) cases. This finding is a concern because, with

joint legal custody, abusers can manufacture reasons to have contact with their partners and to

restrict counseling, medical, and extra-curricular school events for the children.

Evaluators reported recommending joint physical custody and either joint legal custody or sole

legal custody to the victim in a small percentage of cases. Only 10 percent reported these

recommendations “half of the time” to “always”; however, approximately 25 percent

“occasionally” made this recommendation. Legal or physical custody to the perpetrator was rarely

recommended; 49 and 70 percent respectively reported “never” making it, and 26 and 41 percent

reported “seldom” doing so.

In response to the domestic violence case vignette, evaluators reported that it would be most

likely the child’s best interests would be served by awarding legal custody to both parents and

physical custody to the mother (47% likelihood on average). This finding raises the same concerns

as described above when we consider evaluators’ actual recommendations. Evaluators chose to

award the mother sole legal and physical custody almost as often (40% average likelihood).

However, evaluators and attorneys were significantly less likely to award sole legal and physical

custody to victims than were judges, DV workers, and legal aid attorneys. Across all professional

groups, joint legal and physical custody was recommended at a fairly high average 30 percent

likelihood. However, evaluators and private attorneys selected this option at a higher likelihood.

Although recommending physical custody to the perpetrator was recommended least, evaluators

recommended this option with an average likelihood of 15 to 20 percent, higher than the other

sub-groups, and another cause for concern.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

119

Visitation Recommendations by Evaluators

For actual cases in which visitation was recommended for the perpetrator, supervision by a

professional or paraprofessional was recommended in about half the cases. In one third of cases,

however, no supervision of visits was recommended, raising possible concerns about the safety of

the children and the other parent. Evaluators recommended an almost identical 31 percent of

cases for supervised visits in the Bow and Boxer (2003) survey; and recommended some type of

formal or informal supervised visitation in 40 percent of cases. “Third party” supervision was

required of fathers’ visits in 26 percent of the Kernic et al. (2005) cases in which the court knew

about and substantiated the DV; if the case was substantiated but not known by the court, such

supervision was required in only 10 percent of cases.

Belief in False Allegations of DV Related to Other Custody Beliefs

Among evaluators and judges, the belief that survivors falsely allege DV is part of a close

constellation of beliefs (note: this analysis was only conducted with these two groups). As

predicted, the belief in false DV allegations was strongly related to beliefs that (1) survivors

alienate children from the other parent; (2) DV is not an important factor in custody decisions; (3)

children are hurt when survivors are reluctant to co-parent; and (4) survivors make false

allegations of child abuse. Among evaluators, this belief in false allegations was also related to the

belief that the mother in the case vignette would psychologically harm her child and was

exaggerating her reports of violence.

The belief that fathers falsely allege DV was related to the beliefs that fathers falsely allege child

physical and sexual abuse and alienate children from their mothers. It was not related to the other

beliefs.

Evaluator Hypotheses About the Causes and Consequences of DV Related to Custody Beliefs

The vignette case of DV described the wife’s reports of her husband’s controlling behavior and

severe violence and her psychological test results showing anxiety, depression, and paranoia.

When describing the initial hypotheses they would explore in the vignette, 23% of the evaluators

said they would explore coercive/controlling behavior, 17% would explore the mother’s

psychological symptoms as the result of DV, and only 5% would explore the father’s alcohol use as

a cause of DV. Those who mentioned coercive-controlling behavior were more likely to consider

the mother’s psychological symptoms as caused by DV.

Evaluators who said they would explore hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior and

mental health consequences of the DV were more likely to believe:

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

120

 DV is important in custody decisions

 mothers do not make false DV allegations

 victims do not alienate the children

 victims do not hurt the children when they resist co-parenting

 the father in the vignette will harm his son psychologically

 the father in the vignette minimized his violence

 the mother in the vignette did not exaggerate her reports of abuse.

Evaluators who made initial hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior were more likely to

believe fathers make false DV allegations.

Other studies, using interview and case review methods, have been able to distinguish between

“power-and-control” perspectives of evaluators versus those based on family conflict or

intra-psychic processes (Davis, O’Sullivan, Susser, & Fields, 2010; Haselschwerdt, Hardesty, & Hans,

2011). Similar to our findings, Haselschwerdt et al. (2010) found that a “power-and-control”

perspective was related to beliefs that false allegations are rare, DV is very relevant in custody

evaluations, and co-parenting is less important to consider than safety.

Beliefs About Custody Related to Recommendations

Among evaluators, beliefs about custody were related to both actual and vignette

recommendations. Recommendations that favored the offender over the victim in custody

arrangements was related to beliefs that victims alienate children from the other parent, make

false DV allegations, and hurt the children if they resist co-parenting. Custody for the offender was

also associated with the belief that DV is not an important factor in custody decisions and that

coercive-controlling behavior in the vignette was not a factor to consider. These same beliefs were

related to the belief that the couple in the vignette would benefit from mediation. A

recommendation for mediation was less likely among those who would explore

coercive-controlling violence of the father and the psychological consequences of violence on the

mother.

Despite the presence of severe violence and controlling behavior in the case vignette, evaluators

reported that they would most likely recommend unsupervised visits for the father. This response

differed significantly from that of DV workers, who were more likely to choose professional

supervision of visits. Evaluators who recommended supervised visitation for the offender in either

their own cases or the vignette case were more likely to believe that DV is an important factor to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

121

consider when making custody decisions. One aberrant finding was that unsupervised visits were

recommended more often by those who would explore coercive-controlling behavior in the

vignette case. This finding runs counter to that of Davis et al. (2010) who found a

power-and-control perspective related to the safety level of the parenting plan, which included

supervised visits and exchanges. In our study, supervised visitation was recommended more often

for the father in the vignette by those who hypothesized that the mother’s psychological

symptoms were due to DV.

Judges had similar responses to the evaluators. Their beliefs about DV and custody were

significantly related to the belief that, in the case vignette, the child’s interests would be served

best if the father received sole or joint custody. Beliefs about DV and custody were also

significantly related to the belief that the child did not need supervised visits.

Gender Differences

As predicted, male evaluators were more likely than female evaluators to believe in that mothers

make false DV allegations. Male evaluators were also more likely to believe that victims alienate

the children and hurt the children when they resist co-parenting, and that DV is not an important

factor in custody decisions. Women were more likely to believe that perpetrators alienate children

from their mothers.

Male and female evaluators did not differ in their custody arrangement recommendations.

Women were more likely than men to believe that supervised visitation was in the best interest of

the child in the vignette; they were also more likely to think that mediation would benefit the

couple in the vignette.

Knowing a Victim

If the evaluator’s mother was a survivor of DV, the evaluator was more likely to have

recommended (or would recommend) custody to the DV victim and supervised visits with the

offender. Having any family member as a DV survivor was related to the beliefs that mothers do

not falsely allege DV or alienate the children, as well as the belief that domestic violence is an

important consideration in custody-visitation determinations.

Knowing a non-family member who survived DV was not consistently related to recommendations

for custody and visitation. Evaluators with a friend who was a victim were more likely to believe

supervised visitation was beneficial for the father in the vignette. Those who were acquainted with

a victim made more recommendations for sole or joint custody to be granted to the perpetrator.

Some of the beliefs about custody—false allegations, alienation, and the importance of DV—were

related in expected directions to knowing a friend or co-worker who survived DV.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

122

Unlike the findings in some other studies of professionals (e.g., Yoshihama & Mills, 2003), being a

survivor of DV was not related to beliefs or recommendations.

Knowledge of Domestic Violence Related to Recommendations

Several areas of knowledge were related to custody and visitation recommendations. Knowledge

of DV prevalence and danger assessment were related to more recommendation for DV victims to

receive sole custody. Knowledge of post-separation violence was related to the belief that the

mother in the vignette should have sole custody. Finally, knowledge about the effects of children’s

exposure to domestic violence was related to more recommendations for supervised visitation.

Knowledge of screening was more common among evaluators who would explore hypotheses

about coercive-controlling behavior in the vignette. Knowledge of DV prevalence was more

common among evaluators who would consider the mother’s psychological symptoms as resulting

from DV. Several areas of knowledge acquisition were related to the five beliefs about custody:

mothers do not make false allegations; mothers do not alienate their children; mothers do not

hurt the children by not co-parenting; DV is an important consideration in custody decisions; and

fathers make false allegations of abuse. These relationships with beliefs were especially true for

the knowledge areas of DV screening and post-separation violence, implying that more specific

knowledge may have more impact on beliefs. Knowledge about the causes of DV was not related

to any beliefs about custody or custody-visitation recommendations.

Methods of DV Knowledge Acquisition Related to Recommendations

None of the various methods of knowledge acquisition were related to actual recommendations

evaluators had made (or would have made) regarding custody and visitation. In the vignette,

however, workshop and lecture attendance was related to recommending custody to the

mother-survivor and supervised visits for the father. Workshop and lecture attendance was also

related to all four beliefs about victims—the victim does not make false allegations, alienate the

children, or hurt the child by not co-parenting, and DV is an important factor in custody

determinations. In addition, workshop attendance was more common among those who would

explore hypotheses about coercive-controlling behavior and about mental health problems arising

from DV. This finding is consistent with that of Haselschwerdt et al. (2011) who found that

evaluators who perceived power and control as the central dynamic of DV had much more

extensive DV training.

Having professional consultations and reading books and articles were related to viewing DV as a

likely cause of mental health problems and to the beliefs that DV is important in custody decisions

and that victims do not make false allegations or alienate the children. Web site use was linked to

the beliefs that DV is important in custody decisions, supervised visits are beneficial for the father

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

123

in the vignette, and the mother’s psychological symptoms may be caused by DV. An unexpected

finding was that film and video viewing were related to the belief that mediation would be useful

for the couple in the vignette.

Court Versus Private Settings

Only weak evidence pointed to differences between court-based and private evaluators’

custody-visitation recommendations and further analysis is warranted. More clear-cut differences

were found when analyzing beliefs. Court-based evaluators were less likely to believe that victims

make false allegations, alienate children from the other parent, and hurt the children if they are

reluctant to co-parent. The differences in beliefs may be due to educational, background and DV

knowledge differences between the groups. In another study, private and court evaluators used

different assessment methods. Court evaluators were more likely to gather a history of from the

mother, assess parenting skills, interview relatives and teachers, and make home visits (Horvath,

Logan, & Walker, 2002).

Professional Degree

Evaluators with degrees in social work and marriage-family therapy were more likely than

psychologists and counselors to recommend custody to the victim in their practice and the

vignette. Social workers were more likely than psychologists to see supervised visits for the father

in the vignette as beneficial. Social workers were also more likely than psychologists to believe

that DV is an important factor when making custody-visitation decisions and that victims do not

make false allegations, alienate children, or hurt them when they resist co-parenting. Counselors

were less likely than psychologists to believe that victims make false allegations. Based on other

studies, the majority of judges and attorneys prefer psychologists to social workers as custody

evaluators (Bow & Quinnell, 2004; LaFortune, 1997). However, social workers’ evaluations may

include a broader systems framework (e.g., Lewis, 2009) that focuses more on family interactions,

community supports, and social norm, including those leading to inequities. One study of all forms

of custody evaluations found that social workers were more likely than psychologists to make

home visits, but less likely to observe the mother and child (Horvath, Logan, & Walker, 2002)

Experience Conducting Evaluations

The total number of evaluations that evaluators had conducted and the number they had

conducted in the year preceding the survey had only a few weak, inconsistent relationships with

beliefs and recommendations.

Inquiring About and Screening for Domestic Violence

It was reassuring to find that 94 percent of evaluators reported that they always or almost always

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

124

directly inquired about domestic violence. Somewhat less reassuring was the finding that 38

percent never used instruments or standard protocols to screen for DV, and 24 percent used them

only some of the time. The overall usage rate of 61 percent was higher than the 30 percent rate

for “specialized inventories, measures, or questionnaires that focus specifically on domestic

violence” in the Bow and Boxer (2003) survey of evaluators. Using specific instruments can help to

increase detection of DV, as found in mediation and child protection settings (e.g., Ballard,

Holtzworth-Munroe, Applegate, Beck, 2010; Magen, Conroy, Hess, Pandiera, & Simon, 2001).

Of evaluators who used an instrument to assess for DV, 16 percent indicated using only a general

measure of psychopathology. As in studies of general evaluation practice (Ackerman & Brey

Pritzel, 2011; Bow, 2006; LaFortune & Carpenter, 1998), the MMPI was used most often. In one

study it was given a moderate amount of weight in making recommendations, and less weight

than interviews and observations (LaFortune & Carpenter, 1998). In the Bow and Boxer (2003)

study of custody evaluations in DV cases, psychological testing was viewed as moderately

important by evaluators and less important than observations, interviews, contact with therapists,

and reviews of police and medical records.

While such general measures might help place offenders into typologies with valuable practice

implications, they can also lead to misinterpretations and have limited value in assessing domestic

violence. In addition, impression management among DV offenders undergoing custody

evaluations leads to invalid test results for a substantial minority of offenders (Helfritz, Stanford,

Conklin, Greve, Villemarette-Pittman, & Houston, 2006).

One guidebook for judges cautions that “Generally . . . psychological testing is not appropriate in

domestic violence situations. Such testing may misdiagnose the non-abusive parent’s normal

response to the abuse or violence as demonstrating mental illness, effectively shifting the focus

away from the assaultive and coercive behaviors of the abusive parent” (Dalton, Drozd, & Wong,

2006, p.20). Not surprisingly, evaluators using these measures were less likely to have received

information on screening for domestic violence and assessing dangerousness.

Beliefs in Patriarchal Norms, Just World, and Social Dominance

The beliefs regarding patriarchal norms, a just world, and social dominance were correlated with

each other and with custody beliefs and recommendations. Patriarchal norms correlated with all

five custody beliefs—that DV is not important in custody decisions, victims make false allegations,

victims alienate the children, victims hurt children when they resist co-parenting, and fathers do

not make false allegations. More importantly, patriarchal norms were related to all five outcome

measures—recommendations for sole and joint custody to the perpetrator, non-supervised visits,

seeing sole or joint custody for the perpetrator in the vignette as being in the best interest of the

child, recommendations for unsupervised visitation if visitation is needed, and seeing mediation as

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

125

beneficial.

The belief that the world is basically just was related to four of these five custody beliefs. Belief in

a just world was also related to past recommendations for sole or joint custody to the perpetrator

and believing that mediation would be useful for the couple in the vignette. The belief in social

hierarchies was not related to recommendations. However, it was related to the belief that victims

make false allegations and alienate their children, as well as the belief that fathers do not make

false allegations of abuse. The above findings provide evidence that broader beliefs—among them,

that discrimination against women and social injustice are not major problems today—underlie

specific beliefs about custody and domestic violence.

The Impact of Groups of Variables

When we assessed the overall relationship of groups of variables to recommendations, it was clear

that beliefs about custody and domestic violence (e.g., false allegations, alienation, cooperative

parenting) and beliefs about the vignette case (e.g., future harm to the son, minimizing,

exaggerating) had the strongest relationships. The core beliefs (e.g., patriarchal norms, just world,

social dominance) had the next strongest relationship with recommendations. Methods of

acquiring knowledge, areas of knowledge, demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender), setting

(e.g., private vs. other), and number of victims known had the smallest overall relationship with

recommendations.

When groups of variables were assessed in particular sequences using hierarchical multiple

regression, three major findings emerged:

1. The relationship between the recommendations and the knowledge acquisition

methods and areas became stronger when controlling for demographics (e.g., age,

gender) and background (e.g., knowing a victim of DV).

2. Both core beliefs and custody beliefs contributed to recommendation outcomes

independently, although the custody beliefs were partially explained by core

beliefs.

3. The demographic and background variables had little effect in explaining the

relationship between the sets of belief variables and the four custody-visitation

recommendation variables. These results need to be viewed cautiously because

some recommendation measures may be less reliable than belief measures.

Survivor Interviews

Information from a small, unrepresentative group of survivors who experienced negative

outcomes during the child custody process revealed several themes. They reported that domestic

violence is ignored or minimized in the evaluation; too much weight is given to mental health

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

126

symptoms or perceived symptoms of survivors; evaluations are often one-sided and rushed; and

negative experiences, such as being reprimanded for reporting child abuse, occur in evaluations.

These findings are consistent with those found in a review of studies from five states and

summarized by Araji and Bosek (2010)—including judges’ failure to consider domestic violence as

a factor in child custody decisions, psychological testing being used against victims, discrediting

reports of abuse, and custody evaluators being untrained and biased in favor of perpetrators.

As a result of their experiences, the survivors recommended that (1) evaluators conduct fair and

thorough custody evaluations; (2) families would benefit from the expansion of safe visitation and

exchange programs; (3) jurisdictions should enforce child protection laws and investigate all

reports of child abuse; and (4) DV training for custody evaluators, court professionals, and

guardians ad litem should be mandatory. The survivors’ recommendation for more supervised

visitation programs is noteworthy because it indicates the continuing fear they experienced at the

prospect of any contact with their ex-partners. Therefore, programs that prevent the parents’

contact during visits and exchanges probably need to be expanded.

The interviews with survivors also provided opportunities to interpret evaluators’ and other

professionals’ reports, and to generate new areas of inquiry for understanding evaluator

responses. Parallels between survivor reports and survey results appeared in a number of areas:

1) Survivors’ reports that domestic abuse was minimized or ignored are similar to the survey

variable of not viewing DV as important in custody decisions. Many professionals focus on

potential harm to the child, failing to realize that if the mother is unsafe, the child is likely to be

unsafe as well. The view that DV is not important in custody decisions is not an isolated belief,

given that it was related in the survey to beliefs that victims make false allegations and alienate

the children. Some survivors believed that DV was minimized by professionals because they stayed

with or returned to their abuser. Professionals need information on survivors’ struggles to keep

their children safe, a commitment that often includes staying with the children’s father (Hardesty

& Chung, 2006; Hardesty & Ganong, 2006). For example, mothers may fear that if they leave or

seek professional help, they will lose custody of their children (Radford & Hester, 2006).

2) The survivors’ reports of overreliance on or misinterpretation of mental health symptoms and a

relative lack of emphasis on parenting ability may be paralleled in the survey by the group of

evaluators who used general psychopathology measures alone to assess domestic violence. Some

survivors deduced that judges’ and evaluators’ perceptions of women’s real or purported mental

health symptoms played a role in whether those professionals believed women’s accounts of

domestic violence.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

127

3) Some survivors also recommended that child protection laws be enforced and were concerned

about receiving sanctions for reporting child abuse. A few evaluators surveyed believed that many

victims falsely allege domestic violence. The same evaluators are likely to believe that allegations

of child abuse are false. This finding also holds for judges and thus helps to explain some judges’

response to child abuse allegations.

4) Survivors’ training recommendations are consistent with the survey findings on the links

between evaluators’ knowledge of domestic violence, their beliefs, and the recommendations

they make.

5) Some survivors’ reports of a double standard when measuring mental illness in mothers and

fathers suggest that mothers are held to a higher parenting standard. This may be one way in

which the role of patriarchal norms found in the survey ismanifest in survivor accounts of

evaluators’ behavior.

6) A small number of survivors said they were pressured to be “cooperative parents” despite a

reasonable reluctance to co-parent due to continued abuse and harassment or the fear they

would occur. The interviews give survivors’ perspectives of one of the key variables in the

evaluator survey, specifically the credibility of domestic abuse allegations. The survivors also

highlighted the need for evaluators to understand the traumatic effects of emotional abuse. This is

a particularly important area of inquiry for future studies of evaluators.

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

When interpreting the results of the study, several limitations need to be kept in mind. First, it is

not known how accurately respondents in each professional group represent their field. No

national directories are available for any of the groups; therefore we were unable to draw random

samples of potential participants. The interpretation of comparisons across professional groups

and any possible generalizations about each group must be made with great caution. Fortunately,

many of the research questions and hypotheses involved relationships among variables within

groups, rather than comparisons between groups.

Second, reports of beliefs about controversial topics, even on anonymous surveys, may be

influenced by social desirability response bias or demand characteristics (i.e. respondents trying to

prove or disprove the supposed hypotheses). The construct and concurrent validity found in the

results attest to the variability in responses and may indicate that response bias was not a

significant factor. The use of a vignette can also ameliorate the impact of response bias.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

128

Third, some measures were created for this study. Although they showed good construct validity,

some of the internal reliabilities were at the low end of acceptability. The reliabilities of some of

the core belief measures also fell at the low end of acceptability. As a result, the measures with

lower reliabilities are likely to have lowered correlations with other variables, leading to null

findings.

Fourth, many aspects of the study focused on all forms of domestic violence in order to build upon

prior research. However, evaluators’ responses are likely to vary depending on the type and

severity of domestic violence. The vignette controlled the variability of violence type by portraying

one type. Future research should explore the effect of differential assessments for different types

of violence and the recommendations that follow from these assessments.

Fifth, findings from the survivor interviews should be interpreted carefully. The purpose of the

qualitative interviews was to help interpret the quantitative findings and suggest new areas to

explore. We chose to interview those who had very negative outcomes. Their experiences should

not be viewed as representative. In addition, we interviewed a relatively small number of

survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

The above limitations point to directions that future research could take, including:

 Using representative samples of professionals to improve the strength of

conclusions;

 Adding a measure of social desirability bias to indicate the strength of this potential

bias in the results;

 Exploring beliefs and custody recommendations in relation to different types of

abuse (severe or non-severe, controlling or non-controlling). Professionals

conducting custody evaluations are increasingly trained to conduct differential

assessments based on types of abuse;

 Using actual custody outcomes as reported in court records to increase validity of

findings;

 Studying key variables over time to locate clues about causal connections (e.g., an

experiment on the training of professionals could indicate the effect of training on

beliefs and subsequent custody recommendations).

Bow (2006) details the strengths and weaknesses of various child custody research methods, and

Hardesty and Chung (2006) offer some directions for future research.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

129

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Despite the limitations described above, this study has important implications for practice.

Acquiring Knowledge of Specific DV Topics

Although the majority of professionals reported knowing about post-separation violence,

screening, and assessing dangerousness, judges, evaluators, and private attorneys reported the

lowest rates of such knowledge. More training for judges, evaluators, and private attorneys

regarding these specific topics is especially desirable because this knowledge is related to a

decreased tendency to believe that victims make false allegations or alienate the children

Workshop and lecture attendance were the methods most often associated with such positive

outcomes such as recommending custody to the victim-mother in the vignette, several

victim-supporting beliefs, and a willingness to explore coercive-controlling violence and mental

health consequences of violence as major factors to consider in the vignette case. Information

obtained through websites, a low-cost means of training, is also related to some positive

outcomes—specifically the belief that DV is an important factor to consider when making custody

determinations, recommending supervised visits for the violent parent in the vignette, and viewing

the mental health problems of the mother in the vignette as a consequence of DV. All

professionals involved with custody evaluations need DV training prior to involvement in DV

custody cases, as well as yearly continuing education.

Information on False Allegations of Domestic Violence

The professionals as a whole estimated on average that 35 percent of fathers and 18 percent of

mothers make false allegations when DV is alleged. Evaluators estimated that in their cases 17

percent of fathers’ and 22 percent of mothers’ DV allegations were false. Research is needed to

determine the actual rates of false DV allegations. One study showed that mothers’ domestic

violence claims were substantiated at higher rates than fathers’ claims, but it did not investigate

the extent of false allegations (Johnston, Lee, Oleson, & Walters, 2005). A possible concern that

emerged in our findings is that custody evaluators and private attorneys tend to estimate higher

rates of false allegations compared with the estimates of other professionals. Differences between

judges’ estimates and those of evaluators and private attorneys cannot be explained by

differences in settings because they would often be involved in the same cases.

Among domestic violence workshops and institutes are those offered by: National Judicial Institute on Domestic

Violence (http://www.njidv.org); National Judicial Education Program of Legal Momentum

(http://www.legalmomentum.org/our-work/vaw/njep.html); Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; and the

Affiliated Trainings of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

130

Information on False Allegations of Child Abuse

In custody evaluation cases that allege child abuse, evaluators estimated higher rates of false child

abuse allegations than research studies show (for a review see Johnston, Lee, Oleson, & Walters,

2005). This finding indicates that evaluators need to obtain more training on the validity of child

abuse allegations in general. Together with the survivors’ reports on the reluctance of evaluators

to take child abuse allegations seriously, evaluators also need to make the investigation of these

allegations a very high priority.

Custody Recommendations

Although evaluators’ most common recommendation was that sole legal and physical custody be

awarded to victims of DV, some evaluators reported recommending this option only

“occasionally.” Of particular concern was the relatively high percentage of evaluators who

recommended that the victim receive physical custody, but that legal custody be shared by the

parents. Evaluators must understand the potential negative implications of this arrangement,

given the likelihood that many abusers will use the arrangement to continue their harassment and

manipulation through legal channels (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003;

Zorza, 2010). Abusers can gain access to victims by manufacturing reasons to “discuss” child

rearing or by insisting upon joint attendance at school events, parent-teacher meetings, or medical

appointments. They can also withhold consent for a child’s counseling, medical procedures, and

extra-curricular school events.

How Beliefs About False Allegations of Domestic Violence Relate to Other Beliefs and to

Custody-Visitation Recommendations

Among evaluators, the belief that DV allegations tend to be false belonged to two larger

constellations of beliefs: (a) other custody-related beliefs and (b) core beliefs about gender

equality, justice, and social dominance. The relationship among the custody related beliefs implies

that practitioners must understand the close links between the belief that false allegations are

common, and the beliefs that mothers alienate their children from the other parent, hurt the

children when they do not co-parent, and have chronic mental health problems, that DV is not an

important factor in custody decisions, and that coercive-controlling behavior is not a major factor

to consider in evaluations.

To this end, training must provide accurate information on the following topics: the actual rate

and nature of false allegations and parental alienation; that survivors are reluctant to co-parent

out of fear of future harm to themselves and their children; the reasons DV needs to be

considered in custody decisions; the mental health consequences of DV; and the importance of

understanding coercive-controlling forms of violence. This recommendation could apply to judges

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

131

as well, since their beliefs about DV and custody were significantly related to the outcomes

recommended in the case vignette.

Training may help overcome misconceptions about parent-alienation syndrome. A guidebook for

judges from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges states that:

In contested custody cases, children may indeed express fear of, be concerned about, have

distaste for, or be angry at one of their parents. Unfortunately, an all too common practice

in such cases is for evaluators to diagnose children who exhibit a very strong bond and

alignment with one parent and, simultaneously, a strong rejection of the other parent, as

suffering from “parental alienation syndrome” or “PAS”. Under relevant evidentiary

standards, the court should not accept this testimony. The theory positing the existence of

“PAS” has been discredited by the scientific community. If the history of violence is ignored

as the context for the abused parent’s behavior in a custody evaluation, she or he may

appear antagonistic, unhelpful, or mentally unstable. Evaluators may then wrongly

determine that the parent is not fostering a positive relationship with the abusive parent

and inappropriately suggest giving the abusive parent custody or unsupervised visitation in

spite of the history of violence; this is especially true if the evaluator minimizes the impact

on children of violence against a parent or pathologizes the abused parent’s responses to

the violence (Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006, p, 24-25).

The link between beliefs about custody and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice, and

social dominance indicates a connection to evaluators’ deeper values. Professional educators can

use value-awareness exercises to help evaluators identify implicit values and shift their beliefs.

These exercises increase awareness of internal value conflicts that lead to changes in attitudes and

behavior (for a review of studies that used this method see Grube, Mayton, & Ball-Rokeach, 1994).

Bias might also be reduced by requiring evaluators to use standardized evaluation formats or

templates and to validate allegations of abuse (Hannah, 2010; Neustein & Lesher, 2005; Schafran,

2003).

The focus on beliefs is important since this study showed a strong association between evaluators’

recommendations for custody-visitation arrangements and their beliefs about custody in domestic

violence cases and broader beliefs about patriarchal norms, justice, and social dominance. These

associations were stronger than those for demographics, background, and DV knowledge.

Professional Degrees, Roles, and Settings

Differences in beliefs and recommendations emerged from this study across different evaluation

settings, professional roles, and educational degrees of the evaluators. However, readers must

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

132

exercise caution when interpreting these results because survey participants may not be

representative of their professional groups. If further research supports the findings of this study,

important implications emerge regarding professional degrees, roles, and settings: (1) legal aid

attorneys and DV program workers hold very similar beliefs and are likely to collaborate well as

both individual advocates and advocates within a system; (2) social work evaluators may have

more supportive responses to victims because their training emphasizes the community,

sociocultural, and social justice context of the family and they may be more likely to see

psychological symptoms within the context of trauma history; and, (3) the beliefs of court-based

evaluators were more supportive of survivors than those of private evaluators and indicate an

important area for more research.

Inquiring About and Screening for Domestic Violence

We found it reassuring that almost all evaluators directly inquired about the presence of domestic

violence. However, only one third reported always using standard protocols or instruments for DV

screening. The more consistent use of DV-specific tools is likely to increase the rate of DV

detection, as it has in child welfare settings (Magen, Conroy, Hess, Pandiera, & Simon, 2001) and

as it appears to in court settings (Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson, & Spinozza, 1997).

More systematic screening, risk assessment, and safety planning in the court setting might also be

desirable (for specific recommendations see Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson, &

Spinozza, 1997). Ellis (2008), for example, recommends mandatory risk assessment that includes

safety planning and has developed a measure for this purpose. California family court service staff

members are required to screen for a history of domestic violence, develop a safety plan, and

conduct a “differential” assessment of the nature of the violence. A 1997 survey of 45 courts

showed that the following procedures were used to screen for DV: review of pleadings (51

percent), custody evaluations (49 percent), intake form (36 percent), interviews about abuse (31

percent), testimony (6 percent), pre-trial conference (3 percent), and child abuse reports (1

percent) (Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson, & Spinozza, 1997) (for information on the

attorney’s role in DV assessment and safety planning see Fields, 2010).

In the past, the Spousal Assault Risk Appraisal was the instrument most widely used by evaluators,

though only 20 percent actually employed it (Bow & Boxer, 2003). New tools and protocols are

increasingly available. For example DV screening tools (Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck & Applegate,

2010), measures of coercive-controlling violence (Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck & Applegate, 2010;

Johnson, 2008), guidelines for differential assessment of abuse types (Jaffe, Crooks, & Bala, 2009;

Jaffe, Johnston, Crooks, & Bala, 2008), lethality risk assessment (Campbell, 2003), and measures of

the impact of DV on children (Geffner, Conradi, Gie & Aranda, 2009) (for reviews of measures and

protocols see Geffner, Conradi, Gie & Aranda, 2009; Gould & Martindale, 2007; and Hardesty &

Chung, 2006).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

133

Of the evaluators who reported using an instrument to “assess domestic violence,” 16 percent

reported using only general measures of personality-psychopathology, usually the MMPI.

Although such measures detect personality disorders that might help place known abusers into

typologies useful for assessment and intervention, they may also lead to false conclusions about

the psychopathology of abusers and survivors (Erickson, 2006). Evaluators using such general

measures were more likely to believe that mothers make false allegations and to award sole or

joint custody to the father in the case vignette. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges (Dalton, Drozd & Wong, 2006) cautions that:

Some of these standard tests may also measure and confuse psychological distress or

dysfunction induced by exposure to domestic violence with personality disorder or

psychopathology. While there may be cases in which trauma induced by abuse has a

negative impact on parenting in the short term, it is critically important not to attach a

damaging label prematurely to a parent whose functioning may improve dramatically once

she or he is safe, the acute stress has been alleviated, and the trauma treated (p. 21).

Selection of Custody Evaluators by Courts

The findings of this study might provide guidance to courts as they select child custody evaluators.

Evaluators who believed that domestic violence was an important consideration in custody

evaluations were characterized by having more DV knowledge than others. The National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ guidebook states evaluators need “first and foremost” training

and experience in domestic violence. It continues:

Domestic violence is its own specialty. Qualification as an expert in the mental health

field or as a family law attorney does not necessarily include competence in assessing the

presence of domestic violence, its impact on those directly and indirectly affected by it, or

its implications for the parenting of each party. And even though some jurisdictions are

now requiring custody evaluators to take a minimum amount of training in domestic

violence, that “basic training” by itself is unlikely to qualify an evaluator as an expert, or

even assure basic competence, in such cases. Ideally, your jurisdiction will already have a

way of designating evaluators who have particular competence in domestic violence.

Where that is not the case, you might test the evaluator’s level of experience and

expertise, despite the difficulties inherent in any such inquiry, by asking:

• whether the evaluator has been certified as an expert in, or [is] competent in,

issues of domestic violence by a professional agency or organization, if such

certification is available. If certification is available, the court should inquire into the

criteria for “certification,” and determine if it involved a bona fide course of study

or practice;

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

134

• what courses or training (over what period of time) the evaluator has taken

focused on domestic violence;

• the number of cases involving domestic violence that the evaluator has handled in

practice or to which he or she has been appointed, remembering, however, that

such experience may simply reflect the mechanism used by the court in identifying

potential evaluators, rather than any relevant expertise; and

• the number of cases in which the evaluator has been qualified as an expert in

domestic violence (Dalton, Drozd, & Wong, 2006, p. 17).

A report for the National Center for State Courts (Keilitz, Davis, Flango, Garcia, Jones, Peterson &

Spinozza, 1997) makes a number of additional recommendations for selecting custody evaluators

and guardians ad litem (GALs), including:

 maintaining a roster of court-approved evaluators and GALs from which the court manager

can select a service provider; because some cases require evaluators and GALs to consider

cultural norms to accurately assess behaviors, the roster should reflect the community

served by the court;

 assessing whether potential evaluators and GALs have misconceptions or biases about

domestic violence that would preclude an impartial report to the court;

 establishing clear expectations for the form and content of reports and processes and

methods to be employed to conduct an evaluation or represent a child;

 linking report requirements to the issues or factors that the judge must consider in making

a custody or visitation determination (p.34).

Expanding Supervised Visitation and Exchange Programs

A sizable minority of evaluators reported never recommending supervised visitation programs,

perhaps because they are not available in their communities. Survivors emphasized the need for

more supervised visitation programs to help keep them and their children safe. Moreover,

increasing the availability of such programs is likely to reduce survivors’ psychological trauma as

well. A guidebook for judges concludes that if the court is inclined to consider a request for

visitation, “it may be necessary to determine (a) the motivation for the request; (b) the impact

ongoing contact will have on the children or on their relationship with the abused parent; and (c)

whether visitation should occur and, if so, how it might be structured to assure the safety of the

children and abused parent, sometimes limiting access to strictly supervised visitation” (Dalton,

Drozd & Wong, 2006, p. 13). There also exist supervised visitation program guidelines and

standards designed to protect both children and their domestically abused parents (Supervised

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

135

Visitation Network, 2006; United States Department of Justice, 2007)

In conclusion, this study reveals the extent to which child custody evaluators and other

professionals believe that fathers and mothers in domestic abuse cases falsely allege abuse. The

beliefs about false allegations were clearly related to other beliefs and to custody and visitation

recommendations. The findings can provide some guidance in the selection of custody evaluators,

as well as information on domestic violence knowledge acquisition methods related to beliefs and

recommendations supportive of survivors. The implementation of these findings is likely to lead to

safer custody and visitation arrangements for all family members.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

136

REFERENCES

Abrams, R., & Greaney, J. (1989). Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial

Court [of Massachusetts]. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1996). Child custody evaluation practices: A 1996 survey of

psychologists. Family Law Quarterly, 30(3), 565–586.

Ackerman, M. J. and Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child Custody Evaluations: A 20-year follow-up. Family

Court Review, 49, 618–628.

Aldrich, L. & Kluger, J.H. (2010). New York’s one judge-one family response to family violence.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61, 77–86.

American Judges Association (n.d.). Domestic violence and the courtroom: Understanding the

problem … knowing the victim. Retrieved from:

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/publications/domestic violence.html

American Psychological Association. (1996). Violence and the family: Report of the American

Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family law

proceedings. American Psychologist, 65, 863–867.

Anderson, K. (2010). Courageous kids: Abused children sharing their experiences. In M. Hannah &

B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal strategies and policy

issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2007). The post-separation psychological recovery of domestic

abuse survivors. In K. Kendall-Tackett & S. Giacomoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence.

Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc.

Araji, S. K. & Bosek, R. L. (2010). Domestic violence, contested child custody, and the courts:

Findings from five studies. In M. Hannah & B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse,

and child custody: Legal strategies and policy issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2(1). Retrieved

from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. (2006). Model Standards of Practice for Child

Custody Evaluation. Retrieved from:

http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

137

Bachman, R., & Saltzman, L. (1995). Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned

survey. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Knowledge and attitudes about the parental alienation syndrome: A survey

of custody evaluators. American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 1-20.

Ballard, R. H.; Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Applegate, A. G., Beck, C. J. A. (2010). Detecting intimate

partner violence in family and divorce mediation: A randomized trial of intimate partner

violence screening. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 241–263.

Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1976). Receptivity to sexual equality. The Pacific Sociological Review, 19,

519–540.

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic

violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Bernet, W. (2008). Parental Alienation Disorder and DSM-V. The American Journal of Family

Therapy, 38 (5), 349–366.

Bernet, W., von Boch-Galhau, W., Kenan, J., Kinlan, J., Lorandos, D, Sauber, R., Sood, B & Walker, J.

(August, 2008). Parental Alienation Disorder and DSM-V. Unpublished proposal submitted

to the Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group for the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition.

Bernet, W., von Boch-Galhau, W., Baker, A., & Morrison, S. (2010). Parental alienation, DMS-V, and

ICD-11. American Journal of Family Therapy, 38(2), 76-187.

Bow, J. N., & Boxer, P. (2003). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in child custody

evaluations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(12), 1394–1410.

Bow, J. N. (2006). Review of empirical research on child custody practice. Journal of Child Custody,

3, 23–50.

Bow, J. N., Gould, J. W., & Flens, J. R. (2009). Examining parental alienation in child custody cases:

A survey of mental health and legal professionals. American Journal of Family Therapy,

37, 127–145.

Bow, J. N. and Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists current practices and procedures in child

custody evaluations: Five years after APA guidelines, Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 32, 261–268.

Bow, J. N. & Quinnell, F. A. (2004). Critique of child custody evaluations by the legal profession.

Family Court Review, 42, 115–127.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

138

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (2000). Revealing the existence of child abuse in

the context of marital breakdown and custody and access disputes. Child Abuse & Neglect,

24(6), 849–859.

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (2001). The child abuse and divorce myth. Child

Abuse Review, 10(2), 113–124.

Bruch, C. S. (2001). Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: Getting it wrong in child

custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35(3), 527–552.

Busch, R. & Robertson, N. (2000). Innovative approaches to child custody and domestic violence in

New Zealand—The effects of law reform on the discourses of battering. Journal of

Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 3(1), 269–299.

Cahn, N. R. (1991). Civil images of battered women: The impact of domestic violence on child

custody decisions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 44, 1041–1086.

Campbell, J. C. (2003). Danger Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.dangerassessment.org/

Campbell, J. C., & Kendall-Tackett, K. A. (2005). Intimate partner violence: Implications for

women’s physical and mental health. In K. A. Kendall-Tackett (Ed.), The handbook of

women, stress and trauma. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Catalano, S. (2006). Intimate partner violence in the United States. Report from the U.S.

Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/ipv.htm

Crano,W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57,

345–374.

Crites, L., & Coker, D. (1988). What therapists see that judges might miss: A unique guide to

custody decisions when spouse abuse is charged. The Judges’ Journal, 27(2), 9–13, 40–43.

Cromer, L. (2006). Factors that influence the believing of child sexual abuse disclosures.

Dissertation, University of Oregon.

Czapanskiy, K. (1993). Domestic violence, the family, and the lawyering process: Lessons from

studies on gender bias in courts. Family Law Quarterly, 27(1).

Dalton, C. (1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting battered parents and their children in the

family court system. Family Court Review, 37, 273–296.

Dalton, C., Carbon, S., & Olsen, N. (2003). High conflict divorce, violence, and abuse: Implications

for custody and visitation decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 11–33.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

139

Dalton, C., Drozd, L., & Wong, F. (2006). Navigating custody and visitation evaluations in cases with

domestic violence: A judge’s guide. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges.

Danforth, G., & Welling, B. (Eds.). (1996). Achieving equal justice for women and men in the

California courts: Final report. Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on

Gender Bias in the Courts. Retrieved from:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/access/documents/freport.pdf

Davis, M. S., O’Sullivan, C. S., Susser, K., Fields, M. D. Custody evaluations when there are

allegations of domestic violence: Practices, beliefs and recommendations of professional

evaluators. Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, November 29, 2010.

Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/p +dffiles1/nij/grants/234465.pdf

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in

rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Dillman, D. (2005). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.

Dore, M. K. (2004). The friendly parent concept: A flawed factor for child custody. Loyola Journal of

Public Interest Law, 6, 41–56.

Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activism. Feminist

Criminology, 3(2), 121–144.

Dragiewicz, M. (2010). Gender bias in the courts: Implications for battered mothers and their

children. In M. Hannah & B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody:

Legal strategies and policy issues (§ 5.1–5.18). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Dunford-Jackson, B. L. (2004). The role of family courts in domestic violence: The U.S. experience.

In P. G. Jaffe, L. L. Baker, & A. J. Cunningham (Eds.), Protecting children from domestic

violence: Strategies for community interventions (p. 188). New York: Guildford.

Dutton, D. G. (2006). Domestic abuse assessment in child custody disputes: Beware the domestic

violence research paradigm. Journal of Child Custody, 2, 23–42.

Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 14(8), 839–870.

Edleson, J. L., Mbilinyi, L. F., & Shetty, S. (2003). Parenting in the context of domestic violence. San

Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for

Families, Children & the Courts.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

140

Edleson, J. L., & Williams, O. J. (2007). Parenting by men who batter women: New directions for

assessment and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Erickson, N. S. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in child custody evaluations involving battered women:

What does psychological research tell us? Family Law Quarterly, 39(1), 87–108.

Faller, K. C. (2005). False accusations of child maltreatment: A contested issue. Child Abuse and

Neglect, 29(12), 1327–1331.

Faller, K.C. (2007). Coaching children about child abuse: Professionals’ perceptions of the problem.

Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal. 31(9), 947–959.

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. Journal of Child Sexual

Abuse, 4(4), 1–25.

Fields, M. D. (2010). DV case preparation and trial examination: A heavy burden. In M. Hannah &

B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal Strategies and

Policy Issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

Finkelhor, D., & Jones, L. (2006). Why have child maltreatment and child victimization declined?

Journal of Social Issues, 62(4), 685–716.

Foels, R., & Pappas, C. J. (2004). Learning and unlearning the myths we are taught: Gender and

social dominance orientation. Sex Roles, 50 (11-12), 743–757.

Foubert, J. D., & Perry, B. C. (2007). Creating lasting attitude and behavior change in fraternity

men and male student athletes: The qualitative impact of an empathy based rape

prevention program. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 70–86.

Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1984). Just world beliefs and attitudes towards the poor. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 23, 265–269.

Garos, S., Beggan, J., Kluck, A., & Easton, A. (2004). Sexism and pornography use: Toward

explaining past (null) results. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 16(1), 69–96.

Geffner, R., Conradi, L., Geis, K., & Aranda, M. B. (2009). Conducting child custody evaluations in

the context of family violence allegations: Practical techniques and suggestions for ethical

practice. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 189–218.

Gidycz, C. A., Layman, M. J., Rich, C. L., Crothers, M., & Gylys, J. (2001). An evaluation of an

acquaintance rape prevention program: Impact on attitudes, sexual aggression. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1120–1138.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

141

Girdner, L. (1996). Mediation. In D. M. Goelman, F. L. Lehrman & R. L. Valente (Eds.), The impact of

domestic violence on your legal practice: A lawyer’s handbook (pp. 17–21). Washington,

DC: ABA Commission on Domestic Violence.

Goelman, D. M., Lehrman, F. L., & Valente, R. L. (Eds.). (1996). The impact of domestic violence on

your legal practice: A lawyer’s handbook. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Goodmark, L. (2011). State, national, and international legal initiatives to address violence against

women. In Renzetti, C. M., Edleson, J. L., & Bergen, R. K. (Eds). Sourcebook on Violence

Against Women (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Gould,

J. W. & Martindale, D. A. (2007). The art and science of child custody evaluations. New York:

Guilford.

Gould,

J. W., Martindale, D. A., & Eidman, M. H. (2008). Assessing allegations of domestic violence.

Journal of Child Custody, 4(1–2).

Graham-Bermann, S., & Edleson, J. (2002). Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of

research, intervention and social policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Grube, J. W., Mayton, D. M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1994). Inducing change in values, attitudes, and

behaviors: Belief system theory and the method of value self-confrontation. Journal of

Social Issues, 50(4), 153–173.

Hardesty, J. L., & Chung, G. H. (2006). Intimate partner violence, parental divorce, and child

custody: Directions for intervention and future research. Family Relations, 55(2), 200.

Hardesty, J. L., & Ganong, L. H. (2006). How women make custody decisions and manage

co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

23(4), 543.

Haselschwerdt, M. L., Hardesty, J. L., & Hans, J. D. (2011). Custody evaluators’ beliefs about

domestic violence allegations during divorce: Feminist and family violence perspectives.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1694–1719.

Helfritz, L. E., Stanford, M. S., Conklin, S. M., Greve, K. W., Villemarette-Pittman, N. R., Houston, R.

J. (2006). Usefulness of self-report instruments in assessing men accused of domestic

violence. Psychological Record, 56, 171–180.

Hester, M. (2009). The contradictory legal worlds faced by domestic violence victims. In E.

Stark and E. Buzawa (Eds.), Violence against women in families and relationships. Volume

2: The family context. Denver: Praeger.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Meehan, J., Herron, K., Rehman, U., & Stuart, G. (2000). Testing the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

142

Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 68(6), 1000–1019.

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Beck, C. J. A., & Applegate, A. G. (2010). The mediator’s assessment of

safety issues and concerns (MASIC): A screening interview for intimate partner violence

and abuse available in the public domain. Family Court Review, 48, 646–662.

Horvath, L. S., Logan, T., & Walker, R. (2002). Child custody cases: A content analysis of evaluations

in practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 33, 557–565.

Jaffe, P. (2010). Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases: A Process and Outcome

Evaluation of a National Judicial Education Program. Unpublished report. Centre for

Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, Faculty of Education,

University of Western Ontario.

Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C.V., & Bala, N. (2009). A framework for addressing allegations of domestic

violence in child custody disputes. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 169–188.

Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2007). Assessing the best interests of the children. In J. L. Edleson,

& O. J. Williams (Eds.), Parenting by men who batter: New directions for assessment

and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jaffe, P. G., Johnston, J., Crooks, C., & Bala, N. (2008). Custody disputes involving allegations of

domestic violence: The need for differentiated approaches to parenting plans. Family

Court Review, 46. 500–522.

Jaffe, P., Lemon, N., & Poisson, S. (2003). Child custody and domestic violence. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and

situational couple violence. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P, & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody mediation in cases of domestic

violence: Empirical evidence of a failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022.

Johnston, J. (2006). A child-centered approach to high-conflict and domestic violence families:

Differential assessment and interventions. Journal of Family Studies, 12(1), 15–35.

Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of

abuse in custody disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 284.

Keilitz, S. L., Davis, C. V., Flango, C. R., Garcia, V., Jones, A. M., Peterson, M., Spinozza, D. M. (1997).

Domestic violence and child custody disputes: A resource handbook for judges and court

managers. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

143

Kernic, M. A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire:

Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence.

Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991.

Kimmel, M. S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological

research review. Violence Against Women, 8 (11) 1332-1336.

Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic

violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71,

339–352.

Klein, A. (2007). United States sued for granting abusers child custody. National Bulletin on

Domestic Violence Prevention, 13, 1.

Kurth, J. (2010). Historical origins of the father’s rights movement. In M. Hannah &

B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal Strategies and

Policy Issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

LaFortune, K. A. (1997). An investigation of mental health and legal professionals’ activities, beliefs,

and experiences in domestic court: An interdisciplinary survey. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

LaFortune, K.A. & Carpenter, B.N. (1998). Custody evaluations: A survey of mental health

professionals. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 207–224.

Leighton, B. (1989). Spousal abuse in metropolitan Toronto: Research report on the response of the

criminal justice system (No. 1989-02). Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.

Lemon, N., Jaffe, P., & Ganley, A. (1995). Domestic violence and children: Resolving custody and

visitation disputes. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Lesher, M. (2010). Leveling the landscape: Family court auxiliaries and how to counter them. In

M. Hannah & B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal

strategies and policy issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and

religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31–48.

Lewis, K. (2009). Child custody evaluations by social workers. Washington, DC: National Association

of Social Workers.

Liss, M. B., & Stahly, G .B. (1993). Domestic violence and child custody. In M. Hansen, & M.

Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (pp. 175–187).

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

144

Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Jordan, C. E., & Horvath, L. S. (2002). Child custody evaluations and

domestic violence: Case comparisons. Violence and Victims, 17(6), 719–742.

Loo, R. (2001). Belief in a just world: Support for independent just world and dependent just

world dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 703–711.

Luftman, V. H., Veltkamp, L. J., Clark, J. J., Lannacone, S., & Snooks, H. (2005). Practice guidelines

in child custody evaluations for licensed clinical social workers. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 33, 327–357.

Magen, R. H., Conroy, K., Hess, P. M., Pandiera, A., Simon, B. L. (2001). Identifying domestic

violence in child abuse and neglect investigations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16,

580–60.

Maine Administrative Office of the Courts, Office of Court ADR (December, 2009). Policy and

Procedure manual, court alternative dispute resolution service (CADRES). Retrieved from:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/court_info/adr/pdf/Policy%20&%20Proced%20Manual%20

12-09.pdf

Maxwell, M. S., & Oehme, K. (2001). Strategies to improve supervised visitation services in

domestic violence cases. Retrieved from:

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/strategies/strategies.html

Meier, J. S. (2003). Domestic violence, child custody, and child protection: Understanding judicial

resistance and imagining the solutions. American University Journal of Gender, Social

Policy, and Law, 11, 702.

Meier, J. S. (2009). A historical perspective on parental alienation syndrome and parental

alienation. Journal of Child Custody, 6(3), 232–257.

Morrill, A. C., Dai, J., Dunn, S., Sung, I., & Smith, K. (2005). Child custody and visitation decisions

when the father has perpetrated violence against the mother. Violence Against Women,

11(8), 1076–1107.

Myers, C. (1984). The family violence project: Some preliminary data on a treatment program for

spouse abuse. Paper presented at the Second National Conference for Family Violence

Researchers, University of New Hampshire.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1994). Model code on domestic and family

violence. Reno, NV: Author.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1995). Family violence in child custody

statutes: An analysis of state codes and legal practice. Family Law Quarterly, 29, 197–228.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

145

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2004). Family violence: Legislative update,

vol. 10. Reno, NV: Author.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2005). Family violence: Legislative update,

vol. 11. Reno, NV: Author.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating custody and visitation

evaluations in cases with domestic violence: A judge’s guide. Reno, NV: Author.

National Fathers’ Resource Center. (2006). Domestic violence. Retrieved

from: http://www.fathers4kids.com/html/ DomesticViolence.htm

Nicolaidis, C., Curry, M., Ulrich, Y., Sharps, P., McFarlane, J., Campbell, D., Gary, F., Laughon, K.,

Glass, N. & Campbell, J. (2003). Could we have known? A qualitative analysis of data from

women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner. Journal of General

Internal Medicine, 18, 788–94.

Neustein, A., & Goetting, A. (1999). Judicial responses to protective parent’s complaint of child

sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 8(4), 103–122.

Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2005). From madness to mutiny: Why mothers are running from the

family courts—and what can be done about it. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

Olson, K. B. & Ver Steegh, N. (2008). Introduction of special issue editors. Family Court Review, 46,

434–436.

O’Sullivan, C. S. (2000). Estimating the population at risk for violence during child visitation.

Domestic Violence Report, 5(5), 65.

O’Sullivan, C. S., King, L. A., Levin-Russell, K., & Horowitz, E. (2006). Supervised and unsupervised

parental access in domestic violence cases: Court orders and consequences. Final technical

report submitted to the National Institute of Justice.

Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social

dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A

personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and

Computers, 36, 717–731.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

146

Radford, L. & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.

Ramos, M. D., & Runner, M. (1999). Cultural considerations in domestic violence cases: A national

judges benchbook. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Rosen, L. N., & Etlin, M. (1996). The hostage child: Sex abuse allegations in custody disputes.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Rosen, L. N., & O’Sullivan, C. S. (2005). Outcomes of custody and visitation petitions when fathers

are restrained by protection orders: The case of the New York family courts. Violence

Against Women, 11(8), 1054–1075.

Rosen, L. N., Dragiewicz M., & Gibbs, J. (2009). Fathers’ rights groups: Demographic correlates

and impact on custody policy. Violence Against Women, 15(5), 513–531.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89.

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should

the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, 1–30.

Salem, P., & Dunford-Jackson, B. L. (2008). Beyond politics and positions: A call for collaboration

between family court and domestic violence professionals. Family Court Review, 46(3), 437.

Saunders, D. G. (1994). Child custody decisions in families experiencing woman abuse. Social

Work, 39(1), 51–59.

Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social problem? A

review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8,1424–1448.

Saunders, D. G. (2007). Child custody and visitation decisions in domestic violence cases: Legal

trends, risk factors, and safety concerns. Minneapolis, MN: VAWnet: National Resource

Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from:

http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=1134

Saunders, D. G., & Anderson, D. (2000). Evaluation of a domestic violence training for child

protection workers and supervisors: Initial results. Children and Youth Services Review,

22(5), 373–395.

Saunders, D. G., & Browne, A. (2000). Intimate partner homicide. In R. T. Ammerman, & M. Hersen

(Eds.). Case studies in family violence, (2nd Ed.). New York: Plenum.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

147

Saunders, D. G., Holter, M. C., Pahl, L. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2006). Welfare workers’ responses to

domestic violence cases: The effects of training and worker characteristics. Families in

Society, 87, 329–338.

Saunders, D. G., & Kindy, P. (1993). Predictors of physicians’ responses to woman abuse: The

role of gender, background, and brief training. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8,

606–609.

Saunders, D. G., Lynch, A. B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). The inventory of beliefs about

wife-beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes.

Violence and Victims, 2(1), 39–58.

Saunders, D.G., Sullivan, C., Tolman, R. M., & Grabarek, M. (2006). National Evaluation of the

Safe Havens Demonstration Initiative: Final Report. Submitted to the U.S. Department of

Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, November 27, 2006.

Saunders, D. G., Sullivan, C., Tolman, R. M., & Grabarek, M. (2007). The Impact of the Safe Havens

Demonstration Initiative on Beliefs and Practices: Reports from Center Staff & Project

Directors. Presentation at the meeting: Supervised Visitation & Domestic Violence:

Guideposts for Advancing Practice, Policy and Dialogue, Denver CO, U.S. Department of

Justice, June 21, 2007.

Saunders, H. (2009). Securing safety for abused women and children in the family court. In E.

Stark and E. Buzawa (Eds.), Violence against women in families and relationships. Volume

2: The family context. Denver: Praeger.

Schafram, L.H. (2006). Evaluating the evaluators: Problems with outside neutrals. Judges'

Journal, 42, 10–16.

Scott, K. & Crooks, C. (2007). Preliminary evaluation of an intervention program for maltreating

fathers. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 7, 224–238.

Sheeran, M. & Hampton, S. (1999). Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence. Juvenile

and Family Court Journal, 30, 13–25.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and

oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, J. G., Mesh, C. M., Cuthbert, C. V., Slote, K., & Bancroft, L. (2004). Child custody

determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis.

American Journal of Public Health, 94, 951–957.

Stacey, W. A., & Shupe, A. (1984). The family secret: Family violence in America. Boston: Beacon

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

148

Supervised Visitation Network. (2006). Standards for supervised visitation practice. Available from

the Supervised Visitation Network, 1223 King Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204,

http://www.svnworldwide.org.

Stark, E. (2009). Rethinking custody evaluation in cases Involving domestic violence. Journal of

Child Custody, 6, 287–321.

Straus, M. A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wife beating: What do they have in

common? In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of

families: Current family violence research (pp. 213–234). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors

and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Sussman, E. (2010). American Law Institute principles: A tool for assessing justice for battered

mothers and children. In M. Hannah & B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse,

and child custody: Legal strategies and policy issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

Swan, S. C., & Snow, D. L. (2002). A typology of women’s use of violence in intimate relationships.

Violence Against Women, 8(3), 286–319.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and

modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000a). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner

violence: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Report sponsored

by the National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000b). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and

female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against

Women Survey Violence Against Women February 2000 6: 142–161.

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333–1345.

United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. (2006). Report to

Congress. Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Services and Programs.

Retrieved from:

http://www.ssw.umich.edu/about/profiles/saunddan/CongressSupVisit.pdf

United States Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. (2007). Guiding

Principles. Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program. Retrieved

from:

http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/guiding-principles032608.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

149

Ver Steegh, N. (2003). Yes, no, and maybe: Informed decision making about divorce mediation in

the presence of domestic violence. William. & Mary Journal of Women & Law, 9,

145–206.

Voices of Women (2008). Justice denied: How family courts in NYC endanger battered women and

children. Brooklyn, NY: Voices of Women Organizing Project, Battered Women’s Resource

Center. Retrieved from: www.vowbwrc.org

Walker, L. E., & Shapiro, D. L. (2010). Parental Alienation Disorder: Why label children with

a mental diagnosis?, Journal of Child Custody, 7, 266–286.

Williams, O., Boggess, J., & Carter, J. (2004). Fatherhood and domestic violence: Exploring the role

of abusive men in the lives of their children. In P. G. Jaffe, L. L. Baker, & A. J. Cunningham

(Eds.), Protecting children from domestic violence: Strategies for community intervention.

Guilford: NY.

Woffordt, S., Mihalic, D. E., & Menard, S. (1994). Continuities in marital violence. Journal of Family

Violence, 9(3), 195–226.

Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2004). The effects of

children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and

Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171–187.

Wray, R. J. (2006). Public health communication theory and strategies for interpersonal violence

prevention. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 13, 41–60.

Yoshihama, M., & Mills, L. G. (2003). When is the personal professional in public child welfare

practice? The influence of intimate partner and child abuse histories on workers in

domestic violence cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(3), 319–336.

Zelechoski, A. D. (2009). The content of child custody evaluation reports: A forensic assessment

principles-based analysis. (Unpublished dissertation). Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

Zorza, J. (1996). Protecting the children in custody disputes when one parent abuses the other.

Clearinghouse Review, 29(12), 1113–1127.

Zorza, J. (2007). The “friendly parent” concept: Another gender biased legacy from Richard

Gardner. Domestic Violence Report 12(5), 65–78.

Zorza, J. (2010). Manipulative strategies used by domestic violence perpetrators. In M. Hannah &

B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal strategies and

policy issues. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Survey for Child Custody Evaluators Regarding Family Violence,

February 5, 2010

1080 S. University Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109

AIM IS TO IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING.Weexpectthe findings of this survey to add to our knowledge of

custody evaluations and to improve trainings for evaluators.

ANONYMITY & CONSENT. This survey is anonymous and your participation is voluntary. Your completion of the survey will

be an indication that youconsentedtoparticipate.

ELIGIBILITY.By "child custody evaluation" we mean an assessment of individual and family factors that will inform the court

of the best psychological interests of the child when parents cannot agree on custody. If you have never conducted an

evaluator,pleasedonotcompletethesurvey.

TIMEITWILLTAKE. This survey takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. Once you begin completing it, you may skip

anyquestion.

PRIVACY PROTECTION. We suggest you complete the survey in private. Although we have designed this study to keep

your responses anonymous, there is a slight chance that your responses could be seen by someone near you as you type in

your answers. Because of the controversial nature of some of the questions, we cannot rule out the possibility that you could

experience some professional embarrassment if this happened.

QUESTIONS. If you have questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Daniel Saunders at [email protected] or at 1-

734-763-6415. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Institutional Review

Board at 1-734-936-0933 or by email at [email protected].

Background

How many years of experience do you have conducting custody evaluations?

0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 Over 30 years

Approximately how many custody evaluations have you completed altogether in your career?

1 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 500 501 - 1000 Over 1000

Approximately how many custody evaluations have you completed in the past year?

0 1 - 5 6 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 100 Over 100

In what settings do you conduct evaluations? (please check all that apply)

Private Practice Court Public Mental Health Clinic Psychiatric Hospital Other (Please specify)

Other:

What is the state in which you practice the most? If you practice in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or a tribal court, please write that next to "Other."

- AL

- AK

- AZ

- AR

- CA

- CO

- CT

- DE

- FL

- GA

- HI

- ID

- IL

- IN

- IA

- KS

- KY

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

--Select--

APPENDIX A

- LA

- ME

- MD

- MA

- MI

- MN

- MS

- MO

- MT

- NE

- NV

- NH

- NJ

- NM

- NY

- NC

- ND

- OH

- OK

- OR

- PA

- RI

- SC

- SD

- TN

- TX

- UT

- VT

- VA

- WA

- WV

- WI

- WY

- Other (please specify)

Other:

Experience with Domestic Violence Cases

The following questions use the term “domesticviolence."Werealizetherearedifferentdefinitionsandtypesofdomesticviolence.Forthe

purpose of this study, we define domestic violence as any physical force against one intimate partner by another that is not in self-defense

(including smashing, throwing, & hitting objects). If it is too difficult for you to give an estimate, mark "Can't estimate", or simply skip the question.



Please estimate the percentage of your child custody cases that involved allegations of domestic violence.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In what percentage of these alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that the father falsely alleges the mother perpetrated domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In what percentage of these alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that the mother falsely alleges the father perpetrated domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In approximately what percentage of alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that only the father used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

10)

In approximately what percentage of alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that only the mother used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

11)

In approximately what percentage of alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that both parents used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

12)

Please estimate the percentage of your cases involving alleged domestic violence in which you supported the allegation of domestic violence.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

13)

For cases in which you have supported the allegation of domestic violence, how much did this typically impact your evaluation or recommendations?

None A little Some Much Greatly Extremely No Answer

For those cases in which one parent was clearly the perpetrator, please estimate the percentage of times that you recommended, or would

have if in that position, the following custody arrangements:

21)

For those cases in which you recommended parenting time (visitation) for the perpetrator, please estimate the percentage of cases for which you proposed the

following arrangements:

 % No supervision of visits

 % Visits supervised by a friend or relative

 % Visits supervised by a professional or paraprofessional at a supervised visitation program

Total: 0 (must sum to 100)

In approximately what percentage of cases do you:

22)

Directly inquire about the presence of domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

23)

Use instruments or standard protocols to screen for domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

24)

What instruments, if any, do you use to assess domestic violence?

(1000 characters remaining)

Case Vignette

A couple has been married for eight years and separated for six months. Upon separation, the mother moved with their seven year old son to a nearby city and for a

few weeks denied the father any contact with him, even phone calls. The father filed a motion for emergencytemporarycustody.Intheinterviewwiththeevaluator,

the father maintains that he wants a normal father-son relationship and believes that his wife is interfering with his right to be with his son. He says that he is better suited

to care for his son and will ensure liberal and frequent contact with the mother.

The wife responds in her interview that she left the marital home when the husband was out of town for the weekend for fear that he would otherwise prevent her from

leaving. She states that he has been controlling her every move throughout the relationship. She states that during her pregnancy he once punched her; that on another

occasion he “body-slammed”her against his truck; and on a third occasion strangled her. He maintains that on these occasions he was drinking and out of control, the

incidents were isolated, and not part of any larger pattern. He also claims his wife has exaggerated her reports of the incidents and that she never received any injuries.

The wife tells you that she never called the police or went to the hospitalafteranyoftheassaults.Shesaysherhusbandneverphysically harmed their son, but due to

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Never

Seldom 1-

Occasionally 10-

49%

Half of the

time 50%

Most of the

time 51-89%

Almost always

90-99%

Always

100%

14)

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody with

VICTIM of domestic violence

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

15)

SOLE LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody with

PERPETRATOR of domestic violence

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

16)

JOINT LEGAL custody & PRIMARY

PHYSICAL custody with VICTIM

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

17)

JOINT LEGAL custody & PRIMARY

PHYSICAL custody with PERPETRATOR

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

18)

SOLE LEGAL custody with VICTIM & JOINT

PHYSICAL custody

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

19)

SOLE LEGAL custody with PERPETRATOR &

JOINT PHYSICAL custody

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

20) JOINT LEGAL & PHYSICAL custody nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

his controlling and abusive behavior she isfearfulofhimhavingphysicalcustodyoftheirson.Shewantsto maintain physical custody. Reports from the son's new

school indicate that he is doing well.

The husband makes a good salary as an engineer. The wife has never worked more than part-time. His psychological tests do not show evidence of any major mental

illness. Her tests show definite indications of anxiety, depression and paranoia.



If you were presented with this information as an evaluator, what initial hypotheses would you want to explore in this case? [Describe up to three]

25)

Hypothesis #1

(1000 characters remaining)

26)

Hypothesis #2

(1000 characters remaining)

27)

Hypothesis #3

(1000 characters remaining)

What information included or not included in this vignette would potentially be the most important to use in conducting a custody evaluation in this case? (Please list up

to three)

28)

29)

30)

You have now answered 33% ofthequestions.

———————————————————Page Break———————————————————

Despite being given a very limited amount of information in this case, please answer the following questions to the best of your

ability.

31)

What do you think is the likelihood of future psychological harm to the son by the mother?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

32)

What do you think is the likelihood of future psychological harm to the son by the father?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

33)

What do you think is the likelihood that the mother is exaggerating the extent of the violence?

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

34)

What do you think is the likelihood that the father is minimizing the extent of the violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

35)

What is the likelihood that the parties would benefit from mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

If each party asked for sole legal and physical custody, what is the likelihood that the best interests of the child would be served by:

36)

Sole legal/physical custody to mother

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

37)

Sole legal/physical custody to father

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

38)

Joint legal custody, primary physical custody to mother

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

39)

Joint legal custody, primary physical custody to father

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

40)

Joint legal and physical custody (shared parenting) in every area

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

Imagine that the mother was awarded custody, with visitation rights to the father. What is the likelihood that the best interests of the child and the

safety of the family would best be served by:

41)

No supervision of the visits

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

42)

Visits supervised by a friend or relative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

43)

Visits supervised by a professional or paraprofessional at a supervised visitation program

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

Opinions About Family Violence, Custody and Visitation



Below are some statements about family violence, custody and visitation (parenting time). Please indicate how much you

agree or disagree with each statement by clicking a button in the appropriate column. Again, by "domestic violence" we mean

violence directed against one intimate partner by another that is not in self-defense. Please use a broad definition of domestic

violence.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

44)

When a mother claiming to be a victim of domestic violence

tries to disrupt a child's relationship with the father, that is a

good reason to award sole custody to the father.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Men have supervised visitation instead of unsupervised

56)

When mothers make allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

57)

When fathers make allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

You have now completed 60% ofthequestions. 

———————————————————Page Break———————————————————

58)

When mothers make allegations of child physical abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

59)

When fathers make allegations of child physical abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

60)

When mothers make allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

61)

When fathers make allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

62)

In what percentage of cases do you estimate that domestic violence survivors try to alienate the child from the other parent?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

45) visitation because their ex-partners falsely accuse them of

domestic violence.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

46)

Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to share

parenting roles with ex-partners because they fear further

abuse.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

47)

Victims of domestic violence who resist court ordered

mediation are not acting in the best interests of their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

48)

During the divorce process, victims of domestic violence

are likely to try to alienate the child from the other parent.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

49)

Too often fathers are denied joint custody because their

ex-partners falsely accuse them of domestic violence.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

50)

Victims of domestic violence who are reluctant to work

out ways to co-parent with their ex-partners are hurting

their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

51)

When a domestically violent father tries to disrupt the

mother-child relationship, that is a good reason to award

sole custody to the mother.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

52)

If an abusive husband has not directly abused his child,

contact between them should be unrestricted.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

53)

When women allege domestic violence, the claim is

often exaggerated to alienate fathers from their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

54)

It is a myth that women are less violent than men in

intimate relationships.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55)

Custody and visitation decisions should only be based

on how parents treated the child and not how they

treated the other parent.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

63)

In what percentage of cases do you estimate that domestic violence perpetrators try to alienate the child from the other parent?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

64)

What are your major concerns regarding custody and visitation (parenting time) cases that involve domestic violence?

(1000 characters remaining)

65)

What recommendations do you have for improving the outcomes of custody and visitation decisions in cases that involve domestic violence?

(1000 characters remaining)

Beliefs About Justice and Equality

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement below by clicking a button.

Knowledge of Domestic Violence Acquired



Pleaseindicatetheapproximatenumberoftimesyouhaveusedthe following sources to acquire knowledge about domestic violence.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither Disagree

Nor Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

66) I think basically the world is a just place. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

67) Increased social equality would be a good thing. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

68)

Discrimination against women is no longer a

problem in the United States.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

69)

I believe that, by and large, people get what

they deserve.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

70) Group equality should be our ideal. nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

71)

Women often miss out on good jobs due to

sexual discrimination.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

72)

I am convinced that in the long run people will be

compensated for injustices.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

73)

I firmly believe that injustices in all areas of life (e.g.,

professional, family, politics) are the exception rather

than the rule.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

74)

Society has reached the point where women and men

have equal opportunities for achievement.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

75)

It is easy to understand the anger of women's groups in

America.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither Agree

nor Disagree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

76)

We should do what we can to equalize conditions for

different groups.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

77)

It is easy to understand why women's groups are still

concerned about societal limitations of women's

opportunities.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

0 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 Over 20

78) Books nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

79) Radio programs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

80) Films or videos nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

86)

What areas of knowledge have you acquired? (Check all that apply)

Prevalence of domestic violence

Causes of domestic violence

Types of perpetrators

Post-separation violence

Screening for domestic violence

Assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases

Children's exposure to domestic violence

87)

Have you personally known anyone who was a victim/survivor of domestic violence? If so, indicate his or her relationship to you (select all that apply):

father

mother

sibling

other relative

friend

acquaintance

co-worker

neighbor

myself

Your Demographics

88)

Your Gender

Female Male No Answer

89)

Your Age

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over No Answer

90)

Education

High School Some college Four years of college Advanced Degree No Answer

91)

If you have an advanced degree, please indicate the kind of degree:

Master's Ph.D. Psy.D. M.D. No Answer Other (Please specify)

Other:

92)

My advanced degree is in the field of:



Thank you for completing this survey!

If you have any questions or comments,

please contact Dr. Daniel G. Saunders at [email protected].



Ifyouwanttobetakenoff of our list for receiving reminders, please go to the next page.

Continue ONLY when finished. You will be unable to return or change your answers.

81) Workshops nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

0 1 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100 Over 100

82) Articles nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

83) Lectures nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

84) Professional consultations nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

85) Web sites read nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

gfedc

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Submit

Survey on Custody Evaluations and Domestic Violence for Judges,

Attorneys and Domestic Violence Survivor Programs

Dear Colleague -

My name is Dr. Daniel Saunders and I am a professor at the University of Michigan. My colleagues and I are conducting a survey on child

custodyanddomesticviolencesponsoredbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofJustice.Thesurveyasksaboutbeliefsregardingdomestic

violence and child custody, and about training received on domestic violence.

Theresultswilladdtoourknowledgeofcustodyevaluationsandwillbeusedtoimprovetrainings.Ifyouworkinadomesticviolence

program for survivors or if you are a judge or attorney who has experience working with child custody cases, we invite you to share your

thoughts and experiences.

ANONYMITY AND CONSENT. This survey is anonymous and your participation is voluntary. Your completion of the survey

willbeanindicationthatyouconsentedtoparticipate.

TIMEITWILLTAKE. This survey takes approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Once you begin the survey, you may skip

anyquestion.



PRIVACY PROTECTION. We suggest that you complete the survey in private. Although we have designed this study to keep

your responses anonymous, there is a slight chance that your responses could be seen by someone near you as you type in

your answers. Because of the controversial nature of some of the questions, we cannot rule out the possibility that you could

experience some professional embarrassment if this happened.

QUESTIONS. If you have questions about the survey, please contact Dr. Daniel Saunders at [email protected] or at 1-

734-763-6415. If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Institutional Review

Board at 1-734-936-0933 or by email at [email protected].



Sincerely,



Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.

Professor, School of Social Work

University of Michigan, 1080 S. University Avenue, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1106 USA

Email:[email protected]Telephone:734-763-6415

Principal Investigator: Project on Custody and Domestic Violence Beliefs

Co-Principal Investigators: Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Ph.D., Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D., and Karen M. Staller.



Background

How many years of experience do you have in your current role?

0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 Over 30 years

Approximately how many custody and visitation cases, if any, have you been involved with in your career (in all your roles and positions combined)?

0 1-25 26-50 51-100 101-500 501-1000 Over 1000

Approximately how many custody cases have you been involved with in the past year (in all your roles and positions combined)?

0 1 - 5 6 - 20 21 - 50 51 - 100 Over 100

What is the state in which you practice the most? If you practice in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or a tribal court, please write that next to "Other."

- AL

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

--Select--

APPENDIX B

- AK

- AZ

- AR

- CA

- CO

- CT

- DE

- FL

- GA

- HI

- ID

- IL

- IN

- IA

- KS

- KY

- LA

- ME

- MD

- MA

- MI

- MN

- MS

- MO

- MT

- NE

- NV

- NH

- NJ

- NM

- NY

- NC

- ND

- OH

- OK

- OR

- PA

- RI

- SC

- SD

- TN

- TX

- UT

- VT

- VA

- WA

- WV

- WI

- WY

- Other (please specify)

Other:

ExperiencewithDomesticViolenceCases-Thissectionistobecompletedbyjudgesandattorneysonly.

Domestic violence program staff, please go to the Case Vignette below.

Thefollowingquestionsusetheterm"domesticviolence."Werealizethattherearedifferentdefinitionsandtypesofdomestic

violence.Thisstudyisbuildingontheresultsofparticular prior studies and therefore, for the purpose of this study, domestic

violence is defined as any physical force against one intimate partner by another that is not in self-defense (including smashing,

throwing,&hittingobjects).Ifitistoodifficultforyoutogiveanestimate,simplyskipthequestionorclick"can'testimate."

Please estimate the percentage of your child custody cases that involve allegations of domestic violence (i.e., violence between the parents).

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In what percentage of these alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that the father falsely alleged the mother perpetrated domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In what percentage of these alleged domestic violence cases do you estimate that the mother falsely alleged the father perpetrated domestic violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In approximately what percentage of cases do you estimate that only the father used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

In approximately what percentage of cases do you estimate that only the mother used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

10)

In approximately what percentage of cases do you estimate that both parents used domestic violence (not in self-defense)?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Can't estimate

Case Vignette Please read this vignette and answer the questions that follow.

A couple has been married for eight years and separated for six months. Upon separation, the mother moved with their seven year old son to a nearby city and for a

fewweeksdeniedthefatheranycontactwithhim,evenphonecalls.Thefatherfiledamotionforemergencytemporarycustody.Intheinterviewwiththeevaluator,

the father maintains that he wants a normal father-son relationship and believes that his wife is interfering with his right to be with his son. He says that he is better suited

to care for his son and will ensure liberal and frequent contact with the mother.

The wife responds in her interview that she left the marital home when the husband was out of town for the weekend for fear that he would otherwise prevent her from

leaving. She states that he has been controlling her every move throughout the relationship. She states that during her pregnancy he once punched her; that on another

occasion he “body-slammed”her against his truck; and on a third occasion strangled her. He maintains that on these occasions he was drinking and out of control, the

incidents were isolated, and not part of any larger pattern. He also claims his wife has exaggerated her reports of the incidents and that she never received any injuries.

Thewifetellsyouthatshenevercalledthepoliceorwenttothehospitalafteranyoftheassaults.Shesaysherhusbandneverphysicallyharmedtheirson,butdueto

hiscontrollingandabusivebehaviorsheisfearfulofhimhavingphysicalcustodyoftheirson.Shewantstomaintainphysicalcustody.Reportsfromtheson'snew

school indicate that he is doing well.

The husband makes a good salary as an engineer. The wife has never worked more than part-time. His psychological tests do not show evidence of any major mental

illness. Her tests show definite indications of anxiety, depression and paranoia.



Whatinformationincludedornotincludedinthisvignettewouldpotentiallybethemostimportantforachildcustodyevaluatortouseinconductingan

evaluation in this case? Please list up to three.

12)

13)

14)

Despite being given a very limited amount of information in this case, please answer the following questions to the best of your

ability.

15)

What do you think is the likelihood that the mother is exaggerating the extent of the violence?

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

11)

For those cases in which one parent was clearly the perpetrator, please estimate the percentage of cases that you recommended, or would have if in that position,

the following custody arrangements:

%SOLELEGAL & PHYSICAL custody with VICTIM of domestic violence

%SOLELEGAL & PHYSICAL custody with PERPETRATOR of domestic violence

%JOINTLEGALcustody & PRIMARY PHYSICAL custody with VICTIM

%JOINTLEGALcustody & PRIMARY PHYSICAL custody with PERPETRATOR

%SOLELEGALcustodywithVICTIM & JOINT PHYSICAL custody

%SOLELEGALcustodywithPERPETRATOR & JOINT PHYSICAL custody

%JOINTLEGAL& PHYSICAL custody

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

16)

What do you think is the likelihood that the father is minimizing the extent of the violence?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

17)

What do you think is the likelihood that the parties would benefit from mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

If each party asked for sole legal and physical custody, what is the likelihood that the best interests of the child would be served by:

18)

Sole legal/physical custody to mother

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

19)

Sole legal/physical custody to father

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

20)

Joint legal custody, primary physical custody to mother

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

21)

Joint legal custody, primary physical custody to father

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

22)

Joint legal and physical custody (shared parenting) in every area

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

Imaginethatthemotherwasawardedcustody,withvisitationrightstothefather.Whatisthelikelihoodthatthebestinterestsofthechildandthe

safety of the family would best be served by:

23)

No supervision of the visits

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

24)

Visits supervised by a friend or relative

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

25)

Visits supervised by a professional or paraprofessional at a supervised visitation program

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

OpinionsAboutDomesticViolence,Custody and Visitation



Belowaresomestatementsaboutdomesticviolence,custodyandvisitation(parentingtime).Pleaseindicatehowmuchyou

agree or disagree with each statement by clicking a button in the appropriate column.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

26)

When a mother claiming to be a victim of domestic violence

tries to disrupt a child's relationship with the father, that is a

good reason to award sole custody to the father.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

27)

Men have supervised visitation instead of unsupervised

visitation because their ex-partners falsely accuse them of

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

38)

When mothers make allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

39)

When fathers make allegations of domestic violence in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

40)

When mothers make allegations of child physical abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

41)

When fathers make allegations of child physical abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

42)

When mothers make allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

43)

When fathers make allegations of child sexual abuse in custody disputes, what percentage do you estimate are false?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

44)

In what percentage of cases do you estimate that domestic violence survivors try to alienate the child from the other parent?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

45)

In what percentage of cases do you estimate that domestic violence perpetrators try to alienate the child from the other parent?

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% No Answer

46)

domestic violence.

28)

Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to share

parenting roles with ex-partners because they fear further

abuse.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

29)

Victims of domestic violence who resist court ordered

mediation are not acting in the best interests of their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

30)

During the divorce process, victims of domestic violence

are likely to try to alienate the child from the other parent.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

31)

Too often fathers are denied joint custody because their

ex-partners falsely accuse them of domestic violence.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

32)

Victims of domestic violence who are reluctant to work

out ways to co-parent with their ex-partners are hurting

their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

33)

When a domestically violent father tries to disrupt the

mother-child relationship, that is a good reason to award

sole custody to the mother.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Strongly

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neither

Disagree Nor

Agree

Slightly

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Answer

34)

If an abusive husband has not directly abused his child,

contact between them should be unrestricted.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

35)

When women allege domestic violence, the claim is

often exaggerated to alienate fathers from their children.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

36)

It is a myth that women are less violent than men in

intimate relationships.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

37)

Custody and visitation decisions should only be based

on how parents treated the child and not how they

treated the other parent.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

What are your major concerns regarding custody and visitation (parenting time) cases

that involve domestic violence?

(1000 characters remaining)

47)

What recommendations do you have for improving the outcomes of custody and visitation decisions in cases that involve domestic violence?

(1000 characters remaining)

Knowledge of Domestic Violence Acquired



Please indicate the approximate number of times you have used the following sources to acquire knowledge of domestic violence.



56)

What areas of knowledge have you acquired? (Check all that apply)

Prevalence of domestic violence

Causes of domestic violence

Types of perpetrators

Post-separation violence

Screening for domestic violence

Assessing dangerousness in domestic violence cases

Children's exposure to domestic violence

57)

Have you personally known anyone who was a victim/survivor of domestic violence? If so, indicate his or her relationship to you (select all that apply):

father

mother

sibling

other relative

friend

acquaintance

co-worker

neighbor

myself

Demographics

58)

Gender

Female Male No Answer

59)

Age

18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 and over No Answer

60)

Education

0 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 20 Over 20

48) Books nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

49) Radio programs nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

50) Films or videos nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

51) Workshops nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

0 1 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 51 - 100 Over 100

52) Articles nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

53) Lectures nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

54) Professional consultations nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55) Web sites read nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

gfedc

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

High School Some college Four years of college Advanced Degree No Answer

61)

If you have an advanced degree, please indicate the kind of degree:

Master's Ph.D. J.D. M.D. No Answer Other (Please specify)

Other:

62)

My advanced degree is in the field of:

63)

What is your primary professional role?

Judge Attorney Domestic violence survivor program staff Other (please specify)

Other:

64)

If you are an attorney, please specify which type.

Legal aid attorney Private attorney Attorney at domestic violence program Attorney educator Other (please specify)

Other:

65)

Please list any other professional roles you have or have had.

(1000 characters remaining)

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!

If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Daniel G. Saunders at [email protected].; 734-763-6415; University of Michigan, School of Social Work, 1080

S. University Ave., Ann Arbor MI 48109



Continue ONLY when finished. You will be unable to return or change your answers.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Submit

165

Appendix C

Semi-Structured Interview with Survivors:

Custody Evaluations and Outcomes

Note to Interviewer: Begin the interview only after verbal and written informed consent

procedures are completed and the respondent’s questions have been answered. Interviews

will not necessarily follow the sequence of questions shown below. The survivor should be

encouraged to add anything she believes to be important. Note-taking is not necessary

although you can write some notes on this document or separately if you would find it

helpful. Interviews will generally last between one and two hours. If the need arises, local

resource material must be available to hand to the interviewee. A gift card is given at the end

of the interview and the certification form is signed then by you and participant.

Opening

Suggested wording: Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed about your experiences with

the way custody and visitation was decided. We are hoping to learn more about this process

from victims of domestic violence in order to improve training for professionals who are

involved in future cases.

Do you have any concerns that giving information to us will affect your safety or your

children’s safety? [This provides an opportunity to empathize with any concerns she may

have and to assess how hesitant she might be to provide information. A brief reminder about

the confidentiality protections may help. ]

Background Information

I’d like to begin by asking you some background questions.

What are the names and ages of your children?

What is the custody arrangement you have now?

 Check on both physical custody and legal/decision-making custody.

 Note if this differs for different children.

What are the visitation or child exchange arrangements now?

 Note if this differs for different children.

 Visitation may be unsupervised, supervised informally by a friend or relative, or

supervised by a professional at an agency.

 Exchange refers to an exchange of the children between parents that occurs in a

public setting or a supervised visitation program.

166

In what year did your relationship with the other parent begin?

Did you ever live with him? If so, what year did you begin living together?

Did you and he get married? If so, in what year?

When was the last time you lived together (even if still romantically involved)? Month and

year?

When did the relationship end (no longer romantically involved)? Month and year?

What is your current marital status?

 Separated but not divorced?

 Separated and divorced?

 Remarried?

 Separated, never married?

Child’s Safety

(There are two main purposes for this section: (1) the nature and depth of her

concerns can explain her actions and mental state; (2) there may be a discrepancy

between what appears in the evaluator’s interview and report and the history of

abuse she reports. If we have a copy of the report, the information on Child’s Safety

can be obtained in the section below called “Custody Evaluator,” e.g., “Were your

past and current concerns and reports of threats, manipulation, abuse of the children

included in the evaluator’s report? If not, what was left out?)

I’d like to ask next about the safety of your children

General Concerns in Past. What concerns, if any, did you have for your child’s

[children’s] safety, either physical or emotional, while still in the relationship?

Threats. Has the other parent made any threats involving any of your children, for

example, threats to kidnap your children; physically harm them; report you to child protective

services; or similar threats? If yes, please explain.

Did you report these threats to anyone? If so, to whom?

Were these threats made before or after your separation, or both?

167

Manipulation/Use of Child to Hurt. Has the other parent used your child or children to

hurt you or to try to hurt you, for example, by asking your child about you or your location

while separated; made false reports to child protective services; etc? If yes, please explain.

Did you report this behavior to any professionals? If so, to whom?

Did your ex-partner use your child/children to hurt you or to try to hurt you before or

after separation, or both?

Physical Abuse. Did you ever report the other parent to a professional for physically

abusing your children? If so, to whom? Did you do this before or after separation, or both?

Future Harm. How concerned are you, if at all, that the other parent will threaten or

harm your child(ren) in the future? Please explain.

Custody and Visitation Decision Process

Prior to separation [when still together and before custody/visitation

decision-making officially started]

Now I want to ask about the custody decision process.

Before officially separating from your ex-partner, did he say things to you about custody of

your children? For example, when the topic of divorce or separation arose, did he say he

wanted the children all of the time, most of the time, or some of the time? What were your

reactions to these statements?

Before separating, did you get any help or advice regarding your preferences for custody or

visitation? If you did, please explain.

Before you and your ex-partner separated, did you have any concerns about who would get

custody of your children, how much time each of you would get or anything else related to

custody?

Did these concerns influence your decision to stay in or leave the relationship?

At time of separation:

When you first separated, what were the temporary child custody arrangements?

What were the temporary visitation arrangements, if any?

168

Did any person or agency provide you with help at the time of separation? [ask about

informal and formal sources of help and the nature of the help]

How useful was the help you received?

Custody and Visitation Disagreement (Dispute):

When did you and your ex-partner first disagree over custody or visitation of your children?

Please describe the details of the disagreement between the two of you.

Please describe any professional help you received regarding the custody conflict with the

other parent [from an advocate, counselor, attorney, etc.]

Did you represent yourself legally in some or all of the court proceedings?

Please describe any help that your child [children] received during the time of the custody

dispute or later.

Please describe what you know about the help your ex-partner received from various

sources: attorneys, counselors, friends and family.

Please describe your experiences with the following professionals, including how they

responded to you:

 Court staff, including mediators, clerks, evaluators, counselors, etc.

 Attorneys

 Guardian ad litems

 Others [e.g., Court-appointed special advocates [CASA], parenting

coordinators/special masters]

During the time of the custody dispute what other help, if any, did you receive, either

voluntarily or involuntarily? [e.g., visitation and exchange, parent education group, divorce

support group, domestic violence legal advocacy, counseling, substance abuse treatment,

or other services?]

 Please describe these forms of assistance.

 How helpful or unhelpful were they to you?

Custody Evaluator. In the next series of questions, we’d like to hear more

about your experiences during the custody evaluation process

What type of evaluator did you have? (private, court-based, guardian ad litem, etc.). Was

this person male or female?

169

What questions did the evaluator ask that you think provided the most important information

to support your goals?

What questions were NOT asked that you think would have provided important information?

[Probe in particular for areas not investigated such as abuse toward her or the

children]

Did the evaluator say anything verbally about you, either inside or outside of the courtroom?

What did you agree with and disagree with?

Were you provided with a written custody evaluation in your custody case? If so:

 What did you think of the evaluation? (e.g., What did you agree with, and why?

 Was anything important left out? Was anything inaccurate – [what did you disagree

with, and why]? Was anything distorted? Did the evaluator say anything negative

about you? If so, what? What do you think the evaluator was saying about you? )

 Were mental health or substance abuse concerns raised?

 Were important details of abuse toward you or the children left out?

Abuse Toward Survivor

(Note: If we have a copy of the custody evaluation report, it might be possible to ask

fewer questions in this section. If some details of the abuse history are in the report,

then only obtain the information that was left out.)

In what year were you first physically abused by the other parent? By physical abuse I mean

any behaviors like pushing, restraining, grabbing, throwing or slapping you; throwing an

object at you, hitting you with a fist or object, physically forcing sex on you, beating you up

(multiple blows), strangling you, making threats with a weapon, or using a weapon against

you.

What was the worst episode of violence you ever experienced? [We do not need detailed

information.]

What year did this happen?

Did you report any of the abuse to any professional, and if so to whom? [Probe for

counselor/therapist, health care worker, police, lawyer]. What was their response?

Do you know of any medical or legal records that exist of the abuse? [Probe for doctors’

records, police reports, pre-sentence investigation reports]

170

Did anyone ever tell you NOT to report abuse to professionals or talk about it with anyone? If

so, who?

If you talked with anyone about the abuse, were there ways they were supportive? If so,

please explain.

Since ending the relationship, has the other parent emotionally abused you, for example by

yelling, putting you down, calling you names, or making threats of physical and nonphysical

harm?

If so, approximately how many times has this occurred? ______

Since ending the relationship, has the other parent stalked you, for example, making contact

that you did not want by following or phoning you, or making contact through other people or

notes? [allow “not sure” as an answer since it may not always be obvious if stalking actually

occurred].

If so, when was the most recent time? Month______ Year _______

Approximately how many times has this occurred? ______

Have you ever had a restraining order against the father of the children?

 If so, is one in effect now?

 What are the conditions? [no contact with survivor, supervised visits with children,

attend abuser intervention program, etc?]

When was the last time that your ex-partner physically abused you? Month? Year? Please

tell me what happened.

[Check in here: e.g., How are you doing now with this interview?]

[DUTY TO PROTECT: If danger appears imminent, assess further. If danger is assessed to

be imminent, begin safety planning procedures in collaboration with professionals currently

helping her, who helped her in the past, or other agencies as appropriate.]

Custody and Visitation Outcome

Was the judge a man or a woman?

Why do you think the professionals (evaluator and judge) made the decisions they did

regarding custody?

Why do you think the professionals (evaluator and judge) made the decisions they did

regarding child supervision?

171

What information or factors do you believe were used in the decisions? [probe for domestic

violence as a factor as well as other factors]

What reactions [thoughts and feelings] did you have to the verbal statements made by the

judge? To the court order?

What do you believe would be the best custody and visitation arrangements for your

children? What do you think would have to happen to get that outcome? [e.g., outcomes

such as joint physical custody? Sole physical custody? Supervised visitation?]

Are the court orders being followed now? If not, please explain.

How safe do you feel as a result of this custody process? Please explain (using specific

examples if you have them).

How safe do you think your children are as a result of this custody process? Please explain

(using specific examples if you have them).

Recommendations

If it was your job to train custody evaluators, what would you want them to know?

If it was your job to make changes in what happens in the courts regarding child custody and

visitation hearings, what changes would you make?

What other recommendations would you make for policies, procedures, and laws?

Closing: General Questions

[General statement of support, e.g., I know this has been a long interview and I appreciate .

. . . I have only a few more questions]

Is there anything else you’d like to share with me about your experiences and reactions to

the custody process?

How are you feeling now?

Do you have any concerns about having shared this information with me today?

Demographics of Parents

172

What is your age?

Were you born in this or another country? If born in another country, which country?

How do you identify yourself racially/ethnically?

What is the age of the father [or fathers] of the children?

What is his race and ethnicity?

Was your ex-partner born in another country?

If so, what is his status now in the U.S.?

Resources

Check to see if she is aware of local domestic violence and child abuse crisis services and

other resources she might need now or in the future.

Give her written material on local services as needed.

173

Appendix D

Survivor Interview: Rationale for Questions and Sequence of Questions

The sequence of questions is designed to help build a relationship with the interviewee by focusing on

her main concerns and then to help her through the most traumatic topics. For her to tell about her

experiences, which are likely to be very traumatic, she will need to experience sufficient trust and

support.

Background

The survivor is likely to be afraid of talking about the details of the abuse she experienced.

Therefore, the opening questions focus on some simple demographic questions to start her talking

about non-threatening topics. Her concerns will most likely center on her children and therefore the

first question asks for the names and ages of her children.

Child’s Safety

The background information is followed by questions addressing her concerns about the

children. Although these questions are likely to increase her anxiety level, her children’s safety is

likely to be the main focus of her life and therefore the topic she will most want to talk about.

Abuse Toward Survivor

A major problem with the custody evaluation process is the lack of detection of abuse.

Therefore, knowing about the severity and duration of abuse and whether or not it was disclosed to

others will help to determine the extent to which the evaluator and other professionals detected the

abuse. Evaluators also appear to be focused on abuse during the relationship and may not focus

enough attention on post-separation violence that may continue to the present time. More subtle

forms of emotional abuse and threats also might be missed by evaluators and thus it is important to

know how much emotional abuse and stalking occurred.

This section of the interview is likely to be very traumatic. Questions about the help she

received will help her to reconnect emotionally with supports and can help you connect her with these

supports if needed. Some positive topics are purposely addressed later in the interview to help

overcome some anxieties from the topic of this section.

Custody and Visitation Decision Process

This section is the main focus of the interview and progresses from the beginning of the

custody dispute to its current status. This topic area may also be very traumatic for survivors who

have lost custody of their children and who fear continued abuse of their children. Questions about

help possibly received by the other parent may give information on factors affecting his stance and

tactics and resources available to him.

Custody and Visitation Outcomes

The survivor’s perspectives on underlying factors determining outcomes are obtained here.

The focus is on the judge’s statements and rulings. The survivor may also speculate further on the role

of the evaluator in determining the custody and visitation outcomes.

Recommendations

174

This set of questions places the respondent in a position of power near the end of the

interview. The responses are likely to give positive directions for evaluators and courts to consider in

the future and ensure that survivors will have a constructive voice in making changes.

Closing

A special opportunity exists at the end to learn about other experiences of survivors not

already covered in the interview and that might run counter to the experience of other survivors.

175

ACKNOWLEDEGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the help of many individuals and organizations.

We want to begin by expressing our gratitude to the professionals who completed our survey and

to the survivors of domestic violence who shared their experiences with us. Our Project

Coordinator, Patricia Mullally, expertly brought her organizational skills and research knowledge to

the many complex tasks of the project. In addition, we were fortunate to have a team of skilled

interviewers: Anna Treadway, Eunice Olivares, Kelly Koeze, Regina Segura-Khagram, Elizabeth

Armstrong, Jennifer Bowles, and Jeanette Doguim. Several individuals played critical roles in the

data analysis and we thank them for their help: Lyndal Khaw, for her qualitative analysis of the

survivor interviews, along with a summary of these results; Karen Staller for her consultations on

the qualitative analysis and semi-structured interview methods; Deb Bybee, for her statistical

consulting; and Deborah Anderson and Nahid Keshavarzi, for their help with data management.

We are very thankful to our research assistants who helped with various phases of the project,

including compiling potential measures, finding new literature, searching for custody evaluators,

checking transcripts, coding data, and many other tasks: Marguerite Grabarek, Carla Hill, Kiera

Durgan, Meagan Oliver, Carly Fritsch, Emily Kiddy, Stephanie Giegler, Kristian Owens, Lauren Klein,

Miranda Struck, Hannah Meier, Kimberly Blessing, Alexander Schwank, Ashley Blas, Alia Wesala,

and Stephanie Giegler. A number of consultants and advisors gave helpful comments on the

research plans, the research findings or both: Toby Jayaratne, Robin Deutsch, Nancy Ver Steegh,

Larry Bennett, Molly Dragiewicz, Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, Loretta Frederick, Lauren Litton, Peter

Jaffe, Mary Lovik, Lore Rogers, Robert Geffner, Amy Pincolini-Ford, Chris O’Sullivan, and Jennifer

Hardesty. We also appreciate the constructive comments from two anonymous, external

reviewers chosen by the National Institute of Justice. Finally, we are very grateful to our program

managers at the National Institute of Justice, Bethany Backes, Bernard Auchter, and Christine

Crossland, for their technical assistance, support, and encouragement.

DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS: CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

Saunders, D. G. (2010). Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations.

Presentation at the meeting of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, August,

2010, Anaheim, California.

Saunders, D. G. (2010). Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations.

Presentation at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Ninth Symposium on

Child Custody Evaluations. October 28-30, 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Saunders, D.G., Faller, K. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2011). The Belief That Domestic Abuse

Survivors Make False Allegations of Abuse: Comparisons Between Social Worker and

Psychologist Child Custody Evaluators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Society for Social Work and Research, January 2011, Tampa, Florida.