About Barry

Barry Goldstein is the co-author with Elizabeth Liu of Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor REPRESENTING THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR, co editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY and author of SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY. He has been an instructor and supervisor in a NY Model Batterer Program since 1999. He was an attorney representing victims of domestic violence for 30 years. He now provides workshops, judicial and other trainings regarding domestic violence particularly related to custody issues. He also serves as a consultant and expert witness.

Barry's new book, The Quincy Solution: Stop Domestic Violence and Save $500 Billion demonstrates how we can dramatically reduce domestic violence crime with proven practices.

Contact Barry today to speak at your event, consult or as an expert witness!

Contact Barry!

Warning to Judges, Evaluators, Caseworkers and Legislators

WARNING:

Any attempt to adjudicate custody cases involving possible domestic violence or child abuse without using current scientific research like ACE and Saunders will ruin children's lives!

The ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) Studies are often compared to the Surgeon General’s Report linking smoking and cancer because they both present highly reliable medical research that can be used to save millions of lives, trillions of dollars and improve the quality of our lives. Society responded to the Surgeon General’s report by implementing a variety of sensible measures to discourage and prevent smoking and this earned enormous benefits for the public. The lead author of the original ACE Study says that prevention is also the best use for his research. We can enjoy even greater benefits than we accomplished by discouraging smoking by using best practices to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. The family courts must play an effective role if the full benefits from the ACE Research are to be won.

Domestic violence is fundamentally different from most other crimes because until recently behavior that is now considered domestic violence or child abuse was tolerated or even encouraged. This means it is especially important to send strong messages these harmful actions are no longer permitted and to avoid responses that tend to minimize or deny true reports of abuse. Family Courts developed responses to domestic violence at a time when no research was available and popular assumptions suggested domestic violence was caused by substance abuse, mental illness and the actions of the victim. This led courts to rely on mental health professionals as if they were the experts. Later research demonstrated the original assumptions were wrong, but for whatever reasons, the courts have been slow to integrate current scientific research that would make it easier to recognize and respond to true reports of abuse so that decisions could be made that better protect children.

Most child custody cases are settled relatively amicably because both parents love their children and are willing to sacrifice personal interests for the well-being of their children. The problem is the 3.8% of cases that require trial and often much more. A large majority (75-90%) are domestic violence cases involving the most dangerous abusers. These are fathers who believe the mother has no right to leave so they are entitled to use any tactics necessary to regain what they believe is their entitlement to control their partners. Inadequately trained professionals often fail to recognize the danger because most of these fathers have not committed the most severe physical assaults. But these abusers are willing to hurt their children by taking them from mothers who are usually the primary attachment figures, abusing the children and in extreme cases killing them. Courts rarely look for patterns to help understand domestic violence, but in the last ten years over 600 children involved in contested custody have been murdered, mostly by abusive fathers.

These are the most dangerous cases. Unfortunately, many court professionals have been taught to treat contested cases as “high conflict” by which they mistakenly assume both parents are acting out of anger towards each other and hurt the children in doing so. This leads to responses that pressure victims to cooperate with their abusers and punish them for trying to protect their children. The most extreme abusers have been assisted by “fathers’ rights” groups and a cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals who have learned the best way to earn large incomes is to promote approaches that favor wealthy abusive fathers. This works for the professionals because domestic violence is based on control including economic control so the abusers usually control most of the family resources.

The lesson for the courts ought to be that they need to treat domestic violence cases differently because they are the most dangerous. At the same time, the contested cases are a small percentage of all cases so courts can make the changes necessary to protect children without disrupting their whole system. They must, however integrate current scientific research like ACE and Saunders or else they will continue to destroy children’s lives.

ACE Research

The original ACE Research considered ten common adverse childhood experiences. These included three forms of child abuse, physical, sexual and emotional, two forms of neglect, physical and emotional and five household problems that include separation of parents, domestic violence, mental illness, incarceration and substance abuse. The researchers were counting each ACE rather than each incident.

Domestic violence is central because it constitutes one ACE and causes emotional abuse to children which is a second ACE. Men who abuse women are 40-60% more likely to abuse children physically and sexually and domestic violence makes child neglect more likely. The other ACEs are all more likely in homes where men abuse women. One of the most important findings from the ACE Studies is that fear leading to stress rather than physical injuries cause most of the damage. The essence of domestic violence is that abusers use a variety of tactics to coerce, scare and intimidate the victim to do what the abuser wants. The fear that is engendered in both the mother and children causes a lifetime of health and other problems.

Exposure to ACEs causes far more harm than previously understood. Older estimates suggested the United States was spending $5-8 billion on health costs related to domestic violence, but this was only considering the treatment for the immediate wounds. We now know the full annual cost is about $750 billion which includes all of the long-term consequences from living with the fear and stress. This means custody courts and other agencies were focusing on only one percent of the problem.

Cases where children have been exposed to ACES are critically important because the custody case is often the last chance to save the children from the awful consequences. Exposure to ACEs reduce life expectancy and cause a lifetime of health and social problems. The critical question for the court is whether there is anything we can do now to save the children? Doctors working with the ACE Research say the children can be saved but it requires two responses that standard court approaches to abuse cases often prevent from happening. The children will need medical treatment and therapy both to respond to problems as they develop, but also to reduce the stress. This means the safe parent must control health decisions because abusers do not want children in therapy where they might reveal the abuse. Children cannot be exposed to further abuse or else they cannot heal. This means any visitation must be supervised until and unless the abuser can demonstrate changed beliefs and behavior.

The Saunders’ Study

Courts turned to mental health professionals for expertise regarding domestic violence based on assumptions that turned out to be wrong. Mental illness does not cause domestic violence and children exposed to abuse often do not act out in obvious ways. Mental health degrees, like legal degrees do not include training in domestic violence. Many of these professionals have taken some workshops or other trainings in an attempt to learn about domestic violence. The Saunders’ Study was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice to determine whether evaluators, judges and lawyers have the necessary knowledge to respond effectively to domestic violence custody cases.

Saunders’ found that court professionals need very specific knowledge that includes screening for domestic violence, risk assessment, post-separation violence and the impact of domestic violence on children (ACE). The trainings provided to court professionals often do not include these specific topics and even when they do, some professionals pay little attention because they think they already know everything. Most of the trainings do not even include domestic violence advocates.

Many of the professionals who participated in the Saunders’ Study admitted they did not have the specific knowledge needed and when tested, many who claimed the necessary knowledge were wrong. Some evaluators who claimed to screen for domestic violence said they did this by using psychological tests. The problem is that these tests provide no information about domestic violence. Evaluators in the study were asked to make recommendations concerning vignettes provided by the study. Their response demonstrated that many who claimed adequate knowledge made dangerous errors. Although the participants volunteered so it was not a random sample, it appears most professionals do not possess the specific knowledge needed to respond to domestic violence custody cases. Other research supports this conclusion.

The Saunders’ Study found that professionals without the specific knowledge recommended by Saunders tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false reports and unscientific alienation theories. These mistaken beliefs lead to recommendations and decisions that harm children. Many of the worst decisions made in family courts are based on focusing on exactly these mistaken beliefs. Researchers almost never see courts treat the focus on mistaken beliefs or failure to use current research like ACE and Saunders as indications the evaluators are unqualified.

Especially helpful and revealing was a section about what Saunders called “harmful outcome” cases. These are extreme decisions in which the alleged abuser wins custody and a safe, protective mother who is the primary attachment figure for the child is limited to supervised or no visitation. Saunders found that these decisions are always wrong because the harm of denying children a normal relationship with their primary attachment figure, a harm that includes increased risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide is greater than any benefit the court thought it was creating. One reason for the mistake is the courts rarely compare the known risk of separating children from their primary parent with the often-speculative risk they are using to justify the extreme decision. Saunders found harmful outcome cases are caused by the use of flawed practices.

Saunders’ found that domestic violence advocates have more of the specific knowledge courts need to respond to domestic violence custody cases than the professionals courts rely on. The clear implication is that courts should use a multi-disciplinary approach. The Study also found that courts are not limiting abusers to supervised visitation as often as would benefit children. Shared parenting is harmful in domestic violence cases because abusers use decision-making to regain control over victims by refusing to agree on any decision unless it is their choice and use visitation exchanges to harass or even assault their victims. Saunders’ also found court professionals treat mothers’ anger and emotion all out of proportion to what it says about their parenting ability.

25 Common Dangerous Mistakes Caused by Failing to Use Current Research

1. Asking abuse victims to just “get over it.”
2. Minimizing the full harm caused by domestic violence and child abuse.
3. Assuming the end of a relationship ends the risk from an abuser.
4. Assuming abuse that is not recent has little impact on children.
5. Focusing only on physical abuse.
6. Failure to understand the significance of the fear and stress caused by abuse.
7. Failure to focus on the assistance and protection children need in order to heal from exposure to abuse.
8. Mistaken assumptions that very young children cannot be harmed from witnessing domestic violence.
9. Pressuring victims to interact and cooperate with their abusers.
10. Failure to use a multi-disciplinary approach to domestic violence and child abuse cases.
11. Using non-probative factors like returning to an alleged abuser or not following up on a request for a protective order or the failure to have police or medical reports to discredit reports of abuse.
12. Failure to look for a pattern of coercive and controlling behavior to recognize domestic violence.
13. Failure to consider which party is afraid of the other in adjudicating domestic violence.
14. Failure to guard against the ability of abusers to manipulate witnesses and professionals.
15. Failure to consider factors that are associated with a higher risk of lethality in resolving domestic violence.
16. Failure to consider an alleged abuser’s past and future relationships when investigating reports of domestic violence.
17. Treating an alleged abuser’s good behavior in public as if it provides proof about his behavior in private.
18. Treating evaluators who fail to discuss ACE and Saunders or are unfamiliar with the research as if they are qualified to respond to domestic violence cases.
19. Treating any professional who recommends a harmful outcome case as if they are qualified to respond to domestic violence cases.
20. Failure to discuss which parent is the primary attachment figure and how that effects the children regarding the possible outcomes.
21. Failure to guard against gender biased approaches and assumptions.
22. Failure to understand the importance of holding abusers accountable.
23. Recognizing that court professionals that focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations or unscientific alienation theories reveals more about their lack of qualifications for domestic violence cases than the circumstances in the case.
24. Failure to understand that child sexual abuse is far more common than previously realized and most abuse is committed by someone the child knows.
25. Assumptions that men who are successful in other parts of their lives are unlikely to abuse women and children.

Conclusion

Custody cases involving reports or evidence of domestic violence or child abuse are often the last chance to save children from the catastrophic consequences from exposure to adverse childhood experiences. Current scientific research would make this difficult and important job so much easier. ACE comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Saunders from the National Institute of Justice in the United States Justice Department. It is hard to imagine why court officials have been slow to integrate this highly credible research. ACE demonstrates that exposure to domestic violence is far more harmful than previously understood and Saunders demonstrates many and probably most of the professionals the courts rely on deny and minimize true reports of domestic violence because they do not have the specific knowledge needed. The evaluators often focus on less important issues because they do not know how to screen for domestic violence.

Many court administrators would claim they are already using best practices. The highly respected National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has been encouraging their members to use ACE and Saunders for many years. There are some judges and other court professionals who already use these best practices. And yet the common mistakes are committed frequently. Ignorance of this research is not neutral in the sense that it applies to both parties. The inability to recognize abuse and tendency to minimize the risk help abusers and harm children.

There is no good reason to continue outdated practices that endanger children. The dangerously slow integration has been caused by defensiveness, inertia, lawyers and evaluators who profit from present practices and a reluctance to accept the enormous harm present practices are causing. ACE is exciting because we can use this knowledge to reduce cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental illness, crime, suicide, substance abuse and many other health and social problems. Family courts must stop being an impediment to this progress. Surely the best interests of the children require practices that save children from these scourges.

BARRY GOLDSTEIN