OnLine Images, https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/08/92/24/08922413cd99a59725b6cbfa0c554303.jpg (accessed March 2015)

When investigating cases of domestic abuse in which custody of a child is given to the perpetrator rather than the victim, one may work towards 1.) understanding how the judges of these cases came to the conclusion that the victimized mother is less capable of parenting the child than is the abusive parent (think about how terrible and irrefutably unethical that conclusion sounds when worded slightly differently: the abusive parent is more capable of parenting the child than is the victimized parent) and 2.) being well aware of the negative consequences the child may suffer when given to the parent who has proven to be abusive. After thoroughly exploring the two aforementioned approaches, we would like to provide a call-to-action by imparting some current changes that provide hope to mothers who are abused and fighting what may seem like a hopeless battle for custody of their child.

To begin putting a stop to the previously described injustice towards abused mothers, we must try to understand the rationale behind a judge’s decision to grant child custody to an abusive parent. Judges are trained to be skeptical of abuse allegations during a divorce case. Some cases of child custody/domestic abuse are filed as “unfounded” meaning the allegations were investigated and discovered to be “based off of falsities”. Some of these “unfounded” cases are later learned to not have been investigated at all. Because cases are sometimes claimed as “unfounded” even though they have not even been investigated, judges believe that they were investigated and found to be “based off of falsities”. These judges lose compassion for the non-abusive parent which makes it a lot easier for them to find for the perpetrator without feeling guilty about denying the non-abusive, victimized parent seeking child custody. One may think that judges have no incentive to grant child custody to the abusive parent. It is sometimes alleged that if a judge is knowledgeable as to which law firms pay their lawyers well and the judge plans on changing their profession from judge to lawyer in the near future, they will have a motive to do whatever is necessary in order to stay on the well-paying law firm’s good graces. If the well-paying law firm is defending the perpetrator, the judge will grant child custody to the perpetrator whether or not they actually believe that this decision was proper and/or ethical (Moewe).

Aware of why judges may decide to grant custody to the child’s abusive parent, we can now become familiar with the negative consequences that the child must endure as a result of the judge’s decision. Jeffery Edleson stated in his article “Emerging Responses to Children Exposed to Domestic Violence” that “children exposed to domestic violence, when compared to non-exposed children, exhibit more aggressive and antisocial as well as fearful and inhibited behaviors, show lower social competence and have poorer academic performance.” Regarding emotional health, children who witness domestic violence scored similarly to children who were victims of physical abuse (Edleson).

The negative influence that witnessing domestic abuse imprints upon children is not temporary. Many studies and surveys have concluded that “there is an association, not causation, of exposure as a child and perpetration or victimization as an adult (Ortega). This association is supported by the claims of social learning theory (Edleson) which, simply put, say that children will behave according to how they have seen others behave. Also supporting the idea that witnessing domestic violence may lead to one engaging in domestic violence is research that has found that “men exposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and adult domestic violence as children were 3.8 times more likely than other men to have perpetrated domestic violence as adults (Edleson). Postmus and Ortega’s article “Serving Two Masters: When Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Overlap” provides some statistics that make it seem like witnessing domestic violence and engaging in it are heavily correlated.  In one study, “89% of the supervisors believed that children who witness abuse would themselves become abusers. Likewise, 89% of the supervisors believed that children who witness domestic violence would become victims of intimate partner violence” (Ortega).

Now that the negative consequences of granting custody to the child’s abusive parent have been discussed, lets investigate the flip side of the situation and see what positive consequences may arise from granting custody to the victimized mother of the child. Edleson mentions that “battered mothers appear to experience significantly greater levels of stress than non-battered mothers. This stress does not always translate into diminished parenting.” In fact, many battered mothers are “compensating for the violence by becoming more effective parents” (Edleson). In addition to the non-abusive mothers of the children who have witnessed domestic abuse, protective adults such as “relatives, neighbors, and teachers, older siblings and friends may all play protective roles in a child’s life” (Edleson). The more sources of positive parenting and caretaking a child’s environment includes, the fewer lasting effects of witnessing domestic violence the child’s going to endure (Edleson).

We’ve talked about the advantages of granting child custody to the non-abusive parent, the disadvantages of giving the child to the abusive parent, and the reasons why judges may decide to grant custody to the perpetrator. There are modern advances in the judicial system that give abused mothers fighting for child custody a reason to believe that change is coming. In 2004, the State of Wisconsin’s Legislature passed a law that “instructs judges to make domestic violence their top priority by stating that ‘if the courts find that a parent has engaged in a pattern or serious incident of interspousal battery, or domestic abuse, the safety and well-being of the child and the safety of the parent who was the victim of the battery or abuse shall be the paramount concerns in determining legal custody and periods of physical placement” (Edleson). Another case that provides hope to mothers who have been the victim of domestic violence occurred in New York: the child protective agency of the city of New York was discovered to have “unconstitutionally removed children from the custody of their non-abusive battered mothers after substantiating mothers for engaging in domestic violence” (Edleson). Although this may not seem like hopeful news in itself, the fact that this injustice was revealed is a step in the right direction.

It seems like awareness of child custody being granted to an abusive parent is spreading, and people are being proactive in putting an end to such cases. However, one instance of such a case is one too many. We as an audience, as thinkers, as knowers, as people fueled by passion for justice can’t stop fighting for these abused mothers until they are treated in a way that can only be described as “fair,” the term towards which we strive.

 Ofelia Torres, Jasmine Harris and Kristie Robinson (c) March 2015)

 Ofelia Torres

Jasmine Harris

Kristie Robinson

Works Cited

Edleson, Jeffrey L. “Emerging Responses to Children Exposed to Domestic Violence”.

October 2006. PDF File. https://www.haven-oakland.org/assets/media/pdf/Emerging-responses-to-children-exposed-to-domestic-violence.pdf

Moewe, M. C. “Judge: I Gave a Child Molester Custody of His Daughter.” Stop Abuse    

Campaign. N.p., 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. http://stopabusecampaign.com/judge-i-gave-a-child-molester-custody-of-his-daughter/

Ortega, Debora. Postmus, Judy L. “Serving Two Masters: When Domestic Violence

and Child Abuse Overlap”.  Families in Society. 2005. PDF File. https://www.haven-oakland.org/assets/media/pdf/serving-two-masters-when-dv-and-child-abuse-overlap.pdf