Synopsis
It is estimated that 58,000 children nationwide are court-ordered into unsupervised contact
with their identified abuser. That is twice the rate of new childhood cancer cases in America.
Child physical and sexual abuse come under the legal definition of domestic violence, but both are forms of interpersonal violence (IPV). Child abuse needs to be treated just as seriously as violence against an adult, just as domestic assaults need to be treated just as seriously as violence by someone outside the family. Although research has consistently shown that it is very rare for women or children to report abuse falsely, family court judges overwhelmingly side with the alleged abusers and use some version of the bogus Parental Alienation theory to blame protective parents and justify taking custody away from them.
Over the past thirty years, we have tried educating judges—it has not worked. We have tried passing new laws—judges simply ignore the law. We have tried appealing unfair rulings—appellate courts just rubber stamp Family Court orders under the broad discretionary standard. We have tried complaining to the Commission on Judicial Performance. We have tried making ethical complaints against the lawyers and psychologists. We have tried protesting and court-watching.
Nothing has stopped family court judges from giving custody of children to abusers.
The 1996 Judicial Council Report on Gender Bias in the Courts confirms the prejudicial and biased attitudes of judges toward women who ask for protection in our family courts. The problem, therefore, has been identified and recognized by the agency that oversees the administration of justice in our state. This problem has also been identified and recognized by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in its 1999 Custody and Visitation Report to the United States Department of Justice. The Department of Justice will be issuing a new report within months, confirming that it is still a major problem.
Constitutional rights to equal protection and due process are being routinely violated in Family Courts.
The previous supervising judge of San Diego Family Court recently acknowledged that family courts do not “do sexual abuse cases” (after which she forced a 14 year old who reported being molested for many years into the full custody of his identified abuser). She is right, though:
Family courts are divorce courts, not criminal courts, and sexual and physical assaults are crimes. They do not belong in Family Court.
However, criminal courts require a high of a burden of proof, which most cases do not meet, and D.A.’s have no desire to investigate or prosecute these “family” cases anyway. CPS also avoids these cases–they shunt any case in which the abuser can afford an attorney into Family Court. The result is assault cases are heard in courts where the attorneys and judges have little experience in trial litigation or abuse issues.
The San Diego Task Force is proposing a viable solution which would solve some of the fundamental problems leading to this endangerment of children—improper investigations and unfair hearings by courts which were not designed to handle criminal matters, have no oversight or transparency, and follow well-documented gender bias patterns.
The Task Force is proposing to implement Designated civil DV courts in which all professionals are trained in valid protocols and held accountable for basing their decisions on evidence-based research.
The Task Force’s proposed protocols are derived from extensive research and consultation with experts. These experts have identified the main patterns and problems in these abuse cases and have come up with solutions.
[See: Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, by Goldstein and Hannah]. The San Diego Task Force has incorporated many of these solutions into its proposal.
The procedural protocol provides for a Multi-Disciplinary Investigative Team (MDIT) to investigate all cases involving child abuse. The MDIT would conduct an investigation according to a nationally accepted protocol. The MDIT would give the evidence to the D.A. if it meets criminal requirements or, if not, to the civil designated DV Court. All officials in the Designated DV Court would be trained in investigative and adjudicative protocols.
San Diego already uses MDIT’s and civil DV courts already operate out of the Madge Bradley courthouse for the purpose of issuing restraining orders, so it would be a relatively simple reinstatement. Courts can save substantial time and money by having an early evidentiary hearing on allegations of child abuse. Cases that now take years can be resolved in a few hours, and since domestic violence costs society tens of billions of dollars, these types of prevention efforts are well worth it.
The reforms proposed by our Task Force will provide badly needed transparency, accountability and oversight.
San Diego has shown itself to be a national leader in the Domestic Violence movement with the Family Justice Center and affiliated groups. We can once again become the model for the nation if we move forward with the proposed Designated DV courts. Lundy Bancroft, a famous author on domestic violence, has said that battered women’s difficulty in protecting their children after leaving their batterer is the next wave of DV reform.
The time has come to stand up to abusers and for children.
We are asking that you take a positive step forward and support the San Diego Task Force on Best Practices in DV and Child Abuse in its important efforts. Please read through this site and make note of the resources that are readily available to help you understand domestic violence, child abuse and related custody issues.
And remember, every day that goes by is another day that children are being abused, molested, raped, and even murdered because Family Courts are failing them.
So let’s get the Designated DV Court up and running ASAP!
