Approximately, 20% of divorcing couples in the United States require judicial intervention to reach a custody agreement. In such cases, courts often call on child custody evaluators to conduct comprehensive evaluations and recommend custody agreements and services that meet children’s best interests. Estimates suggest that allegations of domestic violence (DV) are raised and substantiated in about 75% of these cases. Custody evaluators are thus in a position to ensure that divorcing parents with DV receive effective services and enter into safe custody agreements. They are also in a position to minimize or deny the seriousness of DV and its relevance to custody decisions. The present study uses grounded theory methods to examine how custody evaluators’ theoretical perspectives on DV and beliefs about custody disputes in the context of DV are related to their evaluation process and recommendations.
Ackerman, M.J., & Ackerman, M.C. (1997). Custody evaluations practices: A survey of experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 137-145.
2.
American Psychological Association. (1994). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in divorce proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680.
3.
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. ( 2006). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluation . Madison, WI: Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation.
4.
Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. ( 2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Bow, J.N., & Boxer, P. ( 2003). Assessing allegations of domestic violence in child custody evaluations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1394-1410.
6.
Campbell, J.C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M.A., et al. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.
7.
Charmaz, K. ( 2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Dutton, M., & Goodman, L. ( 2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization . Sex Roles, 5, 743-756.
9.
Erickson, N.S. ( 2005). 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.
10.
Gardner, R.A. ( 1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29, 3-7.
11.
Hardesty, J.L., & Chung, G.H. ( 2006). Intimate partner violence, parental divorce, and child custody: Directions for intervention and future research. Family Relations, 55, 200-210.
12.
Hardesty, J.L., & Ganong, L.H. ( 2006). How women make custody decisions and manage coparenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 543-563.
13.
Hardesty, J.L., Khaw, L., Chung, G.H., & Martin, J.M. ( 2008). Coparenting relationships after divorce: Variations by type of marital violence and fathers’ role differentiation. Family Relations, 57, 479-491.
14.
Hoult, J. ( 2006). The evidentiary admissibility of parental alienation syndrome: Science, law, and policy. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 26(1), 1-61.
15.
Jaffe, P.G., & Crooks, C.V. ( 2007). Assessing the best interest of the child: Visitation and custody cases of domestic violence. In J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (Eds.), Parenting by men who batter: New directions for assessment and intervention (pp. 45-64). New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Jaffe, P.G., Crooks, C.V., & Poisson, S.E. ( 2003a). Common misconceptions in addressing domestic violence in custody disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54, 57-67.
17.
Jaffe, P., Lemon, N., & Poisson, S. ( 2003b). Child custody and domestic violence: A call for safety and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Jasinski, J.L. ( 2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C. Renzetti, J. Edleson, & Bergen, R. (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5-18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Johnson, M.P. ( 2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston : Northeastern University Press.
20.
Johnson, M.P., & Ferraro, K.J. ( 2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s: Making distinctions . Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963.
21.
Johnson, M.P., & Leone, J.M. ( 2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey . Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322-349.
22.
Kelly, J.B., & Johnson, M.P. ( 2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence: Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46, 476-499.
23.
Kurz, D. ( 1996). Separation, divorce, and woman abuse. Violence Against Women, 2, 63-81.
24.
Lemon, N.K. ( 2000). Custody and visitation trends in the U.S. in divorce cases. Journal of Aggression and Maltreatment, 3, 329-343.
25.
Leone, J.M., Johnson, M.P., & Cohan, C.L. ( 2007). Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56, 427-439.
26.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. ( 1994). A model code on domestic and family violence. Reno, NV: Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.
28.
Olson, L. ( 2002). Exploring common couple violence in heterosexual romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communications, 66(1), 104-128.
29.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. ( 1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model . New York: Springer.
30.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. ( 1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
Zorza, J. ( 2007). The "friendly parent" concept: Another gender biased legacy from Richard Gardner. Domestic Violence Report, 12(5), 65-78.
