First Published in Huffington Post
In the batterer program I teach in, we have been running institutes for many years. The participants are mostly professionals who want to learn how to run a NY Model program in their communities.
We used to run a sample class to give attendees an idea of what a class looks like and would ask the male participants to play the men in the class. Despite warnings, many inevitably acted out in a disrespectful manner because they thought this was how the men in the class would act. This was based on the stereotype of an abuser who acts angry, disrespectful and out of control. In reality the men in our classes usually act respectfully both because that is their normal public behavior and they know there would be consequences if they misbehaved in class.
We have learned that if a man acts inappropriately in court or in class they are almost certainly abusing their partner, but if they act respectfully, as most of the men do it tells us nothing about their behavior in the privacy of their homes. This is important to understand because courts often assume a father’s appropriate behavior in court or other public places proves they are safe based on abuser stereotypes.
The Saunders’ Study found that evaluators, judges and lawyers without the specific training in domestic violence they need tend to focus on the myth that mothers frequently make false reports. This is not based on valid research, but rather the stereotype of the woman scorned or the angry woman. The Bala research which is based on several studies established that mothers involved in contested custody make false reports less than 2% of the time. Fathers in the same cases are 16 times more likely to make false reports and yet gender bias studies found courts routinely treat fathers as if they were more credible than mothers.
A large majority of contested custody cases are really domestic violence cases involving the most dangerous abusers. Abusers, professionals who make large incomes helping them and abuser organizations have developed many practices to help abusive fathers use the family courts to regain control when their victims try to leave. The most dangerous abusers are those who believe she has no right to leave. This is why ¾ of women killed by their abusers are murdered after they leave. It is also why fathers involved in contested custody kill so many of their children, often with access provided by the courts.
The courts are not recognizing the danger these men pose because they usually have not committed the most severe physical assaults and do not fit the stereotypes court professionals look for. Accordingly, almost all of the abuse reports from mothers are true and the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Study established that the risks to children are life-changing. This is the context within which Joan Meier’s new co-authored article about her Pilot Study appears.
Results of Meier Pilot Study
Contrary to popular assumptions, mothers do not gain an advantage by making abuse reports. I have often heard abusers and their advocates refer to sexual abuse reports as a “nuclear bomb” designed to tilt cases in mothers’ favor. Results from the pilot study provide a more realistic and much more troubling account; they also demonstrate the impact of an alienation label on mothers and children reporting abuse.
The pilot study consisted of 240 electronically published court opinions identified through neutral search terms; all cases involved parental alienation allegations but not all involved abuse claims. The study found that when mothers raised abuse issues and fathers countered with claims of alienation, fathers won 72% of the time. They won 73% of cases involving domestic violence reports; 69% of cases involving child abuse allegations and 81% of those with child sexual abuse reports.
Indeed, the study found that courts disbelieved 94% of the child sexual abuse reports (36 out of 38). In the context of other studies establishing that deliberate false child abuse reports are rare, this suggests that in a majority of domestic violence custody cases the courts are sending children to live with dangerous abusers and rapists.
Many years ago I represented a mother whose children told her that their father was physically and sexually abusing them. The mother did everything she was supposed to do. She filed family court petitions for custody and a protective order and reported the father’s abuse to Child Protective Services. Initially the father was limited to supervised visits while the case was investigated. The children told their attorney; the evaluator; the judge and the caseworker what their father had done, but as often occurs in these cases, the professionals charged with protecting the children assumed the mother was coaching the children.
The judge ordered normal visitation to resume and threatened to take the children if the mother continued to “encourage” the children “to lie.” Before the next visitation could occur, the father was confronted by the family baby sitter in the presence of the law guardian and admitted to kissing his daughters on their privates. The law guardian immediately made a motion to stop the visitation and I supported her motion.
The judge consulted with the evaluator who said the father showed bad judgment but there was no reason to stop the visitation, which continued. During the first visitation the father penetrated the four-year-old for the first time. I called CPS to make a new report because they were unaware of the father’s admission.
When the judge heard about my report he screamed and yelled at me saying it was already investigated and they found nothing. The new caseworker did a more thorough investigation and learned the father had done even worse than we had known. CPS filed charges against the father and he never had anything but supervised visits again.
The mother won custody and invited the caseworker and me to a celebratory dinner. The children had gifts for us but most special was their name for us. They called us “believers” because we believed them when all the professionals who were supposed to protect them failed to do so. I learned there is no greater honor than to be called a believer. All these years and many child rapes and molestations later, Meier and Dickson’s pilot study confirms that family courts continue to be populated by unbelievers.
The pilot study found that it is really fathers’ allegations of alienation that continues to be the most powerful weapon to take custody from protective mothers who are usually the primary attachment figures. The study found that when courts believe a father’s claim of alienation, fathers win about 95% of the cases regardless of whether the mother claimed abuse or not. The study also confirmed the authors’ hypothesis that alienation is a theory that benefits fathers far more than mothers: Fathers were 2.3 times as likely as mothers to win, when alleging alienation. When the court agreed there had been alienation, the gender difference increases to 4.3%.
Most stunning of all, was the finding about what happens when courts believe the abuse:In the seven cases where courts believed mothers’ abuse claims but also fathers’ alienation claims, the father won the case every time. This is particularly disturbing not only because domestic violence and child abuse are so much more harmful than alienation, but it is likely when abuse is confirmed that it is the real cause of any alienation. The upcoming larger study will hopefully be able to identify a larger group of such cases for a similar analysis.
Causes of Dangerous Outcomes
How could a judge find evidence that confirms child abuse or domestic violence and yet treat alienation as if it were more important? This contradicts the ACE medical research which ought to be persuasive in comparing the impact on children. I have heard many court administrators say their judges are getting the training they need, but this finding demonstrates all too many judges do not understand the ACE Research, and this ignorance leads to dangerous decisions.
I believe the finding that courts are treating alienation as if it were more consequential than domestic violence and child abuse indicates a shortcoming in the use of expert witnesses. The courts fail to differentiate between objective and subjective opinions. Subjective opinions are easier for the experts because they just have to state their personal opinions. The problem is that they are often unsupported or even contradicted by credible scientific research they may be unfamiliar with.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (or Parental Alienation) and other unscientific theories assume that alienation is the worst possible experience for children. This is unsupported by any valid research, but has been repeated so often by professionals, many of whom have a financial interest in promoting bogus claims that the misinformation is deeply entrenched. This is no academic discussion because this misconception is being used to destroy thousands of children’s lives.
One of the most important findings from the pilot study is that gender bias continues to influence and indeed permeate the family courts. PAS is a gender biased theory that was deliberately designed to help fathers accused of child sexual abuse defeat the allegations.
Although some protective mothers also claim alienation (better described as DV by Proxy) it is mostly a tactic abusive fathers use to manipulate the courts. The pilot study found that, in every category, alienation was more helpful to fathers than mothers. When alienation was claimed, fathers won 70% of the time compared to mothers’ 50% (i.e., fathers were 2.3 % more likely to win). When either party’s alienation claims were credited, fathers won 95% of the time and mothers only 80% (i.e., fathers were 4.3 % more likely to win). Even when the alienation claim was not credited, fathers won 37% of the time but mothers only 11% (rendering fathers 5 times as likely to win as mothers). When alienation was alleged custody was switched to the father 50% of the time and to the mother 28% of the time. When alienation claims were believed by the court fathers won custody 69% of the time compared to 50% for the mothers. And even when fathers’ alienation claims were not credited mothers still lost custody 25% of the time, while a rejection of mother’s alienation claims only resulted in fathers losing 10% of the time.
Perhaps it is not surprising that a theory concocted and promoted by male supremacists would favor men, but this research suggests courts need to be conscious of the biased way it is routinely applied. I wonder if an equal protection or due process argument could be made to prevent the use of alienation at least as presently implemented.
Gender bias is such a difficult issue because good people engage in it without intending to, but often become defensive when the issue is raised. I had worked in the battered women’s movement for 17 years when I first came to the batterer program I teach in. It was painful and difficult when staff and other instructors gave me the gift of telling me about my offensive words and conduct. The pilot study by Joan Meier again demonstrates that gender bias in the custody courts is widespread.
Mothers are held to higher standards because we expect mothers who provide most of the child care to be better parents. Courts bend over backwards to keep fathers in children’s lives because so many other fathers abandon their children.
We keep hearing that children need both parents equally. In reality children need the safe parent more than the abusive one and the primary attachment figure more than the other parent.
Previous research establishes that mothers’ complaints are far more credible than fathers,’ but court professionals are influenced by the myth that mothers frequently make false reports. The Pilot Study shows that when parents are in the same position, courts favor fathers by significant margins. And the family courts give enormous influence to a theory (alienation) that was concocted not from any research but from the personal beliefs of someone who made many public statements condoning sex between adults and children, while virtually ignoring highly credible research from the CDC and US Justice Department.
These errors are of far more than academic interest. Some of these mistakes lead directly to child murders. The Center for Judicial Excellence found 49 cases in which courts gave access to dangerous abusers that led to the murders of 64 children . More often these bad practices cause children to suffer unspeakable pain and anguish. Most of these children will never reach their full potential during the only life they will have on this planet. And the ACE Study tells us that exposure to the true reports the courts routinely fail to recognize will shorten their lives and undermine their health.
In many ways the findings in the Pilot Study, particularly if it is confirmed in the final Meier et al study, completes the circle, making it impossible to deny the courts are getting a large percentage of abuse cases wrong. The research demonstrates that courts are using outdated approaches that give them little chance to recognize and respond effectively to reports of domestic violence and child abuse. At the same time, research like the Pilot Study confirms that courts are making decisions in a large number of cases that fail to protect the children.
Personally, I appreciate the hard work, passion and integrity Joan Meier and her colleagues have brought to this investigation. The Pilot Study is a huge advance – while we don’t know what the final study will show, it seems likely it will again confirm what the real experts have long understood. Family courts in this and many other countries are hazardous to children’s health. And it has to stop. I know this because I’m a believer.
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.
Childhood Trauma Affects Your Future Health
Answer these ten confidential questions developed with the CDC and understand your warning signs