Testimony opposing # SB 1060: An Act Concerning Coercive Control.

March 24, 2021

Dear Judiciary Committee Co-Chairs and Members:

My name is John M. Clapp, PhD and Chair of the Shared Council of Connecticut (SPC). I have over 20 years of experience working with emotionally distressed parents who are deeply fearful about the custody of their children. My testimony has been approved by the SPC’s Board of Directors.

Like many, I am shocked by the Dulos tragedy, and I agree that coercive control and should be recognized by the courts. However, the proposed bill does not provide a solution to these problems. Instead, the bill promotes conflict and incentivizes use of the courts to alienate one parent. A better approach is to use scientific evidence summarized below to reduce conflict in custody cases. Logically, this will reduce the incidence of Dulos-like cases. In reaching this conclusion, have reviewed several murder cases which arise when one parent feels hopelessly disadvantaged by the Courts.

Give Family Court an opportunity to reduce conflict: The new Triage and Pathways Initiative proposed by Judge Albis is evidence based: it should be given a chance to work by treating custody disputes as emotional and psychological issues requiring conflict resolution. Such an approach might have averted the Dulos tragedy. Given the plethora of firearms in our state, the proposed bill will not effectively avert a similar tragedy.

Don’t weaponize custody disputes: The bill weaponizes custody disputes by not requiring substantial evidence for claims of domestic violence or coercive control. Under the proposed law, merely filing an application for a protective order is sufficient to establish the presumption

Page 1 of 3 that the accused should not have access to his or her children. Most egregiously, no process is in place to allow the accused parent to rebut the accusations and expunge his or her record. In short, due process is denied. Domestic Violence: Neither nor weekend visitation should be used in cases of abuse or neglect as established by a DCF investigation: DCF has rigorous criteria for abuse and neglect, and standards for investigating such claims. Shared parenting prevents parental alienation, a form of that deliberately separates a child from a loving parent. Prof. Linda Nielsen, PhD, Wake Forest University has summarized relevant research: "10 surprising findings on shared parenting after divorce or separation," Institute for Family Studies, 20 June 2017.

This is not a gender issue: Contrary to many unsubstantiated assertions, this is not a gender issue. Males are frequently victims of domestic violence. See 2021 evidence compiled by Prof. Denise Hines, PhD, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University: http://www.sharedparentinginc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Hines-D.-2021.-Research-on- Male-Victims-of-Domestic-Violence.pdf See also recent evidence compiled by Prof. Alexandra Lysova, PhD, School of Criminology, Simon Frazier University. http://www.sharedparentinginc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Lysova-A.-2021.-Stacked- Against-Me.pdf

Detailed responses to the bill. The bill is extraordinarily complex, with many unintended consequences buried in its language. I will respond to one: lines 365 – 369 would gut a provision of the existing law which encourages cooperation on behalf of the child: “(6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent- child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders, except when a parent has a reasonable basis to be concerned for the child's safety when the child is with the other parent;” • SPC recommends changing “reasonable basis” to a finding of abuse or neglect as established by a DCF investigation, and that DCF findings be reported to the court within 45 days. • Change 46b-56a to require substantial evidence of compliance with factors (6) and (7) as a prerequisite for engaging in litigation. Rationale: any litigation is potentially harmful to the children as stated by the Family Justice Advisory Committee and the Family

Page 2 of 3

Justice Initiative (“FJI”) on July 30, 2020: “Offer families a choice of dispute resolution options to promote problem-solving and to minimize the negative effects that the adversarial process has on families during the court process and afterwards.” • Change 46b-56a to include penalties for false allegations and/or false denials of allegations of domestic violence or abuse or neglect of the children. Penalties to include a series of increasing fines up to $2,500 proportional to income and reconsideration of custody and parenting plans. • Change 46b-56a to include penalties for repeatedly ignoring court orders. Penalties to include a series of increasing fines up to $2,500 proportional to income and reconsideration of custody and parenting plans. • Arizona has successfully implemented similar penalties for false allegations and false denials of allegations. Summary: I hope that the emotions of revulsion at the Dulos tragedy, emotions that we all share, don’t lead to of this poorly crafted bill that incentivizes conflict over child custody, and even attempts to directly involve children in choosing between their parents. Let us take a more deliberate, evidence-based approach to dealing with coercive control and parental alienation.

Thank you for considering SPC’s testimony.

John Clapp, Ph.D., Chair Shared Parenting Council of Connecticut 65 Auburn Rd West Hartford, CT 06119 860-983-3685, [email protected] https://www.facebook.com/SharedParentingCT www.sharedparentinginc.org

Page 3 of 3