Journal of Family Violence https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00063-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

BLike I’m Invisible^: IPV Survivor-Mothers’ Perceptions of Seeking Child Custody through the Family Court System

Ellen Gutowski1 & Lisa A. Goodman1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract This qualitative descriptive study examines the perspectives of 19 mothers who survived intimate partner violence (IPV) and sought custody of one or more children through the family court system. We explored these mothers’ perceptions of the nature of court processes from start to finish, their understandings of the impact of court processes and outcomes on their well-being, and their recommendations for improvements to facilitate a process that is sensitive to survivors’ experiences with IPV. Mothers interviewed in this study described an experience that was largely invalidating and distressing, compounding the adverse effects of IPVon their well-being. Qualitative content analysis yielded six clusters: 1) survivors must enter into a court environment that implicitly presumes the absence of trauma, 2) survivors face obstacles to getting their stories of abuse across and heard, 3) survivors experience harmful and helpful interactions with court professionals, 4) survivors endure distress in the courtroom, 5) survivors suffer psychosocial consequences outside of the courtroom, and 6) survivors make recommendations for an improved custody process that is sensitive to experiences of IPV. Results paint a picture of a family court system that has the potential to cause grave, lasting harms to survivor-mothers who are separating from abusive partners.

Keywords Intimate partner violence . Domestic violence . Child custody . Family court . Child abuse

It is well-established that the period after separation is the in child custody proceedings (Johnson et al. 2005; Kernic most dangerous for survivors of intimate partner violence et al. 2005;MeierandDickson2017;Saundersetal.2012, (IPV); that is, physical, sexual, psychological (Centers for 2016;Saundersetal.2013), and that the process of seeking Disease Control and Prevention 2018) and/or economic child custody through the family court system can entail con- (Adams et al. 2008) harm by a partner or spouse. During siderable difficulties for survivor-mothers aiming to protect separation, IPV survivors face an increased risk of threats, their children, such as custody outcomes that jeopardize the stalking, and violence, with extreme cases ending in murder safety of themselves and their children, or secondary victim- (DeKeseredy et al. 2017). Also, because IPV and child abuse ization from court professionals (Khaw et al. 2018; Laing often co-occur in a single home and at the hands of a single 2017; Miller and Manzer 2018;Riveraetal.2012; Slote perpetrator, separating from an abusive partner may present an et al. 2005; Zeoli et al. 2013). escalated threat to the safety of children (DeKeseredy et al. Despite evidence that family court can be a distressing 2017). At this vulnerable time, when survivors experience experience for survivors, existing research on the topic has challenges to their physical safety and psychological well-be- yet to examine how survivors with varied custody outcomes ing, many enter into the family court system seeking to protect perceive the nature of family court processes, the effects of themselves and their children from further abuse. Yet, a grow- these processes on their well-being, or their recommendations ing body of scholarship indicates that IPV is often minimized for improvement. This study set out to address these very questions through a qualitative investigation of the experi- ences of IPV survivors who were in the process of seeking * Ellen Gutowski or had sought custody of one or more children through family [email protected] court. As there is a dearth of information on survivors’ posi- tive experiences with seeking child custody, we were particu- 1 Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational larly interested in soliciting examples of both positive and Psychology, Campion Hall, Boston College, Chestnut negative experiences from participants. To frame this Hill, MA 02467, USA JFamViol exploration, the next section both describes the growing body (Saunders et al. 2012) found that holding patriarchal norms of quantitative research on how family courts respond to IPV was related to a number of misconceptions about custody and reviews emerging, predominantly qualitative research that and IPV and subsequent recommendations that were explores how IPV survivors perceive this process and its unsupportive to survivors. Further, the authors’ research on consequences. court evaluators specifically, demonstrated that the likelihood of recommending arrangements that would increase a child’s contact with an abuser was associated with a range of miscon- How Does Family Court Respond to IPV? ceptions about IPV and custody, such as the belief that IPV is not an important factor to take into consideration when making Although survivors enter into family court hoping that profes- a custody or visitation determination (Saunders et al. 2013). sionals will see the abuse and respond accordingly, research This belief runs contrary to existing research that demonstrates using court record reviews and surveys of professionals dem- both the increased likelihood that when IPV is present, chil- onstrates a pattern of under-detection of IPV in the family dren are victimized themselves, as well as the long-lasting court system. For example, mention of IPV is often omitted harms that children face from being exposed to IPV, such as from case files, even in cases with externally documented increased adjustment problems and worsened mental health evidence, such as from police reports (Kernic et al. 2005)or (e.g., Graham-Bermann et al. 2009; Levendosky et al. 2013). court mediation records from custody disputes (Johnson et al. Finally, in a nationwide investigation of 238 published 2005). Even in those cases where IPV is noted, it may be opinions regarding abuse and custody, Meier and Dickson minimized. Saunders and colleagues (Saunders et al. 2013) (2017) found that abuse allegations were frequently surveyed 465 custody evaluators and found that, in response discredited based on the concept of parental alienation, the to a case vignette involving severe IPV, close to half (47%) of notion that parents may allege abuse to estrange the children evaluators recommended joint legal custody with full physical from the other parent (Harman et al. 2018). Importantly, this to the mother, and another 30% recommended joint legal and claim of parental alienation influenced custody outcomes dif- physical custody. Among evaluators who recommended visi- ferentially for men and women: fathers who alleged alienation tation arrangements in response to the case vignette, unsuper- were much more likely to win custody than mothers who vised visitation granted to the perpetrator was the most fre- alleged alienation. Moreover, fathers were more likely to quently recommended arrangement (47%). In another survey win custody even when their allegations of alienation were study, judges, private attorneys, and evaluators recommended not credited or resolved by the court, while mothers who al- that known abusers receive physical custody between 17 and leged alienation but were not credited were more likely to 21% of the time (Saunders et al. 2016). have their children removed from their custody and placed Two factors help explain this widespread under-detection with the father. These findings provide dramatic support for and minimization of IPV in family court. First, abusive part- bias against women who allege abuse, resulting in the mini- ners may distort information, distracting from the abusive dy- mization of their abuse experiences as a factor that influences namics that are present in the relationship (Miller and Smolter custody determinations. 2011; Watson and Ancis 2013). For example, in one study examining the perceptions of 109 attorneys, most of whom primarily represented IPV survivors, participants indicated How Do IPV Survivors Perceive Family Court? that abusive partners frequently sought to portray their former partner as psychologically unstable (White-Domain and Given existing quantitative research demonstrating how fam- Phillips 2016). Similarly, in studies on survivors’ perspec- ily courts may minimize or discredit abuse in the context of tives, participants indicated that their abusive ex-partners IPV, the growing collection of studies on survivors’ subjective made attempts to cast them as Bunfit^ parents (Miller and accounts indicating overall negative perceptions of their fam- Manzer 2018; Watson and Ancis 2013). Abusive partners ily court experiences is unsurprising. Several clear themes may also make counterclaims of abuse for the purposes of emerge from these studies. First, qualitative accounts of IPV retaliation (Miller and Smolter 2011). When both parties make survivors’ perceptions of family court indicate that many feel allegations of abuse, judges and evaluators face the near- that they and their children are unprotected. In one impossible task of sorting out questions about relative respon- Massachusetts-based study of 40 mothers going through cus- sibility for acts of violence. tody proceedings, the majority of participants felt that they A second potential reason for the minimization of IPV in and their children were unsafe from post-separation abuse, family courts is misperception and bias on the part of profes- which led the authors to the bold claim that the courts were sionals (Meier and Dickson 2017; Saunders et al. 2012, 2016). violating human rights (Slote et al. 2005). A more recent, In their research on judges, evaluators, attorneys, and domestic qualitative investigation of 19 survivor-mothers who had violence program workers, Saunders and colleagues sought child custody found that although all participants JFamViol reported safety concerns, none who turned to the family courts challenges and hoping for a process that will reveal the truth believed that the courts worked to protect their children (Zeoli and mete out justice; yet they may instead confront a system et al. 2013). Finally, a study exploring 25 survivor-mothers’ that minimizes or discredits their abuse, subjects them to sec- strategies of negotiation and resistance as they tried to keep ondary victimization, and leaves them feeling unprotected and their children safe before and after separation, demonstrated distressed. While several studies have analyzed mothers’ per- survivors’ perceptions that court actors failed to respond ef- ceptions of family court processes, to our knowledge, this is fectively to their and their children’s’ needs (Miller and the first study to take a broadened focus to explore survivors’ Manzer 2018). Consistent with these findings, one quantita- subjective perceptions of the nature of the custody process tive evaluation of 212 litigants from several family court- from start to finish with an emphasis on how survivors under- houses in Massachusetts found that those with safety concerns stand the consequences of this process for their well-being. reported greater dissatisfaction with their experiences in court Broadening our research question allowed for an investigation (Driggers et al. 2013). In other words, although family court is of particular aspects of the process that stood out to survivors a system that may work well for those without safety con- as affecting their well-being. In order to advance the current cerns, when safety is an issue, such as in cases involving literature on the subject and to inform current policy efforts, IPV, litigants report feeling dissatisfied and misunderstood. we also sought participant recommendations for an improved Second, psychological distress is heightened during the process that is sensitive to survivors’ experiences of IPV. child custody process. Court proceedings are highly stressful and usually involve prolonged contact with the abuser, who may continue to exert power and control in the courtroom Methods (Watson and Ancis 2013). Though research focusing on sur- vivors’ perceptions of how family court processes as a whole We used a qualitative descriptive (Sandelowski 2000)meth- impact their psychological well-being is limited, one qualita- odology to learn about survivor-mothers’ experiences seeking tive study of 19 survivors’ experiences with mediation in the child custody. We chose this method for this study because it context of child custody found a general experience of sec- entails minimal researcher interpretation and produces find- ondary victimization during this process and a feeling of being ings that are Bcloser to the data as given, or data-near^ (p. largely unheard (Rivera et al. 2012). Another qualitative study 78, Sandelowski 2010). Although researcher interpretation is on the perceptions of 22 survivors who were involved in the inescapably a part of any qualitative study (Sandelowski Australian family law system and attempting to negotiate safe 2010), this low-inference method allowed for participants to post-separation parenting arrangements indicated that they re- speak for themselves to the greatest extent possible. ceived responses from a range of professionals that mirrored the very abusive dynamics that were present in their relation- Participants ships, similarly suggesting that many family court-involved survivors may be subjected to secondary victimization by a Participants included 19 IPV survivors who had sought cus- range of family court actors (Laing 2017). In another recent, tody of one or more children in Probate and Family Court qualitative investigation of IPV survivors engaged in the legal across five counties in Massachusetts. Ages ranged from 34 system in Australia (Douglas 2018), participants reported that to 67 (M =50years;SD = 8 years). Thirteen participants iden- giving evidence and being in proximity to the perpetrator ad- tified as White, four as Black, and two as Latina. Seven held a versely affected their mental health to the point where simply professional degree (i.e., Master’s, JD, MD, or PhD), four held entering the courthouse made some physically ill. In the only a Bachelor’s degree, four held an Associate’sdegree,onehad study to our knowledge on survivor-mothers’ experiences a high school diploma and one reported less than a high school with family court processes as a whole, which focused on education. Participant incomes ranged from $7200 to over strategies in reaction to the custody process among survivors $240,000 annually, with an average of $34,464. For more who had negative custody outcomes (i.e., the abusive parent information on sample characteristics, see Table 1. was granted either custody of or unsupervised contact with a Data was collected during the year of 2017. At the time of child), participants painted a picture of a complex and stressful the interviews, participants reported legal cases that lasted process that produced dramatic and unexpected negative out- from six months to 14 years, (M = 5 years). Because family comes, such as loss of custody (Khaw et al. 2018). law processes are not finite by nature – it is possible for either party to appeal custody or visitation determinations or to file new motions on an on-going basis (Przekop 2011) – it is The Current Study difficult to give a statistic on the average length of time since the termination of participants’ family court cases. However, As the above literature makes clear, survivors may come into 10 participants felt that their cases were at least over for the family court struggling with myriad post-separation time being while nine participants felt that their cases were not JFamViol

Table 1 Survey response percentages and frequencies over. Three participants in the Bover for the time being^ group were in situations that protected them from on-going court Race/Ethnicity involvement with regard to custody and visitation: one partic- White 68%(13) ’ ’ Black 21%(4) ipant s ex-husband had recently died and two participants Latina 10%(2) children were above the age of 18 years. Of those whose cases Education were Bover for the time being,^ the length of time since they Professional degree 37%(7) made a court appearance ranged from less than one year ago to Bachelors 21%(4) 19 years ago (M = 5 years ago, Mode < 1 year ago). Associates 21%(4) Eighteen participants disclosed their abuse experiences High school 5%(1) to their lawyers, one primarily to court officers, and thir- Less than high school 5%(1) teen either disclosed or others (e.g., lawyers) disclosed the a Legal representation during your case? abuse on their behalf to judges. Six reported being advised Yes (hired a lawyer) 84%(16) by attorneys not to disclose abuse to judges because it Yes (DVagency lawyer) 16%(3) would worsen their cases. Custody outcomes of partici- Was pro se after some time 16%(3) Outcome physical custody for participantb pants were varied at the time of the interview with the Full (other parent has unsupervised visits) 42%(8) most frequent custody arrangement (n = 8) being full phys- Full (other parent has supervised visits) 5%(1) ical custody afforded to the survivor while the other parent Shared 21%(4) had unsupervised visitation. Four participants received Lost custody 16%(3) shared physical custody, three participants had lost custo- Other 16%(3) dy, one participant had full physical custody and the other I am satisfied with the decisions Probate and Family court has made so far.c parent had supervised visitation, one participant had full No, never 53%(10) physical custody and the other parent’s visitation was ’ I don t think so 21%(4) suspended, and one participant’s children were living with Half the time 10%(2) her and her ex was deceased. One participant reported that Mostly, yes 5%(1) no custody determination was made as her ex-partner Yes, to a great extent 10%(2) c prolonged the case until their child – who was living with My children and I are better off as a result of the Probate and Family Court case. No, never 42%(8) her ex at the time of the interview - turned 18. I don’t think so 16%(3) We used a snowball sampling method of recruitment. Half the time 10%(2) Professional contacts, including lawyers who worked with Mostly, yes 21%(4) survivors and domestic violence (DV) advocates, sent out Yes, to a great extent 5%(1) an initial wave of study announcements to clients and Please rate how safe the custody process made you feel.c colleagues. Additionally, we made presentations in two Severely unsafe 58%(11) DV support groups and a DV agency sent out a study Mildly unsafe 5%(1) announcement in their newsletter. Participants also referred Neither safe nor unsafe 21%(4) other participants. In all cases, we described the study’s A little safe 10%(2) intention as to understand the court-related experiences of Very safe 5%(1) survivors who have sought or are currently seeking custo- Please rate how safe you felt your children were during the custody process.c Severely unsafe 47%(9) dy of their children in Probate and Family court in the Mildly unsafe 26%(5) state of Massachusetts. Eligibility criteria included self- Neither safe nor unsafe 16%(3) identified survivors of IPV, at least 18 years of age, who A little safe 0%(0) had sought custody of one or more children whose father Very safe 5%(1) was the perpetrator of IPV. Eligibility was assumed based on participants’ interest in the study, and verified at the Percentages are calculated out of the total number of participants with time of the interview. frequencies in parentheses a Participants experienced long-term processes and many had changes in their legal representation throughout. For example, three participants Procedure wrote in the comments section that they had multiple lawyers during their cases, some of whom were pro bono The first author conducted all interviews; 15 in person, and b Statistics are provided for physical custody determinations at the time of four by phone. The first two participants offered feedback on the interview study procedures in the interest of ensuring sensitivity to the c Numbers do not add up to 19 in response to all questions because some emotional needs of participants. As a result of this feedback, participants left items blank changes were made with regard to the process of conducting interviews (e.g., providing food and water to participants as JFamViol well as breaks, having an advocate on-call in the event As an example of how our biases impacted the research that the participant become distressed) but not with regard process, we caught ourselves nearly engaging in the to the content of the questions. For the majority of in- exact process we are studying: discounting abuse. We person interviews, DV agencies provided meeting space. found ourselves choosing less Bextreme^ quotes and Other interviews took place in a legal office, a therapist’s framing comments in earlier drafts so as to soften or office, a survivor’s home, and a church. Interviews took present the information skeptically, for instance. While place at a mutually convenient location for the interviewer revising a draft of this paper, the second author made and the participant. Participants’ comfort and mobility was the comment: Bthis is hard to believe^ on a summary of taken into consideration when determining the meeting a participant’s narrative. First, we softened the state- space. Many interviews took place at agencies where par- ment, but then remembered to reflect on our biases, ticipants had received services in order to help them feel and instead of softening or omitting the participant’s comfortable with the interview process. Most interviews description, we went back to the interview and included lasted close to two hours. We ended data collection when the participant’s direct quote about the event. we reached theoretical saturation, meaning that no new themes emerged from the interviews (Sandelowski 2008). Data Analysis At the time that data collection was terminated, we had several more interested participants than we were able to In accordance with qualitative description, we used interview. qualitative content analysis as the analytic method (Sandelowski 2000). Drawing from the tenants of natu- Measures ralistic inquiry, qualitative description provides a com- prehensive presentation of the facts of the event or case Survey We gave participants a brief survey that included de- using participants’ language. To ensure rigor, we used mographic questions (i.e., race, ethnicity, income, and educa- constant comparison throughout the analytic process, a tion), as well as questions about outcomes and aspects of their method that we adapted from grounded theory (Boeije legal processes, (i.e., whether they and/or their ex-partner was 2002). Both authors and three research assistants were awarded custody and visitation, the duration of the legal pro- involved in coding the interview transcripts. Prior to cess). We devised questions for the survey in consultation with coding, the research assistants each read Sandelowski’s professionals (two attorneys, three DV advocates, and one (2000) article on qualitative description and underwent therapist) and two survivors, all of whom had firsthand expe- training via a period of group coding led by the two rience working in or receiving services from the family court authors. The research assistants were then asked to each system. For survey results, see Table 1. code one individual transcript and the first author reviewed their work and provided feedback. Once the Interview Protocol The interview protocol was devised in research assistants were trained, they took the lead in consultation with the same group of professionals and coding individual interview transcripts and the first au- survivors. Questions covered experiential aspects of the thor reviewed their work and provided comments on court process and outcomes. A sample question about each transcript, consulting with the second author on the process included, BCan you tell me a story about a an on-going basis as needed. Two members from the time when you had to tell your story; or speak to the research team coded each interview, a research assistant judge or probation officer?^ A sample question about and the first author. Coders brought their work back to the consequences of the court process included, BHow the group for regular discussion at team meetings, seek- has this process affected you psychologically?^ For a ing consensus at every stage of the process. This pro- copy of the interview protocol, see Appendix Table 3. cess resulted in constant modification of categories and clusters. Reflexivity The coding process involved three levels: First, we con- ducted open coding, using an inductive approach to create Throughout the research process, we carefully examined our Bin-vivo codes^ and to stay as close to participants’ words biases and values related to the project, and how our identities as possible. Next, we grouped codes into categories with may have influenced this work (Tracy 2010). For instance, we shared content. Finally, we created clusters based on related reflected on how our positions of socioeconomic and racial priv- concepts among categories (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). ilege as middle and upper-middle class White women have We compared newly collected data with previous data to gen- shaped a default trust in institutions; how our shared identities erate new codes, refine earlier ones, identify their relationships with participants as women - and, for the second author, as a to one another, and integrate them into an evolving framework mother - enabled us to empathize with participants’ desperation. (Boeije 2002). JFamViol

Member Checking Survivors Must Engage in a Court Environment that Is Not Set up for Abuse Survivors Most participants explained that en- Once we completed data analysis, we contacted participants to gaging with this system meant that they must be in a shared ask if they would be willing to review an outline of the key physical space with the abusive parent in the waiting area and findings. The first author provided those who responded with in the courtroom. Elise explained how being in a shared phys- a draft of the clusters and specific recommendations that re- ical space with her abusive ex-partner was triggering: Bif you sulted from the coding process. Eight participants provided have a scab, if you’re constantly scratching it, it doesn’tgo feedback, supporting that the findings were consistent with away. And that’s what they are. They can just sit there and it’s their experiences. The first author made notes during conver- very traumatizing.^ For some, the abusive parent threatened, sations with participants, which resulted in some minor chang- stared down, yelled at, or followed them in the courthouse or es to the framing of the results (e.g., one participant empha- when leaving. Most participants further reported needing to sized that lawyers in addition to judges and evaluators need to endure prolonged contact with the abusive parent due to the have training in intimate partner violence, consistent with sev- long-term nature of the process, which interfered with their eral other participants’ views, and the first author edited the healing from the abuse. Patrice explained, Bthe court process wording of this recommendation to specify this). As an addi- was really daunting and never-ending and I still have to deal tional method of member checking, the first author presented with an abusive person on a daily basis and here are more preliminary findings at a conference that was largely attended threats of court and harassment and constant badgering.^ by survivor-mothers who had sought child custody through Finally, many described needing to share details of abuse the family court system. The first author asked attendees without privacy, as court records are public, and in the court- whether the results presented resonated with their personal room, others are waiting to appear before the judge. Isabella experiences. About twenty participants attended the presenta- explained, Bgoing to court for this is very emotional, it’sper- tion and supported that the results were consistent with their sonal [...] I had to tell stories [involving] sexual abuse….and personal experiences seeking custody. Support for the study’s there’s other people in the room.^ results was inferred by participant responses to the first au- thor’s question of whether the findings resonate (e.g., Byes^), Survivors Feel that Court Professionals Do Not Identify the nonverbal signals that indicated agreement with other at- Abuse Dynamic Some participants felt that court personnel tendees, and comments that added emphasis to the content did not identify the other parents’ attempts to exercise coer- covered in the presentation (e.g., Bthis is a crazy-making cion and control in the process as abusive. Kelly, who felt that process!^) her ex-partner pursued child custody to further control her, wished that the judge would Bnot just assume that because a father wants to be involved that they want to be involved for the right reasons.^ Many expressed feeling that court profes- Results sionals did not see how court-mandated arrangements played out to impact their children outside of the courtroom. Patrice, Data yielded six distinct clusters. We present each cluster un- whose ex had unsupervised visitation with ample parenting der a separate heading with categories bolded and codes ital- time, explained: icized. Clusters and categories are also displayed in Table 2. The following terms denote the numeric range of participants I feel that the courts are really misinformed about the who described any given experience: Bsome^ (2 to 4), Bmany^ [notion] that if he abuses her or if there's some type of a (5 to 9), and Bmost^ (10 or more), a convention used in some conflict between the parents it’s not going to affect the qualitative research (Chang et al. 2009). In the paragraphs that child. It affects the child on every single level and my follow, we refer to participants by their preferred pseudonyms co-parent has been abusive to my [child], as well. to protect identities. Many participants felt that court professionals did not un- derstand the context of their behavior.Daniellashared: Cluster 1: Survivors Must Enter into a Court Environment that Implicitly Presumes the Absence They get what it’s like to be physically hurt, but do they of Trauma really understand that that makes you go silent? That it makes you angry and maybe sometimes inappropriately, From the moment they entered the courthouse, participants quote-unquote, Binappropriately angry^? You know, were required to adapt to a system that failed to attend to their does it make you respond in a quote-unquote, trauma experiences, both in the set-up of the court environ- Babnormal way to normal stimuli^?It'snot abnormal. ment and the omission of professionals. It's normal foranabusedperson. JFamViol

Table 2 Clusters, categories and codes

CLUSTER 1: Survivor must enter into a court environment that implicitly presumes the absence of trauma. Survivor must engage in a court environment that is not set up for abuse survivors. Survivor must be in a shared physical space with the abusive parent. Survivor must endure prolonged contact with the abusive parent. Survivor must share details of abuse without privacy. Survivor feels that court professionals do not identify the abuse dynamic. Survivor feels that court professionals do not identify the other parents’ coercion and control in the process as abusive. Survivor feels that court professionals do not identify how court-mandated arrangements play out to impact children. Survivor feels that court professionals do not identify the context of the survivor’sbehavior. CLUSTER 2: Survivor experiences obstacles to getting her story of the abuse across/heard. Survivor experiences financial obstacles to getting her story of the abuse across/heard. Survivor lacks resources which to fight in court compared with the abusive parent. Survivor lacks resources for legal representation or quality legal representation. Survivor experiences systemic obstacles inherent in the set-up of court to getting her story of the abuse across/heard. Survivor does not speak about the abuse in court due to fear of retaliation. Survivor does not speak about the abuse in court due to lawyer’s caution that it would be used against her. Survivor experiences psychological and relational obstacles to getting her story of the abuse across/heard. Survivor cannot get her story across due to initial difficulty making sense of the abusive situation. Survivor cannot get her story across due to child(ren)‘s alignment with or fear of the abusive parent. Survivor cannot get her story across due to the psychological impacts of the abuse. CLUSTER 3: Survivor experiences harmful and helpful interactions with court professionals. Survivor’s abuse narrative is explicitly discounted. Survivor or child’s accounts of abuse are dismissed or trivialized. Survivor or child’s accounts of abuse are not believed or questioned. Evidenceofabuseorprofessionals’ recommendations are dismissed or trivialized. Survivor experiences harsh treatment or judgment from court and court affiliated professionals. Survivor feels mocked not taken seriously. Survivor feels that she is accused of lying about the abuse. Survivor feels that she is blamed for the effects of the abuse. Survivor feels that her abuse experience is used to accuse her of being a bad or unfit mother. Survivor feels that she is viewed as pitiful or as allowing the abuse. Survivor feels that her gender, race, immigration status, or social class was used to mistreat her. Survivor feels that the court gives the abusive parent an advantage. Survivor feels that professional does not set limits with the abusive parent. Survivor feels that decision or outcome shows bias in favor of abusive parent. Survivor offers hypotheses for why she experienced disadvantage. Survivor feels that court professionals are responsive to her abuse experience. Survivor feels that abuse experience/narrative is understood or taken seriously in court. Survivor feels that professional stands up to abusive parent’s coercive or controlling tactics. Survivor feels satisfied with or relieved at outcome that accounts for the abuse. CLUSTER 4: Survivor experiences distress in the courtroom. Survivor is fearful during the process. Survivor is fearful of losing her children during the process. Survivor is fearful of contact with the abuser during the process. Survivor is fearful for the safety of herself/her kids during the process. Survivor feels ashamed, humiliated or worthless during the process. Survivor feels feel ashamed or humiliated from being in a public setting. Survivor feels feel ashamed, humiliated, worthless or dehumanized from professional’s response. Survivor is rendered powerless during the process. Survivor is rendered powerless from having the abuse discounted. Survivor is rendered powerless from being forced to compromise unfairly in court. JFamViol

Table 2 (continued) CLUSTER 5: Survivor experiences psychosocial consequences outside of the courtroom. Survivor feels betrayed or mistrustful towards family court, institutions or society, more broadly. Survivor feels betrayed by the court system. Survivor feels betrayed, stigmatized or judged by society. Survivor feels powerless as a mother. Survivor feels that her relationship with her child(ren) is disrupted or severed. Survivor feels powerless to protect her child(ren) from the abusive parent. Survivor feels like a failure as a mother. Survivor experiences mental health consequences. Survivor must cope with physical or physiological signs of stress related to the court process. Survivor must cope with mental health problems related to the court process. Survivor must cope with re-traumatization related to the court process. Survivor experiences positive psychosocial consequences from the process. Survivor experiences strong connections with other mothers. Survivor experiences new meaning from her experiences through helping others. Survivor experiences positive psychological changes. CLUSTER 6: Survivors make recommendations for an improved process that is sensitive to IPV Survivor recommends a separate physical space from the abusive parent. Survivor recommends granting the option for survivors to bring a support person into the courtroom. Survivor recommends expanded for access to affordable legal representation for survivors. Survivor recommends that professionals associated with the process have training in IPV. Survivor recommends improved accountability in the process.

Cluster 2: Survivors Experience Obstacles to Getting requirement to be in a shared physical space with the abusive their Stories of the Abuse across/Heard parent worked in parallel as a barrier to disclosing abuse. Hallie explained, with her ex Btwo feet away [...] do you Participants reported that getting their stories of the abuse expect me to be honest and say everything?^ Some also re- across to and heard by decision-makers and other key profes- ported that they did not speak about the abuse in court due to sionals, such as evaluators, was made difficult by financial, lawyers’ cautions that it would be used against them. Caitlin systemic, psychological, and relational obstacles. reported:

Survivors Experience Financial Obstacles to Getting their My attorneys kept telling me not to talk about the history Stories of the Abuse across/Heard Most participants reported of domestic violence, not to call him a batterer, not to that they lacked resources which to fight in court compared talk about all the mental, emotional abuse, all the finan- with the abusive parent. Kelly, who experienced economic cial abuse. So, time after time after time, when I wanted abuse during her marriage, described the challenges of being to disclose, I was told that would be basically used pro se when her ex was not: against you.

I literally was left with nothing, and he was able to hire himself a nice hoity-toity lawyer, and it was just me. [...] Survivors Experience Psychological and Relational Obstacles so to say the least, I got creamed [...] I wouldn't even get to Getting their Stories of the Abuse across/Heard Most par- to say two words and yet I felt like fate was being de- ticipants expressed that they could not get their stories across cided just on what his attorney was saying. due to initial difficulty making sense of the abusive situation. Isabella explained, Bin the beginning, you don’twanttode- Most participants also lacked resources for legal represen- fame the person, I mean I love this person.’^ Children also tation or quality representation. For example, Caitlin’spro- faced difficulties making sense of the abusive situations, and bono attorney, Bdidn’t know what she was doing. Never in- some participants expressed that they could not get their formed me of any rights that I had or to even seek supervised stories across due to a child’s alignment with or fear of the visitation.^ abusive parent, which presented a confusing picture to deci- sion-makers. Alice explained that her child has, Bbeen trained Survivors Experience Systemic Obstacles Inherent in the Set- [by the abusive parent] to be angry at me, and reject me.^ up of Court to Getting their Stories of the Abuse across/Heard Juliette’s son was fearful of speaking about the abuse after Some shared that they did not speak about the abuse in court he learned from her ex, BIf I talk, daddy will kill mommy.^ due to fears of retaliation. Fears of retaliation combined with a Many participants also felt that they could not get their stories JFamViol across due to the psychological impacts of the abuse. Caitlin they were mocked or not taken seriously. Joan explained: BI explained: [don’t] think I was taken seriously at all in court. I was basi- cally, you know, I played the victim, is what they were I wasn’t self-identified as a survivor, and I was so trau- saying.^ Most felt that they were accused of lying about the matized by the assault in trying to leave, that I just abuse. Caitlin was Baccused of lying. Forcing the kids to lie [sighs] could not – I developed PTSD, I began having about it, which was [...] bizarre because they had visible phys- nightmares, intrusive thoughts. You know, the whole ical injuries.^ Most participants also felt their abuse experi- gamut that comes with that. And, I just was not able to ences were used to accuse them of being bad or unfit mothers. articulate anything in the court to the judge. Anne described how she wishes the judge would have under- stood her: BMaybe I was depressed because of the abuse and maybe that’swhyIdidn’t take care of the kids. [I wish judges Cluster 3: Survivors Experience Harmful and Helpful would] understand the abuse and how traumatic it was.^ Some Interactions with Court Professionals felt that they were viewed as pitiful or as allowing the abuse. Kelly shared, BIkindoffeltlikeIwasspokento[bythejudge] When they did speak up about the abuse, many relayed exam- as if I was stupid because again, why didn’t I just leave? I ples of having their abuse experiences discounted, receiving mean don’t you know any better?^ Most participants de- harsh treatment or judgment, or of feeling that the abusive scribed feeling that they were blamed for the effects of the parent was given an advantage. In a small number of cases, abuse. Rosa explained, Bthe abuse was killing me. It was just survivors relayed examples of responsive reactions from court constant.^ She went to her doctor who put her on a mild professionals. antidepressant, after which she felt, Bthat was used against me in court, that I was on antidepressants.^ Most also Survivors Abuse Narratives Are Explicitly Discounted Most expressed feeling that an aspect of their identity, such as their participants reported that their own and/or their children’sac- gender, race, immigration status, or social class was used to counts of child abuse or domestic violence were dismissed or mistreat them. Olivia, who is African American, shared: trivialized. Maria expressed her view that while some profes- Bbecause of the color of my skin, and the color of my chil- sionals identified physical abuse, they did not understand dren’s skin, their value isn’t where it needs to be.^ emotional or economic abuse. Olivia, who feared for the safe- ty of her children when with her ex, and fought to appeal the Survivors Feel that the Court Gives the Abusive Parent an shared custody arrangement, felt like she was Bscreaming out Advantage Most participants expressed that court profes- loud and everyone’s got their headphones on.^ Many also sionals did not set limits with the abusive parent. For instance, reported that their own or their children’s accounts of child Kelly felt court professionals accepted the abusive parent’s abuse or domestic violence were disbelieved or questioned. lies (e.g., about her taking an expensive vacation instead of Cee, whose son was being sexually abused on visits, paying rent among other acts of incompetence as a parent) explained: over her own account of the events. She explained how this felt: P: I really prefer that I were crazy than [it being] really [true]. [Crying] Why would you believe someone who has done all these I: Yeah. It’s not like you want it to be true. things to me and my children, why would you take his P: Yeah. [Crying] But it was. It was worse than even I word over mine? I don't understand, I feel like even thought. But the judge would never believe that even though I was the victim and he was the perpetrator, I today. really feel like he still has more rights than I do. My rights are completely like thrown aside. I don't under- Many had a sense that evidence of abuse or professionals’ stand that and it pretty much has been said in court, ‘He (e.g., pediatricians, teachers, child therapists, Department of has his rights.’ Well, ok, but so do I, so where are my Children and Families (DCF) workers or in a small number of rights? My rights don't matter. cases, guardian ad litem (GALs)) recommendations were dismissed or trivialized. Allie described how court profes- Most also felt that decisions made in their cases showed sionals responded to photo evidence of child abuse, BIsaid bias in favor of the abusive parent.InHallie’swords:Bhe got well, ‘I’ve got pictures of my son.’ Then I was told not to take whatever it is that he asked for [i.e., shared legal custody, a lot pictures of my son anymore.^ of parenting time].^ Many offered hypotheses for why they experienced disadvantage. For example, some suspected that Survivors Experience Harsh Treatment or Judgment from a professional’s alignment with the Father’sRightsMovement Court/Court-Affiliated Professionals Most participants felt that hurt their cases. JFamViol

Survivors Report that Court Professionals Are Responsive to humiliated being in a public setting. Dorothy expressed: Bdo their Abuse Experiences While most participants relayed ex- you really want me to air my dirty laundry? A lot of people are amples of discounting and disadvantage, many of these same ashamed of what goes on in their lives. It took me years to participants also shared examples of court professionals come out with [the abuse].^ Some described feeling worthless responding sensitively to the abuse; and one person represent- or dehumanized based on a professional’s response or ed her experience as overall positive. Among those partici- responses. For example, when the judge refused to order her pants who relayed positive experiences, all had full physical ex-husband to leave the marital home even though he was custody of their children, and, in all but one case, in which the physically abusing her, Elise felt, BIwasn’t even a person in other parent was deceased, the other parent had unsupervised court.^ Anne felt, Bworthless, ugly, stupid, because that’skind visitation. Many recounted examples of having their abuse of how he made me feel. And I felt like a liar and a bad mother experiences understood or taken seriously in court.For and a bad person. Like I was unworthy of being treated well.^ Sandy, the mediator’s persistent questioning of the abusive parent about his refusal to take a drug test made her feel Survivors Are Rendered Powerless during the Process Nearly Bheard.^ Leila re-gained custody of her children after her ex all participants described being rendered powerless during this falsely accused her of child abuse. She described the judge as process. Many described how having the abuse discounted having Ba good heart. [...] She gave me attention and listened, rendered them powerlessness. In Olivia’s words: Bit’s like even though I don’t speak good English. She listened careful- I’m invisible or like my words have no weight.^ Maria de- ly, and when she didn’t understand she said, ‘repeat it for scribed how this experience was for her: me.’^ Many felt that a professional stood up to the abusive parent’s coercive or controlling tactics. When the judge in If you don’t appear calm, they tell you you’re crazy. And Dorothy’s case pressured her ex to produce his life insurance you’re not crazy, you’re just upset. So, it’s like a night- policy, she felt: BFinally I had somebody on my side. You mare. You kind of have to go in there and not listen. know, because [the judge] could see right through [my ex- They decide what they are going to decide, and you find partner]. He could see who he was.^ Many participants voiced out what they decided, and you get mad and angrier, but relief or gratitude over an outcome that accounts for the there’s nothing you could have done about it. I don’t abuse. Daniella explained that when it came to dividing assets, know how to explain it to you, it’ sjust,it’ssurreal. the judge gave her 60% of the shared assets because of the abuse. Relatedly, most voiced that being forced to compromise unfairly rendered them powerless during the process. Joan, Cluster 4: Survivors Experience Distress whose ex received unsupervised visitation, which she in the Courtroom appealed because of child safety concerns, depicted her expe- rience as, Bjust like the never ending telling of your story, only Participants experienced distress in the courtroom during the for them to shove something down your throat.^ process in the form of fear, shame, worthlessness, and powerlessness. Cluster 5: Survivors Experience Psychosocial Consequences outside of the Courtroom Survivors Are Fearful during the Process Many participants described feeling fearful of contact with the abuser dur- Beyond the distress in the courtroom, participants’ court ex- ing the process. For Dorothy, entering the courthouse periences left them with long-term and life-altering psychoso- where she knew her ex was waiting was Bfrightening cial consequences to contend with outside of the courtroom. as hell.^ Many were also fearful for their own or their child’s safety during the process. Some shared that they Survivors Feel Betrayed or Mistrustful towards Family Court, never felt safe in court or only felt safe when with a Institutions or Society, more Broadly Nearly all participants trusted person. Cee shared: expressed a sense of being betrayed by the system,or,in Olivia’swords,Bbeing victimized by the very same system I always felt unsafe in court because I knew that anytime that is supposed to protect me.^ A subset referred to family I could lose it all, even telling the truth. Even fighting for court as Bbroken.^ Many also expressed feeling betrayed, stig- really what I believe. I was always afraid. I never really matized or judged by society as a result of this process. Caitlin thought that they were going to do the right thing. described how losing custody of her children was like Bwearing a scarlet letter, and it’s very shaming, damning.^ Juliette, who also lost custody of her child, described being: Survivors Feel Ashamed, Humiliated or Worthless during the Bstigmatized by society, by every relative she has. It tears Process Many participants expressed that they felt ashamed or families apart.^ Maria felt Btainted with all of this.^ JFamViol

Survivors Feel Powerless as a Mother As a result of the pro- activity in order to make meaning of their experiences through cess, most had disrupted or severed relationships with their helping others.Rosashared:BI have to keep talking about it. children. Joan, whose son had to go on visits with his father And not just for me but to be a voice for other women.^ Some despite a history of child abuse, explained: B[My son] hated expressed that they changed psychologically in a positive way. me. He thought I wasn’t fighting for him.^ Nearly all partic- Maria explained: BI’ve taken off the rose-colored glasses.^ ipants felt powerless in their ability to protect their children Elise expressed that for her: BIt’s almost like the strength is from the abusive parent. Juliette, who, in the process of in hopelessness.^ Rosa, who felt that the experience, attempting to demonstrate to the court that her child was being Bdefinitely made me stronger^ shared: abused by her ex-husband, lost custody, shared how super- vised visits with her son felt: Bmy son would come in so sick And I say this all the time, through all my experiences with that he would just cry, ‘Mommy!’ and I would just hold him all the women I’ve been in contact with, it was a choice. for the whole supervised visit with tears running down my You either let it take you under or it’s like a phoenix ris- face because I couldn’t help him. I couldn’thelphim.^ ing…I see women who have come out stronger, sweeter, Many participants shared that they felt like failures as mothers. braver. And when there’s nowhere else to go, you kind of Allie explained: BI try to think, well what could I have done hit that spiritual place, and you make that choice. differently? ... it’s been hard. I feel as though I failed my son. I feel like a failure; [...] I tried to get him help [but it] didn’thelp him. And, that weighs on me emotionally. As a mother.^ Cluster 6: Survivors Make Recommendations for an Improved Process that Is Sensitive to IPV Survivors Experience Mental Health Consequences Some par- ticipants described physical or physiological signs of stress Participants offered a series of recommendations for how the related to the court process. For some, stress manifested current system could be improved. as insomnia, lack of concentration, excessive tiredness, or diarrhea occurring up to a week before a court appearance. Survivors Recommend a Separate Physical Space from the Leila lost her hair due to stress related to the process. Abusive Parent Many participants recommended that family Many participants also had to cope with mental health courts have a physical space for survivors that allows them to problems that resulted from this process. Elise shared, BI be separated from the abusive parent, as being in a shared actually have PTSD from all this,^ explaining, BIamstill physical space throughout the process not only heightened really compromised in my ability to function.^ Patrice has their distress but sometimes made it impossible for them to Banxiety at times^ and has been working hard Bto try to tell their stories of abuse without fear of reprisal or intrusive minimize the effects [of court];^ nonetheless, for her, the symptoms that interfered with their ability to express them- process Bis constant stress.^ For two participants, the selves. Sandy felt, BYou should not have to be all in the same stress at the outset resulted in depression and the need room. That’s just ridiculous. And that’sjustsoscary.^ to be hospitalized. Most felt re-traumatized by the process. Caitlin explained, BI correlate all of the legal stuff with, Survivors Recommend Granting the Option to Bring a just, increased trauma. And it’s the one thing left that Support Person into the Courtroom Some participants also really triggers my trauma.^ Rosa shared: BTo this day, I recommended that they be allowed to have a support person want to go over and change my name, and part of the such as an advocate, friend, or family member in the court- reason I don’t want to do it right now is ‘cause I can’t room with them, as a means of helping them to cope with the bear to go in there. It’s traumatizing.^ Importantly, in re- distress of the process. Caitlin, whose request to bring an sponse to being asked to review the results of the study, advocate into the courtroom was denied, shared, Bwhen I Anne emphasized her sense that the court process had a asked for an advocate to be near me, I mean, it shouldn’thave unique contribution to long-term mental health conse- even been a question….Why deny?^ quences: Bthe part about suffering long term consequences of the court process- yes. But maybe a note that it is Survivors Recommend Expanded Access to Affordable Legal added suffering in addition to the prior abuse.^ Representation for Survivors Many participants recommended increased access to affordable legal representation for survi- Survivors Experience Positive Psychosocial Consequences vors, the absence of which interfered with the ability of many from the Process Although participants detailed negative con- to get their stories across and heard by key decision-makers. sequences of this process, many participants also shared pos- Kelly, who lacked financial resources to pay a lawyer, but after itive outcomes. Some described fostering strong connections some time was able to get pro-bono representation, reflected with other mothers who have had similar experiences. Some on her experience: BI think it could have gone a lot differently participants described engaging in purpose or faith-driven if I had had representation from the beginning.^ JFamViol

Survivors Recommend that Professionals Associated with the described harsh treatment from professionals, which included Process Have Training in IPV Most participants argued that being accused of lying, blamed, or disadvantaged because of court professionals (including judges, custody evaluators, me- their disclosures. These findings are consistent with prior re- diators and lawyers) who are working on cases that involve search demonstrating a frequent dismissal of abuse in child IPV need in-depth training in this dynamic – to be able to custody processes, including qualitative accounts of survi- identify when IPV is present, know how to respond sensitively vors’ experiences with secondary victimization and/or harsh to survivors’ disclosures of abuse, and recognize when coer- treatment by court professionals (e.g., Bemiller 2008; Laing cion and control are being re-enacted in the legal process. 2017;Riveraetal.2012; Slote et al. 2005), as well as studies Caitlin explained: BStart identifying coercive control. That’s based on court record reviews showing infrequent crediting of been such an incredible component. And the coercive control abuse claims (Meier and Dickson 2017), or failure to mention plays out in the courtroom by excessive litigation, constant IPV in case files even when it is documented elsewhere abuse, you know, it shouldn’t be tolerated in a court of law. (Johnson et al. 2005;Kernicetal.2005). It has no place in a court of law. So, training!^ As discounting abuse when making child custody determi- nations can lead to devastating outcomes for families, Survivors Recommend Improved Accountability in the uncovering survivors’ understandings of what gets in the Process Many participants recommended that the family court way of their being heard in this context is crucial. system incorporate a mechanism or exterior body to ensure Participants in this study identified several barriers to getting accountability during child custody procedures. For example, their stories of the abuse across and heard, such as financial Daniella explained that when the procedures did not fully barriers, (e.g., lack of access to representation comparable to account for her children’s’ needs and interests, there was no that of the abusive parent and therefore unequal opportunities mechanism through which to get this information back to the for being heard); systemic barriers, (e.g., direct legal advice to judge Bwithout appearing to be unfair to the other party.^ Elise not reveal the abuse for fear that it would be used against felt that Bthis will never get fixed or reformed until people feel them); as well as psychological and relational barriers, (e.g., empowered to speak.^ These participants believed that having their initial difficulties making sense of their situation as IPV). increased accountability would protect against potentially The barriers identified by participants in this study resonate devastating consequences of on-going violence. with other research showing that family court-involved survi- vors come up against financial obstacles to obtaining legal representation (e.g., Bemiller 2008), and receive guidance Discussion from attorneys to not disclose abuse for fear that it could worsen their cases (O’Sullivan 2000). Participants’ percep- Given the high prevalence of IPV among family court tions also resonate with broader literature from outside the litigants (Johnson et al. 2005; Massachusetts family court system on how post-traumatic stress disorder Administrative Office of the Trial Court 2012), it is (PTSD) symptomology can interfere with survivors’ being critical to understand survivor-mothers’ perceptions of credited in legal processes (Epstein and Goodman 2019). what happens when they enter family court hoping for However, this study adds to the current literature, as it reveals justice. This study extends prior research on IPV and how such obstacles operate concurrently as pathways to child custody by exploring custody-seeking survivor- discounting abuse within this context. mothers’ perceptions of the nature of court processes Beyond their consistency with prior empirical findings, from start to finish, their understandings of the impact participants’ reports also resonate with scholarship illuminat- of court processes and outcomes on their well-being, ing a judicial pattern of discounting, doubting, or disbelieving and their recommendations for improvements to facili- women who describe violence at the hands of men (e.g., tate a process that is sensitive to survivors’ experiences Campbell and Raja 2005). Specifically, drawing from a vari- with IPV. Next, we review study findings in light of ety of sources, Epstein and Goodman (2019) argue that judges existing research and theory. impose a B credibility discount^ on survivors in a variety of Findings can be divided into how participants perceived the ways: First, although judges are trained to make credibility nature of the court process, and the emotional consequences determinations based on the factual detail, temporal sequenc- and recommendations that followed. Starting with the former, ing, and logical progression of a witness’ story (Grose and although some participants described judges and lawyers who Johnson 2017), IPV survivors, particularly those suffering took their abuse histories seriously, most described a family traumatic brain injury (TBI) and PTSD, tend to provide im- court that was not set up for trauma survivors (e.g. requiring pressionistic testimony, dominated by sensorial/perceptual survivors to occupy the same physical space as the abuser), and emotional details, not a logical framework. Second, sur- and that ignored, dismissed, trivialized, or outright disbelieved vivors’ stories may not be perceived as plausible by legal gate- their narratives of abuse. In some cases, participants even keepers who have little insight into IPV dynamics and how JFamViol survivors manage their experiences; instead, their determina- their family court experiences (e.g., Laing 2017; Rivera tions of credibility may be filtered through their sense of what et al. 2012), it is all the more important as it is tied to they would do in a similar situation (e.g. BI wouldn’t stand for safe outcomes for their children. it^), or stereotypes of women (e.g. as scheming or manipula- Importantly, survivors in this study supplied a number of tive) that create distrust. Finally, even when judges or evalua- useful recommendations for how to improve the family court tors believe survivors’ stories of IPV, they may dismiss them system to be sensitive to experiences of IPV. While prior research as unimportant or irrelevant to custody determinations. that has solicited survivor recommendations is limited, Saunders Corroborating other research (e.g., Douglas 2018), partici- et al. (2012)‘s research reported findings from interviews with pants in this study not only perceived their experiences with survivors who recommended thorough and fair custody evalua- the court process as impeding access to safe outcomes, but tions, safe visitation programs or facilities for supervised visits also as causing emotional harm. The concept of institutional and exchanges, the enforcement of child protection laws through betrayal helps frame these experiences. Institutional betrayal the visitation and custody process, and mandated IPV training is a term initially coined by Smith and Freyd (2014)tode- for all evaluators, professionals, and GALs. Survivor recommen- scribe the sense of Bbetrayal^ survivors may feel when they dations in this study echoed concerns for the need for training trust or depend on an institution that in turn fails to respond court professionals in IPVas well as mechanisms to ensure great- appropriately to a traumatic experience. Institutional betrayal er accountability of methods that establish child safety. Beyond operates either through acts of omission, involving a failure to supporting the recommendations of participants in Saunders prevent mistreatment, or through acts of commission, such as et al. (2012)‘s research, survivors in this study further spoke to insensitive responses to trauma disclosures (Smith et al. the need for adjustments to the courthouse – specifically, for 2014). Studies across a range of sexual assault survivors, in- separate physical spaces for survivors and the ability to bring cluding female (Smith and Freyd 2013) and lesbian, gay, and support people to court – as well as the need for expanded access bisexual (Smith et al. 2016) college students and veterans to affordable representation options for survivors. (Monteith et al. 2016) demonstrate that when the institutions to which assault victims turn for support instead fail to ac- Limitations knowledge or credit their abuse, survivors are likely to report elevated mental health difficulties. Participants in this study This study had several limitations that constrain its gen- endured a similar sense of institutional betrayal and conse- eralizability: First, the recruiting method likely did not quent mental health difficulties. Consistent with prior research produce a representative sample. Because we used a con- that indicates the profound sense of systemic failing among venience sample, it may be that mothers with negative survivors with negative custody outcomes (Khaw et al. 2018), experiencesincourtweremorelikelytovolunteer. participants in this study described diminished trust in the Second, although we sought to interview a diverse group family court system – which several labeled Bbroken^ –as a of survivors, the final sample was largely White, and ex- result of being victimized by the very institution that is in clusively female and partnered with men. We also exclu- place to protect against abuse. Even some participants who sively sampled survivors in the state of Massachusetts. As obtained what they wanted from family court poignantly de- family court systems and laws vary by state, it is possible scribed the trauma they endured as a result of a process that that survivors in different states have different experi- failed to acknowledge their experience, causing fear, humili- ences. Clearly, the sample is not representative of all ation, powerlessness, a sense of worthlessness, or a formal IPV survivors who have sought child custody through PTSD diagnosis. the family court system. Third, although we trusted par- Thus, legal institutions may be at particularly high risk ticipants’ verification that they were in fact IPV survivors, for the perpetuation of betrayal due to the perception that we did not rigorously screen for IPV, as we did not want they are a pathway to justice (Smith et al. 2014). Indeed, to ask participants to recount traumatic experiences above Judith Herman (2003, 2005) highlights the mismatch be- what was necessary for the study’s focus and purpose. tween how legal processes are constructed and what sur- More extensive screening for IPV would have ensured a vivors need and expect when they seek justice, which is – clearer and potentially narrower range of IPV experiences. above all else – social acknowledgment of the facts of Fourth, as the study’sfocuswasontheexperiencesof what happened to them and of the harm that was done. survivors, we did not have a comparison group of parents When their narratives are discounted or disbelieved, survi- undergoing custody litigation who had no experiences of vors experience the opposite of social acknowledgment, IPV. Thus, the ability to infer how IPV impacts this pro- potentially resulting in the very same painful emotions cess from these results is limited and it is possible that they endured as a result of the original abuse. For some of the experiences recounted by participants in our custody-seeking survivors who are parents, although such sample may be shared by parents involved in custody social acknowledgment may be commonly absent from litigation during separation more generally. Finally, we JFamViol did not solicit sources of information beyond participants’ meaning motivation for such decisions (e.g., the hope subjective experiences. Therefore, participant accounts of that allowing the abusive parent to air his wishes would a biased system may be interpreted as a process that felt reduce the number of appeals made after a determination biased, however, it is not possible to determine from this in the long-term). Fully understanding judges’ motiva- singular method of data collection whether the process tions in the context of systemic issues that they face is was biased. key to working in collaboration with the courts and to strengthening responses to IPV going forward. Future Research Directions Finally, although this qualitative study indicated the harm that can be done to survivors who are seeking child Although the present study adds to a growing body of custody through the family court system, future quantita- literature on IPV and child custody, the field needs to be tive research would enable a more thorough understand- expanded in a number of directions: First, we need larger- ing of the prevalence and duration of specific outcomes scale, empirical research on IPV survivors’ experiences in (i.e., job loss, PTSD symptomology, etc.). It would also family court using more representative samples, including help to link specifics of the court process and/or abusive survivors of color, immigrant survivors, lesbian, gay, bi- parent behaviors to specific outcomes for survivors, sexual, transgender, and queer/questioning survivors, and aiding in the development of policies that institute family men – all from diverse social class backgrounds. Indeed, court processes that are sensitive to IPV. given existing evidence that identity-based discrimination may play a role in the dynamics of institutional betrayal, it is especially important to study the experiences of mar- Conclusion ginalized survivors (Smith et al. 2014). The first author was contacted by a child custody-seeking father of a child This study is among the first to document the psychosocial whowasbeingabusedbythechild’smother(JohnDoe, consequences of child custody processes for survivors of IPV. Personal Communication, June 21, 2018). This father was Consistent with an emerging body of research (Laing 2017; deeply distressed by his experience, and he felt that de- Johnson et al. 2005;Kernicetal.2005;MeierandDickson spite the societal power afforded to him based on his 2017; Rivera et al. 2012), most survivor-mothers who partic- gender, he was disadvantaged in the custody process be- ipated in this study reported examples of events and interac- cause his ex-partner had more access to financial re- tions that made them feel that their own and/or their children’s sources. Thus, dynamics of power and control may play abuse experiences were ignored, minimized, discredited, out uniquely across families and is a needed area of future questioned, or otherwise not taken seriously. In other words, study. their stories of IPV received a Bcredibility discount^ Further, we need to understand the interactions that (Epstein and Goodman 2019). Further, consistent with participants recounted from the perspectives of judges the notion of institutional betrayal (Smith and Freyd and other court actors. Although it is clear that many 2014), participants described being victimized by the very participants in this study felt that judges and other system that is supposedly in place to protect them and court-affiliated professionals did not respond appropriate- their children – an experience that resulted in significant ly to their and their children’s’ abuse histories, we can distress as well as long-term, adverse, psychosocial con- only speculate as to why survivors were met with such sequences. These findings indicate that custody litigation responses without the input of those who did the through the family court system may put IPV survivors at responding. For example, while custody and parenting risk for an emotionally and psychologically harmful ex- time arrangements are often settled privately, the family perience, which underscores the urgent need to adjust how court system is called upon to intervene when parties family courts respond to the stories of abuse that survi- cannot agree. Thus, judges in the family court system vors tell in pursuit of justice. proceed over a high volume of contested cases and are tasked with the critical role of determining what is in the Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Nicole P. Castillo, for her best interests of the child. Understanding how presiding supervision of and consultation to the first author, Erin C. Miller, Jenna Birkett, Dominique Pattin, and Attorney Jeff Wolf, for their consultation over numerous contested cases impacts detection of throughout the process, a number of domestic violence agencies and abuse and decision-making in cases of IPV is a needed organizations that played an integral role in the allocation of space and future area of research. Additionally, while survivors re- resources to support this project, Rachel Paciorek, Kasey Meyer, and ported feeling disadvantaged during the process – it is Erin Kilbury for their assistance with data analysis as well as The Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Boston possible that judges may have aspired to allow both sides College for their financial support. We especially appreciate the to express their concerns, or opted to allow both parties participants who took the time to tell us their stories with hope to have parenting time, and may have had a well- that their doing so could help someone else. JFamViol

Appendix 1

Table 3 Interview protocol

Questions: Follow up:

1. To the degree that you are comfortable, I’d like to learn about your • What was going on at the time? experiences seeking custody of your children. If you think back to the • Tell me about why you seek custody of your children? very beginning, how did it all begin? • Tell me where it stands now. (Is it currently underway?) 2. Tell me about what was going through your mind at the beginning of the custody process. What were your goals, objectives, fears, and concerns at this time? 3. Could you talk about the physical space of court? Tell me about what it • Tell me about what it was like getting to court, parking, the layout of the was like to deal with the physical environment. building, and waiting for court in the public area? • How did getting around the physical space affect you? 4. Could you walk me through a day in court? • Tell me about how you felt throughout the day. • Tell me about your sense of safety throughout the day. 5. Could you tell me a story or give me an example about places, people, or interactions that made you feel safe in court (physically, emotionally, or otherwise)? 6. Could you tell me a story or give me an example about places, people, or interactions that made you feel unsafe in court? 7. Tell me about a time when you felt taken seriously in court. 8. Tell me about a time when you felt that you were not taken seriously in court. 9. If this process has been resolved, could you talk about the outcome? 10. Is there anything you wish you would have known? 11. I would like to hear about your decision to disclose the abuse. 12. If you disclosed instances of domestic violence, I would like to ask you • Could you tell me a story about a time when you felt that a specific about the response you got from people in court when you made your individual with whom you interacted in court understood what domestic disclosures. violence is? • Could you tell me a story about a time when you felt that a specific individual with whom you interacted in court did not understand what domestic violence is? • What did it feel like to disclose the abuse? • Do you feel the individuals with whom you interacted in court understood the emotional, physical, and economic consequences of domestic violence? Which individuals/ What did he or she understand? 13. Can you tell me a story about a time when you had to advocate for • What was this like? yourself; tell your story; or speak to the judge or probation officer? • Tell me about a time when this was challenging. • Tell me about a time when you felt able to do this with ease. 14. Could you talk about the impact of the court processes on your • Could you talk about your relationship with your children. children? • What was your relationship like at the beginning of the process? • How has it changed, if at all? 15. Tell me about what it’s been like to cope with this process emotionally. • What helped you to keep going when things were difficult?/ How did you cope? 16. How has this experience impacted you psychologically? 17. Can you tell me your views on what ideal supports (outside of the • Tell me about the supports (friends, family, services) you had outside of courtroom) would be for a survivor who is in a position of seeking court? custody of their children? 18. What would have made this experience better for you? • If you could provide recommendations directly to Probate and Family Court staff, what would you say? 19. Can you think of something that was good about your experience in court? JFamViol

References failure to protect. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1022–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205278043. Kernic, M. A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Women, 14(5), 563– 588. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991–1021. https://doi.org/10. 1077801208315529. 1177/1077801205278042. Bemiller, M. (2008). When battered mothers lose custody: A qualitative Khaw, L., Bermea, A. M., Hardesty, J. L., Saunders, D., & Whittaker, A. study of abuse at home and in the courts. Journal of Child Custody, M. (2018). BThe system had choked me too^: Abused mothers’ 5(3–4), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410802583742. perceptions of the custody determination process that resulted in Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative negative custody outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 0886260518791226. 1020909529486. Laing, L. (2017). Secondary victimization: Domestic violence survivors Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (2005). The sexual assault and secondary vic- navigating the family law system. Violence Against Women, 23(11), timization of female veterans: Help-seeking experiences with mili- 1314–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216659942. tary and civilian social systems. Psychology of Women Quarterly, – Levendosky, A. A., Bogat, G. A., & Martinez-Torteya, C. (2013). PTSD 29(1), 97 106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00171.x. symptoms in young children exposed to intimate partner violence. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2018). Intimate partner Violence Against Women, 19(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/ violence. Retrieved January 26, 2019, from: https://www.cdc.gov/ 1077801213476458. violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html. Massachusetts Administrative Office of the Trial Court. (2012). Final Chang, Y., Voils, C. I., Sandelowski, M., Hasselblad, V., & Crandell, J. L. report: Domestic violence screening pilot project: Norfolk probate (2009). Transforming verbal counts in reports of qualitative descrip- and family court.Boston:Lind,etal. tive studies into numbers. Western Journal of Nursing Research, Meier, J. S., & Dickson, S. (2017). Mapping gender: Shedding empirical – 31(7), 837 852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945909334434. light on family courts' treatment of cases involving abuse and alien- DeKeseredy, W. S., Dragiewicz, M., & Schwartz, M. D. (2017). Abusive ation. Law & Inequality, 35,311 –334. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. endings: Separation and divorce violence against women.Oakland: 2999906. University of California Press. Miller, S. L., & Manzer, J. L. (2018). Safeguarding children’s well-being: Douglas, H. (2018). Domestic and family violence, mental health and Voices from abused mothers navigating their relationships and the well-being, and legal engagement. Psychiatry, Psychology and civil courts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online pub- – Law, 25(3), 341 356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017. lication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791599. 1396865. Miller, S. L., & Smolter, N. L. (2011). BPaper abuse^: When all else fails, Driggers, M., Canfield, C. F., Hubbard, B. L. & Jaffe, M. L. (2013). batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), Family court approaches to intimate partner violence and abuse: 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407290. Stakeholder perceptions and implications for systemic change. Monteith, L. L., Bahraini, N. H., Matarazzo, B. B., Soberay, K. A., & Retrieved January 22, 2019, from: https://www.wcwonline.org/ Smith, C. P. (2016). Perceptions of institutional betrayal predict pdf/FamilyCourtApproachesIPVAReportBlack&White.pdf suicidal self-directed violence among veterans exposed to military Epstein, D. & Goodman, L. A. (2019) Discounting Credibility: Doubting sexual trauma. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 72(7), 743–755. the Testimony and Dismissing the Experiences of Domestic https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22292. Violence Survivors and Other Women. University of Pennsylvania O’Sullivan, C. (2000). Estimating the population at risk for violence Law Review, 167(2), 399–461. Retrieved from: https://www. during child visitation. Domestic Violence Report, 5(5), 65–66. pennlawreview.com/print/167-U-Pa-L-Rev-399.pdf Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract. Graham-Bermann, S. A., Gruber, G., Howell, K. H., & Girz, L. (2009). aspx?ID=186261 Factors discriminating among profiles of resilience and psychopa- Przekop, M. (2011). One More Battleground: Domestic Violence, Child thology in children exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV). Custody, and the Batterers' Relentless Pursuit of Their Victims Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(9), 648–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. through the Courts. Seattle Journal of Social Justice, 9, 1053– chiabu.2009.01.002. 1106. Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/ Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in vol9/iss2/14 nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C., & Zeoli, A. (2012). Secondary victimization trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105 –112. https:// of abused mothers by family court mediators. Feminist Criminology, doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001. 7(3), 234–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430827. Grose, C., & Johnson, M. E. (2017). Lawyers, clients & narrative: A Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? framework for law students and practitioners. Durham: Carolina Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10. Academic Press. 1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G. Harman, J. J., Kruk, E., & Hines, D. A. (2018). Parental alienating be- Sandelowski, M. (2008). Theoretical saturation. In L. M. Given (Ed.), haviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. The sage encyclopedia of qualitative methods (pp. 875–876). Psychological Bulletin, 144(12), 1275–1299. https://doi.org/10. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. 1037/bul0000175. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description Herman, J. L. (2003). The mental health of crime victims: Impact of legal revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33,77–84. https://doi. intervention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(2), 159–166. https:// org/10.1002/nur.20362. doi.org/10.1023/A:1022847223135. Saunders, D. G., Faller, K. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2012). Child Herman, J. L. (2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Custody Evaluators' Beliefs about Domestic Abuse Against Women, 11(5), 571–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, 1077801205274450. Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody- Johnson, N. E., Saccuzzo, D. P., & Koen, W. J. (2005). Child custody visitation Recommendations. Retrieved from: https://www. mediation in cases of domestic violence: Empirical evidence of a ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf. JFamViol

Saunders, D. G., Tolman, R. M., & Faller, K. C. (2013). Factors associ- students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(4), 351– ated with child custody evaluators’ recommendations in cases of 360. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000094. intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight Bbig-tent^ criteria for ex- 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032164. cellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. Saunders, D. G., Faller, K. C., & Tolman, R. M. (2016). Beliefs and https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121. recommendations regarding child custody and visitation in cases Watson, L. B., & Ancis, J. R. (2013). Power and control in the legal involving domestic violence: A comparison of professionals in dif- system: From marriage/relationship to divorce and custody. ferent roles. Violence Against Women, 22(6), 722–744. https://doi. Violence Against Women, 19(2), 166–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/ org/10.1177/1077801215608845. 1077801213478027. Slote, K. Y., Cuthbert, C., Mesh, C. J., Driggers, M. G., Bancroft, L., & White-Domain, R. & Phillips, H. (2016). The mental health factor in Silverman, J. G. (2005). Battered mothers speak out: Participatory domestic violence custody cases: Results from a brief survey of human rights documentation as a model for research and activism in lawyers who represent DV survivors. Retrieved January 22, 2019, the United States. Violence Against Women, 11(11), 1367–1395. from: http://www.nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org/wp-content/ https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205280270. uploads/2016/09/NCDVTMH_SurveyofLawyers_September2016. Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional pdf betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, Zeoli, A. M., Rivera, E. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Kubiak, S. (2013). Post- 26(1), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.21778. separation abuse of women and their children: Boundary-setting and Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American family court utilization among victimized mothers. Journal of Psychologist, 69(6), 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037564. Family Violence, 28(6), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896- Smith, C. P., Gomez, J. M., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). The psychology of 013-9528-7. judicial betrayal. Roger Williams University Law Review, 19(2), – 451 475. Retrieved from: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol19/iss2/6 Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdiction- Smith, C. P., Cunningham, S. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Sexual violence, al claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college