Written testimony
Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care & Custody of Minor Children
January 9, 2014
Good morning Attorney Cousineau, Attorney Dornfeld and members of the task
force. CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) is the state’s leading voice
for victims of domestic violence and those agencies that serve them. Our members
provide essential services to over 56,000 victims of domestic violence, such as 24-
hour crisis response, emergency shelter, safety planning, counseling, support
groups and court advocacy.
CCADV OPPOSES the presumption of shared custody as being in the best
interest of the child.
While there are variances on what constitutes “shared custody,” previous definitions
that have been considered by the CT General Assembly (House Bill 6685, 2013
Session) have included shared decision making as it relates to the “child’s welfare,
including, but not limited to, matters relating to education, medical care, and
emotional, moral, social and religious development.” Any such requirement for a
parent that is the victim of an abusive relationship would be very concerning.
From the perspective of the parent who has been abused, a shared custody
arrangement presents another opportunity for the abuser to attempt to exert control
over him/her and to do so in one of the most alarming manners possible - through the
children. In a continuing effort to gain control, the abusive partner may object to any
proposed decisions for the children or to put up stumbling blocks for the
implementation of any decisions once made.
As Louisiana has found, “the legislature finds that problems of family violence do not
necessarily cease when the victimized family is legally separated or divorced. In
fact, the violence often escalates, and child custody and visitation becomes the new
forum for the continuation of the abuse. Because current laws relative to child
custody and visitation are based on an assumption that even divorcing parents are
in relatively equal positions, and that such parents act in the children’s best interest,
these laws often work against protection of the children and abused spouse in
families with a history of family violence.” (LA Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 9:361)
In fact, Colorado recently passed critical child custody reforms that address this very
issue. In 2013, Colorado Revised Statute (C.R.S.) § 14-10-123.4 was revised to
reflect that children have certain rights in the determination of matters relating to
parental responsibilities, including:
-
a) The right to have such determination based upon the best interests of the child;
-
b) The right to be emotionally, mentally, and physically safe when in the care of either parent; and,
-
c) The right to reside in and visit in homes that are free of domestic violence and child abuse or neglect.
Colorado law also recognizes that co-parenting is not appropriate in all
circumstances, and clarifies that “when appropriate” parents should share the rights and responsibilities of child-rearing and encourage the love, affection, and contact between the children
and the other parent. Additionally, when a claim of domestic violence has been made, the court must first
consider whether one of the parties has committed an act of domestic violence, engaged in a pattern of
domestic violence or has a history of domestic violence prior to determining parenting time and decision-
making responsibility and prior to considering any of the other “best interest” factors (C.R.S. § 14-10-124).
The paramount concern reflected in the new Colorado laws governing child custody is the child’s safety,
including the physical, mental and emotional conditions and needs of the child. Recognizing that the
presence of domestic violence and the control and manipulation of one parent over another, especially
via the child, can and will have devastating, long-term effects on the child is imperative to any discussion
about the presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of every child.
Shared decision-making that forces victims of domestic violence into a vulnerable position of having to
negotiate with an abuser who has already traumatized them is unlikely to be successful and will certainly
lead to continued conflict not only for the victim, but for the involved child. Children who witness intimate
partner violence within their family face a greater risk of developing severe and potentially lifelong
problems with physical health, mental health, and school and peer relationships, as well as disruptive
behavior.
It is wishful thinking that all parents are good parents and should have equal time with and decision
making authority related to their child. Presumed shared custody with shared decision making is not in the
best interest of any child whose parent has been the victim of domestic violence at the hands of the other
parent. Connecticut should not place into statute language that will easily allow abusers to maintain
control over their victim and their children.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Liza Andrews
Communications & Public Policy Specialist
(860) 282-7899
landrews@ctcadv.org
The judicial branch will say that domestic violence is considered as a part of the best interest factors, but we know it never is. Instead, they allow the "friendly parent doctrine" or the parent more likely to facilitate access to be used as a defense to domestic violence. (Also a best interest factor). As we know this best interest factor is used as the spring board for "PAS" allegations leading to big dollars for the divorce industry while women and children suffer. We can no longer afford to allow this to happen! Lives are being lost! The law can no longer allow discretion to the court on these matters. The law must indicate that the court "shall not award joint or sole custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence." We need to put an end to all the madness. Let's start next session.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I find the CCADV's testimony offensive. The proposed law only provided for a presumption of shared parenting. In the vast majority of cases, which do not involve even allegations of domestic violence, why isn't that appropriate?
ReplyDeleteI think that the position was that shared parenting shouldn't be applied where there is domestic violence so people like Adrianne Oyola are not forced to maintain contact with their abuser. There was no provision made for this exception to the shared parenting proposal. There definitely should have been an exception in cases where there has been domestic violence. In fact, there should be no joint custody with or sole custody to an abuser. This is what's been going on however, and this is highly offensive! It's a complete injustice. It's going to change. People are outraged!
ReplyDelete