20 Ways Custody Courts Can Keep Kids Safe

Key Takeaways:

1. The Importance of ACE and Saunders Research in Custody Cases
   Courts often lack adequate understanding of the impact of domestic violence on children. The ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) and Saunders studies highlight the profound and long-lasting harm caused by domestic violence, particularly through fear and stress. Without incorporating this research, courts risk minimizing abuse, relying on unqualified professionals, and making harmful custody decisions that can jeopardize children's well-being.
2. Challenging Common Myths in DV Custody Cases
   Many courts perpetuate harmful myths, such as equating good public behavior with safety, assuming domestic violence ends after separation or focusing solely on physical abuse. These misconceptions can lead to the dismissal of credible abuse claims and decisions that favor abusers, exposing children to continued harm. Evidence-based approaches informed by DV experts are essential to counter these biases.
3. Court Practices Must Evolve to Protect Children
   Traditional shortcuts and outdated assumptions undermine the safety of children in custody disputes involving domestic violence. Integrating domestic violence expertise, considering historical abuse patterns, and prioritizing the well-being of the primary caregiver are critical steps to avoid harmful outcomes. Judges must move beyond stereotypes and embrace scientific findings to ensure children’s best interests are served.

An abusive father told Judge Sondra Miller, formerly of Westchester County, NY family court, but who passed away in 2024, not to listen to his wife because she was crazy. The wife was alleging abuse by her husband and had previously sought refuge at a local domestic violence shelter. Judge Miller responded by saying that in her experience, women did not stay in domestic violence (DV) shelters unless they needed to.  

Judges are expected to use their common sense to better understand their cases. This incident provides an illustration of how it can work when the judge is knowledgeable on a subject, in this case DV. 

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges seeks to train other judges about the ACE (adverse childhood experiences) and Saunders Studies. The ACE Study found that exposure to DV and child abuse is far more harmful and long-lasting than previously understood. Most of the harm is from the fear and stress abusers cause. The Saunders Study found most court professionals do not have the specific DV knowledge they need for DV custody cases. The study recommends courts use a multi-disciplinary approach that includes a domestic violence expert.

No judge wants to hurt children but when they try to resolve DV custody cases without ACE and Saunders they run the risk of ruining children’s lives. Without ACE, courts inevitably minimize the harm from DV and child abuse. Most DV is committed in private, so there are no independent witnesses. DV experts know to look for other information that makes it more likely to know if the mother or father is telling the truth. Without Saunders, courts rely on the wrong professionals and so often disbelieve true reports of abuse. The Meier Study confirmed that courts that fail to consider ACE and Saunders rule in favor of alleged abusers far more often than is likely to benefit children. Attempting to resolve DV custody cases without this research should be considered malpractice.

An Example of How ACE Expertise Can Save Children

Several years ago, Barry Goldstein, one of the authors of this piece, served as an expert witness in a domestic violence custody case just south of Albany, N.Y. Initially, the mother was given custody and the abusive father’s time with the children was limited. Yet, eventually, the father’s time with the children increased despite him stalking his ex-partner. The case was heading toward shared parenting and a 50-50 division of time. 

The judge had undergone training on ACEs shortly before the trial and welcomed Goldstein, an ACE expert, in his courtroom. When the other side objected to something Goldstein said, the judge quoted Goldstein’s ACE facts to overrule their objection. The mother won custody and the father was limited to supervised visitation to save the children from the awful consequences of exposure to multiple ACEs. The father appealed to the highest state court but lost.  

Custody courts had to develop responses for DV custody cases at a time when no research was available. Court professionals have spent their entire careers hearing substantial misinformation about DV that is not evidence-based. The courts have been slow to integrate ACE, Saunders and other important scientific research.  As a result, many court professionals rely on practices and assumptions that defy the DV common sense used by experts like Judge Miller. The purpose of this article is to help judges avoid these mistakes that are so harmful to children.

20 Child Custody and Domestic Abuse Myths ACE and Saunders Disprove

Experts agree that if judges and other court professionals are educated on ACE and Saunders studies, survivors’ and children’s lives could be saved. Below are some of the most common myths perpetuated by family courts when domestic violence is present. 

1. DV Experts Must Speak to Both Parties.  Both authors of this piece have recently had cases in which a family court judge limited their expert testimony because the authors didn’t speak with both parents. Ironically, in some of these same cases, there was testimony from other professionals in the case that only spoke to the alleged abusive father.  Alleged abusers rarely agree to speak with domestic violence or intimate partner violence experts, so this often prevents courts from following best practices recommended by the Saunders study. Evaluators often rely on psychological tests from both parents even though this provides no information about DV.  Domestic violence experts can explain ACE and Saunders to the court. They can explain the importance of context and patterns of abuse. DV experts can also warn courts against the mistakes discussed in this article. Even if a judge believes they know the research, the testimony provides a record for an appellate court to consider.   

2. Not Allowing Evidence of Past Abuse. Some court professionals believe examples of DV from an abuser’s past are irrelevant because of the time that has passed, or allege the abuser has changed. The separation of the parents means the abuser does not have the same access to the victim. 

Any DV advocate would tell the court that the lack of physical access does not mean the abuser has changed. The litigation is often a tactic to continue his abuse and maintain control. The earlier abuse created fear and stress in the mother and children, and the passage of time does not by itself remove this fear. Without the evidence of earlier abuse, courts often blame mothers for trying to protect their children. This is an example of gender bias because the survivor is being blamed for her normal reaction to her ex-partner’s abuse.

3. Claiming That Only Physical Abuse Matters.  For decades, DV advocates tried to educate us that physical abuse was not the worst form of DV. Professionals didn’t listen to them because these advocates didn’t have fancy degrees or titles, there was no research to support their opinion and, worst of all, DV advocates were “just” women. 

The ACE Research confirmed the advocates were right all along. It is the fear and stress of mental and emotional abuse rather than any immediate physical injury that causes most of the harm. The fear and stress will ruin children’s lives unless courts take effective steps to protect them. Including non-physical DV tactics provides courts with more evidence and makes it easier to give children the best chance for a full and healthy life.  

4. Believing that Ending the Relationship Ends DV Risk.  Most custody cases are settled amicably and involve two safe parents. The problem is the percentage of cases in which an abusive father seeks custody to regain what they believe is their right to control the mother and punish her for leaving. Courts cannot make decisions based on statistics, but this pattern should encourage courts to consider the father’s motives for seeking custody, especially when the mother is the primary attachment figure. 

Abusers do not engage in domestic violence tactics because of anything the mother did or said. The purpose is to pressure her to do what he wants. In other words, it is about abusers’ beliefs and sense of entitlement. This does not change with the end of the relationship.

5. Good Public Behavior is Proof Alleged Abuser is Safe.  One of the most common mistakes for evaluators and other professionals without DV expertise is to treat good public behavior by alleged abusers as if it were probative of their private behavior. Most abusers can control their behavior and do so in public because it is to their advantage. 

The men in the batterer program Goldstein taught almost always acted respectfully and the instructors were trained to understand this told them nothing about the abuser’s behavior at home. Attorneys for abusers often produce friends or family to testify about the father’s good (public) behavior even though this is not proof that they’ve changed.  

6. Domestic Violence is Caused by Anger Management Problems.  Someone who needs anger management cannot control their anger towards anyone so might assault a waitress, bank teller or police officer. This is rarely the problem for DV abusers who abuse their wives and sometimes children. Accordingly, responses based on anger management fail to address the DV issues.

7. Mental Illness, Alcohol Abuse Causes Domestic Violence.  The original error courts made in responding to DV was the assumption that DV was caused by mental illness or substance abuse. These problems reduce inhibitions so that abusers’ assaults would be more severe and thus memorable. This is where the false assumptions started. 

Domestic violence is a tactic used by abusers to gain what they believe is their “right” to control their partner and pressure her to do what he wants. Some men have both mental health and DV problems. Some men live with a drug or alcohol addiction and also abuse their partners. These are each separate problems requiring different responses. Therapy may help people with mental health and addiction problems,  but does not address DV issues.

8. No Need to Consider Alleged Abuser’s Other Partners.  It is very likely an abuser has abused past partners and will abuse future partners. This means courts and particularly evaluators need to interview any other intimate partners. If he abused other partners, this would be evidence supporting the mother’s reports. It is also likely he will abuse the next partner after this litigation is over which means the children will witness more DV unless he is held accountable.

9. If the Children Seem Unafraid, the Father Must Be Safe.  We constantly read evaluations where the children were comfortable playing with their father in the presence of a witness. The evaluator leaps to the assumption that this proves there is no abuse. The children understand he would not abuse them in front of witnesses, so it is safe to play with someone they still love. 

This demonstrates there is no alienation but tells us nothing about any history of abuse. Children show symptoms of trauma in various ways. 

10. The Lack of Convictions or Child Protective Findings Disproves Abuse.  Criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is a very high standard for DV, a crime usually committed in private. Using the lack of convictions is a common example of gender bias. It holds survivors to a higher standard of proof in cases that usually require a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, DV is one of the most underreported crimes, mostly out of fear by the survivor.  

11. No Police Report Equals No Abuse.  Abusers make substantial efforts to prevent their victims from reporting their abuse. Indeed, the victim is more likely to be punished than the abuser.  This is why DV is one of the most underreported crimes and the lack of a report tells us nothing about the validity of reports in DV custody cases.

12. Abused Children Always Act Out in Obvious Ways. One of the original mistakes in custody courts’ response to domestic violence cases was to ask evaluators to determine DV by investigating how children are doing. Some child victims do act out in obvious ways that courts expect and other children go into survival mode. Victims may appear to be doing well to outsiders while suffering on the inside. The fear and stress ACEs tell us will ruin children’s lives may not be apparent to court professionals.

13. Alienation is Limited to what Mothers do to Fathers. Parental Alienation Syndrome and related theories have been repeatedly debunked because there is no research to support them. The American Psychiatric Association twice rejected alienation for the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) despite aggressive lobbying by male supremacists and the cottage industry that presents the bogus theories to courts. 

Aside from other problems, the “alienation” theories used in custody courts focus almost exclusively on the actions of mothers. This is because it was deliberately designed to help abusive fathers take custody from mothers and earn large incomes for the cottage industry.  

14. Ignoring Financial Abuse. Financial abuse allows abusers to more easily control their victims and is present in almost every case of intimate partner violence. It is even more important to consider when abusive fathers use financial abuse tactics to regain control of victims when they try to escape abusers. Courts are used to litigants fighting over money and so often miss the significance. Child custody cases are different because when an abuser seeks to deprive the mother of financial resources to gain an advantage, he is also harming the children he claims to love.  

15. Mothers Seek to Limit the Father’s Contact to Hurt Him. The definitive study about false reports conducted by Nicholas Bala found that mothers make deliberate false reports of abuse less than 2 percent of the time. The bias caused by unscientific alienation theories has caused many court professionals to take alienation seriously even when there is little or no valid research or strong evidence of any alleged alienation by the mother.  

16. Children Always Benefit from Having Both Parents in their Lives. This is certainly true in the vast majority of custody cases in which both parents are safe. When one parent has a history of domestic violence or child abuse, they are causing more harm than good. Children would only benefit if the abuser changed his behavior. 

17. Harmful Outcome Cases Provide Beneficial Outcomes. The term “harmful outcome case” refers to extreme decisions that result in an alleged abuser being given custody and a safe, protective mother, who is the primary attachment figure, being limited to supervised or no visitation. Saunders found these decisions are ALWAYS wrong and based on flawed practices. 

The harm of denying children a normal relationship with their primary attachment figure includes an increased risk of depression, low self-esteem and suicide. This is far more significant than whatever benefit the court thought it was providing. Many courts believe that keeping the father in the children’s lives is of most importance and either disbelieve or minimize his abuse.

18. Shortcuts that Save Time are Necessary. Courts are often forced to respond to a heavy caseload and try to overcome this with shortcuts to save time. Some of the shortcuts prevent courts from understanding the context which is especially critical to understanding DV. Abusers attempt to take domestic violence out of context by starting their story right after they did something abusive or offensive to their partner. They sometimes record the victim’s response to their abuse to attempt to prove the survivor is overreacting. DV is difficult enough to understand without removing the context.

19. Just Because He Hurts the Mother Doesn’t Mean He Would Hurt the Child. The protective mothers’ movement is particularly sensitive to this mistake because several well-known child murders were caused after a judge falsely believed this. ACE tells us that when a father hurts the mother, he is also harming the child.  Fathers who abuse the mother are 30 to 60 percent more likely to physically or sexually assault the child.  

20. Custody Cases Have Nothing to do with Cancer and Heart Disease. In cases where one of the parents smokes, judges know to make sure they do not smoke in front of the children. The link between cancer and smoking is so well known that no party needs to educate the court about the research. The same could be said about exposing children to DV or child abuse. The ACE research is often compared to the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report because DV and child abuse, like smoking, are directly linked to higher risks for cancer and heart disease. Just as efforts to prevent smoking have saved millions of lives and trillions of dollars, reducing DV and child abuse would provide similar benefits.  

To learn more about the dangers of courts lacking domestic violence information, read “California Courts Harm Kids by Ignoring the Science.”