National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL SPRING 1999 VOL. 50 • NO. 2 CUSTODY DISPUTES INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: MAKING CHILDREN'S NEEDS A PRIORITY ..................................... 1 BY STEPHEN E. DOYNE, PH.D., JANET M. BOWERMASTER, J.D., J. REID MELOY, PH.D., DONALD DUTTON, PH.D., PETER JAFFE, PH.D., STEPHEN TEMKO, J.D. AND PAUL MONES, J.D. SUPERVISED VISITATION IN CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ........... 1 3 BY MAUREEN SHEERAN, B.J. AND SCOTT HAMPTON, M.A. CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ............ 27 BY ANNE MENARD, B.A. AND VICKI TURETSKY, J.D. ENFORCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY: NEW FRONTIERS OF PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ............. , .................................................. 39 BY JUDGE SUSAN CARBON, JUDGE PETER MACDONALD AND SEEMA ZEYA, J.D. THE UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT! AFFORDING ENHANCED PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THEIR CHILDREN .......................... . BY BILLIE LEE DUNFORD-JACKSON, J.D. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEWS: FROM A CULTURI OF BLAME TO A CULTURE OF SAFETY ............ . BY NEIL WEBSDALE, PH.D., JuDGE MICHAEL TowN AND BYRON JOHNSON, P11.D. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURTS: WHAT ARE THEY AND HOW lltOULD WE MANAGE THEM? . BY JUDGE AMY KARAN, SusAN KEILITZ, J.D. AND SHARON DENAI(O, J .I J ••
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL
SPRING 1999 VOL. 50 • NO. 2
CUSTODY DISPUTES INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
MAKING CHILDREN'S NEEDS A PRIORITY ..................................... 1
BY STEPHEN E. DOYNE, PH.D., JANET M. BOWERMASTER, J.D., J. REID MELOY, PH.D., DONALD DUTTON, PH.D.,
PETER JAFFE, PH.D., STEPHEN TEMKO, J.D. AND PAUL MONES, J.D.
SUPERVISED VISITATION IN CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ........... 1 3
BY MAUREEN SHEERAN, B.J. AND SCOTT HAMPTON, M.A.
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ............ 27
BY ANNE MENARD, B.A. AND VICKI TURETSKY, J.D.
ENFORCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROTECTION ORDERS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY: NEW FRONTIERS OF PROTECTION FOR VICTIMS OF
attempt to keep them from seeing the children. 61 The
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force
on Violence and the Family recently summarized the litera
ture in this area, and expressed concerns about the labeling
and pathologizing of battered women in divorce and custody
cases. When such labeling occurs, men's violence may be
minimized as only an emotional reaction to the separation.62
~-{Jii;mestic Violence Should be <~;If/Primary Consideration in
Child Custody Decisions Domestic violence plays a significant part in many cus
tody disputes and should be a primary consideration in ques
tions of both best interests and detriment to children.63 An
abusive parent often realizes, after separation or divorce, that
the most effective way to hurt or destroy the other parent is
through emotional or psychological abuse utilizing the family
courts. Generalized notions of joint custody and two equal
parents cooperatively planning for their children's future is
impossible for many couples when there is family violence. In
fact, this notion of shared custody may perpetuate the violence
and abusive power and control in family relationships.64
A. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CUSTODY
The best interest standard generally is applied in child
custody determinations, with the underlying notion that
there are two fit biological parents.65 In parenUnon-parent
disputes, the detriment standard is generally used to coun
terbalance the biological parent's greater legal right to the
child.66 Domestic violence frequently has been shown to be
harmful to children, whether they are abused physically or
not. 67 Therefore, regardless of which legal standard is
applicable, awarding batterers primary or joint custody
should be viewed as being either detrimental to children or
failing to satisfy their best interests.
Best Interests. In cases involving documented domestic
violence, it is presumptively in the best interests of children
to reside with a non-violent caretaker, rather than a batterer.
In many states, courts making determinations of best inter
ests in custody proceedings are required to consider any
history of abuse by one parent against the child or against
the other parent.68
0 juvenile and Family Court journal • Spring 1999
In order to ensure the safety and well-being of chil
dren, however, a finding of abuse by one parent against the
other needs more than just to be considered. It needs to be
elevated over other best interest factors in disputed custody
cases. This can be accomplished by a legal presumption
denying joint or sole custody to a parent with a history of
domestic violence.69 The National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges70 and the American Bar Association71
have recommended adopting such a presumption.
Because domestic violence rarely occurs as an isolated
incident, application of such a presumption must be applied
broadly. The court should consider the acts and patterns of
physical abuse inflicted by the abuser on other persons, not
limited to children and the abused parent, as well as the fear
of physical harm reasonably engendered by this behavior.
Even then, discrete acts of abuse do not convey accurately
the risk of continuing violence, the likely severity of future
abuse, or the magnitude of fear precipitated by the com
posite picture of violent conduct. Rather, the broader pattern
of abusive and controlling behaviors must be considered in
deciding whether to apply the presumption.
Detriment. In cases of spousal murder, where the custody
dispute is typically between a surviving biological parent and
non-parents, non-parents seeking custody generally must
prove by clear and convincing evidence that an award of
custody to the natural parent would be detrimental to the
child and that custody to the non-parent would be in the
child's best interest.72
In cases where domestic violence has been present in the
past, it is clearly detrimental for a child to reside with a bat
terer, especially a batterer who has murdered the child's other
parent. 73 This is true even if the child appears to have a "close
bond" with the parent who has committed the violence.74
Current Practice. Research indicates that custody evaluators
seldom consider domestic violence when they make child
custody recommendations. A survey of psychologists from 39
states who conducted custody evaluations indicates that
domestic violence was not considered a major factor in
making custody determinations, except as a possible rational
ization for not recommending joint custody.75 Even then, it
was seldom listed as a determining factor. When the psycholo
gists were asked for three to five reasons that would most sup-
Stephen E. Doyne, Ph.D., et al.
port not recommending joint custody,
family/domestic violence was the
second least likely reason.76
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS However, it is important to
remember that living with
domestic violence only makes it
more likely children will repeat the
cycle of violence thernselves. 80 In
fact, children who grow up in abu
sive homes are more at risk for
Of more concern was the finding
that over three-quarters of the cus
tody evaluators recommended
denying sole or joint custody to a
parent who "alienates the child from committing violence themselves,
the other parent by negatively interpreting the other parent's both within and outside their own farnilies. 81
behavior."77 This latter finding indicates that custody evalu-
ators may be more likely to blame the parent seen as more
hostile and uncooperative and, thus, deny that parent sole or
joint custody even in cases where the hostile or uncoopera
tive parent was leaving an abusive relationship.
Application of a rebuttable presumption against cus
tody to perpetrators of domestic violence would help bring
current practices more in line with our best knowledge
about the effects of domestic violence on children. It also
would prevent perpetrators of domestic violence from ben
efiting from their violent, abusive conduct in cases such as
spousal murder where custody of the children may be
awarded to the murderer.
B.TRAUMATIC BONDING AND BEST INTERESTS
Judges in custody cases often are faced with a paradox
inherent in the dynamics of domestic violence. On one
hand, courts are presented with evidence showing special
risks children face when they are placed in the custody of
an abuser, risks not only to their physical safety, but also to
their emotional and developmental needs. On the other'
hand, court-appointed experts, who may downplay
domestic violence, may tell jurists that the children in a
given case have a "close bond" with a parent who has com
mitted domestic violence. In fact, the children even may
say they "just want to go horne."
The apparent closeness between perpetrators of
domestic violence and their children, whether battered or
not, can be explained by the concept of "traumatic
bonding."78 Traumatic bonding occurs when intermittent
maltreatment patterns produce strong emotional attach
rnents.79 This phenomenon is the very reason some battered
spouses stay in abusive relationships. Similarly, children
may appear emotionally close to violent parents because
they are afraid of them.
C. SPOUSAL MURDERAND DETRIMENT TO CHILDREN
Psychological detriment to children caused by the
murder of a parent is indisputable and irreparable. When
addressing the question of detriment, courts should examine
the totality of evidence related to current and future harm to
the children. 82
A majority of female homicide victims are killed by
their partners, ex-partners, or boyfriends.83 However, in
domestic disputes, there are numerous pre-incident indica
tors associated with spousal violence and murder. Gavin
deBecker has described the pre-incident behaviors as sig
nals. Noting that they will not be present in every case, he
cautions there is reason for concern if several of the indica
tors listed in Table 2 are present.
If this pattern of violent behaviors is found to be char
acteristic of the parent seeking custody, the court should
examine the totality of the evidence before deciding upon
custody. That is, the children's safety and well-being should
come first, above the rights of a violent parent.
/~' :~~~IJjJnclusion
Children can b~,;~I:~eat risk living with a perpetrator of
domestic violence. Even if they have not been abused directly
they may experience the same psychological fears and be
traumatically bonded to the batterer, even expressing a prefer
ence to live with him. In the case of spousal murder, these
children may suffer "secondary abuse," adopting a pattern of
emotional compliance because they fear the penalty for mis
behaving could be physical harm or death. However, the
greatest future harm children face living with a batterer is that
they may live to experience the abusive parent beat another
partner, recycling the climate of fear that is so detrimental to
children. Moreover, if they remain with a batterer, the same
neurobiological adaptations that help them psychologically
Spring 1999 • juvenile and Family Court Journal 0
Custody Disputes
survive the traumas associated with domestic violence may
increase the likelihood they will grow up to be violent them
selves. Daughters may be more likely to accept violence as an
inevitable part of intimate relationships.
To prevent future detriment, children's safety and
well-being should be elevated above the rights of violent
parents. What is needed most to ensure children's protec
tion in custody cases where there has been domestic vio
lence is a new commitment to prioritize children's safety
as an essential cornerstone of the justice system. This com
mitment must be indicated clearly by legislation, policy
development, training, and specialized resources. If the
Stephen E. Doyne is a forensic psychologist in independent practice in Lajolla, CA.
justice system cannot assure children's safety, the cycle of
violence will continue.
This article is an outgrowth of an amici curiae brief
submitted by the authors on behalf of themselves and sev
eral supporting organizations in the 0.1. Simpson
guardianship case, reported at Simpson v. Brown, 67 Cal.
App. 4th 914, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289 ( 1998 ). The dispute in
that case was between the father who allegedly had killed
the children's mother and the mothers parents.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Public Law Center,
California Women s Law Center, and the California Alliance
Against Domestic Violence for their support in this effort.
Janet Bowermaster is a professor of family law and domestic violence at California Western School of Law in San Diego, CA.
J. Reid Meloy is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine and a forensic psychologist in
independent practice.
Donald Dutton is a psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Peter Jaffe is a psychologist and Executive Director of the London Family Court Clinic, and adjunct associate professor of psychology & psychiatry at the University
of Western Ontario, London, ON.
Stephen Temko is a California attorney who is a certified specialist in family law and appellate law.
Paul Mones is an attorney specializing in children's rights and family violence-related homicides.
8 juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 1999
Stephen E.. Doyne, Ph.D., et a/.
Table 2.
Pre-Incident Indicators Associated with Spousal Violence and Murder
I. The woman has intuitive feelings that she is at risk.
2. At the inception of the relationship, the man accelerated the pace, prematurely placing on the agenda such things as commitment, living together, and marriage.
3. He resolves conflict with intimidation, bullying, and violence.
4. He is verbally abusive.
5. He uses threats and intimidation as instruments of control or abuse.
6. He breaks or strikes things in anger. He uses symbolic violence.
7. He has battered in prior relationships.
8. He uses alcohol or drugs with adverse affects.
9. He cites alcohol or drugs as an excuse or explanation for hostile or violent conduct.
I 0. His history includes police encounters for behavioral offenses.
I I. There has been more than one incident of violent behavior.
12. He uses money to control the activities, purchases, and behavior of his wife/partner.
13. He becomes jealous of anyone or anything that takes her time away from the relationship; he keeps her on a "tight leash," requires her to account for her time.
14. He refuses to accept rejection.
15. He expects the relationship to go on forever.
16. He projects extreme emotions onto others even when there is no evidence that would lead a reasonable person to perceive them.
17. He minimizes incidents of abuse.
18. He spends a disproportionate amount of time talking about his wife/partner and derives much of his identity from being her husband, lover, etc.
19. He tries to enlist his wife's friends or relatives in a campaign to keep or recover the relationship.
20. He has inappropriately surveiled or followed his wife/partner.
21. He believes others are out to get him. He believes that those around his wife/partner dislike him and encourage her to leave.
22. He resists change and is described as inflexible, unwilling to compromise.
23. He identifies with or compares himself to violent people in films, news stories, fiction, or history. He characterizes the violence of others as justified.
24. He suffers mood swings or is sullen, angry, or depressed.
25. He consistently blames others for problems of his own making; he refuses to take responsibility for the results of his action.
26. He refers to weapons as instruments of power, control, or revenge.
27. Weapons are a substantial part of his persona.
28. He uses "male privilege" as a justification of his conduct.
29. He experienced or witnessed violence as a child.
30. His wife/partner fears he will injure or kill her. She has discussed this with others or has made plans to be carried out in the event of her death.84
Spring /999 • juvenile and Family Court Journal 0
Custody Disputes
Endnotes
According to a 1996 report prepared for the California Department of Health Services, domestic violence - both reported and unreported - occurs an estimated four million times a year, with two million of these incidents being severe assaults. MARGARET A DALTON, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CALIFORNIA: A STATUS REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 3 ( 1996) - The report also estimates that as many as one-third of emergency room visits relate to domestic violence and apparently, one-fifth to one-fourth of pregnant women seeking prenatal care are in a battering relationship. /d. Further, medical care to victims of
Martin, Children of Battered Women, 10 MATERNAL CHILD NURSING J. 41, 49-50 (1981). This is why experts in the field point out that domestic violence should be more properly termed violence against women and children since the majority of victims are women and children. Peter Jaffe, Children of Domestic Violence: Special Challenges in Custody and Visitation Dispute Resolution, in DoMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN: RESOLVING CUSTODY AND VISITATION DISPUTES, A NATIONAL JUDICIAL CURRICULUM 19-21 (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed. 1995).
domestic violence costs an estimated $1.8 billion dollars per 8 23 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 5303 (b.2) provides: year. /d. Currently, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 14 to 44, more common than automo-bile accidents, muggings and rapes combined. Antonia C. Novello, The Domestic Violence Issue: Hear Our Voices, AM. MED. NEWS, March 23/30, 1992, at 25.
2 DONALD DUTTON, THE DOMESTIC ASSAULT OF WOMEN:
"No court shall award custody, partial custody or visitation to a parent who has been convicted of murder ... of the other parent of the child who is the subject of the order, unless the child is of suitable age and consents to the order."
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PERSPECTIVES 9 In 1994, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges adopted a Model Code on Domestic and Family violence which stated:
3
4
5
6
7
3-10 (1995).
JoHN DE WITT GREGORY ET AL, UNDERSTANDING FA1\1ILY LAW 371 (1993); State Divorce Laws, FAM. L. REP. (BNA) Reference Edition 401 :001-451:001 (1989) Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 LAW &: CONTEMP. PROBS. 226, 236 (1975).
Thomas J. Reidy et al., Child Custody Decisions: A Survey of Judges, 23 FAM. L. Q. 75 (1989); Jeff Atkinson, Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts, 18 FAM. L. Q. 1 (1984); Jessica Pearson & Maria A Luchesi Ring, Judicial Decision-making in Contested Custody Cases, 21 J. FAM. L. 703 (1982-83).
CAL. FAM. CODE§ 3011 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) provides that in determining the best interest of the child the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider the health, safety, and welfare of the child and any history of child abuse or domestic violence by one of the parents.
Family Violence Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence in Child Custody Statutes: An Analysis of State Codes and Legal Practice, 29 FAM. L. Q. 197. 199 (1995).
Children do not have to be victims of abuse to suffer emotional detriment from living with a batterer. In fact, children raised in a home in which spousal abuse occurs experience the same fear as battered children. Westra &
0 Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring 1999
"In every proceeding where there is, at least, at issue a dispute as to custody of a child, a determination by the court that domestic or family violence has occurred, raises a rebuttable presumption that it is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest of the child to be placed in the sole custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody with a perpetrator of family violence." MODEL CoDE ON DoMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE §40 1 at 33 (Advisory Committee of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, Model Code Project of the Family Violence Department 1994) [hereinafter MODEL CODE].
10 Donald Dutton et al., The Role of Shame and Guilt in Intergenerational Transmission of Abusiveness, 10 VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS 121 (1995).
11 Donald Dutton, Profiling Wife Assaulters: Some Evidence for a TrimodalAnatysis, 3 VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS 5 (1988).
12 Russell Dobash et al., The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence, 39 Soc. PROBS. 71,74-75 (1992).
13 DUTTON, supra note 2, at 94.
14 Donald Dutton et a!., Antecedents of Borderline Personality Disorder Organization in Wife Assaulters, 11 FAM. VIOLENCE 131 (1996).
15 DUTTON, supra note 2, at 25.
l!l Reid Mdoy, ,)'!a/king (Obsessional Following): A Review of Son II' l're/iminary Sludies, I AGGRESSION AND VIOLENT Bl~lli\YIOI< 147, 162 (1996).
I I I ,en ore Walker & Reid Meloy, Stalking and Domestic Violence, in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF STALKING: CLINICAL AND FORENSIC PERSPECTIVES 140-159 (Reid Meloy ed., 19l)R).
IR /d.
19 Meloy, supra note 16, at 158.
20 /d.
21 !d. at 158-159.
22 Walker & Meloy, supra note 17, at 141. See also, Ann Browne, Violence in Marriage: Until Death Do Us Part?, in VIOLENCE BETWEEN INTIMATE PARTNERS: PATTERNS, CAUSES, AND EFFECTS 48 (A. Cardarelli ed., 1997).
23 !d.
24 !d.
25 Reid Meloy and Shayna Gothard, A Demographic and Clinical Comparison of Obsessional Followers and Offenders with Mental Disorders, 152 AM. J. OF PSYCHIATRY 258, 262 ( 1995).
26 Neil S. Jacobson et a!., Affect, Verbal Content, and Psychophysiology in the Arguments of Couples with a Violent Husband, 62 J. OF CONSULTING & CLINICAL PsYCH. 982, 986 (1994).
27 T. MILLON ET AL. (EDS.) PSYCHOPATHY: ANTISOCIAL, CRIMINAL, AND VIOLENT BEHAVIOR ( 1998).
Stephen E. Doyne, Ph.D., et a/.
Problems of Battered Women, 31 CANADIAN J. OF PSYCHIATRY 625, 628 (1986).
37 Einat Peled, The Experience of Living with Violence for Preadolescent Child Witnesses of Women Abuse (1993) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis).
38 M. CRAWFORD & R. GARTNER, WOMAN Kll-LING, INTIMATE FEMICIDE IN ONTARIO: 1974-1990 (1992).
39 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 21-22.
40 !d. at 21.
41 !d.
42 Jaffe, et al., supra note 36, at 625-629.
43 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 22.
44 !d.
45 !d.
46 !d.
47 !d.
48 Bruce D. Perry, Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the "Cycle of Violence," in CHILDREN IN A VIOLENT SOCIETY 127 (Joy D. Osofsky ed. 1997).
49 Gerald T. Hotaling & David B. Sugarman, An Analysis of Risk Markers in Husband and Wife Violence: The Current State of Knowledge, 1 VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS 101, 101-124(1986).
50 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 21-22. 28 GAVIN DEBECKER, THE GIFT OF FEAR: SURVIVAL SIGNALS '
THAT PROTECT Us FROM VIOLENCE 183 (1997).
29 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 19-21.
51 GELLES & STRAUS, supra note 34, at 18-20; Lenore E. Walker, Psychology and Violence Against Women, 44 AM. PSYCHOL. 695, 697-98 (1989).
30 K. Rodgers, Wife Assault: The Findings of a National 52 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 22-23. Survey, 14 JURISTAT 1, 1-22 (1994).
53 N.Z. Hilton, Battered Women's Concerns About Their 31 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 19. Children Witnessing Wife Assault, 7 J. OF INTERPERSONAL
VIOLENCE 77,78 (1992). 32 !d. at 20.
54 Joan Zorza, Woman Battering: A Major Cause of 33 !d. Homelessness, 25 CLEARINGHOUSE REv. 421, 426 (1991).
34 RICHARD GELLES & MURRAY A. STRAUS, INTIMATE 55 Hilton, supra note 53, at 83. VIOLENCE 18-20 (1988).
56 Janet R. Johnston & Linda Campbell, Parent-Child 35 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 21-22. Relationship in Domestic Violence Families Disputing
Custody, 31 FAM. AND CONCILIATION CTS. REV. 282, 285 36 Peter Jaffe et al., Emotional and Physical Health (1993).
Spring 1999 • Juvenile and Family Court Journal e
Custody Disputes
57 Joan Zorza, "Friendly Parent" Provisions in Custody Determinations, 26 CLEARINGHOUSE REv. 921,925 (1992).
58 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 24.
59 DEBECKER, supra note 28, at 184.
60 Jaffe, supra note 7, at 24.
61 !d.
62 American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, IssuEs AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE 13-15 (1996).
63 Effective January 1, 1998, for example, the California Family Code was amended to elevate the importance of safety concerns in child custody determinations. The fol-lowing provision was added:
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public
policy of this state to assure that the health, safety, and
welfare of children shall be the court's primary concern
in determining the best interest of children when making
any orders regarding the custody or visitation of children.
The Legislature further finds and declares the perpetra-
tion of child abuse or domestic violence in a household
where a child resides is detrimental to the child. CAL.
FAM. CODE § 3020 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).
64 !d.
65 See Flathers v. Flathers, 948 S.W.2d 463, 466 ( Mo. Ct. App. 1997); Naomi R. Cahn, Reframing Child Custody Decisionmaking, 58 OHIO ST. L. J. 1, 17 (1997).
66 See Kroics v. Kroics, 705 So.2d 1302, 1304 (La. Ct. App. 1998); Ross v. Hoffman, 372 A.2d 582, 586-87 (Md. 1977); Cahn, supra note 65, at 14.
67 See supra notes 29 to 52 and accompanying text.
68 S~e, e.g., COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 14-10-124 (West 1994), ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 750, para.5/602 (SmithHurd 1994), KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 403.270 (Michie/Bobbs-Merrill 1994), MO. ANN. STAT. § 452.375 (Vernon 1994), NEB. REV. STAT. § 42-364 (1995), N.J. STAT. ANN. tit. 9, § 9:2-4 (West 1995), 23 PA. CONS. STAT. ANN.§ 5303 (1994), and VA. CODE§ 20c124.3 (Michie 1994). The Family Violence Department, supra note 6, at 225-27, column I.
69 Custody codes in several states and the District of Columbia establish rebuttable presumptions related to
4D Juvenile and Family Court Journal • Spring /999
domestic violence. See, e.g., ALA. CODE § 30-3-133 D.C. CODE ANN.§ 16-914, DEL. CODE ANN. TIT. 13, § 705A, FLA. STAT. ANN. § 61.13, HAW. REV. STAT. § 571-46, and N.D. CENT. CODE § 14-09-06.2. See also Dinius v. Dinius, 564 N.W.2d 300, 302 (N.D. 1997); Zuger v. Zuger, 563 N.W.2d 804, 809 (N.D. 1997); and MODEL CODE, supra note 9, § 401 at 33.
70 MODEL CODE, supra note 9, § 401 at 33.
71 The ABA recommended that: "custody not be awarded, in whole or in part, to a parent with a history of inflicting domestic violence, that visitation be awarded to such parent only if the safety and well-being of the abused parent and children can be protected, and that all awards of visitation incorporate explicit protections for the child and the abused parent." Howard Davidson, The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the American Bar Association, 1994 A.B.A. CENTER ON CHILDREN AND THE LAW 15.
72 Guardianship of Stephen G., 47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 409, 418 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) .
73 See supra notes 29-52 and accompanying text.
74 See infra notes 78-79 and accompanying text.
75 Marc J. Ackerman & Melissa C. Ackerman, Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A 1996 Survey of Psychologists, 30 FAM. L. Q. 565, 576-82 (1996).
76 !d.
77 !d.
78 Traumatic bonding is the development of strong emo-tiona! ties between two persons, with one person intermit-tently harassing, beating, threatening, abusing or intimidating the other. DUTTON, supra note 2, at 190.