To Keep You Informed, Not Discourage You

Stop Family Violence – get help, get informed, get involved www.stopfamilyviolence.org/434

Published on October 15, 2007 by The Ithaca Journal
Two Family Court Players Are Dispensable
by Suzanne Sheaffer Van Orman

Domestic abuse comes in many forms. From the subtle control of financial ransom and verbal degradation to the horrors of physical/sexual assault, the primary impetus for abuse is control. While many victims remain in relationships for many reasons including fear, those who leave are faced with another kind of oppression, which can be viewed as an extension of the abuser’s reign of control. The weapon is legal abuse.

Disputed child custody issues are undoubtedly complex, and the family court system is riddled with problems throughout. At the center of this problematic system reside the two most dispensable players: the law guardian and the court evaluator.

The role of the law guardian is to represent the child. He/she is a lawyer, nothing more, and is granted law guardian status by the family court judge. Without appropriate training, the law guardian is given the task of determining best interest and report to the judge. The law guardian is as prone to personal bias as anyone else and is largely unregulated. While conduct guidelines are in place for the law guardian, he/she may not observe these guidelines and are not held accountable for their reckless behavior. Common complaints include the law guardian’s service as secondary counsel to one parent, racial and gender bias, the incorporation of personal issues and experiences, ignorance of family dynamics and an inadequate interest in screening for domestic abuse.

Lawyers tend to operate with a “win/lose” mentality. How, then, is a lawyer appropriate to the task of determining what is best for the child? The law guardian should be eliminated from family court processes, and the judge should resume his/her role. If not, then they should be held accountable for their behaviors by someone other than the judge who appointed them and who utilizes their services.

The law guardian is not the only court player who has taken over the role of judge and jury. The court psychologists, who are not necessarily screened for their extensive (if any) training in domestic issues nor their personal attitudes and affiliations, are given the power to destroy families.

A one-hour peek into a parent’s psychological health somehow determines the fitness of that parent, even when equally (or more) educated and insightful psychologists refute the conclusions given by that court evaluator. Further, the psychologists’ findings are not subject to review or liability and are protected by the court. These so-called “expert witnesses” are no less likely to incorporate their own biases into an evaluation than the legal guardians. Many times, especially in small towns, a particular evaluator is preferred by the court and used regularly. This creates a monopoly.

When these two players are not able to find a “sufficient” reason for the removal of custody from one parent, they will utilize a dangerous weapon: parental alienation. Alienation is a circle of death for the parent who is accused of this. Undeniably, couples will indicate resentments toward and about each other during and after a separation. Statements that imply that one parent is more likely to promote a good relationship between the child and the other parent seem to be a successful way of proving alienation.

Alienation is easily manipulated, difficult to prove and should never be grounds for removal of custody from one parent. True alienation of a child from the other parent results from the award of sole custody to one parent and decidedly unequal visitation with the other. Alienation can also be indicated when one parent reports another parent for abuse. In an attempt to protect the child, the protector may lose custody to the abusive party because he/she has “attempted to alienate.”

Investigations of abuse are certainly not always fully executed nor performed by highly qualified and accountable investigators. Ideally, assimilation should supersede “best interest” in cases where domestic violence is not proven by an extensive and qualified investigation, and proximity is not a valid issue. Family separation is difficult enough on the children. Wouldn’t the best interest of the child be best served if the new familial arrangements mimicked (as closely as possible) the intact family unit?

Legal abuse is being utilized as a fear tactic and an extension of control in domestic intimidation. It is human nature to incorporate bias into any decision. Poor decisions, apathy, politics, cronyism and zero liability are clogging the arteries of society. Our children reside at the heart of this society.

Suzanne Sheaffer-Van Orman lives in Ithaca.

Copyright © 2007 The Ithaca Journal