DIVISION THREE In re the Guardianship Sydney & Justin S. Case No. G021264 (Super. Ct. Case No. A 174254) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY NANCY WIEBEN STOCK, JUDGE PRESIDING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF STEPHEN E. DOYNE, Ph.D., J. REID MELOY, Ph.D., DON DUTTON, Ph.D., PETER JAFFE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR JANET BOWERMASTER, THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, THE CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER, AND THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE STEPHEN TEMKO, CFLS, CALS ATTORNEY AT LAW State Bar No. 67785 1666 Garnet Avenue, No. 502 San Diego, California 92109 (619) 274-3538 PAUL MONES, LLB ATTORNEY AT LAW State Bar No. 128329 P.O. Box 5701 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 396-3743 Attorneys for Amici I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE . . . DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS AN EPIDEMIC. A. Batterers B. Stalkers .. CHILDREN ARE AT GREAT RISK LIVING WITH A PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. A. Emotional Abuse to Children . B. Impact of Exposure to Violence. C. Neurobiological Changes and the Cycle of Domestic Violence ........ . . 1 . 9 . 10 . 12 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 2 0 III. FEAR OF LOSING CUSTODY OFTEN TRAPS BATTERED SPOUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IV. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOULD BE A PRIMARY v. VI. CONSIDERATION IN CHILD CUSTODY DECISIONS .27 A. Protecting Children from Harm. . . . .27 B. Best Interests and Domestic Violence. . . 31 c. Spousal Murder and Detriment to Children .. 32 THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE OF BIOLOGICAL PARENTS. CONCLUSION ...... . . 36 40 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 303 In re David C. (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d. 1189 .. . . . . 7 29 Guardianship of Phillip B. (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 407 .. 32 Guardianship of Stephen G. (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 1418 . 28 In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal. App. 4th 183. In re Jon N. (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 156 People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1073. . 29, 30, 38 CIVIL CODE Family Code 3011. Family Code 6203. Family Code 6211. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1, 30 . 7 28, 38 9 . . 9 California Assembly Bill 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 BOOKS AND LAW REVIEW deBecker, The Gift of Fear: Survival Signals that Protect Us from Violence (1997) Little, Brown and Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14, 33, 34 Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women (1995) UBC Press/Vancouver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Gelles and Strauss, Intimate Violence (1988) Simon & Schuster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 21, 33 Peled, Jaffe, Edleson Ending the Cycle of Violence, (1995) SAGE Publications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES ABA, Center on Children and the Law, The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the American Bar Association. Washington, D.C. . . . . .... Ackerman and Ackerman, Child Custody Evaluation Practices: 39 A Survey of Psychologists 30 (3) Fam L.Q. 565 (1996) 30 APA, Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence (1996) American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. . 25 Crawford and Gartner, Woman killing, intimate femicide in Ontario: 1974-1990, (1992) Toronto: The Women We Honor Action Committee . . . .17 Dalton, Domestic Violence in California, A Status Report to the California Department of Health Services, (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Dobosh, Dobash, Wilson, and Daly, The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence (1992) Social Problems, 39 (1) . . . . . . . . . .11 Dutton, Profiling Wife Assaulters: Some Evidence for a Trimodal Analysis (1988), Violence and Victims, 3 ( 1 ) 1 pp 5 - 3 0 11 Dutton, Starzomski, & Ryan, "Antecedents of Borderline Personality Disorder Organization in Wife Assaulters" (1996) Fam. Violence 11 (2). .11 Dutton, Starzomski & Van Ginkel, "The role of shame and guilt in intergenerational transmission of abusiveness" (1995) Violence and Victims 10 (2). . .11 Hilton, Battered women's concerns about their children witnessing wife assault (1992) J. of Interpersonal Violence, 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Hotaling and Sugarman, An Analysis of Husband and Wife Violence: The Current State of Knowledge (1986) Violence and Victims, 11 . . . . . .21 Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, and Holtzworth- Munroe, "Affect, Verbal Content, and Psychophysiology in the Arguments of Couples With a Violent Husband" (1994) 62 No. 5, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, . . . . . . . . . Jaffe, Lemon, Sandler and Wolfe, Working Together to End .14 Domestic Violence, (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Jaffe, Peled, and Edelson, Ending the Cycle of Violence: Community Responses to children of battered women, ( 19 91) SAGE . . . . . . . . 5 Jaffe, Children of Domestic Violence: Special Challenges in Custody and Visitation Dispute Resolution in Lemon, Domestic Violence and Children: Resolving Custody and Visitation Disputes, A National Judicial Curriculum (1995) The Family Violence Prevention Fund, Chap 2, . . . . . .10 Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, Children of Battered Women, (1990) . . . . . . . 5 Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson & Zak, Emotional and physical health oroblems of battered women (1986) Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 31 . . . . . . . .. 17 Johnston and Campbell, Parent-child relationship in domestic violence families disputing custody (1993) Fam. Concil. Courts Rev. 31 . . . . . 24 Meloy, "Stalking (obsessional following) : A Review of Some Preliminary studies" (1996) Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol 1, No. 2 . . . . . . .. 12,13,14 Meloy and Gothert, A Demographic and Clinical Comparison of Obsessional Followers and Mentally Disordered Offenders (1995) American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 152:2 . . . . . . 14 Model Code on Family Violence (1994) 37 Novello, The Domestic Violence Issue: (1992) Am. Med. News Mar. 23/30, Hear Our Voices Peled, The experience of living with violence for preadolescent child witnesses of women abuse (1993) Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. .10 of Minn. Minneapolis. . . . . . . . . . 17 Perry, "Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental Factors in the 'Cycle of Violence'", in Osofsky, Children in a Violent Society (1997) Guilford, Chap. 2. . 20,30 Rodgers, Wife Assault: The findings of a National Survey (1994) Juristat, 14. . . . . . 16 Walker, Psychology and Violence Against Women (1989) Am. Psychol. 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Westra and Martin, Children of Battered Women (1981) Vol 10 Maternal Child Nursing J . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Zorza, Woman battering: a major cause of homelessness (1991) Clearinghouse Review, 25 . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Zorza, "Friendly parent" provisions in custody determinations (1992) Clearinghouse Review 26 .... 24 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The authors, who come from the disciplines of child, adolescent, adult and forensic psychology, and family law, contend that the risk factors presented to children in divorced families by a battering parent are not as easily observable as a bruise or a split lip that needs stitches. Rather, a parent who abuses another parent is abusing the children by exposing them to a climate of fear and a poor model of conflict resolution in intimate relationships. Domestic violence which harms spouses and children includes, but is not limited to, psychological verbal abuse, sexual abuse, stalking, physical abuse, or, at its worst, murder. In determining best interests, Family Courts historically consider a broad spectrum of parents' behavior as it all affects children. In this regard, the entire history of domestic violent behavior of a parent who is a batterer - from verbal intimidation to homicide - should be considered by the court to properly assess what directly or indirectly 1 causes harm to children. In the extreme case of spousal murder, the detriment 2 to the children by the loss of a parent 1 In re Jon N. (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 156, 161, 224 Cal. Rptr. 319 the court found there had been "secondary abuse" in the form of angry domestic violence between the parents which must have inevitably affected the child even though he had not been injured. 2 "Whether parental custody would be detrimental i,s not judged objectively (nor is it equated with the sort of 'parental unfitness' that would require intervention by the state through a juvenile court depending proceeding). Rather, instead of prescribing rigid statutory guidelines, the legislative intent is to leave court with broad flexibility to make the ultimate decision based on the specific facts in light of the totality of the evidence. (Guardianship of Phillip B. (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 407, should be considered if allegations are made that this loss is related to the actions of the surviving parent. Moreover, when children have lost a parent, they will cling to the surviving parent even if that person has been a batterer. However, the greatest future detriment these children face is that they will live to experience the surviving parent beat another partner, recycling the climate of fear that is so detrimental to children. Therefore, because the psychological risks to children living with a batterer are high, amici believe there should be a rebuttable presumption 3 against sole or joint custody for perpetrators of domestic violence, even if that parent has never directly abused the children. Amici's respective careers have been partially defined by the questions of why domestic violence occurs and how it affects children. Stephen E. Doyne. Ph.D. is a clinical and forensic psychologist in private practice in San Diego. Dr. Doyne received 421.) II 3 In 1994, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges adopted a Model Code on Domestic and Family Violence (Hereafter referred to as "Model Code") which stated: "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 is detrimental to the child and not in the best interest 9f 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, (1994) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Chapter 4: Family and Children, Sec. 401, Presumption Concerning Custody, p.33)" 2 his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Examiners, and is a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychological Specialists in the area of child custody evaluations. For a majority of his career, he has been conducting child custody evaluations for the Superior Courts in Southern California. Dr. Doyne is Past-President of the California Association of Psychology Providers and Fellow of the San Diego Psychological Association. In 1991, he received an American Psychological Association Practice Directorate Leadership Award for Outstanding Contribution to American Psychology for his work associated with the California Association of Psychology Providers. J. Reid Meloy, Ph.D. is a Diplomate in forensic psychology of the American Board of Professional Psychology. Dr. Meloy is Chief of the Court Services, Forensic Mental Health Division for San Diego County, and also devotes his time to a private civil and criminal forensic practice, research, writing, and teaching. He is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine and an adjunct professor at the University of San Diego School of Law. He is also a Fellow of the Society for Personality Assessment, and is currently President of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology. In 1992, he received the Distinguished Contribution to Psychology. as a Profession Award from the California Psychological Association. He 3 has authored or co-authored over one hundred papers published in peer-reviewed psychiatric and psychological journals, and has written or edited four books. Dr. Meloy is working on his fifth book, The Psychology of Stalking, to be published in 1998. He is a sought-after speaker and psychological consultant on various civil and criminal cases throughout the United States. Don Dutton, Ph.D. received his doctorate in Social Psychology from the University of Toronto. While on faculty at the University. of British Columbia, he began to investigate the criminal justice response to spousal assault, preparing a government report that outlined the need for a more aggressive response, and subsequently trained police in "domestic disturbance" intervention techniques. From 1979 to the present, Dr. Dutton has served as a psychotherapist in the Assaulting Husbands Project, a court mandated treatment program for men convicted of wife assault. In the course of providing treatment for these men, he drew on his background in both social and clinical psychology to develop a psychological model for intimate abusiveness. He has published over eighty papers and three books, including the Domestic Assault of Women and The Batterer: A Psychological Profile. Dr. Dutton is currently professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia. Peter G. Jaffe, Ph.D. is Director of the London Family Court Clinic and a trustee for the London Board of Education (London, 4 Ontario, Canada) . He is an adjunct associate professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Jaffe has published widely on the topic of domestic violence and is co-author, with David A. Wolfe and Susan K. Wilson, of Children of Battered Women (1990), Ending the Cycle of Violence: Community responses to children of battered women, (1991, Sage) (with Einat Peled and Jeffrey L. Edleson), and Working Together to End Domestic Violence, (1996, Mancorp, with Nancy Lemon, Jack Sandler, and David Wolfe). He received his undergraduate training from McGill University and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Jaffe recently served as a member of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women, a federally appointed committee that examined solutions to violence against women across Canada. Janet M. Bowermaster, J.D. is a professor of law at California Western School of Law in San Diego. She received her law degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. For the last several years she has taught courses in family law and children and the law. More recently, she has taught an advanced seminar on domestic violence. Professor Bowermaster is the author of several law review articles on child custody. Her most recent article, "Relocation Custody Disputes Involving Domestic Violence" will appear in the University of Kansas Law Review in March of.1998. Professor Bowermaster is a member of the American Bar Association Family Law Committee, the Society of American Law Teachers, the 5 National Association of Counsel for. Children, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the Law and Society Association and the San Diego Domestic Violence Council Legal Action Committee. She regularly assists local domestic violence agencies by conducting trainings for hot-line volunteers on custody issues in domestic violence. Public Law Center is the only private bar, public interest law firm in Orange County, California. Created from a 1989 merger of Amicus Publico and the Orange County Public Interest Law Advocates, The Public Law Center brings eighteen years of experience to the task of administering private attorney involvement programs. Public Law Center provides free legal services to low income Orange County residents through its staff and volunteer, private attorneys. The Public Law Center also challenges systemic injustices through litigation and other forms of advocacy. California Women's Law Center is a private, non-profit, public interest law center in Santa Ana, California specializing in the civil rights of women and girls. California Women's Law Center was established in 1989 to address the comprehensive civil rights of women and girls in the following priority areas: Family Law, Violence Against Women, Reproductive rights, Sex Discrimination and Child Care. Since its inception, California Women's Law Center has maintained a multi-disciplinary approach to domestic violence and 6 family law issues by focusitig on the inter-relationship of these areas in the lives of women and children and the policies affecting them. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, headquartered in Sacramento, is a statewide coalition responding to the needs and interests of battered women and their children. As the sole statewide voice for victims of domestic violence, the Alliance has worked since 1976 with policy makers, advocacy organizations, civil and criminal justice professionals, child protective service workers, law enforcement officers, and others to develop specific proposals to aid the victims of domestic violence. These collaborations mark the first attempt in California at a comprehensive approach to this devastating problem. The Alliance was incorporated in 1993 as a non-profit corporation. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence has participated in amicus briefs in several important California cases, including Barkaloff v. Woodward, (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 303, and People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 1073. 7 With regard to the case at bench, In re Guardianship of Sydney and Justin S., Case No Al74254 amicus curiae express no clinical opinion. Rather, amici requests that this court examine the persuasive data on the issue of family violence and its effects on children, particularly as they relate to divorce and custody decisions. 8 I. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS AN EPIDEMIC Domestic violence 4 is a pattern of behavior that includes, but is not limited to, the following forms of abuse: PSYCHOLOGICAL: shouting, swearing, taunting, threat- ening, degrading, demeaning, inducing fear, gender harassment, stalking SEXUAL: PHYSICAL: FINANCIAL: rape, incest, unwanted sexual touching, date rape, harassment slapping, shoving, hitting, mutilation, stabbing, assault, murder withholding, diverting, embezzling or controlling funds (Dutton, The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives (1995) UBC Press, pp. 3-10) According to a 1996 report by 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. (Dalton, Domestic Violence in California, A Status Report to the California Department of Health Services, (1996) p. 3.) The report also estimates that as many as one-third of emergency room visits relate 4 According to Family Code Section 6203, nabuse means intentionally or recklessly to cause or attempt to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or to place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to anothern. According to Family Code section 6211: nDomestic violence is abuse perpetrated against any of the following persons: a) a spouse or former spouse, b) a cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in section 6209, c) a person with whom the is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship, d) a person with whom the respondent has had a child, 3) a child of a party of a child who is subject to an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, f) any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.n 9 to domestic violence and apparently, one-fifth to one-fourth of pregnant women seeking prenatal care are in a battering relationship. Further, medical care to victims of domestic violence costs an estimated $1.8 billion dollars per year. (Dalton, supra, (1996) at p. 3.) Currently, domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 14 to 44, more common than automobile accidents, muggings, and rapes combined (Novello, The Domestic Violence Issue: Hear Our Voices (1992) Am. Med. News Mar. 23/30, p. 25.) 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 & Martin, Children of Battered Women (1981) Vol 10. Maternal Child Nursing J., pp. 41, 49, and SO.) This is why experts in the field, such as Peter Jaffe, Ph.D., point out that domestic violence should be more properly termed violence against women and children since the majority of victims are women and children. (Jaffe, Children of Domestic Violence: Special Challenges in Custody and Visitation Dispute Resolution in Lemon, Domestic Violence and Children: Resolving Custody and Visitation Disputes, A National Judicial Curriculum ( 1995) The Family Violence Prevention Fund, Chap 2, pp. 19-21.) A. BATTERERS The personality characteristics of batterers especially their violent tendencies - are important in evaluating whether it will be detrimental for children to be placed in that parent's 10 custody. Donald Dutton, Ph.D., describes several types of batterers, although there is no single profile. (Dutton, supra, at p. 121.) Statistically, batterers tend to be male, rather than female. (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence (1992) Social Problems, 39 (1), pp. 71-76.) Dutton concludes that the wife-assaulters have pronounced needs for interpersonal control but do not possess heal thy mechanisms to generate this control. From his numerous research studies, Dr. Dutton concludes that the batterer reacts with exaggerated arousal in anger to scenes of male/female conflict. (Dutton, supra, at p. 94.) Dr. Dutton's data found that wife assaulters subdivide into three subtypes: those who act out anger impulsively in the context of intimate relationships, those who use violence instrumentally and generally, and those who repress or over control a deep resentment. (Dutton, Profiling Wife Assaulters: Some Evidence for a Trimodal Analysis (1988), Violence and Victims, 3 (1), pp. 5-30.) A typical background includes deep shaming experiences usually by the father of the eventual perpetrator, insecure attachment and exposure to violent role models. (Dutton, Starzomski, & Ryan. "Antecedents of Borderline Personality Disorder Organization in Wife Assaulters" (1996) Fam. Violence. 11 (2), pp. 131-132.) However, all wife assaulters do not have similar etiologies: they differ both in what triggers the violence and how they rationalize their behavior. (Dutton, Starzomski, and van Ginkel. "The role of 11 shame and guilt in intergenerational transmission of abusiveness" (1995) Violence and Victims 10(2), pp. 121-131.) Further, many offenders are serial batterers, i.e., just because one relationship is over does not mean that the perpetrator will not expose the children to violence in the next relationship as two-thirds of batterers re-offend. (Dutton, supra, at p. 25.) B. STALKERS Within the subset of batterers, J. Reid Meloy, Ph.D., has identified a subgroup who stalk women, some of whom present the greatest risk of domestic violence or spousal murder. In his research, he concludes that the vast majority - in excess of 80% of stalking victims are prior acquaintances or former sexual intimates of the stalker. (Meloy, "Stalking (obsessional following) : A Review of Some Preliminary Studies" (1996) Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol 1, No.2, pp. 147-162.) Although Meloy notes there is no published study on the relationship between domestic violence and stalking per se, he believes that it is likely domestic violence increases the risk of stalking. One source of data supporting this theory is the fact that restraining order violations increase as violence prior to separation in a marriage increases. Meloy, whose specialty is "obsessional following" or stalking, found in a review of all published studies that the risk of violence among individuals who stalk ranges from 3 to 36% , with approximately one in four individuals (25-30%) being physically assaultive towards their object of pursuit. (Meloy, supra, at pp. 12 147-162.) About half of those who stalk threaten persons or property and 25% of those individuals who make such threats are, in fact, violent toward persons or property. Although the homicide rate for those who stalk is less than 2 !1,- 0 I this is more than 200 times the current homicide rate in the general population of the United States. (Meloy, supra, at pp. 158-159.) Meloy also notes that other research indicates that over three-fourths of spousal homicides occurring after separation are preceded by behaviors consistent with the accepted definition of stalking: a long-term pattern of threat and harassment that causes the victim to fear for her safety. (Meloy, supra, at pp. 147-162.) This is a particularly useful finding because it may be a predictive variable in separated spousal homicide since most spousal batterers do not murder their mates. (Meloy, supra, at pp. 147-162.) Dr. Meloy's motivational theory of stalking is psychodynamic. The stalker initially develops a narcissistic linking fantasy to the object, perhaps his wife, in which he is special, idealized by, or destined to be with her forever. Her rejection of him in a divorce or separation stimulates deep humiliation which is defended against with abandonment rage. This intense anger fuels the pursuit of his ex-wife to decimate and devalue her, paradoxically to restore his idealized fantasy of her. In other words, her physical death is seen by the stalker as the death of the rejecting spouse, which makes room for the restoration in the stalker's mind of the perfect (narcissistic) fantasy of an unconditionally 13 accepting spouse. (Meloy, supra, at pp. 147-162.) Meloy's theory is supported by the empirical findings of pathological narcissism among those who stalk. (Meloy and Gothert, A Demographic and Clinical Comparison of Obsessional Followers and Mentally Disordered Offenders (1995) American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 152:2, pp. 258-263.) In contrast to the common stereotype, batterers are not always out of control when abusing. In fact, some batterers' heart rates actually drop and they become physiologically calmer as they become more violent. (Jacobson, Gottman, Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, and Holtzworth-Munroe, "Affect, Verbal Content, and Psychophysiology in the Arguments of Couples With a Violent Husband" (1994) 62 No.5, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, pp. 982-988.) This finding is consistent with deBecker' s explanation of domestic assault and murder: "Though leaving is the best response to violence, it is in trying to leave that most women get killed. This dispels the dangerous myth about spousal killings: they happen in the heat of argument. In fact, the majority of husbands who kill their wives stalk them first, and far from the 'crime of passion' that it is so often called, killing a wife is usually a decision, not a loss of control. Those men who are most violent are not at all carried away by fury." (deBecker, The Gift of Fear: survival Signals that Protect Us From Violence (1997) Little, Brown, p. 183.) 14 Thus, a batterer - who may be capable of spousal murder - can present as a person not likely to lose emotional control, or be harmful to children. 5 But living with a batterer is an enormous risk to children, as will be seen in the next section. 5 In the case at bench, Judge Nancy Weiben Stock described the father as "a man who has not in the past, or is not likely in the future to lose control of himself in such a manner as to emotionally or physically harm his two young children" (In re Sydney and Justin S., Order and Findings, (1996), p. 6.) 15 II. CHILDREN ARE AT GREAT RISK LIVING WITH A PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE The best available research has found that domestic violence has dramatic and long-lasting detrimental effects on children. Studies on the incidence of violence in homes suggest a wide range of estimates depending on the research methodology and definition of violence. Two of the more recent comprehensive surveys estimate that at least 30% of all women will suffer from some form of violence in an adult relationship during their life span. (Jaffe, supra, at pp. 19-21.) For 10% of the women, this violence is so severe that they worry for their personal safety. (Rodgers, Wife Assault: The Findings of a National Survey (1994) Juristat, 14. pp. 1-22.) Their fears are well-founded when one considers that the majority of female homicide victims are killed by their partner, ex-partner, or boyfriend. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 19) Although the terms "family violence" and "domestic violence" are commonly utilized, the most accurate term is "maltreatment of women and children", since they represent the vast majority of the victims. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 20.) Police forces across North America have reported that 90% of the victims of family violence are women and children. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 20.) Men are also abused, but in most instances, it is men's violence against women which creates greater pain and suffering. A large proportion of women's violence toward men is in self-defense. (Gelles & Strauss, Intimate Violence (1988) Simon & Schuster, pp. 18-20.) 16 A. EMOTIONAL ABUSE TO CHILDREN Although the term "violence" is usually associated with physical or sexual violence, most victims report that emotional or psychological abuse can have the most persistent long-term effects. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 21-22.) This abuse is characterized by threats, demeaning or belittling comments, and an attempt to create a family climate of fear, terror, and insecurity. Although many parents within violent families think that they have protected their children from the violence, between 80% and 90% of children indicate the opposite. (Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson & Zak. Emotional and physical health problems of battered women (1986) Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 31, pp. 625-629.) Most children not only are aware of what happened, but they can give detailed descriptions about the escalation of the violence. Children may be at their bedroom door, at the top of the stairs, or they may enter the room shortly after a violent episode, but they know too well the reality of the violence and the emotional and physical consequences to their mother. (Peled, The experience of living with violence for preadolescent child witnesses of women abuse (1993) Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Minn. Minneapolis.) At the extreme, when women are murdered by their husbands, children are present in approximately 25% of the cases. (Crawford & Gartner, Woman killing, intimate femicide in Ontario: 1974-1990 (1992) Toronto: The Women We Honor Action Committee.) The term "witness", or exposure to violence is not just the observation of discrete events, but rather, a child's total 17 experience of fear and insecurity of what happens, what they anticipate happening and the aftermath of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the family. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 21-22.) Murder of one spouse by another - witnessed or not - is the ultimate exposure children can have to family violence. B. IMPACT OF EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE The impact of the exposure to violence has both short-term and long-term consequences that depend on the children's age, gender, stage of development, and role with the family. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 21.) Preschool children who are exposed to this violence may suffer from nightmares or other sleep disturbances. The trauma in their lives causes great confusion and insecurity that may lead to regressive behavior, such as excessive clinging to adults and/or fear of being left alone. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 21.) Some children are polarized by constant fear and anxiety because the places and people who should afford them the greatest protection (horne and parents) turn out to be the most dangerous. (Jaffe, Wolfe & Wilson, supra, at pp. 625-629.) Children exposed to their father's abuse of their mother may exhibit a range of internalizing and externalizing emotional and behavioral problems. These symptoms continue into adolescence. Aside from the more dramatic or visible symptoms of .being exposed to violence, children may also exhibit more subtle signs of this trauma that are not apparent from traditional assessment and interview data. For example children who are exposed to parental 18 violence tend to hold beliefs that violence is an appropriate method in trying to resolve conflicts, especially in the context of an intimate relationship. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 22.) Many children see physical aggression as appropriate in gaining respect or control in a relationship, and excusable if a perpetrator is drinking, or if a victim has supposedly done something to "provoke" him (i.e., they think the father's view of the violence was justified because the house was messy or dinner not ready on time) . Additionally, children tend to blame themselves over time for the violence. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 22.) They often feel that it is their duty to protect their mother or defuse their father's anger. They may feel that if they were perfect in their own horne their parents wouldn't fight over them and cause more violence. This pronounced sense of personal responsibility begins at an early age and can last into adulthood. Obviously these symptoms, as well as the previously mentioned ones, impede children's development, their academic and community involvement, and their sense of personal competence. Many children may feel so responsible for their mother's safety that they adjust their own lives in order to protect their mother. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 22.) Some children refuse to go to school and later receive the diagnosis of "school phobic" for this reason. Other children may go to school and present somatic concerns such as headaches and stomach pains so that they can return home to their mothers. In some circumstances, mothers do not discourage this behavior because of their own isolation, 19 depression and inability to set any limits for their children. Adolescents who have been exposed to violence, develop their own coping strategies to deal with trauma. At an adaptive level, with extended family or community supports, these young persons may try to separate and individuate from the family problems and seek more independent living and school-vocational pursuits. Unfortunately, adolescents do not have adequate skills and social supports in place. These adolescents may attempt to cope through drug and alcohol abuse, or by running away to potentially more dangerous environments (e.g., the streets). p. 22.) Often, they become involved in (Jaffe, supra, at abusive dating relationships. Adolescent boys who have been exposed to violence are more likely to be abusive, and girls who have been exposed to violence are less likely to question dating violence. Many of these adolescents do not even consider that this violent behavior is criminal in nature and could lead to sanctions by the court system. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 22.) C. NEUROBIOLOGICAL CHANGES AND THE CYCLE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Children neurobiologically adapt to violence exhibiting measurable changes in the activity of their brainstems as a result of chronic traumatic stress in violent homes. However, the very neurobiological adapters which allow the child to survive violence may, as the child grows older, result in an increased to be violent. (Perry, "Incubated in Terror: Neurodeveloptnental Factors in the 'Cycle of Violence'", in Osofsky, Children in a Violent Society (1997) Guilford, Chap 2., pp. 124-149.) 20 Thus, living with a perpetrator of domestic violence makes it more likely that those children will grow up to be violent themselves. In fact, in 14 out of 16 studies, witnessing violence between one's parents or caretakers is a more consistent predictor of future violence than being the victims of abuse. (Hotaling and Sugarman, An Analysis of Husband and Wife Violence: The Current State of Knowledge (1986) Violence and Victims, 11, pp. 101-124.) The long-term impact of being exposed to domestic violence is most apparent from retrospective studies of male perpetrators of violence and female survivors of violence in adult relationships. The majority of abusive husbands have grown up in families where they were exposed to their father's abuse of their mothers. The landmark studies in this field suggest that sons of severe batterers have wife abuse rates at 10 times the level of sons of non-violent fathers. (Jaffe, supra, at pp. 21-22.) Women are less likely to seek assistance when they are abused if they have been exposed to violence in their family of origin. (Gelles & Strauss. supra, at p. 18-20i Walker. Psychology and Violence Against Women (1989) Am. Psychol. 44 (4), pp. 695-702.) Several important issues and cautions need to be raised about the research on children who have been exposed to violence. Although being exposed to violence is an important factor, it rarely happens in isolation from other stressors in a child's life (e.g., repeated separations and disruptions, financial hardships, lack of adequate housing or shelter). In many circumstances a child may personally experience several forms of violence 21 themselves aside from being exposed to their mother's victimization. The most conservative estimates suggest at least a minimum 30% overlap between wife assault and physical child abuse, and some studies and recent reviews have estimated an overlap up to 70%. (Jaffe, supra, at pp. 22-23.) As outlined in the next section, violence does not end with separation. Although the physical violence may terminate, the ongoing issues of abuse of power and control may get played out through a custody dispute and compromise the children's emotional and behavioral adjustment. 22 III. FEAR OF LOSING CUSTODY OFTEN TRAPS BATTERED SPOUSES Children are a central focus in decisions battered spouses make about leaving the batterer or staying trapped in an abusive relationship. Battered women often cite the children as a reason to remain with their spouse, in addition to other factors, such as fear, economic dependency, self-blame, and lack of community support. (Hilton. Battered women's concerns about their children witnessing wife assault (1992) J. of Interpersonal Violence 7, pp. 77-86.) They may be financially dependent on the batterer and may also want the presence of a father, albeit a poor role model. They may also fear losing the children, as many batterers threaten their partners with taking away the children, and with proving her to be an "unfit" mother. These fears are well-founded since some research suggests that perpetrators of domestic violence actually have a good chance of convincing judges that they should have custody. (Zorza, Woman battering: a major cause of homelessness (1991) Clearinghouse Review, 25 pp. 421-429.) Sometimes battered spouses are deprived economically to the point of being left homeless. On the other hand, some battered women may decide to leave if they start to recognize the impact the violence has on their children. Most often, this decision happens after an incident of direct physical or sexual abuse of the children, or when the battered spouse starts to recognize the impact that exposure to the violence has on their children. (Hilton, supra, at pp. 77-86.) 23 The research on children of divorce and that of children exposed to domestic violence has developed as two separate branches, which often leads to conflicting advice for battered spouses. The general literature on the impact of divorce stresses the negative influence of conflict on children and the positive influence of a co-parenting relationship where the children maintain an ongoing, supportive relationship with both parents. This is often true for nonviolent families. In reality, though, contested custody cases often represent a higher level of violence compared to the general population of divorcing adults. (Johnston & Campbell. Parent-child relationship in domestic violence families disputing custody (1993) Fam. Concil. Courts Rev. 31 pp. 282-298.) When domestic violence has been present, a co-parenting relationship and the impact of the conflict on the children often represents a negative influence on the children. Many battered spouses are placed in a situation where they are advised to promote a relationship and set aside their past conflicts with an ex-spouse who may be a danger to themselves and their children. If they do not comply, they may be deemed "unfriendly or unfit parents" and they can lose custody to an abusive parent. ( Zorza. 'Friendly parent' provisions in custody determinations. (1992) Clearinghouse Review 26 pp. 921-925.) One of the most important issues that often goes unrecognized by many legal and mental health professionals is that the violence does not end with separation. Many children of battered spouses 24 find their experiences to be the opposite. A large scale study of children of battered women in shelters in California showed that separation tends to lead to an escalation of violence and a greater danger for the safety of their mother. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 24.) It is estrangement, not argument, that begets the worst violence as a majority of spousal murders happen after the woman leaves (deBecker, supra, at p. 184.) In fact, many courts promote unsupervised visitation orders, and this may give abusive spouses an ongoing opportunity to expose children to violence or threats of violence. Recent clinical analysis in Canada points to the ongoing psychological abuse whereby children become pawns in custody battles in order both to punish and devalue their mother and to try to rewrite the history of abuse and parenting. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 24.) Paradoxically, reported because women may not be believed when violence they are seen as exaggerating incidents is of violence as a way of manipulating the courts. Many of these women who suffer post traumatic stress disorder have been labelled as histrionic or worse. For example, a recent article discussed a supposed "Malicious Mother Syndrome" in divorce as an "explanation" as to why some women hold animosity toward their former husbands, attempt to blame their ex-husbands for all the problems by accusing them of various behaviors, and attempt to not allow the fathers to see the children. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 24.) The American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family (1996) recently summarized the 25 literature in this area, and.expressed concerns about the labelling and pathologizing of battered women in divorce and custody cases. When such labelling occurs, men's violence may be minimized as only an emotional reaction to the separation. (American Psychological Association, Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence (1996) American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family, pp. 13-15.) 26 IV. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHOULD BE A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IN CHILD CUSTODY DECISIONS Domestic violence also plays a significant part in many custody disputes and should be a primary consideration in questions of both best interests and detriment to children. Jaffe contends that the abusive parent discovers that, post marriage, the most effective way to hurt or destroy the other parent is through emotional or psychological abuse utilizing the domestic courts. He notes that children in crisis who openly disclose the violence and trauma learn to be silent - disclosure just angers the person with the most power and may have direct and indirect repercussions for them and their mother upon visitation. For many children, their mother has modeled silence in the relationship, and this pattern is difficult to change, especially if their safety is further jeopardized by any disclosure. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 27.) Dr. Jaffe concludes that the 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, he believes that for battered spouses, this notion of shared custody may perpetuate the violence and abusive power and control in family relationships. A. PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM HARM In cases involving documented domestic violence, it is 'in the best interests of children to reside with a non-violent caretaker, rather than a batterer. 27 In determining the best interests of the child, California Family Code (3011) 6 requires that the Court consider any history of abuse by one parent against the child or against the other parent. California is not alone in including domestic violence as a factor to be considered in determining the best interests of a child. In fact, even when a dispute is between a parent and a non- parent, 35 states have statutes that require courts to consider evidence of domestic violence or abuse of a spouse when making child custody or visitation determination. Before the court reaches the best interests test, the non- parent seeking custody must prove detriment if the child is placed with the parent, "by clear and convincing evidence". (Guardianship of Stephen G. (1995) 40 Cal. App.4th. 1418.) Clear and convincing is described as nothing less than evidence that "is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong to 6 Family Code section 3011 states in part: "In making a determination of the best interest of the child in a proceeding described in section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider all of the following: a) The health, safety, and welfare of the child, b)Any history of abuse by a parent, or any other person seeking custody against any of the following: 1) Any child to whom he or she is related by blood or affinity or with whom he or she has had a caretaking relationship, no matter how temporary. 2) The other parent. 3) A parent, current spouse, or cohabitant, of the parent or person seeking custody, or a person with whom the parent or person seeking custody has a dating or engagement relationship. (Emphasis a9ded.) As a pre-requisite to the consideration of allegations of abuse, the court may require substantial independent corroboration including, but not limited to, written reports by law enforcement agencies ... As used in this subdivision, 'abuse against a child' means 'child abuse' as defined in Section 11165.6 of the Penal Code and abuse against any of the other persons described in Section 6203 of the Family Code." 28 command an unhesitating assent in every reasonable mind". (In re David C. (1984) 154 Cal. App. 3d. 1189, 1208.) The definition of detriment is fairly broad and includes more than direct physical abuse between parent and child. In re Heather ~ (1996) 52 Cal. App. 4th 183, illustrates the point. There, the trial court denied custody to an ordained minister who beat his wife. The father's history of abuse included choking, hitting and threats to kill his wife. The children, twin 5-year old daughters, had not been beaten, but their stepmother, Ramona, the beating victim, said they were in the room during several of the incidents and once accompanied her to the hospital. In the case, the father, identified as Harold A., pleaded no contest to spousal abuse in September, 1994, an incident which left Ramona a head fracture which required hospitalization. This beating did not occur in front of the children as they were asleep in another part of the house. After the incident, Los Angeles County social workers tried to remove the children from his care. However, during a 1995 custody hearing, the minister denied hitting his wife and said he entered the plea only to "preserve the family". (In re Heather A., supra, at p. 317.) Nevertheless, the Superior Court judge denied custody to both the father and stepmother, and ordered the children placed in foster care. The ruling was upheld by the Second District Court of Appeal. In addition to possible physical injury the girls f a ~ e d in a violent household, they could suffer "lasting psychological damage" if exposed to the abuse of their stepmother, the Appellate 29 Court said, underscoring t_he special risk presented by family violence: 11 It is clear to this Court that domestic violence in the household where children are living is neglect; it is failure to protect (the twins) from substantial risk of encountering the violence and suffering serious physical harm or illness from it. Such neglect causes the risk. 11 (In re Heather A., supra, at pp. 315-322.) As to current and future detriment, the Court found that domestic violence in the same household where children were living is "secondary abuse" 7 of the children. (In re Heather A., supra, at p. 3 OS.) Despite the findings of Jaffe and others, and this recent decision which underscores special risks to children from living with a batterer, research indicates that custody evaluators seldom consider domestic violence in making child custody recommendations. A survey of psychologists from 39 states who conducted custody evaluations amazingly indicates that domestic violence was not considered a major factor in making custody determinations except as a possible rationalization for not recommending joint custody. (Ackerman & Ackerman, "Child Custody Evaluation Practices: A 1996 Survey of Psychologists" (1996) Fam. L.Q. 30(3), p. 565.) Even 7 The concept of 11 secondary abuse 11 was recognized in In re Jon ~ w h e r e a father questioned the suitability of the minor's mother to be a custodial parent. The Court found that there had been ongoing domestic violence between the minor's parents which must inevitably have affected the child even though he had not been physically injured. (In re Jon N., supra at pp. 156, 161.) 30 then, it was seldom listed as a determining factor. When the psychologists were asked for three to five reasons that would most support not recommending joint custody, family/domestic violence was the second least likely reason. Of more concern was the finding that over three quarters of the custody evaluators recommend denying sole or joint custody to a parent who "alienates the child from the other parent by negatively interpreting the other parent's behavior". (Ackerman & Ackerman, supra, at p. 565.) This latter finding indicates that custody evaluators may be more likely to blame the parent seen as more hostile and uncooperative and, thus, deny the parent sole or joint custody even in cases involving domestic violence. B. BEST INTEREST AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE In custody cases, Family Courts have a long history of examining a wide range of parents' behavior as it relates to the children's best interest. In cases of domestic violence, the court should examine a wide spectrum of parents' behavior, not just whether they have been convicted of beating a spouse as violence is rarely ever isolated. However, judges are often faced with another paradox inherent in battering relationships. On one hand, courts are often 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, jurists are told by court- appointed experts - who may, as the Ackerman study points out, 31 downplay domestic violence - that the children in a given case have a ''close bond" with a parent who has committed domestic violence. In fact, the children may even say they "just want to go home". The apparent closeness between a perpetrator of domestic violence and their children, whether battered or not, is explained by the concept of "traumatic bonding". 8 These intermittent maltreatment patterns have been found to produce strong emotional attachments and is the very reason many battered spouses stay in abusive relationships (Dutton, supra, at p. 191.) Similarly, children may also appear emotionally close to the very parent who is the most dangerous because they are afraid of them. But, as Perry points out, living with domestic violence only makes it more likely the child will repeat the cycle of violence themselves. (Perry, supra, at p. 124-149.) In fact, children who grow up in abusive homes are more at risk for committing violence themselves, both within and outside their own families (Dutton, supra, at p. ix.) C. SPOUSAL MURDER AND DETRIMENT TO CHILDREN Psychological detriment to children by the murder of a parent is indisputable and irreparable in terms of their loss. When addressing this question of detriment, the court should examine the "totality of the evidence" related to current and future harm to the children. (Guardianship of Phillip B, supra, at pp. 407,421.) 8 "Traumatic bonding" is the development of strong emotional ties between two persons, with one person intermittently harassing, beating, threatening, abusing or intimidating the other. (Dutton, supra, at p. 190)" 32 A majority of female homicide victims are killed by their partners, ex-partners, or boyfriends. (Jaffe, supra, at p. 20; Gelles and Strauss, supra, at p. 18.) However, in domestic disputes, there are numerous pre-incident indicators associated with spousal violence and murder. deBecker, who grew up in a family with domestic violence, described these "pre-incident" behaviors as signals. Noting that they will not be present in every case, he cautions that if a situation has several of these indicators, there is reason for concern. (deBecker, supra, at p. 174.) 1) 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. This includes threats to harm physically, to defame, to embarrass, to restrict freedom, to disclose secrets, to cut off support, to abandon, and to commit suicide. 6) He breaks or strikes things in anger. He uses symbolic violence (tearing a wedding photo, marring a face in a photo, etc.). 7) He has battered in prior relationships. 8) He uses alcohol or drugs with adverse affects (memory loss, hostility, cruelty). 9) He cites alcohol or drugs as an excuse or explanation for hostile or violent conduct ("That was the booze talking, not me: I got so drunk I was crazy"). 10) His history includes police encounters for behavioral offenses (threats, stalking, assault, battery). 11) There has been more than one incident of violent behavior (including vandalism, breaking things, throwing things). 12) He uses money to control the activities, 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, perhaps 33 using phrases like "together for life", "always", "no matter what." 16) He projects extreme emotions onto others (hate, love, jealousy, commitment) 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 actions. 26) He refers to weapons as instruments of power, control, or revenge. 27) Weapons are a substantial part of his persona: he has a gun or he talks about, jokes about, reads about, or collects weapons. 28) He uses "male privilege" as a justification for his conduct (treats her like a servant, makes all the big decisions, acts like the "master of the house". 29) He experienced or witnesses violence as a child. 30) His wife/partner fears he will injure or kill her. She has discussed this with other or has made plans to be carried out in the event of her death (e.g., designating someone to care for children). (deBecker, supra, at p. 175.) 9 9 The above list of behaviors has been used by deBecker to develop a computer program, MOSAIC-20, that assesses the deta.ils of abused spouse's situation as they report it to police (deBecker, supra, at p. 191). MOSAIC-20 is now used in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and other police departments across the country, to flag cases in which the danger of homicide is highest. (deBecker, supra, atp. 313-314.) 34 In the case at bench, Judge Nancy Weiben Stock heard evidence of a pattern of domestic violence perpetrated by the father towards the mother which is consistent with the above list of indicators associated with spousal violence and murder. These behaviors included, but were not limited to, verbal and physical abuse, arrest of the father for domestic violence, slapping incidents on at least three separate occasions, as well as statements by the mother to dispatch police in an incident of alleged violence. (In re Sydney and Justin S., supra, at pp. 6-7.) Nevertheless, the trial court declined to hear the totality of the evidence on whether the father was responsible for the death of the mother, stating this "would not be in the best interests of the children" because of considerable risk of further damaging publicity and delays in the custody decision. (In re Sydney and Justin S., supra, at pp . 9 -1 o . ) Amici believe the judge's decision inappropriately discounted concerns regarding the children's safety in favor of less important considerations such as adverse publicity and delays in the custody decision. 35 V. THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE OF BIOLOGICAL PARENTS Children 1 s safety and well-being should be the court 1 s primary concern above the previously assumed best interests of the biological parents. In determination of custody 1 the best interest standard is generally used with the underlying notion that there are two fit biological (legal) parents. In parent/non-parent disputes/ the detriment standard is used to counterbalance the biological parents greater legal right to the child. But 1 if a parent was an admitted batterer and had been found to have caused the death of the other spouse/ should the Court automatically grant custody to that surviving parent 1 given that detriment had already occurred to the children due to the loss of a parent? Should the Court look at a wide range of domestic violent behaviors of that surviving parent 1 across time 1 before making a determination of what is in the children 1 s best interests? Or 1 in the alternative/ should the Court only be concerned if the surviving spouse had been convicted of spousal abuse/ ignoring the fact that violence is rarely ever isolated? Should the Court understand that grieving children may also be traumatically bonded and express a preference to live with the surviving parent/ even if he is a batterer? Whose best interests are primary: the children or the surviving biological parent who may be a perpetrator of domestic violence? 36 The children 1 S best interests are primary and keeping them from harm 1 s way supersedes the best interests of biological parents who have a history of domestic violence. Therefore 1 amici makes the same presumption clinically as has the National Council & Family Court Judges in their 1994 Model Code on Family Violence: There should be a rebuttable presumption against sole custody or joint custody for abusive partners even if they have never directly abused their children. 10 As demonstrated in this brief/ domestic violence is harmful to children, whether they are abused or not. Therefore, domestic violence is presumed to be detrimental to children as well as not be in their best interests. To this end 1 the safety and well-being of children should be elevated above all best interest factors in those disputed custody cases where there has been a finding of 10 Regarding custody 1 the Model Code states: (Section 401) "In every proceeding where there is/ at least 1 at issue a dispute as to custody of a child 1 a determination by the court that domestic or family violence has occurred, raises a rebuttable presumption that is detrimental to the child and not in the best interests of the child to be placed in sole custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody with a perpetrator of family violence." (M::del Code, supra, at p. 33.) Given this rebuttable presumption/ the Model Code (Section 402) lists factors that should be utilized in determining custody and visitation when domestic violence has occurred. "In addition to the other factors that a court must consider in the proceeding in which the custody of a child or visitation by a parent is at issue in which the Court has made a finding of domestic or family violence: a) The Court shall consider as primary the safety and well being of the child and of the parent who is the victim of domestic or family violence/ b) The Court shall consider the perpetrator/ s history of causing physical harm, bodily injury/ assault or causing reasonable fear of physical harm/ bodily injury or assault to another person. (Model Code/ supra at p. 33)" 37 abuse by one parent of the other. A finding of domestic violence by a parent presumes detriment to the children if they reside with a batterer as a primary custodian. (In re Heather A., supra, at p. 317.) This finding compels the Court to consider, by history, both the acts and the 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. Research findings discussed in this brief indicate that domestic violence is rarely ever isolated. Thus, amici contend that discrete acts of abuse do not accurately convey the risk of continuing violence, the likely severity of future abuse, or the magnitude of fear precipitated by the composite picture of violent conduct. By shielding children from future detriment through a rebuttable presumption, the court places their best interests as primary. This prevents the perpetrator of domestic violence from benefiting from his violent, abusive conduct in cases such as spousal murder, where custody of the children may be awarded to the surviving parent. In addition to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the California legislature gave the issue of children's safety top priority in child custody decision making. 11 11 Effective January 1, 1998, Assembly Bill 200, (Kuehl) amends Sections 3004, 3011, 3020, 3161, and 3162 of the Family Code. The Legislative Counsel's Digest states: "It is also the policy of this state that the health, safety, and welfare of children shall be the court's primary concern in determining best interest of children 38 Further, in 1994, the American Bar Association recommended that children's best interests be elevated above those of biological parents who are batterers.u when making orders regarding custody or visitation, that perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to a child, and where this policy and the existing policy are in conflict, an order for custody and visitation should be made that ensures the health, safety, and welfare of the child and the safety of all family members." (California Legislature, Assembly Bill 200 (1997) paragraph 2) l 2 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 (ABA Center on Children and the Law. The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the American Bar Association. Washington, D.C., p. 15.) 39 VI. CONCLUSION Children are at great risk living with a perpetrator of domestic violence. Whether they have been abused or not, they experience the same psychological fears and may be traumatically bonded to the batterer, even expressing a preference to live with them. In the case of spousal murder, these children may suffer 11 secondary abuse 11 , adopting a pattern of emotional compliance because they may fear the penalty for misbehaving could be physical harm. However, the greatest future harm children face living with a batterer is that they will live to experience the surviving 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 helps them psychologically survive the traumas associated with domestic violence make it more likely they will grow up to be violent themselves. To prevent future detriment, children's safety and well being should be elevated above the previously assumed best interests of biological parents. And, what is most needed to insure children's protection in custody cases where there has been domestic violence is a new commitment to prioritize children's safety as an essential cornerstone of the justice system. If the justice system cannot offer these children a vision of not being with a batterer, there 40 can be no dream of a safe future for them, because the cycle of violence will continue. Dated: December 1 1997 41 Respectfully Submitted, Stephen Temko, Esq. SBN 67785 Paul Mones, Esq. SBN 128329 Attorneys for Amici DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, Stephen Temko, declare: I am over 18 years of age, and not a party to the within cause; my business address is 1666 Garnet NO. 502, San Diego, 92109. I served one copy of the attached: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF STEPHEN E. DOYNE, Ph.D., J REID MELOY, Ph.D., DON DUTTON, Ph.D., PETER JAFFE, Ph.D., PROFESSOR JANET BOWERMASTER, THE PUBLIC LAW CENTER, THE CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S LAW CENTER AND THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE on each of the following, by placing same in an envelope (or envelopes addressed (respectively) as follows: Bernie Leckie, Esq. Meserve, Mumper & Hughes 2301 Dupont Drive Suite 410 Irvine, CA 92612 Attorney for Respondent Kimberly Knill, Esq. 1461 Glenneyre Suite D Laguna Beach, CA 92651 fax 714 497 9637 tel: 714 497 8313 Attorney for Appellant Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District Division Three 925 Spurgion Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 714 558 6779 0+4 Each envelope was then, on December 1997 sealed and deposited in the United States Mail at San Diego, California, The county in which I am employed, with the postage thereon fully prepaid. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December ___ , 1997 at San Diego, California. STEPHEN TEMKO 1
United States v. Robert Holifield, A/K/A Jim Davis, A/K/A Philip Sharp, A/K/A David Jones, Robert Holifield, United States of America v. Robert A. Holifield, Robert Holifield, 53 F.3d 11, 3rd Cir. (1995)