Intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a widespread social problem with serious physical and mental health consequences for women and their children (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Golding, 1999; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). For many women, the abuse continues after the relationship ends. When women share children with their abuser, separation can be difficult and complex, and family court often intervenes to decide legal custody. Research indicates that family court may be dismissing abuse allegations and failing to make custody decisions that take women's and children's safety into account. Women who experience less physical abuse may be more likely to feel dismissed, as courts require evidence to make their decisions. Because determining custody is complex, alternative court processes have been promoted for use during divorces involving children. However, there is an ongoing debate on the applicability of these services in the context of IPA. Further, women may feel revictimized by the court system, in addition to being at risk for post-separation abuse by their assailant. My thesis is a mixed-method study designed to understand women's experiences with custody negotiation. Based on a sample of nineteen abused mothers, we found that conciliators inconsistently and rarely took abuse into account in their custody recommendations. Actions of the father--whether he was belligerent during the meeting or did not want custody--had the most significance in custody decisions. Women described the conciliation process as disempowering, facilitating post-separation abuse, and as a secondary victimizing experience. Implications and recommendations for family court are discussed.
Read
