Downloaded By: [University Nevada Reno] At: 23:14 23 February 2011
Michelle Bemiller
231
has serious emotional outcomes for children (Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Sever, 2004). Because of the seriousness of witnessing violence, states now mandate consideration of intimate partner violence in child custody proceedings (Levin & Mills, 2003). Most states, in fact, allow or require courts to consider a history of interpersonal violence as part of the criteria for determining the ‘‘best interests of the child standard’’ when determining custody (Drye, 1999; Levin & Mills, 2003). While courts are supposed to screen for the existence of IPV, this does not always happen, resulting in cases where IPV goes unnoticed or cases where victims are responsible for reporting and providing objective evidence of the existence of IPV. This is a difficult task for victims since instances of IPV are oftentimes not documented in the criminal justice system because of the victims’ decision not to file police reports or because of police failure to appropriately document such incidences. Further exacerbating the problem of identifying IPV during the custody process is the lack of education of court personnel. Due to lack of education, personnel oftentimes do not understand the traumatic effects of IPV on victims. Further contributing to women’s victimization, court personnel may question the victims’ credibility and their disclosure of abuse as untrue or exaggerated (Lemon & Jaffe, 1995; Matthews, 1999; Neustein & Lesher, 2005). This leads to many instances of IPV going unnoticed or not being appropriately dealt with in the courts. Jaffe and Geffner (1998), in fact, have asserted that identification of a history of domestic violence in child custody cases is rare and is a problematic and prevalent problem. Many researchers and activists have argued that the lack of attention paid to IPV in custody cases is the result of gender bias and corruption in family courts. Rosen and Etlin (1996), for example, found that judges were more likely to give custody of children to abusive fathers because of the assumption that battered mothers were unable to take care of themselves (i.e., could not stop the abuse) and therefore could not care for or protect their children. In an analysis of over 300 child custody cases involving allegations of child abuse across the country, Neustein and Lesher (2005) found that sexually and physically abusive fathers were awarded primary custody of children 100% of the time. Their findings pointed to a family court system that is corrupt and biased against women. These researchers document cases where mothers’ allegations of abuse are viewed as the rantings of mentally unstable, angry divorcees who want to get even with their husbands for the divorce.