a 9 year old boy covered in blood of his murdered mother. Aunt of a 14-month-old child shot dead in front of his nephew. Both of these horrific tragedies, allegedly perpetrated by fathers with known violent histories, occurred during a custody exchange this year. These murders were not isolated or unpredictable; these were predictable consequences of a legal system that forces victims of domestic violence to comply with joint custody orders. As we celebrate Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we must ask: Why do aggressive men with a history of violence still have access to their children? So what can we do to prevent this dangerous practice?

Surprisingly, family courts grant joint or sole custody to fathers accused of domestic violence. 70 percent of the time. People who allege abuse are also often given unsupervised parenting time as long as their children are not directly targeted. Even when supervision is necessary, it is usually done by a family member in the privacy of the abuser’s home.

Over the past several decades, courts have increasingly favored joint legal custody even if one parent has a history of severe abuse, and many states have held so. “Friendly parent” laws These emphasize shared parenting and punish parents who resist. Fathers exposed to domestic violence twice as likely seeking custody, using the courts as a tool to maintain continued control over their victims.

A recent example of the consequences of these trends made national headlines: Rachel Pickrel-Hawkins was jailed by a family court judge in Colorado. refusing to comply with a detention order This gave her ex-husband time to parent, even though he had been accused of sexually assaulting their daughter. Although these facts are extreme, the judge’s unwitting commitment to joint custody did not surprise advocates of domestic violence prevention.

Research shows that abusers often target children after separation. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that children in homes with domestic violence are 15 times more likely to be physically abused or neglected. A study conducted in 2019 The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, found that in 78 percent of cases where child abuse was later confirmed, the judge initially rejected the mother’s allegations.

Kayden Mancuso’s trial The incident in Philadelphia was particularly tragic. Despite convincing testimony from his mother and therapist about his father’s dangerous behavior, the family court judge still ordered the father to receive unsupervised parenting time. Kayden died as the victim of what police called his father’s murder-suicide. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, in the past 15 years, more than 900 children involved in contested custody cases have been killed, many by abusive fathers. At least 58,000 children They are currently living in dangerous homes due to detention orders.

However, despite its shortcomings, the judicial system is also where we find hope. If we take what we know from research and apply it on the front lines, we can avoid some of these counterintuitive outcomes. To do this, we must make it a priority to fund comprehensive, mandatory, and continuing education on domestic violence for judges and court staff presiding over family law cases. California is leading the way legislation In 2023, members of the judiciary and referees working on domestic violence or child custody issues will be required to attend training on “coercive control”.

We must also abandon the judicial presumption in favor of joint custody. A one-size-fits-all approach Custody is completely wrong, especially in cases where there is an unbalanced power dynamic between the parents. A legal presumption pressures victims to agree to whatever the abuser demands rather than going to court. Why would a victim subject themselves to a painful, humiliating battle in court when the burden of handling joint custody is so heavy?

Third, we need to give more teeth to our custody legislation on domestic violence. Last year California lawmakers added “psychologically damaging and coercive control” as admissible evidence in family court hearings On the question of “best interest of the child”. And as a result of Kayden Mancuso’s case, Pennsylvania passed this year Kayden’s LawThis requires courts to conduct a comprehensive assessment of any history of abuse or violence and make clear findings regarding the safety of proposed parenting plans.

Finally, we must fund third-party monitoring services that will enable victims to safely comply with shared parenting plans. The federal government has allocated grants Attempts were made to create such programs under the Violence Against Women Act in 2000, but there remains a shocking lack. Here, New York state takes the lead Pending legislation that would fund free supervision services at third-party agencies for families involved in family court.

In the 30 years since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, the United States has made some progress in recognizing and criminalizing domestic violence. What we have not done is the much more difficult work of verifying the existence of coercive and controlling behavior and addressing its consequences, particularly in the context of child custody. Regarding domestic violence deaths and injuries is a direct result of minimizing victims’ claims and categorically supporting the right to joint custody. Time will tell whether the latest legal reforms will work, but we should not wait to implement them nationwide. Children’s lives are at stake.

Dale Margolin Cecka He is an assistant professor at Albany Law School and director of the Domestic Violence Litigation Clinic. She is a former Skadden Fellow of the Legal Aid Society of New York, where she advocated for pregnant and parenting teens and adolescents aging out of foster care.

Management‘s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors; Managementeditors or management.