October: Domestic Violence Awareness Month
The Urgent Need for Better Judicial Training

By Melissa Levine-Piro, Esq. and Sydney Young, Esq.

Hera Law Group recognizes October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Each October is a chance to re-dedicate ourselves to ending abuse, in its many forms, as well as honoring those who we have lost to domestic abuse and listening to those who have survived. While public awareness and advocacy around domestic violence has grown immensely in the past few decades, one significant area continues to lag behind: the judicial system’s understanding and handling of domestic violence cases.

The Hidden Complexity of Domestic Violence Cases

While Massachusetts has recently updated its definition of abuse, under M.G.L. s. 209(a), to include coercive control, there appears to be a disconnect between legislation and implementation in Courts. Domestic violence is not only an isolated incident or a bruise left on skin; it’s a pattern of coercive control in which survivors often grapple with complex emotional, financial, and physical obstacles which make leaving the relationship both dangerous and difficult. However, the understanding of the realty that survivors of abuse face on a daily basis is often misunderstood or minimized in courtrooms.

Judges are given immense power in determining custody arrangements, visitation schedules, abuse prevention orders, criminal sentencing and a variety of other decisions which can greatly affect the lives of survivors and their children. A lack of proper training on domestic violence and its effects is not only necessary in determining an outcome in a case, but can inadvertently endanger victims or allow abusers to manipulate the legal system as another tool of control.

In a recent family court case where Hera Law Group represented the mother, the mother’s efforts to protect her child nearly resulted in a loss of custody. After the child disclosed allegations of physical abuse by the father to multiple mandated reporters, including teachers and law enforcement, the mother filed a request to modify custody and suspend the father’s parenting time, pending further investigation. Two separate investigations were conducted by court-appointed professionals, both recommending that any contact between the father and child occur only after therapeutic intervention.

Despite these recommendations, the presiding judge ordered unsupervised visitation in a public setting, while a criminal investigation into the alleged abuse was still ongoing. During these visits, the child reported feeling pressured by the father not to testify in the criminal case against him, highlighting the risk of such an order.

After the father was later acquitted at trial, the Court cautioned the mother that continuing to express concerns about the father’s past and present behavior could result in an immediate trial on the merits, with the insinuation that father might be granted sole custody of the child. Fearing the worst, the mother withdrew her complaint.

This case is a prime example of judicial discretion in family courts. While most judges carefully uphold the best interests of children, some decisions , like those made in this case, may harm families, rather than protect them.

The Gaps in Judicial Training

Despite decades of research and advocacy on domestic violence, many judges receive minimal or inconsistent information on the dynamics of domestic abuse. Even if judges are given training, if may be incomplete, outdated, or fail to address the intersection of trauma, abuse, and the best interests of children. Judges who are unfamiliar with trauma responses may incorrectly misinterpret a survivor’s fear, hesitation, or something as small as a lack of eye contact as dishonesty. Further, it’s not uncommon for Judges to question survivors on why they didn’t contact authorities, why they didn’t leave their alleged abuser, or why they allowed their alleged abuser to be around the children. Without a comprehensive understanding of domestic violence and its effects on survivors, family court can become a breeding ground of victim-blaming.

Further, oftentimes in family court there is an incorrect assumption that abuse ends when a couple separates or divorces or that shared custody is always in the child’s best interest, regardless of whether one parent was/is abusive or not. Oftentimes, abusers will shared children with a survivor to further manipulate and control the survivor. Family court can turn into another weapon in an abuser’s arsenal to abuse the survivor. Just because a parentis not physically abusive to their child, does not negate the lasting and traumatic effects of witnessing abuse of one parent against the other, nor does it make that person safe to be around a child.

The Real-World Consequences

The above-referenced misconceptions, stereotypes, and misinformation can have devastating outcomes. Survivors may be denied protective orders, lose custody of their children, or be forced into never-ending litigation with their abuser. Further, children can be placed in dangerous situations because the court has failed to recognize patterns of coercive control and the risks that come with post-separation abuse. Without comprehensive judicial training, the courtroom can become yet another site of re-victimization, rather than what it was intended to be – a place of justice and safety.

Moving Toward a Trauma-Informed Judiciary

In order to support survivors and protect the best interests of their children, there must be mandatory, trauma-informed judicial trainings of judges in all courthouses. These trainings should address:

The psychological and behavioral impacts of domestic violence;
The different types of abuse, including financial, physical, sexual, and coercive control, both in romantic relationships and those between parents and children;
Post-separation abuse;
The effect of domestic abuse on children;
The importance of survivor-centered and culturally competent approaches in court cases.

Judges should understand how the legal system can help or hurt survivors, especially with the decisions they make.

A Call to Action

Domestic Violence Awareness Month reminds us that domestic violence is far more pervasive than what occurs behind closed doors. It’s reach is vast and often enters courthouses, a place where people are meant to be protected. In order prevent domestic violence, it requires a legal system which is informed and compassionate to the intricate complexities of domestic violence. It requires judiciaries that are both fair and educated, as well as able to recognize the impact its decisions have on the lives of survivors. Training judges isn’t just a procedural improvement; it’s a moral imperative.

Contact Hera Law Group
978-637-2048
www.heralawgroup.com