Introduction: contact and domestic abuse

Abstract

This article introduces the special issue of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law on contact disputes and allegations of domestic abuse. It first describes the aims and findings of the International Symposium on Contact Disputes and Allegations of Domestic Violence-Identifying Best Practices at which the papers in the special issue were originally presented. It then outlines the position in England and Wales regarding allegations of domestic abuse in child arrangements cases, highlighting the difference between the 'law in the books' and the 'law in action'. Thirdly, it discusses the research evidence on another prominent international approach to domestic abuse allegationslegislative presumptions against custody or unsupervised visitation/contact for abusive parents. The experience of presumptions in the USA and New Zealand suggests that a similar gap between 'law in the books' and 'law in action' exists, together with potential problems of legislative drafting. Finally, the article outlines the contributions of the other papers in the special issue to our understanding of international approaches to ensuring safety for children and resident parents in family proceedings where allegations of domestic abuse are raised.

Children Exposed to Violence: Child Custody and its Effects on Children in Intimate Partner Violence Related Cases in Hungary

“…The study’s findings reinforce that institutions may pay less attention to these abusive behaviours than they would necessitate in order for the mothers and children to be safe (Elizabeth et al 2010 , Saunders 2017 , Heward-Belle 2017 ). Considering that this is a completely new research area in Hungary with no previous study with this focus, further research is needed to fully verify that in Hungary, as in other countries (Bancroft and Silverman 2002 ; Elizabeth 2017 ; Holt 2018 ; Hunter et al 2018 ), a history of IPV is a most likely predictor of malevolent custody and contact litigation. The study also indicates that in order to provide better support to children and mothers harmed by continued post-separation abuse, the very concept of coercive control and custody stalking may be imperative to introduce within the Hungarian professional and research community.…”

“…In this way, professional bodies such as the guardianship office, police or child welfare agencies, can be employed as weapons of institutional violence against the mother (Hester 2011 ; Holt 2017 ). In some cases, the threats or accusations that the abuser engages in to obtain custody and visitation rights becomes the primary instrument for maintaining the abuse of the mother (Holt 2018 ; Hunter et al 2018 ).…”

“…In many cases the underlying assumption (Holt 2018 ; Hunter et al 2018 ) of authorities seems to be that a child’s best interest is served when both parents are involved in child rearing activities. Decisions based on this assumption and granting custody or visitation to the abusive parent, even where was not involved in child care before the separation, provides perpetrators with a channel to maintain coercive control over the mother (Elizabeth 2017 ).…”

“…This is defined as a malevolent process involving fathers who use the custodial or legal process to overturn the historic patterns of sharing responsibilities and care of children in order to extend their control over the children and thus the mothers (Elizabeth 2017 ). Custody stalking is still not well recognized and is often invisible to professionals as well (Elizabeth 2017 ; Holt 2018 ; Hunter et al 2018 ).…”

Domestic Abuse and Post‐separation Contact: Promoting Evidence‐informed Practice

“…An international symposium held on 4–5 May 2017 at the Inner Temple in London, aimed to identify best practices for dealing with allegations of domestic abuse in family law proceedings concerning post‐separation arrangements for children. It also highlighted issues which persisted across those jurisdictions (Hunter et al ., 2018). The evidence generated from that symposium highlights three powerful assumptions driving an overwhelming international pro‐contact discourse and practice.…”