“The System Had Choked Me Too”: Abused Mothers’ Perceptions of the Custody Determination Process That Resulted in Negative Custody Outcomes

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem that continues to affect abused mothers after separation from an abusive partner. In addition to the risk of ongoing control and violence by abusers, the custody determination process may present challenges for mothers who end up with negative custody outcomes (e.g., share custody with abusers or lose custody). Using constructivist grounded theory techniques, we conducted a qualitative analysis of interviews with 24 abused mothers with negative custody outcomes to understand how they perceive and make sense of the process as a whole, and how they cope with these outcomes. The custody determination process was reportedly complex and stressful, and most mothers did not anticipate a negative custody outcome. Mothers' perceptions and experiences followed three phases: " trusting "the system" to protect them and their children, adapting to "the system" in search of positive outcomes, and, once custody decisions were determined, coping with the aftermath of the judicial system process, either by accepting or resisting the outcome. This study echoes previous calls for further training and policies that make the custody determination process less burdensome and harmful for survivors and their children.

Future Directions in Intimate Partner Violence Research: An Intersectionality Framework for Analyzing Women’s Processes of Leaving Abusive Relationships

“…Research documents that abused women actively account for their roles as mothers and the role of the abuser as a father or father figure throughout the leaving processes (Khaw & Hardesty, 2015). Specifically, gendered ideologies that focus on mothers as devoted to the care of others (Seeman et al, 2013) suggest that decision-making in the process of leaving may be especially challenging for women who are held socially responsible for their children's safety and well-being (Ateah et al, 2016;Kelly, 2009;Khaw et al, 2018;Seeman et al, 2013).…”

A Socioecological Perspective on Intimate Partner Violence Research: A Decade in Review

“…Also relevant to postseparation recovery, studies documented abused women's experiences of secondary victimization as a result of their interactions with family courts (Khaw, Bermea, Hardesty, Saunders, & Whittaker, ; Rivera, Sullivan, & Zeoli, ). Secondary victimization emanates from negative or unresponsive behaviors of professionals and has been linked to PTSD and low self‐esteem in sexual assault survivors (see Rivera et al, ) and depression in IPV victims in criminal cases (Cattaneo & Goodman, ).…”

“…Abused mothers with negative family court experiences (e.g., dismissive or victim‐blaming attitudes) described a process of trusting, adapting to, and coping with “the system” as they became disillusioned by marginalization and disempowerment. Because of these experiences, they did not perceive family courts as a viable source of protection in the future (Khaw et al, ; Rivera et al, ). More studies are needed to understand the factors (e.g., individual agency, IPV characteristics, judicial training, custody outcomes) and experiences (e.g.…”

A Systematic Review of the Use of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) to Assess Implicit Biases Held by Professionals Toward Client Populations

“…An extension of the studies included in this review might evaluate populations in which negative biases held by professionals jeopardize client safety and punish future help-seeking behaviors. For example, victim/survivors of IPV report experiencing secondary victimization, in the form of negative or indifferent treatment, from social welfare workers, law enforcement, judiciary, and even providers of counseling services (Khaw et al, 2018; Overstreet & Quinn, 2013; Saunders et al, 2005). Studies on attitudes toward victims of IPV support the presence of and the impact of negative biases held by professionals positioned to assist these clients (Kafka et al, 2019; Naughton et al, 2015; Perrin, 2017).…”