“How they look at it is not how I lived it”: How Research, Policy, and Practice Regarding Family Court Child Custody Decision-making Erase Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2023Approximately 10-15% of separating families have contested child custody arrangements that require dispute resolution (mediation and/or litigation) with 40-80% of those cases involving intimate partner violence (IPV) allegations. For families that require dispute resolution, courts have substantial intervention and decision-making power regarding child custody. Guided by an intersectional, critical framework, this three-paper dissertation examines the institution of contemporary family courts, which have positioned themselves as neutral arbiters in custody conflicts despite evidence to the contrary. This dissertation interrogates how the structural and ideological underpinnings of family court influence knowledge, processes, and outcomes – from determining what becomes codified in law, to formal and informal standards of practice, and subsequently, the patterns of response to individuals who are court-involved. The overarching aim is to study the ways in which inequities may be perpetuated through institutional processes as courts respond to child custody cases involving IPV. Doing so sheds light on ways to redress inequities currently produced and reproduced via the courts and identify potential targets for reform at the institutional and policy level. Paper one is a critical review of literature, focused on identifying the evidence, policies and practices that guide custody decision-making in cases involving IPV, and influence how IPV is viewed by the courts. Paper two is a conceptual analysis of the prevailing custody standard applied by courts -- determining what is in the “best interest of the child” (BIC). This paper examines whether and how applying an intersectional lens to the BIC standard reveals previously unarticulated inequities in family court processes when IPV is alleged, across identities of motherhood, gender, race, and class. Paper three is a qualitative examination of how IPV survivors engaged in mothering within the constrained context of ongoing IPV and custody disputes, and how institutional responses to their mothering reflect structural biases and institutional norms in the application of the BIC standard. Together, findings across these studies underscore the critical need for empirical research on child custody determination processes, decisions, and outcomes for families experiencing IPV to guide policy and practice. Evident from this dissertation were the unacknowledged (racialized, classed, and gendered) assumptions about motherhood/fatherhood and IPV that underly custody determinations, and the disparate impact this can have on marginalized families. This points to the need for an intersectional approach to research, policy, and practice in this area. Specifically, for family courts and other interconnected institutions (e.g., child welfare) to be true to mandates of justice and representing children’s best interests, they will need to interrogate current structures, standards, and assumptions and develop responsive policies and practices that aim to rectify inequities. As this dissertation illustrates, in their efforts to achieve what they believe to be equality, the courts erase IPV and its dynamics, with inequitable outcomes for marginalized families