Content uploaded by Daniel Pollack
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Pollack on Nov 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
COMMENTARY
It takes a community to curb child abuse
Elisa Reiter and Daniel Pollack｜ November 7, 2024
Every state has had its particularly infamous child abuse case. In New York, it was
Elisa Izquierdo. In Georgia, it was Terrell Peterson. The professional and societal
reaction to these monstrous events was to immediately put ‘the system’ under a
microscope. What went wrong? Who’s to blame? The courts? Child Protective
Services? What policies and procedures should be changed? Was there inadequate
funding? Some critics were quick to inundate the public with catch phrase answers
such as the need for “strategic multi-agency development” and “best practices.”
While no one is advocating that these questions should not be asked and answered,
the more important focus is the underlying context in which the abuse is taking
place – the breakdown of community. Government is not a substitute for
2
community any more than it is a substitute for family. Nor can the government
build community.
Never has the world of instant gratification been more accessible. Hop onto the
internet and whatever you want can be delivered to your doorstep, often within
hours. While this short-term game works for products, such immediacy cannot be
applied to fostering a sense of communal interpersonal responsibility. Just the
opposite.
It is crucial to recognize that family court judges, despite their best efforts, cannot
anticipate every need or scenario that may arise in a child’s life. This limitation
underscores the importance of individuals stepping up to care for children in need
within their communities. The legal system, while necessary, is not a panacea for
all child welfare issues.
The question of whether one prior conviction of domestic violence merits
legislation prohibiting a parent from seeing their children should be subject to strict
scrutiny. Laws like Abrial’s Law, Piqui’s Law, and Kayden’s Law, while well-
intentioned, have had varying impacts on the communities where such legislative
reforms have been enacted. These laws, designed to protect children from abusive
parents, have sparked debates about the need for balance between child safety and
parental rights.
In communities where such legislation has been enacted, there have been both
positive and negative consequences. While these laws aim to protect children, they
may also serve to separate children from parents who have genuinely reformed or
who were wrongly accused. The impact on families and communities can be
3
profound, potentially leading to increased single-parent households, children in
foster care, or individuals who are barred from serving as foster parents because of
something that happened decades previously. It is self-evident that proponents of
such legislation argue that these laws are mandated to prevent tragic outcomes, and
to prioritize child safety above all other considerations.
Lenore Skenazy addresses the teeter-totter that is the balance between protecting
children and allowing them independence: “A child who can fend for himself is a
lot safer than one forever coddled, because the coddled child will not have Mom or
Dad around all the time, even though that’s what they are counting on.”
Overprotection of children may actually make them less safe in the long run.
Skenazy’s philosophy challenges the notion that stringent protective measures
always result in improved child safety, instead advocating for a more balanced
approach that fosters resilience and self-reliance in children.
Do children want to be with an abusive parent? Sometimes, yes. Is it the job of
court appointed advocates to communicate the child’s desires to the court? Yes.
The debate around child custody evaluations and certain labels frequently attached
to family court proceedings has become increasingly contentious in recent
years. Some experts and advocates, like Joan Meier, argue for significant reforms
to how courts handle allegations of abuse and alienation in custody cases. Parental
alienation syndrome, so frequently asserted over the last 40 years, is suddenly
being cast as the Voldemort of custody work – that “which should not be named.”
However, Meier, and many others, simply note that no concept that lacks scientific
validity, and which may in fact be misused, should be relied on regarding
something as crucial as the best interests and safety of children.
4
Critics of current practices contend that child advocates and custody evaluators
may lack proper training in domestic violence dynamics or may rely on discredited
theories. Such critics contend that such issues may lead to unsafe custody
outcomes involving abuse allegations. By contrast, proponents of maintaining the
appointment of child advocates (ad litems, amicus attorneys, guardians ad litem)
and custody evaluators argue that such professionals provide valuable insights to
help judges make informed decisions in complex cases. Those proponents maintain
that eliminating such roles entirely would deprive courts of important perspectives
on children’s needs and family dynamics.
The push to reform family court practices reflects a broader debate about how to
best protect children’s safety and wellbeing, while also respecting the
Constitutional due process to which a parent is entitled. Some jurisdictions have
moved to implement new training requirements or guidelines for custody
evaluators and for attorneys who are court appointed to represent children in order
to address concerns about trauma-informed advocacy, bias, and/or insufficient
expertise as to the impact of domestic violence. As the debate continues, many
experts reflect the need for active listening to the voices of children, and the impact
of children’s experiences. Some judges find value in speaking directly with
children in appropriate cases, allowing children to share their perspectives in
chambers in a safe, non-adversarial setting. Children have voices that can and
should be heard as to whether and how to spend time with their parents.
Ultimately, the challenge lies in crafting legislation that protects children while
also allowing judges to give nuanced consideration to each individual case that
comes before them. Such a balance is crucial to ensure that the legal system serves
5
its purpose of protecting the vulnerable without unduly punishing those parents
who may deserve a second chance, served their time for prior bad conduct, and/or
who have been rehabilitated. Pendulums swing in societal and legal trends, and the
natural inclination is to try to redress perceived wrongs through legislation. As this
pendulum swings, it is important to remember that overly rigid laws can sometimes
create new injustices in the process of correcting old ones. The ideal approach
would combine strong protections for children with the flexibility for judges to
consider the unique circumstances of each family. This might necessitate
comprehensive legal training for court personnel on domestic violence and child
abuse dynamics, while still maintaining the valuable perspectives provided by
child advocates and qualified custody evaluators. Establishing ombudsman
programs that provide mechanisms for regular review and adjustment of custody
arrangements as families evolve might also be considered. What are our goals? To
assure a system that prioritizes children’s safety and wellbeing, respects the rights
and potential for change in parents, and understands the complex, nuanced nature
of interpersonal family relationships that are rooted in community.
Elisa Reiter, a Senior Attorney with Calabrese Budner, LLP in Dallas, Texas, is
Board Certified in Family Law and in Child Welfare Law by the Texas Board of
Legal Specialization. She has served as an Adjunct Professor at SMU. She is also
admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New York.
Contact: elisa@calabresebudner.com.
Daniel Pollack, MSW, JD is a professor at Yeshiva University’s School of Social
Work in New York City. He was also a Commissioner of Game Over:
Commission to Protect Youth Athletes, an independent blue-ribbon commission
6
created to examine the institutional responses to sexual grooming and abuse by
former USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar. Contact: dpollack@yu.edu.
Original link: https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/11/07/it-takes-a-
community-to-curb-child-abuse/