J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9511-3
PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR AT-RISK CHILDREN
Speaking for Themselves: Hope for Children Caught in High
Conflict Custody and Access Disputes Involving Domestic
Violence
Sarah Fotheringham & Jean Dunbar & Dale Hensley
Published online: 1 May 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The Speaking for Themselves (SFT) project
sought to enhance the physical, emotional, and psycho-
logical safety of children exposed to domestic violence
and high conflict custody and access disputes. Children
were provided with both a trauma therapist and a law-
yer, in an attempt to ensure their well-being while
providing decision-makers with reliable and authentic
information about these children’s circumstances. This
project was an attempt to balance the “best interests”
approach applied in family law decision-making with
the value placed on a child’s right to be heard, an
approach espoused by children’s rights advocates. This
article presents the SFT philosophy, model program, and
evaluation results.
Keywords High conflict . Custody and access . Domestic
violence . Best interest . Children’s rights
With the permission of Irwin Law, this paper borrows from and builds
on an earlier published work entitled “Speaking for Themselves: A
Pilot Program Balancing Children’s Rights and Best Interests in High-
Conflict Families,” which appears in Children and the Law: Essays in
Honour of Professor Nicholas Bala (ed. Sanjeev Anand, Irwin Law
2011). Excerpts quoted directly are referenced to the relevant page
number of the earlier paper.
S. Fotheringham (*) : J. Dunbar
YWCA of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
e-mail: sffother@ucalgary.ca
S. Fotheringham
Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary,
Calgary, AB, Canada
D. Hensley
Children’s Legal and Educational Resource Center, Calgary,
AB, Canada
Children exposed to their parents’ high conflict custody and
access disputes involving domestic abuse1 experience sig-
nificant trauma including stress, depression, social isolation,
academic challenges, suicidal tendencies, aggressive behavior,
and self-harm (Bream and Buchanan 2003; Dalton et al. 2003;
Jaffe et al. 2003; Kelly and Emery 2003). Decisions about
these children’s residency, custody, and access/parenting or
visitation2 are frequently made in the context of the family
law system and therefore involve lawyers, courts, and judges.
Often, such decisions are made with insufficient information
about the children and the dynamics of domestic violence,
with few supporting resources for families. Judges and others
involved in the legal system are frequently faced with a contest
between parent “he said/she said” situations, with little focus
on the welfare of the children or the added dimensions of
power, abuse, and control. The decisions in these multilayered
and complex cases are often not beneficial to the children
(Hensley and Dunbar 2011, p. 225).
Professionals working with these families are often chal-
lenged and frustrated. Counselors struggle with providing the
necessary support, guidance, information, and advocacy for
children whose parents are in bitter family law disputes.
Lawyers often do not have sufficient resources, reliable infor-
mation, or appropriate skills to provide adequate legal and
social support to the children. Typically, children’s best inter-
ests become buried in the rhetoric of parents’ statements and
positions. As a result, those involved in family law litigation
and systems often have little information and therefore insuffi-
cient regard to the true circumstances and needs of the children
trapped in these situations (Hensley and Dunbar 2011, p. 226).
1
We use domestic violence, domestic abuse, family violence, and
abuse interchangeably.
2
Throughout this paper these terms are referred to as custody and
access/parenting or one or the other alone. Parenting is the language of
Alberta’s Family Law Act; custody and access appears in Canada’s
divorce legislation and case law.
312
There are no easy solutions to these legal conflicts, and
disagreements have developed in many jurisdictions as to
how to manage and resolve the disputes and how best to
assist and support the children in these families. Should
services for children take a best-interests approach,
reflecting an adult’s opinion of conditions that will promote
a child’s development, well-being, and safety, but not nec-
essarily including consultation with the child or reflection of
the child’s perspective? Or, should an advocacy approach
prevail, whereby a child’s perspectives, opinions, interests,
and right to be heard are respected and promoted, but which
may not address a child’s best interests, and some argue,
could result in harm to the child? Can both objectives be
served? This article describes the Speaking for Themselves
project, which sought to integrate both approaches by offering
both therapeutic counseling and legal representation for chil-
dren enmeshed in their parents’ bitter and adversarial parent-
ing disputes in which domestic abuse or allegations thereof
were also present (Hensley and Dunbar 2011, p. 226).
Literature Review
Domestic Violence
Domestic violence remains one of the most complex and
challenging social issues of our day. Despite positive de-
velopments in practice and policy, domestic violence con-
tinues to be an extraordinarily prevalent and unique social
issue in which one’s gender plays a key role. Statistics
Canada (2011) reported that while self-reported incidents
of domestic violence remain relatively equal between gen-
ders (6 % of Canadians in the last 5 years), police-reported
data do not reflect this trend. In 2008, over 40,000 incidents
of domestic violence were recorded by police departments
across the country, with women victimized in 83 % of cases
(Statistics Canada 2009). Women are more likely to be in-
jured, experience multiple victimizations, and endure more
severe forms of violence such as sexual assault, choking, and
threats with a knife or gun (Statistics Canada 2011).
Furthermore, women continue to be at greater risk for homi-
cide by their male partner (up to four times higher) – a finding
that has been consistent for 30 years (Statistics Canada 2011).
Children, once thought to be silent, unaffected observers
and passive bystanders in situations of domestic violence,
are also significantly impacted both as witnesses to parental
violence and as direct victims of abuse or neglect. The
Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect (2010) reported that neglect (34 % or 28,938 chil-
dren), exposure to domestic violence (34 % or 29,259 chil-
dren), and physical abuse (20 % or 17,212 children) were
the three most common forms of substantiated child mal-
treatment in Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
2010). The impact of living in such a home environment
can be particularly detrimental, because children are depen-
dent on their parents for protection, emotional and physical
safety, nurturance, and well-being (Holt et al. 2008; Osofsky
2003; Spilsbury et al. 2007). When parents fail or are unable
to protect and nurture their children, children can become
extremely anxious, distressed, frightened, and physically
and/or emotionally injured, impacting both short and long-
term outcomes (Holden 2003; Holt et al. 2008; Kitzmann et
al. 2003; Levendosky et al. 2002; Margolin and Vickerman
2007; Osofsky 2003).
Neglect, abuse, and witnessing domestic violence burden
children with acute and chronic traumatic stress, which
research has shown weakens the biological structure of the
developing brain, affecting learning capacity as well as
physical and mental health (Anda et al. 2006; Perry and
Hambrick 2008; Shonkoff 2009). The longer term impact of
these violent circumstances can affect children’s develop-
mental outcomes over the course of their lives, resulting in
challenges with addiction, violence, mental health, and
physical illness (Felitti 2009; Perry 2006).
Despite the obvious impact of domestic abuse on women
and children, many women find it difficult to leave their
abusive partners. Among the reasons cited are fear of in-
creased violence, fear of losing children through custody
disputes or to child protection agencies, embarrassment and
shame, lack of emotional support, and/or lack of affordable
housing and financial stability (Tutty 2006). Yet, for many
women who do leave their abusive partners, the abuse does
not end upon separation. In fact, domestic abuse, both lethal
and nonlethal, often increases during separation and divorce
as the abusive partner becomes more desperate for control
(Brownridge 2006; Brownridge et al. 2008; Doyne et al.
1999; Jaffe et al. 2008). Common experiences for women
following separation from abusive partners include threats
of physical harm and/or child abduction, financial abuse (i.e.,
restricting or removing access to funds or child support; Jaffe
et al. 2003), as well as sexual assault, stalking, and homicide
(Hotton 2001). According to the Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics, approximately one-quarter of abuse victims (24 %)
indicated that the abuse became more severe after separation,
and an additional 39 % reported that the abuse started only
after separation (Hotton 2001). Other Canadian studies have
demonstrated similar results. In a nationally representative
sample of 7,369 women, separated women reported being
victims of domestic abuse nine times more frequently than
married women (Brownridge et al. 2008).
Separation, however, is but one risk factor for increasing
levels of violence against women. In a review of the
postseparation divorce literature, Brownridge (2006) con-
cluded that the presence of children is another. According to
Brownridge, the presence of children poses a risk factor for
continued and increasing levels of abuse after separation in
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
four important ways: (a) when abusive men use custody and
access as a means to maintain power and to punish their ex-
partner; (b) when men feel their former partner is
obstructing access (often in the context of unpaid child
support); (c) in access and visitation situations which usu-
ally increase contact between the parents and provide op-
portunities for ongoing abuse; and (d) when children are
used as a tool for violence through threats of harm or
abduction. Others have drawn similar conclusions (Elrod
2002; Jaffe et al. 2003).
Domestic abuse, separation, and the presence of children
often create high-risk situations which then come before the
courts. The courtroom and litigation procedures are inher-
ently competitive and adversarial, providing opportunity for
ongoing control and abuse (Dalton et al. 2003; Kelly 2002).
Moloney (2006) articulated how this adversarial process
“model[s] inappropriate ways of dealing with postseparation
conflict…[through] denigration of the other parent and a
win-lose mentality” (p. 42). In litigation, interparental con-
flict is greatly increased rather than dissipated. Former part-
ners who are abusive are able to exert ongoing control and
harassment as well as continued emotional and psycholog-
ical abuse through contesting custody arrangements with the
intent to punish or hurt their former partners and their
children (Doyne et al. 1999; Elrod 2002; Jaffe et al. 2003).
Research has demonstrated that this continued abuse and
violence during separation and divorce, as well as the
lengthy and protracted processes and an adversarial ap-
proach to resolution, are critical predictors of child malad-
justment (Ayoub et al. 1999; Bream and Buchanan 2003;
Doyne et al. 1999; Elrod 2002, 2007; Grych 2005; Kelly
2000; Lansford 2009; Moloney 2006). Sample data collect-
ed from detailed mental health evaluation reports of 105
children who were involved in visitation and custody dis-
putes found that level of marital conflict, abuse against
partner and child, parent’s mental health, and changes in
visitation significantly contributed to a child’s emotional
distress (Ayoub et al. 1999).
Domestic Abuse, High Conflict Custody and Access
in Court
A significant problem in attempting to integrate high con-
flict custody and access disputes with domestic abuse is that
the divorce (custody) literature has developed separately
from and often in conflict with the domestic violence liter-
ature (Doyne et al. 1999; Jaffe et al. 2003). The divorce
literature emphasizes both the benefit to children of co-
parenting, in which both parents maintain a relationship
with their children, and the negative impact on children of
interparental conflict (Birnbaum 2006). In contrast, the do-
mestic violence literature is concerned with co-parenting
fraught with conflict and abuse, as it damages children
313
emotionally and physically, and increases their risk of harm
(Jaffe et al. 2008; Perry 2006; Perry and Hambrick 2008).
The divorce literature, often without regard to situations of
abuse, encourages parents to promote positive relations with
the other partner, which in a domestic violence situation
may put them and their children in serious danger (Doyne
et al. 1999). Jaffe et al. (2008) summarized this state of
affairs:
Part of the problem lies in the philosophy of the
Family Court, which encourages parents to resolve
conflict by putting the past behind them…while this
approach is appropriate for the nonviolent majority, it
is often contraindicated for abuse victims…the grow-
ing support for co-parenting and the growing aware-
ness of domestic violence are on a collision course
when it is time for Family Court. (p. 255)
As a result of this rift and divergent approaches and
vision, the significance of domestic violence is often
overlooked or minimized in family law litigation and court
systems (Jaffe et al. 2003). While there is some evidence of
this changing, including increased understanding of the
effects and risks of harm from domestic abuse on children,
family law professionals often still fail to appropriately
respond to indications that they are dealing with a domestic
abuse situation, and consequently, children are endangered
(Shaffer and Bala 2004). In response to the minimization of
domestic violence and the risk to children, many have called
for greater involvement of children in the family court
system (Birnbaum 2006), representing what has been la-
beled as the children’s rights perspective. However, others
oppose this stance, supporting instead the traditional best
interest approach.
In an extensive review of the literature for the Department
of Justice Canada, Birnbaum (2009) outlined this debate.
According to Birnbaum’s review, children’s rights advocates
believe children should be entitled to participate in decisions
that affect their lives. Supporters such as Elrod (2007), and
Boshier and Steel-Baker (2007) have argued that children’s
right to participate in decisions affecting their lives is founded
on the value of human dignity. This value is upheld by the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
is grounded in the belief that children are not property; they
are human beings with agency and rights, and these rights
must be respected for children to develop to their full potential
(Unicef 2008). Article 12 of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child specifically addresses children’s
right to be heard in decisions affecting their lives. It states that,
“Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his
or her own views the right to express those views freely in all
matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given
due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the
child” (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
314
Human Rights 2007, Article 12). In other words, when adults
are making decisions that affect children, children have the
right to say what they think should happen and (commensu-
rate with their age and maturity) have their opinions taken into
account in decisions affecting their lives. This perspective and
according basic fairness to the individual most affected by the
decisions are motivators of children’s rights supporters in the
context of family law disputes.
Others who support the children’s rights perspective con-
tend that many children want to be involved in decisions
that affect them (Cashmore and Parkinson 2007; Douglas et
al. 2001; Low and Murch 2001;), and that their involvement
can work as a protective or mitigating factor against the
harm of high conflict disputes by enhancing self-esteem,
increasing a sense of personal control, and thus enhancing
resiliency (Boshier and Steel-Baker 2007; Douglas et al.
2001, 1996; Kelly 2002). Children’s rights advocates sup-
port various means of involving children in the family court
process, including the use of legal counsel representing
children, child interviewers, and child specialist coordina-
tors (Birnbaum 2009; Boshier and Steel-Baker 2007; Elrod
2002; Hensley 2006; Moloney 2006). Such measures can
bring the voice of the child forward, as Birnbaum (2006)
argued, rendering the child “visible” in a process where they
have been historically “invisible.” The argument for child
legal representation is one of the most common themes of
children’s rights supporters. Birnbaum (2006) summarized
how this approach has been implemented in Ontario primar-
ily through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer:
The lawyer acts as a broker for the child and advocates
the child’s interests so that they may be understood
and communicated not only to the parents but to the
court as well. Children do not “instruct” their lawyer.
Rather, the lawyer conveys the child’s wishes and
views by providing context to those wishes and views
to the family and the court. It is the context that allows
the child’s lawyer to present all the information that
has been gathered through interviews with parents,
significant caregivers, relatives, and other professional
sources, as well as the child’s views and wishes. (p. 287)
Birnbaum and Moyal (2003) suggested the Ontario mod-
el is effective, because clinicians and lawyers collaborate,
with each discipline informing the other and providing a
strong voice for the child, rather than providing separate
legal representation or separate clinical assessments.
Those who do not support the children’s rights perspec-
tive oppose children’s involvement in family litigation and
argue that research supporting the benefits to children of
such involvement is weak. Warshak (2003) declared his
opposition on the grounds that direct involvement risks the
emotional well-being of children. He argued that children
may not know what is best for them and that they are easily
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
pressured and manipulated by warring parents. Emery
(2003) elaborated on this position by arguing that giving
children too many rights creates an emotional burden and in
essence shifts that which is an adult responsibility onto the
shoulders of children.
A best interest approach is preferred by many who do not
support the children’s rights perspective. The best interest
approach is the traditional approach to custody and
access/parenting decisions in which adults make decisions
on behalf of children often independent of the children’s
views and opinions. The overriding assumption is that the
needs and well-being of children can be fairly and adequate-
ly determined by adults (Birnbaum 2009). This is the ap-
proach to custody and access/parenting decisions which
continues to dominate Canadian family law legislation and
case law (Birnbaum 2006). Not surprisingly, however, the
best interests approach has also been criticized by domestic
violence experts, as it raises many ethical and safety issues;
for example, when custody of children is awarded to persons
who have battered their partner and potentially exposed their
children to violence – something domestic violence experts
would clearly argue is not in a child’s best interest (Doyne et
al. 1999; Jaffe et al. 2008).
Debate has continued about the best approach for resolv-
ing acrimonious custody and access/parenting disputes, but
there is no debate about the overriding and persistent con-
cern for the welfare of children caught in these disputes,
particularly when domestic abuse is or has been present.
Many experts have called for system reform to better serve
the needs of children caught in these volatile, harmful, and
often dangerous circumstances. Critics have called for in-
creased education about domestic abuse for family law pro-
fessionals; batterer intervention programs; mental health
treatment/support services for victims, perpetrators, and
their children; collaborative models between the legal and
social service systems; and as stated above, greater consid-
eration of and greater opportunities for the safe and authen-
tic participation of children (Birnbaum 2006, 2009; Boshier
and Steel-Baker 2007; Doyne et al. 1999; Elrod 2002, 2007;
Gamache 2005; Grych 2005; Hensley 2006; Jaffe et al.
2008, 2003; Kelly 2002; Shaffer and Bala 2004; Van Horn
and McAlister Groves 2006).
Speaking for Themselves
The Speaking for Themselves (SFT) pilot project offered just
that – a unique combination of services to children through a
partnership between the YWCA of Calgary (YWCA) and
the Children’s Legal and Educational Resource Centre
(CLERC). It combined therapeutic counseling, not merely
assessment, with legal representation for children caught in
high conflict custody and access situations with known or
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
suspected histories of domestic violence. Goals of the pro-
gram were to: (a) enhance the physical, psychological, and
emotional safety of children; (b) ensure children’s evidence
was heard in custody and access disputes; (c) inform “best
interest” decisions with children’s interpretation of their
own experience; and (d) increase the likelihood that when
custody and access decisions were made, children’s safety
was paramount and their risk for further victimization
reduced.
Philosophically, the program endeavored to balance a
best interest approach with that of the United Nations chil-
dren’s rights perspective. It was rooted in a clear set of
shared beliefs about children caught in domestically abusive
and high conflict custody and access/parenting circum-
stances. Some of the shared beliefs included the following:
(a) every child has the right to a life free from violence and
abuse; (b) children must be empowered and supported to
exert their right to personal safety; (c) children are entitled to
a voice in decisions that affect their lives; and (d) resilience
to the stress of exposure to domestic violence, parental
separation, and high conflict disputes is enhanced when
children’s rights, interests, and views are considered in
major decisions that dramatically shape the course of their
lives.
Role of Counselor
As stated, a major goal of the program was to enhance the
physical, emotional, and psychological safety of children
caught in high-conflict custody and access/parenting dis-
putes with a known or suspected history of domestic vio-
lence. Counselors working with the children were clinical
domestic violence professionals from the YWCA of
Calgary. The YWCA has been a leader in providing clinical
domestic violence services to women, men, and children
since 1990. The primary role of the counselor was to reduce
the trauma associated with exposure to domestic violence
and the ongoing conflict of the family law dispute, as well as
assisting the children in coping with their circumstances.
Relying on several clinical theories including trauma,
Adlerian, and attachment, counselors supported children in
working through their trauma by assisting them to: (a)
identify, explore, and cope with any difficult feelings; (b)
develop practical coping skills and safety plans; and (c) voice
their experiences. Various interventions were used such as art
therapy, play therapy, brain gym, and cognitive-behavioral
techniques.
Another major goal of SFT was to ensure that the voices
of these children were heard by the adjudicators and
decision-makers of the custody and access/parenting dis-
pute. Counselors played a role in this regard by: (a) clini-
cally assessing the young person; (b) maintaining records of
therapeutic sessions to provide a foundation for written
315
reports that could be presented to decision-makers; (c) pre-
paring reports documenting the child’s progress and behav-
iors in therapy; (d) based on these observations, providing
opinions of strategies to promote a child’s best interests; and
(e) on occasion, appearing as a witness in court. All of these
helped ensure that the young person’s needs, circumstances,
and authentic opinions, as well as the therapist’s perspective
of the best interests of the child, were available to decision-
makers.
Role of Lawyer
Like the counselor, the lawyer was equally concerned with
ensuring and enhancing the physical, psychological, and
emotional safety of children in the program. Unlike coun-
selors, the lawyers were primarily responsible for ensuring
that a young person’s needs, rights, interests, and views
were considered in decisions made about their custody and
access/parenting. The lawyers at CLERC have extensive
experience working with and representing young people.
CLERC is a rights-based legal organization founded on
and guided by the principles of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Article
12. CLERC provides free legal services in civil law matters
including representation and education to children and
youth who otherwise have nowhere else to turn for legal
support.
As in their practice generally, CLERC lawyers took one
of two roles with respect to the children in the SFT program:
acting as either advocate for the young person or as amicus
curiae (friend of the court). As an advocate for the child, a
lawyer owes the same duties of loyalty, confidentiality, and
competent representation as are owed to an adult client.
Importantly, this does not mean counsel is neutral or inde-
pendent. Counsel is the child’s lawyer and advocates for the
child’s rights, interests, and viewpoints, and therefore takes
the child’s position if the child is positional. The lawyer is
independent of the parents but not the child. As amicus
curiae, the lawyer’s client is the court and the lawyer’s role
is to assist the court, ensuring that the court is aware of
relevant case law and has all the information that the amicus
is able to amass when the court makes a decision about the
child. The amicus ensures that the court and decision-
makers are fully aware of the young person’s views but
owes no loyalty and no duties to the young person who, in
these circumstances, is not the lawyer’s client.
In either role, the SFT lawyer communicates with other
counsel and parents, as permitted, and actively facilitates
settlement while serving and taking into account the young
person’s opinions and interests and the recommendations of
the child’s therapist. SFT therapists and lawyers must each
put significant and extraordinary effort into ensuring both
parents are treated respectfully, fairly, and as even-handedly
316
as possible. Whether as advocate or amicus, the SFT law-
yers generally relied heavily on the reports prepared by the
children’s therapist which were vital in the lawyer’s settle-
ment negotiations, representation of the child, and submis-
sions to decision-makers, including the court.
Program Processes
Families could be referred by either partner agency or any other
source. Screening was conducted to confirm the families’ en-
gagement in high conflict custody and access/parenting dis-
putes with known or suspected domestic violence. For the
purpose of this screening, family violence was defined as the
following:
The abuse of power within relationships of family,
trust, or dependency that endangers the survival, se-
curity, or wellbeing of another person. It can include
many forms of abuse including spouse abuse, senior
abuse and neglect, child abuse and neglect, child sex-
ual abuse, parent abuse, and witnessing abuse of
others in the family. Family violence may include
some or all of the following behaviors: physical abuse,
psychological abuse, criminal harassment/stalking,
verbal abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, and spir-
itual abuse. (Alberta Roundtable on Family Violence
and Bullying 2004, p. 2)
A definition of a high conflict custody and access/parenting
dispute was adapted from Ramsey (2001) and defined as:
A dispute characterized by a lack of trust between the
parties, a high level of anger, engagement in repetitive
litigation and one or both parties using power and
control to advance their position with little or no
consideration of the risks to or impact on the children.
(p. 146)
In most cases, the YWCA screened for domestic vio-
lence, and CLERC screened for high-conflict custody and
access/parenting. Additional screening criteria included
whether: (a) the child’s experience could be revealed in the
course of treatment (i.e., could a 2-year-old effectively par-
ticipate in the program?); (b) the child suffered from a
physical or mental disability outside the expertise of the
therapists; (c) the child was a victim of sexual abuse (such
files were referred to the specialized Child Sexual Abuse
Team at the Alberta Children’s Hospital); (d) the child and
both parents/guardians resided in Calgary or the immediate
vicinity; (e) the legal action was in the Judicial District of
Calgary; (f) the child could not be the subject of a child
protection investigation; and (g) whether the child consented
to involvement in the program. Both agencies had to agree that
the family met the screening criteria before the family would
be accepted into the program (Hensley and Dunbar 2011).
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
Consent was required from both parents, and no court
order was required for a child to be accepted in the program.
Consent was primarily sought by therapists, as they were
generally deemed less threatening to parents than lawyers.
The parents also had to agree that the YWCA and CLERC
could exchange information. Consent was obtained from the
child by his or her lawyer (Hensley and Dunbar 2011).
On acceptance into the program, therapy was generally
provided first. Typically, about three or four therapeutic
sessions occurred before children met their lawyer. These
initial sessions were used for completing a psychological
and behavioral assessment of the child, determining the
direction for counseling, and identifying the extent to which
the young person might be under pressure to align with one
or both parents’ views. During the assessment period, the
child’s lawyer primarily relied on information from the
therapist about the situation and the family. Further thera-
peutic sessions and separate meetings between the child and
his or her lawyer followed. The parents provided consider-
able information to the YWCA therapists during intake in-
terviews and during the approximately three formal
meetings when the parents and therapists met over the
course of the child’s therapy. Parents were also offered
counseling through the YWCA. CLERC lawyers and the
YWCA counselors met monthly for case review meetings
(Hensley and Dunbar 2011).
At the conclusion of therapy, therapists prepared a report
reflecting the child’s interests and opinions, and the thera-
pist’s observations, professional opinions, and recommen-
dations about the child’s circumstances and emotional
condition. Typically the report was reviewed with the young
person prior to its release, then shared with the child’s
lawyer, and subsequently presented individually to parents.
If parents had lawyers, the report was also shared with the
lawyers. As will be discussed further in the findings section,
most of the cases settled shortly after release of the
therapeutic report. For a few families, however, the legal
dispute continued, and in these cases, the lawyer managed
the file and advocated for resolution based on the therapeutic
report.
Typically, the therapeutic component of the SFT program
terminated before legal services were complete. The deci-
sion to terminate therapy depended on factors such as
whether the therapeutic goals had been achieved and wheth-
er the counselor felt the child had made significant progress
in dealing with his or her trauma and related issues. The
duration of the lawyer’s involvement depended on the na-
ture of the case and the positions of the parents. When the
parenting/custody and access dispute seemed resolved, the
CLERC lawyer discussed termination of active involvement
with the child while advising the young person that their
relationship was never over, and the child could contact the
lawyer at any time in the future.
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
Evaluation Framework
An external evaluation was conducted by evaluators who
relied on several sources of data including clinical chart
reviews, standardized measures, nonidentifying case resolu-
tion outcomes, and stakeholder and family interviews.
Data Collection Sources
Clinical Chart Review Files were maintained for each child
receiving services. The screening form, demographic and
historical information, as well as the counselor’s reports,
case notes, and the results from standardized measures were
stored in a secure, online data information system. This
information was downloaded into SPSS and analyzed.
Standardized Measures Two standardized measures were
used. The first was the Andy & Angie Cartoon Trauma
Scales (ACTS; Praver et al. 1998) to measure the degree
of the children’s trauma and any apparent change as a result
of their participation in the SFT program. ACTS is designed
to measure posttraumatic stress and symptoms of prolonged,
repeated abuse in children aged 6 to 12. The measure consists
of 44 statements based on cartoon pictures of a girl or boy.
Children are asked how often they feel, think, or act like Angie
or Andy. Children may either respond verbally or point to a
visual of a 4-point Likert scale in the form of a thermometer.
This measure is comprised of 44 items measuring symptoms
from seven scales: (a) Dysregulation, (b) Dissociation, (c)
Self-Perception, (d) System of Meaning, (e) Avoidance of
Stimuli, (f) Reexperiencing, and (g) Somatization.
The second standardized measure used was the Trauma
Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC; Briere 1996),
which, through self-report, assesses the effects of childhood
trauma. The 54-item TSCC consists of two validity scales
(Under-Response and Hyper-Response), six clinical scales
(Anxiety, Depression, Posttraumatic Stress, Dissociation,
Anger, and Sexual Concerns), and eight critical items which
explore situations that may require follow-up, such as
suicidality. The measure is written at a level appropriate
for the language and reading capabilities of children 8–
16 years of age. For each item, the child records the frequency
with which the statement pertains to her/him on a 4-point scale
ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (almost all the time).
Case resolution Outcomes Non-identifying case outcomes
were aggregated for the 25 families.
Stakeholder Interviews Seven individuals, including legal
and therapeutic SFT staff and a Court of Queen’s Bench justice
were interviewed by the evaluators. These interviews identified
key themes, including successes and challenges in delivering
the SFT program. A semistructured interview format was
317
developed to guide the interviews and included questions about
individuals’ roles, their understanding of the purpose of the
program, its success and challenges, types of families for which
the program is best suited, and the impact of the program.
Family Interviews A total of 15 families participated in in-
terviews. The evaluators selected these families on the basis
of assessment by the counselors and lawyers of the stage of
their legal and therapeutic work, the child’s ability to par-
ticipate, and the availability of consent from parents and
children. Interviews with families were delayed if the child
was not well-engaged in therapy or if matters (therapeutic or
legal) were at a critical point.
A total of 37 individuals, including 12 mothers, eight
fathers, one step-parent, and 17 children took part in the family
interviews. The children who participated in the interviews
ranged from 10 to 19 years old with the average age of 14. A
semistructured interview schedule was developed to guide the
interviews and included questions about the referral process,
understanding of the program, service needs, services provid-
ed, helpful/not helpful aspects, and overall impressions.
Findings
Client Description
Data were collected for 25 families including 41 children
and 52 adults. Most SFT families had one or two children,
and none had more than four. Ages ranged from 2 to 16 years
with 10 being the mean age. More than half were male
(58 %). Information about child welfare status was obtained
for 24 of the 41 children. Of these 24, 10 had previous
involvement with child protection services. Two of the
children were receiving ongoing services.
On average, children were 6 years old at the time their
parents separated (range from 1–12 years). At intake, based
on self-report: more than half of the SFT children (65 %)
lived with their mothers; four mothers had sole custody; five
parents had joint custody with the mother as the predomi-
nate caretaker; two had interim sole custody; in five fami-
lies, the father was an equal or primary caregiver; and the
remaining families did not specify their parenting arrange-
ments. Sixty-six percent of the children expressed dissatis-
faction with access arrangements.
SFT parents averaged 41 years of age, with mothers
being slightly younger than fathers. Out of 47 parents who
answered, 31 identified as Caucasian (66 %). Other identi-
fied ethnicities included African, Aboriginal, East Indian,
East and Southeast Asian, Latin, and Central and South
American. Out of 43 parents who responded, 81 % were
employed (17 mothers and 18 fathers). Out of 17 families,
nine self-reported that they were dealing with a mental
318 J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324

health and/or addictions issue. These included posttraumatic three of these subscales, the mean scores decreased from
stress disorder and depression. clinical to nonclinical levels. There was a similar, albeit less
As reported by participants, on average, marriages lasted notable improvement in the TSCC scores. All but one of the
about 8 years, with the shortest relationship lasting less than 10 TSCC subscales (the Sexual Concerns Distress subscale)
1 year, and the longest, 18 years. On average, the families had showed improvement, and in three of those six subscales,
been engaged in parenting/custody and access disputes for the improvement was statistically significant.
3 years. In nine cases, the dispute had lasted 2 years or less, in These outcomes were compared to data collected on 466
five cases it had lasted between 3 and 5 years, and for two children receiving services at the YWCA Paths of Change
families the dispute had gone on for 8 years or more. SFT Children’s Counseling Program (POC) between 2002 and
mothers reported that they had experienced many different 2004. The Paths of Change program provides both group
types of abuse by their former partners, including physical, and individual trauma counseling for children and their par-
emotional, sexual, financial, spiritual, and stalking. One father ents who were screened for family violence. Although obvi-
indicated he experienced physical abuse by his former partner. ous limitations exist in comparing a sample of 21 children to a
In about 76 % of the families, the children were described by sample of 466, some initial suggestions can be made about
parents as emotionally abused; in 65 % , the children were similarities or differences between this group of children and
reported as having been physically abused; and in two fami- others who are also exposed to domestic violence.
lies, children reportedly had either been sexually abused or SFT children showed higher scale scores on the ACTS
sexual abuse was suspected. when compared to children in POC, where proportionally
fewer children scored in the clinical range. The two samples
Standardized Measures were similar on the Dysregulation and Somatization scores.
However, more children in the SFT program scored in the
ACTS was administered at intake to 21 children. Of these clinical range on the total score (76 % of SFT children vs.
children, 76 % had total scores in the elevated or clinical 62 % POC), Dissociation (100 % vs. 77 %), Self-Perception
range. This test was re-administered at program completion (71 % vs. 61 %), System of Meaning (71 % vs. 56 %),
to 10 children. The TSCC was later administered to nine Avoidance (67 % vs. 60 %), and Re-Experiencing (81 % vs.
children at pretest, and seven of those children completed 69 %).
the test at discharge. While this is a small sample size, the
results were interesting. Table 1 summarizes the areas that Case Resolution Outcomes
demonstrated statistical significance for the two tests.
The repeated administration of ACTS demonstrated con- Data on case resolution outcomes were aggregated for all 25
sistent improvement. The total score and subscale means families and the 41 children. For 37 children, custody and
increased from pretest to posttest. In four of seven subscales access/parenting issues were resolved or litigation was ter-
(not including Self-Perception, Re-Experiencing, and minated. Most of these files settled once the therapists’
Somatization), this increase was statistically significant. In report was released. Only two families proceeded to trial.
Both of these trials ended prematurely based on the thera-
pists’ evidence or through negotiation led by child’s coun-
Table 1 ACTS and TSCC: Areas of Statistically Significant sel. Litigation then ended for these two families. Five
Improvement additional families required one or two court (chambers)
Measure Scale Pretest Posttest Significance applications, after which the litigation between the parents
Mean Mean then also ended (Hensley and Dunbar 2011).
Other case outcomes were as follows (Hensley and
ACTS Dunbar 2011):
Total score 92.90 71.00* 0.007
& In 97.5 % of cases, children’s views and best interests
Dysregulation 17.30 14.10 0.012
were made known to decision-makers
Dissociation 6.60 4.60 0.002
& In 63 % of cases, future decisions concerning access or
System of meaning 14.00 9.80* 0.012
“parenting time” would only occur if children them-
Avoidance 10.90 6.90* 0.024
selves felt safe
TCSS
& 80.5 % of the outcomes reflected children’s opinions of
Anxiety 48.9 43.6 0.037
what they wanted to have happen
Depression 47.3 43.7 0.017
& 83 % of the outcomes reflected the therapist’s opinion of
Posttraumatic 51.0 41.6 0.069
symptoms
what would be in the child’s best interest
& In 89 % of cases, children and therapists agreed on the
*Reduction from clinical to nonclinical levels best outcome
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
Interviews
Children’s Comments About the Lawyer Many children
commented on their hope that having a lawyer would help
them achieve the resolution they wanted regarding
parenting/custody and access arrangements. Several stated
they felt that neither they nor their custodial parent had the
power to change the current situation, but expressed hope that
the lawyer had the power to change things. Overall, children
expressed that they felt heard by their lawyer, felt safer, and
felt that they could talk to them about their opinions:
“I felt like my parents weren’t listening to me. They
were too caught up in their battle. [The lawyer] repre-
sented me and made sure that my voice got heard.”
“The lawyer is great. A great listener and very
supportive.”
“[The lawyer] has ensured that there are legal measures
in place to prevent my father from harassing me.”
“[The lawyer] is only there to speak for me and let
other people know what I wanted…since I can’t talk in
court [the lawyer] talks for me.”
In rare instances, children’s expectations were not met; for
example, visit schedules could not be set up as a child
desired, or there were expectations of seeing the lawyer
more often.
Children’s Comments About the Counselor Children often
described the counselor as kind and supportive, with an
ability to understand and make them feel comfortable.
With the exception of some of the older adolescents, they
generally liked the play and art-based therapy approach and
described it as “fun.” Many children explained how the
counselor helped them understand their family situation,
the conflict, and that they were not to blame:
“[The therapist] was great. Very supportive and under-
standing. Talking with her was very beneficial because
it allowed me to open up about feelings in a safe place.
“She never judged and always accepted me. It was
good to visit her. I can’t thank her enough for her
support. She was a lifesaver.”
“She did more than just talk to me. She taught me how
to say my feelings.”
“My mother put me and my [siblings] through a lot. It
was nice to have someone friendly and safe to talk
about it with.”
“[The therapist] took time to get to know me as a
person without a rush to ‘fix’ me.”
Children’s Comments About the Program Children mostly
referred to experiences with either their counselor or their
319
lawyer; however, a few children spoke about the impact of
the program overall:
“[The program helped me] get a voice to help me talk
to my dad about how I feel…to talk to him about
things I don’t talk about…Sometimes he used to
blame us for everything, now I can tell him what
actually happened, instead of staying in the corner
and taking all the blame.”
“[The program] helped me get my life back, so I could
go [see my dad] when I want to instead of being made
to go.”
Non-residential Parents’ Comments on the SFT Program
Nonresidential parents, most often fathers but not exclusively,
did not reside with the children. They were consistently very
critical of the program. These parents expressed understand-
ing the intent of SFT – to provide their children with a voice
in the custody dispute – but often felt that the program
“turned into an attack on me and my credibility as a parent.”
In some instances, nonresidential parents felt unjustly accused
of having abused their child(ren) and thought that the infor-
mation given to the lawyers and therapists was often false. As
a result, some felt persecuted and marginalized, as if nobody
believed they were not abusive parents. For example, one
father stated, “It is a shame that as a man you can be labeled
as an ‘abuser’ and then never be given a chance to contradict
what this label means to everyone who hears it. They [SFT
personnel] make it even harder to clear your name by letting
kids tell stories to counselors and lawyers.”
These same parents often expressed the belief that both
the therapist and the lawyer were against them, and that both
the judicial system and Children’s Services were on the side
of the residential parent, in most cases the mother. In par-
ticular, many stated that the therapists were judgemental,
biased, misinformed, and not interested in what the
nonresidential parent had to say. They also thought that the
children’s lawyer was interfering, problematic, and confron-
tational. As a result, many of these parents felt that their
relationship with their child(ren) deteriorated as a result of
the program.
“Instead of helping [the child] get to the bottom of his
feelings, [the child] ended up making false accusations
against me.”
“It could be extremely biased towards [the residential
parent], who has much influence over the child. Chil-
dren tend to tell parents exactly what they want to hear.”
“The court system and the child welfare system are
extremely biased on the side of the female…men go in
there at a disadvantage at the very beginning.”
“The program allowed my daughter to be brainwashed
against me and to learn how to like the other daddy
better.”
320
The nonresidential parents also expressed a lot of
blame, anger, and resentment towards the residential
parent, most often the mother, and issues about control
of the children and financial support.
“[Ex-wife] poisoned my son against me and told him
to make up stories for the counselor so that I would not
be able to see [son] anymore. But still I am forced to
pay child support to her, which [my son] will never
receive.”
“In the end, the message sent to fathers by SFT is that
it does not matter whether you are guilty of abuse or
not; they will work with mothers to remove the rights
of fathers even if fathers can protect children from
their mothers.”
Residential Parents’ Comments on the SFT Program In
stark contrast to the nonresidential parents, the residential
parents expressed many positive aspects of the SFT program
and the roles played by the lawyer and therapist. All residen-
tial mothers and fathers agreed that their children benefited
from involvement in the program and also thought there were
positive developments in the parenting dispute. Interviewees
stated that both the lawyer and the counselor were tremen-
dously helpful to their children. While some thought that the
therapy helped the children better express their feelings and
open up to the counselor, others indicated that the therapy also
helped address major issues such as suicide ideation.
The program, according to these parents, helped their
children feel empowered by bringing forth their concerns
during litigation. Furthermore, these parents expressed relief
that a program like SFT was able to take the dispute out of
the parents’ hands and lift the stress of speaking for the child
from the residential parent.
“[The children] were much more relaxed. Their school
performance and social relationships changed
dramatically.”
“I think that simply having someone to talk to, some-
one who would listen to their opinions and take them
seriously accounted for 60–70 % of the improvement
they had.”
“[The lawyer] was a strong advocate for the rights of
both children, but did not overstep her boundaries and
create additional conflict. She was very professional.”
“Before, I felt caught in the middle of a lot of ‘he said,
she said.’ The lawyer helped remove me from that
process.”
“The most positive thing…was a safe, comfortable
environment where [my children] could express their
feelings and have someone supportive to draw out the
aspects of the trauma that untrained people cannot do.”
“My situation is pretty complicated, lengthy, knowing
that my [children] are supported makes me feel that
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
I’m doing right for them; even if the outcome does not
come out the way that I want, I know I’ve done
everything possible for my kids.”
In summary, both the children and the residential parents
made many positive comments about their experience in the
SFT program. Nonresidential parents, on the other hand,
generally felt and spoke negatively about the program and
their experience with it.
The Perspective From the Bench
The SFT program was viewed positively by the justices.
Through SFT, useful evidence was available that would
otherwise not have been presented or would not be
presented in a trustworthy manner. The justices recognized
that the system was “…doing the same thing over and over,
expecting a different result,” and causing harm to families
by making decisions in the absence of critical evidence
about children’s needs. The justices saw a great need for
programs like SFT in that one justice alone could have
referred three or four families a week who would have
benefited from SFT. They also understood that such pro-
gramming, by assisting children in dealing with the conflicts
early in their lives, would later save high costs associated
with mental health, education, and relationship issues. The
justices were concerned that families in which there had not
been direct physical violence but rather where there had
been extensive emotional and other forms of nonphysical
abuse would also be eligible for service. Justices dealing
with family law issues felt they needed greater knowledge of
community resources and means of following up with the
community resources to ensure that parents complied with
treatment orders. A court support worker to triage the fam-
ilies and a ‘high conflict case protocol’ were also seen to be
needed.
Discussion
As stated earlier, SFT goals were to: (a) enhance the phys-
ical, psychological, and emotional safety of children; (b)
ensure children’s evidence was heard in custody and
access/parenting disputes; (c) inform “best interest” deci-
sions with children’s interpretation of their own experience;
and (d) increase the likelihood that when custody and
access/parenting decisions were made, children’s safety
was paramount and their risk for further victimization was
reduced. Findings from the evaluation suggest that these
goals were largely achieved and that a program model that
provides both therapeutic and legal support to children is an
effective means of enhancing children’s safety and
presenting their views and interests in high conflict
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
parenting/custody and access situations in which domestic
violence has been confirmed or alleged.
Children’s views and interests were presented to
decision-makers in almost all cases. Program personnel
observed that a child’s story being known, or the possibility
of a child’s story being known, and children having access
to their own lawyer, caused most parents to swiftly settle
their legal action. Furthermore, settlement or changes to
existing orders most often reflected what the child desired,
and for many cases, future decisions about access or ‘par-
enting time’ (as it is known in Alberta legislation) were to
occur only with the children’s agreement and if they felt safe
with the outcome (Hensley and Dunbar 2011). The speed at
which these highly contentious legal files resolved surprised
both project partners. Ordinarily, high conflict cases con-
sume tremendous legal resources and are lengthy, ongoing
legal conflicts (Elrod 2002). These high conflict cases in the
context of domestic violence are often an attempt to contin-
ue abusive behaviors toward ex-partners and children by
using the court system (Dalton et al. 2003; Kelly 2002;
Moloney 2006). Continued harassment, emotional and psy-
chological abuse, threats of harm, and drawing out the legal
battle to drain financial resources are common ways abusive
partners continue to control, intimidate, and harm ex-
partners and children through the family court process
(Brownridge 2006; Doyne et al. 1999; Jaffe et al. 2003).
Residential parents reported and program personnel ob-
served that a program like SFT removes or reduces the
opportunity for continued control and abuse by removing
power from parents and placing it in the hands of profes-
sionals (Hensley and Dunbar 2011). Domestic violence
experts have noted that efforts to acquire custody or change
access or parenting of children is often not about the chil-
dren at all, but about a means to continually harm and
control the ex-partner – an intention to “….get what matters
to you most” (Brownridge 2006; Jaffe et al. 2003, p. 60).
When the option for continued abuse is removed or limited
and the child’s story is given importance in the legal dispute,
the abusive parent often withdraws. As one child in the
interviews shared, “When my dad heard I had a lawyer, he
just gave up custody.” This hypothesis also provides an
explanation for the consistently negative comments from
nonresidential parents. These parents said they felt attacked,
that false accusations were made, and that their children
lied. Blame towards the ex-partner and the program was
also consistent, expressed with language that reflected feel-
ings of victimization from an unjust system. The domestic
violence literature outlines that blaming others, denial, and
minimization are common reactions of men who are abusive
(Barnett et al. 2005).
Notably, the outcome of most cases (whether settled by
the parties or court ordered) reflected both the views of the
child and the therapist’s opinion of the child’s best interests,
321
indicating considerable congruence between the perspec-
tives of children, their therapists, and in many cases, legal
decision-makers. This and the outcome indicating children
and their therapists agreed on the best outcome in 89 % of
cases reveal the potential benefits of a model that strives to
balance children’s best interests with children’s rights; in the
majority of cases, one was consistent with the other, giving
support to the argument that indeed, children do have a very
good sense of their own best interests in these most trying
circumstances (Cashmore and Parkinson 2007; Elrod 2002;
Hensley and Dunbar 2011; Kelly 2002). It seems possible
that when given the opportunity to be heard and to have
their opinions valued, children in the SFT program articu-
lated a mature understanding of their situation, expressing
opinions consistent with that of their own best interest
(Hensley and Dunbar 2011). This finding is in contrast to
those who have argued that children are generally unable to
identify decisions that are best for their welfare (Warshak
2003).
Findings from the standardized measures suggest chil-
dren were emotionally and therapeutically supported in the
SFT program. Children entered the program highly trauma-
tized. Many had scores in the clinical range. These scores
were higher than children in another large YWCA domestic
violence program (POC), suggesting that at least the SFT
children and perhaps others caught in high conflict custody
and access situations are more negatively impacted and have
greater therapeutic needs. At posttest following SFT pro-
gram involvement, scores improved, and on several sub-
scales these scores were statistically significant, indicating
that these children’s trauma levels were reduced. These
findings must be interpreted with caution, as the SFT sample
size was small.
However, other findings, including the case resolution
outcomes and the qualitative interviews, strongly suggest
children were emotionally and therapeutically supported.
According to the literature, swift resolution of custody and
access/parenting disputes positively affect a child’s ability to
adjust (Elrod 2007; Grych 2005; Kelly 2000), while long,
drawn out high-conflict disputes are extremely stressful to
children and can affect their development and long-term
adjustment, including trauma-related symptoms (Ayoub et
al. 1999; Bream and Buchanan 2003; Lansford 2009).
Because these most contentious cases settled surprisingly
quickly once SFT services were delivered, it is likely that the
quick resolution of the legal files positively affected the
children.
A positive emotional impact on children was also found
in the interviews with both the children and their residential
parent. Children shared that through the SFT program, they
felt a greater sense of control and personal power, as well as
a feeling of hope for things to change. Some suggest that
feelings such as these can act as a protective factor for the
322
child, possibly increasing their resiliency in adverse circum-
stances (Boshier and Steel-Baker 2007; Kelly 2002). Many
children in this project also described how having access to
therapy enabled them to learn about domestic violence, cope
with their feelings, and release personal blame. Additionally,
existing research supports these therapeutic benefits for chil-
dren (Buckley et al. 2007; Cunningham and Baker 2004;
Gewirtz and Edleson 2007; Groves 1999; Mullender 2004;
Rivett et al. 2006; Rutter 1985).
Residential parents also identified the positive impact the
program had on their child’s behavior. While this is self-
reported and must be interpreted cautiously, it is highly
likely that parents noted changes in their children as a result
of their involvement in the SFT program. These parents
reported in particular, that their children were better at
expressing their feelings and presented as less stressed.
They reported an improvement in both school and social
relationships – areas in which distressed and traumatized
children commonly struggle (Buckley et al. 2007;
Cunningham and Baker 2004; Groves 1999; Margolin and
Vickerman 2007; Shonkoff 2009). Notably, some parents
reported a reduction in suicidal ideation for their children.
Finally, for a few children, various forms of abuse were
disclosed. Working together, the program professionals ac-
quired court orders that protected these children. As a result
of the programming, these children had the opportunity to
disclose their situation. The resulting legal decisions posi-
tively impacted the children’s safety and reduced the possi-
bility of ongoing trauma. While the above provides
evidence of the positive emotional and psychological impact
SFT had for children, further replicating research is required
before definitive conclusions can be drawn from the SFT
program results.
Challenges and Lessons Learned
As a pilot project, many lessons were learned and challenges
encountered. Significantly, files settled at a higher rate and
most files settled earlier than had been anticipated. The
partners learned that the children entered the program with
more and higher trauma symptoms than expected, which
meant that there was an elevated need for therapy, therapy
took longer, and more therapists were required. Conversely,
fewer files required intense legal involvement than had been
anticipated, such that less legal support was required than
expected. Also, due to the nature of the work, the personal-
ities of the parents, and the background or experience of the
therapists, the evaluators noted that the therapists found the
SFT cases extremely demanding, such that more training in
custody and access issues for the therapists would likely
have been beneficial, as well as greater reliance on counsel
in controlling some of the parents. A shared workload
between a number of therapists is also recommended due
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
to the demanding nature of the parents and the intensity of
the work with the children. The therapists were often frus-
trated by the struggle to acquire consents from nonreferring
parents, but also learned that these individuals tended to be
more compliant when a court order requiring involvement in
the program was in place. The reports prepared by the
therapists were also found by some to be very difficult and
time consuming to write, but were fundamental to settle-
ment of issues between the parents and ultimately the end of
the conflict for the children. Further and more detailed
information with respect to challenges and lessons learned
can be found in the Hensley and Dunbar (2011) article.
Conclusion
SFT tested a principle and a particular model of implemen-
tation (Hensley and Dunbar 2011). Our findings provide
initial evidence of the value of this principle and the success
of this program model in supporting children in high con-
flict custody and access/parenting disputes in the context of
domestic violence. Critical to success was the professional
lawyer/therapist team approach. These essentially legal files
were resolved, and children were assisted, not by lawyers,
therapists, or the legal system alone but by a lawyer and
therapist working effectively together (Hensley and Dunbar
2011). While some processes may require modification
and/or alternate strategies, the ideal of balancing a child’s
best interests in therapy with that of their rights through
legal representation is nonetheless both ground-breaking
and effective. The importance of adding to the knowledge
base regarding children caught in these high conflict, do-
mestically abusive and violent parenting disputes cannot be
overestimated. Some children’s very lives depend on these
discussions. The continued development and evaluation of
programs such as SFT offer hope for meeting children’s
needs through therapy. By ending the legal conflict, conse-
quently increasing children’s safety, and reducing their trau-
ma, children’s well-being is promoted and enhanced.
References
Alberta Roundtable on Family Violence and Bullying. (2004). Finding
solutions together. Retrieved from: http://www.child.alberta.ca/
home/documents/familyviolence/rpt_opfvb_finding_solutions_
low.pdf
Anda, R. F., Felitti, R. F., Walker, J., Whitfield, C., Bremner, D. J., &
Perry, B. D. (2006). The enduring effects of childhood abuse and
related experiences: a convergence of evidence from neurobiolo-
gy and epidemiology. European Archives of Psychiatric and
Clinical Neuroscience, 256(3), 174–186. doi:10.1007/s00406-
005-0624-4.
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
Ayoub, C., Deutsch, R., & Maraganore, A. (1999). Emotional distress
in children of high-conflict divorce: the impact of marital conflict
and violence. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37(3),
297–314.
Barnett, O., Miller-Perrin, C., & Perrin, R. (2005). Intimate partner
violence: Abusive partners. In O. Barnett, C. Miller-Perrin, & R.
Perrin (Eds.), Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction
(2nd ed., pp. 314–344). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Birnbaum, R. (2006). Rendering children invisible: The forces at play
during separation and divorce in the context of family violence. In
R. Alaggia & C. Vine (Eds.), Cruel but not unusual: Violence in
the Canadian family (pp. 267–324). Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier.
Birnbaum, R. (2009). The voice of the child in separation/divorce
mediation and other alternative dispute resolution processes: A
literature review. Retrieved from Department of Justice Canada
website: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/rep-rap/
2009/vcsdm-pvem/pdf/vcsdm-pvem.pdf
Birnbaum, R., & Moyal, D. (2003). How social workers and lawyers
collaborate to promote resolution in the interests of children: the
interface between law in theory and law in action. Canadian
Family Law Quarterly, 21(3), 379–395.
Boshier, P., & Steel-Baker, D. (2007). Invisible parties: listening to
children. Family Court Review, 45(4), 548–559. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-1617.2007.00170.x.
Bream, V., & Buchanan, A. (2003). Distress among children whose
separated or divorced parents cannot agree arrangements for
them. British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 227–238.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/33.2.227.
Briere, J. (1996). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC),
Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Brownridge, D. (2006). Violence against women post-separation. Ag-
gression and Violent Behaviour, 11(5), 514–530. doi:10.1016/
j.avb.2006.01.009.
Brownridge, D., Chan, K., Hiebert-Murphy, D., Ristock, J., Tiwari, A.,
Leung, W., et al. (2008). The elevated risk for non-lethal post-
separation violence in Canada: a comparison of separated, di-
vorced and married women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
23(1), 117–135. doi:10.1177/0886260507307914.
Buckley, H., Holt, S., & Whelan, S. (2007). Listen to me! Children’s
experiences of domestic violence. Child Abuse Review, 16(5),
296–310. doi:10.1002/car.995.
Cashmore, J., & Parkinson, P. (2007). What responsibility do courts
have to hear children’s voices? International Journal of Children’s
Rights, 15(1), 43–60. doi:10.1163/092755607X181694.
Cunningham, A., Baker, L. (2004). What about me: Seeking to under-
stand a child's view of violence in the family. Retrieved from
Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System website:
http://www.lfcc.on.ca/what_about_me.pdf
Dalton, C., Carbon, S., & Olesen, N. (2003). High conflict divorce,
violence, and abuse: implications for custody and visitation de-
cisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 11–33.
doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00084.x.
Douglas, G., Murch, M., & Perry, A. (1996). Supporting children when
parents separate – A neglected family justice or mental health
issue? Child & Family Law Quarterly, 8(2), 121–135.
Douglas, G., Murch, M., Robinson, M., Scanlan, L., & Butler, I.
(2001). Children’s perspectives and experience of the divorce
process. Family Law, 31, 373–377.
Doyne, S., Bowermaster, J., Meloy, J., Dutton, D., Jaffe, P., Temko, S.,
et al. (1999). Custody disputes involving domestic violence:
making children’s needs a priority. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal, 50(2), 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.1999.tb00795.x.
Elrod, L. (2002). Reforming the system to protect children in high
conflict custody cases. William Mitchell Law Review, 28(2), 495–
551.
323
Elrod, L. (2007). Client-directed lawyers for children: is the “right”
thing to do. Pace Law Review, 27(4), 869–920.
Emery, R. (2003). Children’s Voices: listening and deciding is an adult
responsibility. Arizona Law Review, 45(3), 621–627.
Felitti, V. J. (2009). Adverse childhood experiences and adult health.
Academic Pediatrics, 9(3), 131–132. doi:10.1016/
j.acap.2009.03.001.
Gamache, S. (2005). Collaborative practice: a new opportunity to
address children’s best interest in divorce. Louisiana Law Review,
65(4), 1455–1487.
Gewirtz, A. H., & Edleson, J. L. (2007). Young children’s exposure to
intimate partner violence: towards a developmental risk and resil-
ience framework for research and intervention. Journal of Family
Violence, 22(3), 151–163. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9065-3.
Groves, B. M. A. (1999). Mental health services for children who
witness domestic violence. The Future of Children, 9(3), 122–
132.
Grych, J. H. (2005). Interparental conflict as a risk factor for child
maladjustment: implications for the development of prevention
programs. Family Court Review, 43(1), 97–108. doi:10.1111/
j.1744-1617.2005.00010.x.
Hensley, D. (2006). Role and responsibilities of counsel for the Child
in Alberta: a practitioner’s perspective and a response to Professor
Bala. Alberta Law Review, 43(4), 871–904.
Hensley, D., & Dunbar, J. (2011). Speaking for themselves: A pilot
program balancing children’s rights and best interests in high-
conflict families. In S. Anand (Ed.), Children and the law: Essays
in honour of Professor Nicholas Bala (pp. 224–237). Toronto:
Irwin Law.
Holden, G. W. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and
child abuse: terminology and taxonomy. Clinical Child and Fam-
ily Psychology Review, 6(3), 151–160. doi:10.1023/
A:1024906315255.
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to
domestic violence on children and young people: a review of the
literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797–810. doi:10.1016/
j.chiabu.2008.02.004.
Hotton, T. (2001). Spousal violence after marital separation (Juristat
Catalogue No. 85-002-XIE). Retrieved from : http://
publications.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0070185-
002-XIE.pdf
Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). Common mis-
conceptions in addressing domestic violence in child custody
disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 57–67.
doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2003.tb00086.x.
Jaffe, P., Crooks, C. V., & Bala, N. (2008). Domestic violence and
child custody disputes: The need for a new framework for the
family court. In J. Ursel, L. M. Tutty, & J. Lemaistre (Eds.),
What’s law got to do with it? The law, specialized courts and
domestic violence in Canada (pp. 254–271). Toronto: Cormorant
Books.
Kelly, J. (2000). Children’s Adjustment in conflicted marriage and
divorce: a decade review of research. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8), 963–973.
doi:10.1097/00004583-200008000-00007.
Kelly, J. (2002). Psychological and legal interventions for parents and
children in custody and access disputes: current research and
practice. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 10(1),
129–163.
Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s Adjustment following
divorce: risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52(4),
352–362. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00352.x.
Kitzmann, K., Gaylord, N., Holt, A., & Kenny, E. (2003). Children
witnesses to domestic violence: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339–352.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.2.339.
324
Lansford, J. (2009). Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 140–152. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-6924.2009.01114.x.
Levendosky, A. A., Huth-Bocks, A. C., Semel, M. A., & Shapiro, D. L.
(2002). Trauma symptoms in preschool-age children exposed to
domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(2), 150–
164. doi:10.1177/0886260502017002003.
Low, N., & Murch, M. (2001). Children’s participation in the family
justice system – Translating principles into practice. Child &
Family Law Quarterly, 13(2), 137–158.
Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. A. (2007). Post-traumatic stress in
children and adolescents exposed to family violence: I. Overview
and issues. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice,
38(6), 613. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.6.613.
Moloney, L. (2006). Child-sensitive practices in high-conflict parent-
ing disputes: a 30-year road to serious reform. Journal of Family
Studies, 12(1), 37–56. doi:10.5172/jfs.327.12.1.37.
Mullender, A. (2004). Tackling domestic violence: Providing support
for children who have witnessed domestic violence. Retrieved
from The National Archives website: http://tna.europarchive.org/
20100413151441/crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/domestic
violence/domesticviolence47.htm
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
(2007). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Osofsky, J. D. (2003). Prevalence of children’s exposure to domestic
violence and child maltreatment: Implications for prevention and
intervention. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3),
161–170. doi:10.1023/A:1024958332093.
Perry, B. D. (2006). The neurosequential model of therapeutics: Ap-
plying principles of neuroscience to clinical work with trauma-
tized and maltreated children. In N. Boyd Webb (Ed.), Working
with traumatized youth in child welfare (pp. 27–52). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Perry, B. D., & Hambrick, E. (2008). The neurosequential model of
therapeutics. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17(3), 38–43.
Praver, F., Pelcovitz, D., & Di Giuseppe, R. (1998). The Angie/Andy
Child Rating Scales. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2010). Canadian incidence study of
reported child abuse and neglect – 2008: Major findings. Re-
trieved from: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/nfnts-
cis-2008-rprt-eng.pdf
J Fam Viol (2013) 28:311–324
Ramsey, S. H. (2001). The wingspread Report and action plan: high-
conflict custody cases – Reforming the system for children. Fam-
ily Court Review, 39, 146–157.
Rivett, M., Howarth, E., & Harold, G. (2006). ‘Watching from the
stairs’: towards an evidence-based practice in work with child
witnesses of domestic violence. Clinical Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 11(1), 103–125. doi:10.1177/1359104506059131.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: protective factors
and resistance to psychiatric disorders. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 147(6), 598–611. doi:10.1192/bjp.147.6.598.
Shaffer, M., & Bala, N. (2004). The role of family courts in domestic
violence: The Canadian experience. In P. Jaffe, L. Baker, & A.
Cunningham (Eds.), Protecting children from domestic violence:
Strategies for community intervention (pp. 171–187). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Shonkoff, K. (2009). Investment in early childhood development lays the
foundation for a prosperous and sustainable society. Retrieved from
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development website: http://
www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/ShonkoffANGxp.pdf
Spilsbury, J. C., Belliston, L., Drotar, D., Drinkard, A., Kretschmar, J.,
& Creeden, R. (2007). Clinically significant trauma symptoms
and behavioral problems in a community-based sample of chil-
dren exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence,
22(6), 487–499. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9113-z.
Statistics Canada. (2009). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Profile (Catalogue No. 85-224-X). Retrieved from http://
www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/fv-85-224-XWE-eng.pdf
Statistics Canada. (2011). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Profile (Catalogue No. 85-224-X). Retrieved from http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf
Tutty, L. (2006). Effective practices in sheltering women: Leaving vio-
lence in intimate relationships. Retrieved from YWCA of Canada
website: http://ywcacanada.ca/data/publications/00000013.pdf
Unicef. (2008). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from:
http://www.unicef.org/crc/
Van Horn, P., & McAlister Groves, B. (2006). Children exposed to
domestic violence: making trauma-informed custody and visita-
tion decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 51–60.
doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2006.tb00114.x.
Warshak, R. (2003). Payoffs and pitfalls of listening to children.
Family Relations, 52(4), 373–384. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2003.00373.x.