Dissertation Research

Approximately 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. 

Overarching aims: Illuminate multilevel inequities in court responses to child custody cases involving IPV and identify potential targets for reform at the institutional and policy levels. Doing so will shed light on ways to redress inequities currently produced and reproduced via the courts. 

Three-paper dissertation: 

Paper one was a critical review of the policies and practices that guide custody decision-making in cases involving IPV, and which produce and reproduce gender, racial, and class inequities. 

Paper two was a conceptual analysis of the prevailing custody standard applied by courts -- determining what is in the "best interest of the child" (BIC). This paper examined whether and how applying an intersectional lens to the BIC standard revealed previously unarticulated inequities in family court processes when IPV is alleged across identities of motherhood, gender, race, and class. 

Paper three was a qualitative examination of how IPV survivors (in this case mothers) engaged in mothering within the constrained context of ongoing IPV and custody disputes, and how institutional responses to their mothering reflected structural biases and norms embedded in institutional standards. 

Findings: 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 these decisions have on marginalized families. 

Key Takeaways:

• There is an urgent need for research that interrogates family courts' responses to IPV in child custody cases aimed at understanding how this institution (and intersecting institutions) reproduces inequities and developing responsive solutions 

• This research and resulting policy and practice solutions require an intersectional approach 
• Family courts and other intersecting institutions (e.g., child welfare) must be willing to interrogate current structures, standards, and assumptions and develop responsive policies and practices that aim to rectify inequities
• Child custody decisions in cases of IPV involve numerous intersecting social justice issues worthy of attention from social work researchers and practitioners