Bridging the Gaps: How Law Firms Can Better Support Domestic Violence Clients

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of the Dominate Law Podcast, where we empower attorneys as entrepreneurs. I'm your host, Don Aisha. Today we are tackling one of the most urgent and underserved conversations in family law, bridging the gap, how law firms can better support domestic violence clients. Before we dive in, a huge thank you to our sponsor and growth partner, Equa Marketing. Here is the truth that sits at the heart of this entire episode. You can be the most compassionate, most skilled domestic violence attorney in your market, but if the families who desperately need you, families who are scared, who are searching at midnight for someone they can trust, cannot find you online, they end up with someone else, or worse, they end up with no one. Equa is built to close that gap. They help law firms become the first name that vulnerable clients find when they search for a domestic violence lawyer, a custody attorney, or a family law advocate who truly understands what they are going through.

They're offering listeners a complimentary marketing strategy session worth $900, where a senior strategist audits your online presence, your seo, and your review profile. Before the call, go to www.dominatelaw.com/msm to book it. Now, let's get into tonight's conversation. We are walking through four critical areas, the systematic failures in how courts currently handle domestic violence cases, trauma-informed practice, and how to represent a client who is in survival mode, the role of intersectionality and how bias shapes outcomes, and the reforms and evidence-based advocacy that are beginning to move the needle. To guide us through all of it, to extraordinary scholars and advocates. First, Barry Goldstein, a former attorney turned advocate, who has spent over 40 years fighting a system that too often refuses to listen. He's the author of The Safe Child Act, a co-founder of DV experts, LLC, and one of the leading voices in North America on how the ace research adverse childhood experiences must reshape how courts approach custody decisions involving domestic violence.

Barry doesn't just know the law, he knows what it costs when courts get it wrong. And joining him is Professor Nicholas Bala, a leading Canadian legal scholar whose work bridges the statute book and the human mind. He integrates social science and psychology into family justice. His research is cited by courts across North America, and he has written extensively on trauma-informed lawyering and what it actually takes to represent a client who has survived abuse. It is an honor to have you both here. Let's get into it. So my first question goes out to you, Nick. Are there any specific legal processes such as restraining orders, custody decisions, or evidence collections that you believe consistently fail victims and why?

So, the, it's very interesting to read the, the comments, and I think, uh, in many places, uh, in the world, the family justice system is in crisis or at least failing many people. And I think it's important to keep a context here that my sense, uh, certainly in Canada is that that many cases, uh, involving lower conflict, uh, are, are dealt with well. But tonight we're focusing on family violence, domestic violence cases, which is a very significant portion of cases. Uh, maybe a quarter of cases involve family violence issues. And those cases are the, the justice system is often failing. I wouldn't say. Uh, it's always failing. Um, and yeah, the issue of issues of corruption, uh, are and so on, uh, and, and bias, gender bias are a great concern, I think. Um, and, and the failure to understand the, the challenges that victims often face and what we sometimes call litigation or systems abuse, the fact that abusers, uh, misuse or continue a pattern of physical abuse that they started during, and psychological abuse, they started during the relationship.

The physical abuse may end when the relationship ends, but they're using the family justice system to continue to harass, uh, and demoralize, uh, victims. And I think one of the, the many challenges is that too often victims are effectively coerced or give up and don't take their cases to trial. And so many aspects, uh, I I wouldn't necessarily single one out, uh, but certainly here tonight mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, issues related to children. And so not only are victims affected, but their children are at risk. Um, so those are some of the, uh, the challenges. Uh, there are of course, the variations in, in the law, but I think one of the biggest challenges that lawyers face on that list is collecting evidence, which, uh, arises in, in virtually every proceeding. Uh, most domestic violence involves the two parties alone. Uh, and getting evidence to support the victim's story, uh, position can be very <affirmative>.

Right. And why, why is that?

Um, I, let me start by saying, I'm one of those who often cites, um, mixed research, um, particularly about false reports. One of the big problems in the court system is we still have many court professionals who believe the myth that women frequently make false reports and Nick's research. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Like other research confirms that that's not true. That it's rare for a mother in a domestic violence case to make false reports. And I think just a piece of context, most custody cases involve two safe parents, and the practices that the courts are using are reasonable, and they can work, at least they're not gonna place people in danger. The problem is about 3.8% of all custody cases that are really domestic violence cases. And, okay, that's the problem. This is where people die. This is where children's lives are ruined. I think that's what we're gonna be mostly focused on tonight. Those are the cases that need to change.

Absolutely. So, uh, Barry, let's look at the impact on the individual as well. Right. So your work highlights a link between unresolved domestic violence, chronic trauma, and long-term health risks such as cancer and heart disease. How should this understanding influence custody decisions and parenting arrangements?

Fundamentally, we're talking about the ACE research, a CE. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Stands for Adverse Childhood Experiences. This is peer reviewed medical research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So the highest level of research, highly credible. Fundamentally, what ACE tells us is that the harm from domestic violence and child abuse is far worse and far long, more, far more long lasting than previously understood. It's, it's much worse when courts don't use ace. They are minimizing the harm from domestic violence and child abuse, and that helps abuse of fathers and harms protect the mothers, and most importantly, the children. Because in most courts, they're not using ace. If we come in and testify, they'll listen to ACE usually, but they don't otherwise use it. And so they're minimizing the harm from domestic violence and child abuse. Um, a lot of their common mistakes. For instance, what ACE tells us is that it's the fear and stress that are gonna cause most of the harm courts don't think about that. You have many core professionals who still believe that all do abuse, doesn't matter, or nonphysical abuse doesn't matter. Um, or that once the parents divorce, you know, it doesn't matter anymore. All of those things are absolutely wrong. But because the court professionals have been, have refused to integrate the research, they keep making the same mistakes, and the children are the ones that are paying for their mistakes.

Yeah. And if I could, could, uh, expand a a little bit there. Go ahead. I think Barry, Barry is exactly right. That, um, it's the long-term effects, and I think too much. I think obviously physical abuse, sexual abuse, what's going on while the couple is together are very serious concerns. And, and, you know, we, we have too many homicides, domestic homicides, but for many victims, uh, it's the long-term psychological effects after the physical abuse has ended. Uh, perhaps, and as we're really focusing on here, after separation, one might say, well, they're separated. So that's the end of the, uh, of the risk, assuming that the physical harassment is not continuing. Sometimes it does, uh, but the long-term psychological effects of what is sometimes called coercive control are extremely important. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. And I think as Barry is saying, too often, people who work in the justice system, whether the police or custody evaluators or, uh, and judges are not fully aware of those long-term effects. Now, certainly in, in both Canada, I think, and the United States, we're starting, we are seeing change. So it it, to the extent that, that people that are, you know, who are listening are understandably concerned. Uh, I think there's a reason for some, uh, very cautious, uh, optimism, or at least we can build on the changes that we've seen and the education has gone on. And, and certainly there's a need for more education and advocacy, but we've made a start.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Uh, I hope we get a little bit more into this, uh, down the line, uh, especially with regard to, you know, the long term psychological abuse, how that really, you know, shows up. We'd like to hear that. I think we do. So, Nick, um, just my next question to you is, uh, what are the most common trauma related barriers that prevent victims from fully engaging in the legal process?

So, trauma, which is a, a concept like, uh, adverse childhood experiences we're starting to learn more about, and psychologists have, uh, long study trauma, but it's, I think, increasingly something that lawyers and judges, uh, attorneys and judges, uh, have to be aware of. And, uh, there is a, a literature on, uh, trauma-informed lawyering, uh, and in particular mm-hmm <affirmative>. Uh, those who've been victims of family violence and, and, and victims of child abuse, when they come into a lawyer's office, um, they may present in a way that affects how they're relating their, uh, what happened to them. Uh, and it may affect their memory. Uh, in some cases there may be brain injury as a result of abuse, uh, and it requires special awareness and sensitivity on the part of a lawyer. Mm-hmm. Getting appropriate resources. And certainly, I think this, this program we're having tonight is very valuable, uh, at least to alert lawyers.

And there are websites, uh, I think later on it'll be give, giving out some, uh, references. I've written about this, uh, in more depth how to, uh, conduct a trauma informed lawyer, attorney client relationship, understanding why the client is reacting the way that, and soft. And she, although, you know, we certainly have domestic violence issues, sometimes it's a man who's a victim, and certainly in same sex relationships, there are issues of family violence, domestic violence as well. But assuming it's, it's usually a she, how is she interacting and recognizing, for example, that she, she may present as very indecisive, or often women who are abused will be with their partner. They'll leave and the lawyer starts to work on it, and they go back to the partner for a variety of reasons that we can talk about. Um, and some people would say, well, that means it wasn't so bad. No, it may mean there are a variety of things, including economic pressure, social pressure, pressure from, uh, her, her family or her community to go back to an abusive spouse. So, uh, these are very, they're, they're very important cases. I think it, uh, and certainly I tell my students and I do professional, uh, education for lawyers talk about the, the importance and the rewards of doing this work, but it's also a, a challenging area of practice.

Uh, can you, now you brought awareness to a lot of those barriers. Can you actually speak on the sensitivity aspect that you just mentioned? How can a lawyer be sensitive to this? Mm-hmm.

So, I think what does that mean? One of the things to recognize is that there is a broad range of, uh, first of all, a, a family violence. It's not one kind. Uh, there are relationships between them, uh, sometimes and, and, and some victims are more vulnerable than others. Uh, it's not just the physical abuse, for example, uh, children who may have witnessed, who has women who has children experience or witnessed family violence within their own family may be v more vulnerable in their own relationship. And there may be physical abuse, but it's often the emotional abuse that's going on during their period of cohabitation that is affecting, uh, victims. And how, as I say, they'll relate their stories. Uh, and then how the lawyer can work with the victim, gather evidence and put forward a case. And I should say, a really important point here is, uh, while attorneys have a, a critical role in being advocates and gathering evidence, ultimately it is, I think, for victims or clients to make a decision.

Do they actually want to raise family violence issues? I think that it, it's very important. And, uh, and again, from an educational perspective, we talk about the importance of screening all clients, talking to all clients, asking questions. People who, uh, women who may, uh, wanna say, oh, this person couldn't be a victim of family violence. They often are victims of family violence. Right. Or they may be. So, every, uh, in my view, every client should be, every family law client should be asked about issues of violence, not only at the first meeting, but one of the realities is it takes time for some victims to disclose, for a lawyer to develop a relationship of trust with the victim. And so it's something that should be brought up on an ongoing basis, and the situation may change. Uh, one of the things is that the period, uh, after separation is the period of greatest risks. So, although, not at all, but any of the homicides that occurred, the domestic homicides occur either immediately before separation or in the six months after separation. And that's a period when the, uh, abuser feels that he's losing control and may resort to severe violence. Um, and so it's important for lawyers to be thinking about that and to be working with the victim and shelters or the police on a safety plan, what's gonna ensure that the victim is safe.

Right. Nick, um, thank you so much for that, uh, expansion on that. And I think we are getting a lot of comments, um, from our attendees here. It's a bit, uh, tough to, you know, read all of them. But I hope, uh, in the meantime, I continue with Barry. Nick, you can have a look at these and, uh, perhaps, um, if you would like to comment on one of those, um, please.

Yeah. Would I, when you think about, um, trauma, I, I think about PTSD, you know, just as mm-hmm <affirmative>. Professionals that work with the military have to know about PTSD because so many soldiers suffer. PTSD. The same is true about domestic violence victims, and in the context of child custody cases, um, we're missing something. Um, courts often have difficulty figuring out who to believe in reports of domestic violence, because most domestic violence is committed in private. So there's no neutral witness beyond the children. And what we look to do is look for information that makes it more likely that what he said or what she said is true. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. If the victim has PTSD, we know for certain, number one, she is fit. Having PTSD doesn't prevent her from being a good mother, but if someone mm-hmm <affirmative>. Committed abuse sufficient to cause PTSD, they are unfit because PTSD can only be caused by really horrific abuse. And it also means that his denials should undermine his credibility. And we've yet seen courts thinking that the mother's unfit 'cause she has PTSD instead of the father's unfit for causing that. And that's an example of gender bias.

Right. Barry and I would like to get to know the other side of things. You know, from your research, what are the most common ways family courts, you know, really fail to respond effectively in domestic violence cases, custody cases?

I think there's a fundamental problem in the courts that they don't understand the fundamental nature of the domestic violence cases that they're dealing with. They use a high conflict approach, which is appropriate in other types of cases, is not appropriate in domestic violence cases. In domestic violence cases. Almost all of these cases, they're the same case. Um, the mm-hmm <affirmative>. Father has been abusive. He's wanted the mother to do most of the childcare throughout the relationship. Finally, she decides to leave, she reports his abuse, and he responds by going after custody to regain control and to punish her for leaving. And in any other court, the fact that he always wanted her to do most of the childcare would be seen as an admission that she's a good mother, otherwise, he would've made other arrangements. But when he, when she tries to leave, he claims that she's suddenly unfit.

Usually she's crazy and or she's alienated. And the question we like to ask is, what happened to suddenly make her unfit the word suddenly? Because a minute before, he wanted her to do most of the childcare. And if we thought of that context, it would be much easier to understand these cases. And what's really going on is that the abusers are doing everything possible to hurt the mother to regain power and control. And the courts don't even understand that. When we do a screening for dv, we're looking at what is his motive? Because typically, mm-hmm <affirmative>. The abusers as part of the litigation are doing things that are harmful to the children, but they think will help them win the litigation. If they're willing to hurt the children in order to regain control, then we know they're an abuser. The, you know, because they're willing to hurt the children. Courts don't even know <crosstalk> and Barry like that.

So if I could,

And Mary, how can these Yeah, go ahead, Nick. Go ahead.

So I think, uh, there's of course a great variation, uh, in the judiciary and judges between, both within jurisdictions and between jurisdictions. I guess, you know, one of the things I would say, in particularly for this audience, it's often the lawyers, the attorneys who are failing the clients, uh, and, and maybe here on this, uh, you know, program, we're preaching to the converted. But I think too often, uh, lawyers are not, uh, uh, exploring the issues of family violence, are not understanding them, uh, are not, are bring not bringing them forward. And sometimes they're in effect, pressuring their clients to give up, uh, and say, well, mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, this, if if this case, if you don't settle, it's gonna cost a lot of money. It's gonna be difficult. We may not be able to prove our case, so why don't you settle? And it could be, uh, oh, you want, really want custody because you care about your children?

How about if you take a low financial settlement, uh, and, uh, maybe he'll give up his claim to custody. So I think attorneys, uh, have a big role in this. Um, and mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, you know, uh, and I think that, you know, at least in part, if judges believe are, are satisfied that there's been significant physical violence going on, they are gonna respond to it. The, to me, often the biggest challenges are getting the evidence before the court and getting to trial. So, uh, and, and what happens in the immediate period after separation, uh, the interim or temporary care issues, the interim support issues, um, the relationship to the criminal process, that's often where these cases end up, and that's where often the victims are in the greatest danger. Um, so I think attorneys have a, have a role here.

And Nick, I think, uh, I have a question from one of our audience members here, uh, Carolina, uh, she has asked, uh, what documentation or evidence can be gathered to prove emotional abuse? Right? How is coercion control proven? I think if you could, uh, weigh in on this.

So that's a great issue. And again, um, there is some variation in, in the law, both between jurisdictions and otherwise. But a, a starting spot, of course, is almost every jurisdiction, north America has specific legislative provision talking about the significance of family violence and really look to that. Um, ideally, one's gonna get an expert witness who can come, who's met the, uh, victim, who's interviewed the victim, and can talk about it. That, of course, is expensive. And there's a question of how the litigation will be, uh, finance. We may talk about, um, tort claims as a way by the, uh, one of the things that, at least in Canada now, is we're starting to see claims for monetary damages added to the family law claims. And that can be a source of, uh, funding, uh, ultimately for the, for the victim to go forward. But it's also a question of what, uh, we might call judicial notice.

There's a very large literature, um, that I think can be cited. Uh, some people on this call may be familiar with, you know, uh, periodicals, like the Family Court Review, which has done a lot of, there's a lot of articles there. And, and often, um, the best thing, uh, is to cite, uh, documents that are widely accessible and accepted. Uh, certainly here in Canada, we've had the Supreme Court of Canada, uh, perhaps more than the Supreme Court of the United States has written about, uh, issues of family violence. Those cases can be cited. The United Nations has extensive documentation that deals with these issues. So bringing those, that kind of material, uh, first of all, being aware of it as an attorney, and secondly, bring it before the court, uh, and hoping that the court will take judicial notice of it, uh, and, uh, being aware of resources in your community. So I think we're gonna come to the issue of, um, you know, working with people in shelter, working with the domestic violence community where you are domestic violence workers to gather the evidence, uh, and bring it before the court.

Right. And Barry, uh, how can failures such as these, you know, in uh, bringing these to court, really lead to serious harm or even fatalities for children or survivors?

Well, we need to understand domestic violence. Custody cases are probably the most important court cases. They're the, they're the most dangerous. These are the cases where people actually lose their lives. And a big part of that is that the courts have been slow to integrate the research. Um, the Saunders study is critical to understanding how to screen for domestic violence, how to recognize abuse. ACE is important to show that the abuse is, um, far more harmful than previously understood. And a big part of it is what I mentioned a minute ago. The courts don't understand the nature of these cases. What's happening is abusers didn't like the reforms that the domestic violence movement brought about. Those reforms made it easier for victims to get protective orders, criminal prosecution, um, housing, uh, economic support, et cetera. As a result, there was a steady decline in DV homicides.

For a moment, it looked like maybe we could dramatically reduce domestic violence, homicides, and all domestic violence. But the abuser rights groups, they call themselves fathers rights, but I think my terms more accurate. Um, they didn't like that. So they developed the tactic of going after custody, and that's where they got to the biased alienation theories and, uh, shared parenting, et cetera, to regain control. The initial reforms made it easier for victims to escape their abusers. The custody courts have made that impossible as a result. Right. The DV homicide rates have gone through the rough roof after going down for two decades. They're going back up, and they're higher than ever. That's, you know, like about a third of our domestic violence is caused by the help of the courts helping abusers. And it's not just the cases in court, but many victims never leave their abusers because they're afraid they won't be able to protect their children. It's, it's an absolute disaster, not only for the children and the cases, but for all of society. And, and I think that's getting missed. Some of the new research for our, our forthcoming book is showing that from a societal point of view, the failures of the custody courts are an absolute disaster.

Uh, if, if I could, and I think probably one point on which, go ahead, Barry and I may, may not agree, uh, is mm-hmm <affirmative>. Um, you know, uh, I think the challenge for judges and, and everyone involved in the process is, and maybe it's something we'll come back to after the break. Uh, I believe that there are, first of all, that there are some cases where there are false allegations. And d identifying that as a, uh, a, a, a challenge, I would say. And Barry will come back. While there are false allegations, there are a lot more false denials. The other challenge is there are cases of alienation, and they also require attention. And I realize that, that Barry or others may say alienation is a pseudo concept or pseudoscience. I think there's actually science that, uh, social science that alienation does exist. So part of it is, and there's a tendency to say, well, these judges, uh, you know, and, and certainly, uh, there's a need for more judicial education. And to be candid, as a Canadian, I'm, I'm not gonna defend the American judiciary sitting on this side of the border. Mm-hmm. We, we see issues and, and so on. Uh, but there are, uh, genuine issues in some cases of, uh, uh, one parent undermining the other parent, and I should say, and we'll talk about this, it's often the father who is undermining the mother and, and, and mm-hmm <affirmative>. His conduct, uh, makes the children say, I wanna be with dad, even if he's not the best parent. Right.

Can I judge with on that if I Yeah, go ahead, Barry. Um, go ahead. We, um, Veronica York and I wrote a new chapter for our coming book about alienation. And, uh, Nikki may be pleased to know, we we're saying very directly, there is such a thing as alienation, the old theories, parental alienation syndrome, and the things that came from that, there's no research to support it. Um, and they're biased. They were deliberately designed to help abusive fathers take custody from good mothers. That doesn't mean there isn't such a thing as alienation. There is. So what we're trying to do is say, if you're going to consider alienation, and it's legitimate to consider alienation, you need to do it in a fair way. So, for instance, typically what the courts do is they only look at the mother's behavior. If you're going to consider alienation, you need to look at the mother's behavior and the father's behavior before you go into alienation.

More likely the bad relationship is caused by domestic violence, child abuse, and other bad parenting. Check that out before you jump to alienation. Um, another thing is typically in these cases, the mother and father are living separately. The father has no personal knowledge of what is going on in the mother's home. And so mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, if you are not allowed to just speculate, that's what the biased alienation theories ask the court to do. Speculate, well, it must be alienation because I'm a nice guy, and that, you know, mm-hmm <affirmative>. The courts would not allow speculation on any other issue. They certainly shouldn't on alienation. And the other thing is, we need to focus on what's best for the children. You know, how do we help them? There are a lot of things that abusive fathers call alienation that are really helpful to children. And just one example, what ACE tells us is that when children become adults and they go for medical care, they need to tell their doctors that they were exposed to abuse. So speaking openly about the history of domestic violence and other ACEs is beneficial to children. And, you know, if they're lying about it, that's something else. But we need to, the children need to know that. The children need to know that it's not acceptable for men to mistreat women. You know that. Right. Those things are not alienation. They're just good behavior. We need to teach that.

So, Nick <laugh>, let's look for a silver lining here. Have you seen examples where trauma aware approaches significantly changed the outcome or experience of a victim?

Yes. So, although my main, uh, work is teaching and research, um, I do some consulting. And so I've been in involved, nothing like the experience of Barry's, but I've been involved in cases, uh, where, uh, understanding, uh, the victim's position. And in all the cases I've been involved, it's a woman who's the, the victim, uh, understanding her position, um, understanding, bringing in, I think this is an area of family law where collaboration with, uh, others in the community, uh, uh, by the way, and I, and I appreciate that this is being sponsored by a firm that encourages marketing of legal services. And I know, you know, being a family lawyer at, at, at a certain level is a, is a very competitive field and, and relatively well remunerated family violence cases. Um, sometimes the, the victims have a lot of money, but often they don't.

So one may be doing this at a, a lower rate, or depending on where one is, if there's legal aid or pro bono. Um, but there may be a payoff at the end, as I mentioned, you know, a tort claim or otherwise. And certainly a lot of satisfaction, but working with other, uh, service providers, other professionals, uh, who work with domestic violence victims, um, and again, there's an enormous variation between jurisdictions, but almost every community in North America, uh, has some providers of, uh, services for domestic violence victims, uh, shelters, uh, there are counseling services. Um, and I think, uh, you know, those are not only for, some women will go to those shelters. Uh, many women for a variety of reasons, don't want to go to a shelter. But the shelters can provide, uh, most of them will provide not only shelter directly for a victim or children, but they'll also provide counseling.

They may provide access to services of safety planning. So we mentioned the safety of the victims, that this period vary. And I both emphasize that physical risk to victims who are leaving an abuser, um, so they can provide access to that. And I think one of the satisfying things, on the one hand, as Barry points out, there's a lifelong consequences. There are lifelong psychological, and de as he points out, physical health consequence of victims with appropriate support victims and their children can dramatically improve their situation and their mental health and their long-term wellbeing. And I think that lawyers have an important role in advising their clients about that, helping to coordinate and working with people in the community, psychologists, social workers, counselors, shelter staff.

Right. And Barry, can you also, uh, talk a little bit about that, because I would like to get to know your experience where, you know, you have seen significantly changes in, uh, the victim outcome, uh, or experience when trauma aware approaches have been used.

My experience is when the victim get, gets an expert witness and, and presents ACE and Saunders, and the ballot study and other research, um, if the attorney is willing to, uh, advocate for this information, and the judge is willing to listen, we can get decent outcomes. Mm-hmm <affirmative>. You know, we like to say that no judge wants to hurt children. You know, the problem is there's a long history of the court system using outdated practices. They've been very slow to integrate the research. And, and that's sad because we keep seeing the same mistakes over and over again. But, you know, ACE and Saunders really change everything. If you think about it, without Saunders, courts rely on the wrong professionals. And so they often disbelieve true reports of abuse without ace. They're minimizing the harm from domestic violence and child abuse. And so they're willing to risk children by exposing them to abusers.

And, you know, a big part of it is the abusive lobby has been very effective in promoting the idea that children do better with both parents in their lives and in general. That's true. They have no argument with it. But when one of the parents is an abuser, they are causing more harm than good. And so we're not doing our children a favor by exposing them to more abuse. The only win-win arrangement is to force the abuser to change his behavior if he wants a relationship with the children. Otherwise, he's doing more harm than good.

Right. And with that, Barry, uh, let's talk about the macro cost of all of this. You've noted that United States spends more than 3.6 trillion addressing the consequences of domestic violence. Where do custody courts play in either reducing or unintentionally increasing these societal costs?

Um, I find that when we look at research, the most reliable statistics are about homicides. There's a body, no one's lying. She's not saying, you know, she's not lying about it or hurting her. You know, we know that what happened. And so those statistics tend to be particularly helpful because DB is the most under-reported crime there is, and there's just tons of research that's inaccurate that understates the amount of domestic violence. So mm-hmm <affirmative>. When we calculated the excess homicides because of the courts, it was about 500 a year in the United States. It was about a, a third of the homicides. So we think that about one third of the domestic violence in the United States is caused by the ability of abusive fathers to use the courts to regain control, and which also discourages victims from leaving. And so, you know, there's been a history of the research, uh, you know, a decade or decade and a half ago.

You know, if you asked how much we spent on, um, healthcare for domestic violence, you would've been told five to $8 billion. But what that was doing that was limited to the treating the, um, immediate physical injuries. Um, when I did my book, the Quincy Solution, we had, um, research from the Academy on violence and, um, academy on and violence and Elf that, um, found about 750 billion a year is the health costs. There's a new study, um, that I got from, um, a pediatrician who wrote a chapter in our book, uh, Dr. Carly Eson. But I found out that the CDC also uses that research, and that's the 3.6 billion number, a trillion number that, by the way, is about $11,000 per person. If we all had to write out a check for what we're paying for domestic violence, it would've been ended a long time ago.

But we don't pay it that way. We pay it in higher. Right. Um, health insurance costs, we pay it in crime, we pay it in taxes. And most of all, we pay it because it's a huge break on society, on our economy that mm-hmm <affirmative>. So many people don't reach their full potential, you know, whether they're killed or whether they're harmed by ACEs. And so they don't reach their potential. This is a constant harm that we're doing. And, you know, that's a really sad thing. A lot of what we've been talking about is really sad that people were suffering all this. But it's also exciting because what it means is if we change this, if we get the cords to use the research, if they drop some of their old practices that are harming children, we could recover that. Even if we could recover, you know, $5,000 of the 11,000, if we each get an extra $5,000 a year, that's life changing for a lot of people. We can make life so much better by reforming the custody courts. That's the promise that's missed.

Right. Thank you for that. And Barry, really appreciate, you know, uh, running that part out and showing that there is hope in all of this, really. And, uh, Nick, back to you sir. How can legal professionals better differentiate between self-defense responses and true aggression in complicated cases?

So, a as we're discussing here, um, and I think it's, Barry has very articulate, said, one of the, or perhaps the biggest challenge is, uh, figuring out what is really going on. Uh, first as a, an attorney interviewing your client, but in particular, then, uh, she'll tell you a story approving that, uh, establishing that, uh, in court and bringing forward, uh, the evidence about that, uh, and trying to get corroborative evidence. Um, I think increasing, by the way, sometimes technology can help. Are there text messages from an abuser? One of the things is some abusers hmm. Will be abusive. And then they'll go into the so-called honeymoon phase. They'll say, I'm really sorry for what happened. And they'll send text messages that might be useful or other, they may have sent cards that can be helped to, uh, uh, prove what is, what has happened, and then show, you know, what that pattern is. And again, recognizing that many victims will leave and then come back. That can be frustrating for the professionals, but it's also important to give the victims that space to make a decision. And, and, and many victims who ultimately do leave their abusers will have left a number of times. And, and, and the professionals need to be aware of and prepared to su to support them, uh, through that.

Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Okay. And, uh, Barry, oh, you spoke, uh, before you know about alienation, right? Uh, can you actually give us a bit more information on that? And how does, um, you know, your new research based approach really differ from the old and how does it better center the actual wellbeing of the child?

Well, number one, we, the, the approach is based on the research. So we don't want the courts to do anything that goes against the research. Remember the original parental alienation syndrome and the other theories that came from that are not based on any research, which means it's unreliable. What we're saying is you make decisions based on the research. We want the courts to be evidence-based. He would think a judicial system, that's the first thing they'd wanna do. And it's disappointing that it isn't. So our approach is to use the research, you know, to, we want the courts to weigh the benefits with the risks, but we want, again, to, for both parents' behavior to be considered. Right. 'cause you know, it, it is actually more common for abusive fathers who are claiming alienation to be doing the alienation. You know, there's some research about batterer narratives, and some of that comes out with, um, the abuser believes that when their victim doesn't obey them, that that's what the abuse is.

And their response to her not agreeing to do what he wants is self-defense. And so they, they turn it around. So, um, what we wanna look at is, if you're going to have claim alienation, there needs to be actual proof, not mm-hmm <affirmative>. Your, well, it must be, which is what alien, right. The old alienation theories are, and to consider, yeah. What the approach would do to the children. The, uh, old alienation theories, the, um, recommendation is what the Saunders study calls a harmful outcome case. Um, mm-hmm <affirmative>. The abuser gets custody, the alleged abuser and the safe parent, the primary attachment figure is limited to supervis for no visitation. Schwan found that that's always wrong and based on flawed practices, and yet that's what the alienation theories are setting to do. Um, we're saying never do something that's always wrong. The reason it's always wrong is that denying children a normal relationship with their primary attention figure increased the risk of depression, will self-esteem and suicide. Why would you do that to a child that's not in the child's best interest? And certainly not so they can be with an abuser. But, you know, that's the old way we want to look at the research. We would avoid those kind of extreme outcomes.

Yeah. And if I could, could add, and I think Yes, please, Barry. Barry, Barry is right, that there was a, if you want an original theory, which has now been debunked, or the concept of parental alienation syndrome, uh, I think that there is more recent, uh, work. And again, uh, I'm sure Barry's book is gonna deal with it very effectively. There's other writing, there's writing in a family court review. Uh, people like Robin Deutsch, uh, psychologist in Massachusetts, uh, have written about actually the large literature. Barbara Fiddler here in Canada have written about alienation and pointed out that there are cases of where a parent is undermining the child's relationship to the other parent. And that is harmful. Um, as Barry notes, often it's an abusive father who is demeaning the mother to the children who is warning the children, uh, telling how terrible their mother is, uh, and sometimes is successfully alienating the children that is causing 'em to reject their mother without good reason.

As, as Barry notes, there are a lot of cases of realistic estrangement where a child is rejecting a parent for good reason, and in particular, the fact that he's been abusive, uh, has been emotionally abusive and, and or has assaulted the mother in the child's presence. And the child is frightened of that person. So, uh, you know, case in which alienation are raised, and it's not infrequent to have, you know, the, the mother is raising family violence issues, domestic abuse, and the father saying, no, this alienation, and it's important to recognize mm-hmm <affirmative>. That there are unfounded claims of alienation. And although there are, I know that there are many cases where there is alienation, there are also many cases, yeah. And perhaps more where the claim of alienation is unfounded. As Barry said, there needs to be reliable evidence in a case about what is actually going on and what has happened to the child.

And so ultimately, I think, right, the best interest of a child is the bedrock. And so, thinking about the effects on the child, and I should say one of the, uh, realities is that many children will want some kind of relationship with a father who may have been abusive. And so thinking about, uh, inappropriate cases, how to structure that, how to help the father be, uh, the abuser, be a better parent. And there are programs, there's a program that's actually international, but, uh, but also here in Canada called Caring Dads, requiring the father to attend a program so that he realized the effect of his conduct on their children. I think those are the kind of things and recognizing that the children may want and may need and may benefit from a relationship, or thinking about whether the contact should be supervised, uh, by someone. Uh, and it, it's gonna go on. So the, the end to, um, you know, uh, a relationship with the father is not always gonna be a reality. It has to be thought about how can it be one that promotes the interest of the child.

Right. Uh, gentlemen, uh, since we have a lot of questions here, I am going to pivot onto those questions, if that's okay. And I, I really do hope if I could ask, uh, both of you to stay back for five additional minutes, perhaps, because, um, uh, yeah, I mean, our audience really has some burning questions. I hope that's okay.

Okay. Yes.

Okay. Okay. Just because, yeah. Uh, so I would like to get to, uh, one of these questions, uh, by Katrina. What are your thoughts on accountability for judges placing children with abusive parents? It is recognized that they hold bias and mis mis, I always get this word, mis misogynistic views, and often refuse to apply law reforms or acknowledge domestic abuse. There needs to be accountability for this, especially when judges have the training. They are knowingly placing children in abusive situations.

Um, you know, I was just writing about that in one of the last chapters we wrote is, you know, one of the suggestions is that judges have immunity. And I know a lot of protective mothers would like to do away with that, but there's actually a need for judges to have immunity. And in fact, it would work against our side. Um, because abuse of fathers tend to have most of the money. They'd be the ones who'd be more likely to sue the judges and really cause, um, problems. I think there were a couple of things we could do to give judges more accountability. 'cause I agree they need it. Um, one is the commissions on judicial conduct, they need to be balanced with, you know, not have just all or most, um, people who are part of the court system and have an interest, a professional interest in supporting the judges.

If you had more people from the public, you know, you might get more accountability, uh, that way. Another thing is, we believe in domestic violence cases. The what should we do is the health and safety of children should be the first priority. There's nothing more important if children's lives or health are a danger. None of the other factors are close in terms of the need. But if we made that the measure, it would be much easier for blood courts to reverse judges when they didn't make the health and safety children, you know, that, that priority. So that would be another way to give judges some of the, um, accountability that they need.

And, and of course, judicial accountability is, uh, varies. Uh, the, the processes vary from certainly country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Uh, and just speaking for Canada, which is may in some respect be different from the United States, I think most judges want to do what's best for children. Uh, I think that, and, and the biggest issue, uh, are education for the judiciary, and I see progress in Canada, but also in the United States. I think, frankly probably more in Canada around this issue than in the United States. So education for judges and resources. So as both Barry and I have been pointing out, one of the, the challenges here is to get evidence before the courts to, to get expert evidence before the courts. And I think that, that that's a, a huge and ongoing challenge, and many of the, the comments mm-hmm <affirmative>. And I think whether there have been some excellent comments and, and good resources for attorneys that have been, uh, in the chat. Um, but I, I mean, one could certainly go on about the issue of resources. Uh, I see we're probably outta time. Um, but I see that yeah, journals like the Family Court Review in particular, uh, among others offered good, good help for, uh, for lawyers.

Um, there is one other question that I would like to get to Nick, because, uh, it covers a bit of, uh, the question we had for you, uh, which is how should lawyers for Victims deal with claims that allegations are false? Uh, but Rebecca has a different twist on it. Um, you know, uh, Rebecca says over here, one of my many concerns that my mentoring clients express is the rate at which DV is present in the lives of law enforcement. Very often the same officers who are responding to DV calls for service, many times a victim will sense an officer's personal feelings and will shut down during an initial investigation, potentially adversely coloring said report. How would you suggest that we, representatives of legal profession, open dialogue with not just the officers themselves, but the brass in an effort to address this disturb being issue?

So I, I think as it happens, uh, that's certainly an issue internationally, it's an issue here in Canada, and I know it is in the United States. It's a growing body of research about the fact that, uh, police officers probably have higher rates of, as perpetrators of family violence than others. Um, and indeed, uh, without getting too political about it, one could imagine how ice agents are dealing with their spouses when they're at home and one sees what they're doing on televisions. Um, and I don't think that there's easy accountability, but certainly, again, I think police chiefs, by and large, don't want to have, uh, abusive officers. And they want to have, uh, you know, they want to protect victims of family violence and bringing this to their attention. Uh, and again, it, to me, for police, it's an issue, at least in part of education counseling, uh, you know, often being an officer is stressful.

Does result in PTSD, are they officers getting appropriate support so that they can deal with their problems? But it, uh, that's, you know, an internal matter if you want for the police, certainly public accountability. But being aware of the fact that the police, and, and I think, you know, when we talk about the issue of bias, I, I would, to be candid, see it more in the police, uh, then, and we talked about a lot about judicial education, lawyers, education, continuing education and supervision and accountability for police is, to me, a huge issue in these cases.

If I could, I, I agree with what Nick was saying. I would offer a couple of solutions, um mm-hmm <affirmative>. One is that when a police department has, you know, officers that focus on domestic violence, that would be the better place to investigate, um, officer involved d um, rather than internal affairs. 'cause they understand the issues. Um mm-hmm <affirmative>. And I guess the other thing was, I, I think it was in Nashville, there were certain cities and Nashville was one that had a series of really good practices that dramatically reduced domestic violence, homicide, and other crimes. And one of the things they did is they provided a training for the spouses of officers to help them understand their rights, to understand how, how to go about making a point complaint if it is. And, you know, one of the problems is lots of times the spouses would be afraid that if they report him, you know, they lose the income, you know, that it could mm-hmm <affirmative>. Ruin the family financially. So talking to the wives could be helped. Ron would also give the officers an additional in incentive not to get involved with that.

That's interesting. That's very interesting. So, uh, with that being said, I think we are at the, we are beyond the home stretch, really. Uh, I just want one final sentence from each of you. Um, what is one reform, legal, procedural, or cultural that would most improve outcomes for domestic violence survivors? In one final sentence, Barry, shall we, uh, start with you?

I think in every domestic violence case, the court should be required to calculate the child's ACE score.

Okay. Nick, Nick, over to you. So,

I, I think, although I don't disagree with that, I, I, I think, uh, the cultural issues, the culture of the bar, the culture of the police, the culture of the bench, and, and the societal culture, uh, I think that, uh, too often, uh, our society is not taking particularly the psychological impact on victims and their children seriously enough.

And that brings us to the close of a truly important conversation. A sincere thank you to Barry Goldstein and Professor Nicholas Bala. For the depth of insight and candor they brought tonight, Barry left us with a clear mandate. Courts must begin calculating the child's ACE score in every domestic violence case. The science from the Centers for Disease Control has existed since the late 1990s, and it is past time our courtrooms reflected it. Bala reminded us that the work starts with culture, the culture of the bar, the bench, and law enforcement. Until we treat psychological harm with the same urgency as physical harm outcomes for survivors and their children will not meaningfully change a word from our sponsor. Equa Marketing, the families who need you most are searching online right now. Equa ensures your firm is the one they find through targeted SEO content Strategy and intake support designed for law firms claim your complimentary strategy session at www.dominantlaw.com/msm.

Follow the Dominate Law Podcast and share this episode with a colleague in family Law who would benefit from this conversation. And before we go, mark your calendars. Our next dominate law expert panel is on June 23rd at 8:00 PM EST, and it is one you do not want to miss. We are diving into the AI enabled lawyer. What modern legal practice now demands featuring Jen McCarran, Francis Dupree, and Debbie Main. If you want to stay ahead of where the legal profession is heading, that is the room to be in. I'm Don Aisha. Thank you for the vital work you do. We will see you in the.