Cited by 36Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceChild Welfare and AdoptionFamily and Matrimonial Law

Research Based Recommendations for Child Custody Evaluation Practices and Policies in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence

Open access
Saunders, Daniel G.·2015·Journal of Child Custody

Abstract

This article reviews recent research on child custody evaluations in intimate partner violence (IPV) cases. Specifically, it covers assessment methods, evaluator selection, evaluator education, guidelines, differential assessment, and state policies. Special attention is given to new methods of bias reduction, the need to focus on coercive and controlling abuse, and the need to interpret psychological tests within a trauma framework. Recommendations are made in each area reviewed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15379418.2015.1037052

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • IPV, child maltreatment and children's exposure to IPV are frequently minimized or underdetected in family court proceedings, which has lasting consequences for survivors.

    “IPV, child maltreatment and children's exposure to IPV are frequently minimized or underdetected in family court proceedings, which has lasting consequences for survivors (Khaw et al., 2021; Meier, 2020; Saunders, 2015).”

    From Post‐separation abuse: A concept analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Saunders, 2015

    The “Detection of Abuse” section (page unavailable) says professionals fail to detect IPV in many custody-visitation proceedings. The paper also reports that detected IPV may make little difference to custody outcomes and that unsafe custody or visitation can seriously harm victims and children. It does not establish that child maltreatment and children’s exposure to IPV are themselves frequently underdetected, or specifically document lasting consequences for survivors from that underdetection. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 97 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. D. G. Saunders
  2. Conner, D. H. (2011). Back to the drawing board: Barriers to joint decision-making in custody cases involving intimate partner violence. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 18, 223.
  3. Drozd, L. M., Olesen, N. W., & Saini, M. (2013). Parenting plan and child custody evaluations: Increasing competence and preventing avoidable errors. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
  4. Jaffe, P. G., & Crooks, C. V. (2007). Assessing the best interests of the children. In J. L. Edleson & O. J. Williams (Eds.) Parenting by men who batter: New directions for assessment and intervention (pp. 45-64). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  5. Kang, J., Bennett, M., Carbado, D., Casey, P., Dasgupta, N., Faigman, D., & Mnookin, J. (2012). Implicit bias in the courtroom. UCLA Law Review, 59(5), 1124-1186.
  6. LaFortune, K. A. (1997). An investigation of mental health and legal professionals' activities, beliefs, and experiences in domestic court: An interdisciplinary survey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
  7. Meier, J. S. (2003). Domestic violence, child custody, and child protection: Understanding judicial resistance and imagining the solutions. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and Law, 11, 702.
  8. Zorza, J. (2010). Batterer manipulation and retaliation compounded by denial and complicity in the family courts. In M. Hannah & B. Goldstein (Eds.), Domestic violence, abuse, and child custody: Legal strategies and policy issues (pp. 14-2-14-28). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Press.
  9. D. G. Saunders

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saunders, D. G.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Saunders, Daniel G.
Venue
Journal of Child Custody
Published
2015-01-02
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
71-92
ISSN
  • 1537-940X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-9418
OpenAlex
W1514248508
Cited by
36
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Journal of Child Custody (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Law › Family and Matrimonial Law
Keywords
child custody evaluation, intimate partner violence, evaluator selection, bias mitigation, psychological testing, differential assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review