The following article was written by M. Sharon Maxwell, LCSW, Ph.D. and Karen Oehme, J.D. and is merely a portion of the larger article which can be found by clicking here. Professional Providers are encouraged to stay informed regarding “Best Practices” in domestic violence visitation cases.
If supervised visitation programs are to continue to be used in domestic violence cases, there
must be a more critical examination of the current provision of services in programs with the
goals of enhancing the safety of participants and confronting evidence of domestic violence as
it is manifested in supervised visitation programs. There are a number of strategies that can be
recommended but they must be addressed system-wide and become part of a coordinated
community response to ending domestic violence.
• A formal evaluation of the alleged perpetrator and the victim should be ordered prior to the
court-order for supervised visitation. A key component of this evaluation must be a lethality
assessment. The evaluation should be conducted by a mental health professional who has
had specific domestic violence training in conducting such evaluations.
• If domestic violence is confirmed, judges should order the batterer to complete a certified
batterers intervention program before ordering supervised visitation. This is currently
mandated in Louisiana ( Ver Steegh, 2000 ).
• Once a family court judge orders supervised visitation, a schedule for judicial review of the
case must be established and maintained ( NYSPCC, 2000 ).
• Family law judges should collaborate with their local supervised visitation programs on a
regular basis regarding non-case specific issues which involve operational and policy
aspects of the program. Program limitations in accepting certain cases should be delineated,
procedures for handling court orders from other jurisdictions should be established,
procedures for providing services to families with special needs covered under the American
with Disabilities Act should be determined.
• Family law judges must acknowledge that supervised visitation programs are not appropriate
in all domestic violence cases. The potential for lethality is so great in some cases, as has
been demonstrated by program reports and experiences, that visitation programs cannot
offer an adequate assurance of safety.
• Courts should work with their local supervised visitation providers to develop formal letters
of agreement which specifically outline policies and procedures for accepting domestic
violence referrals, conditions of supervised visitation orders, and the role of the supervised
visitation monitor ( Saunders, 1998 ; NCJFCJ, 1995 ; Ver Steegh, 2000 ).
• Courts should collaborate with their supervised visitation providers in developing observation
report forms for visits or exchanges and establish a mechanism for these reports to be
conveyed back to the court on a routine basis ( NYSPCC, 2000 ).
• Finally, courts must acknowledge that supervised visitation services are provided in a very
artificial setting. While the visit or exchange may go well and there are not reports of violence,
it must not automatically be inferred from a family’s experience that unsupervised visitation
will be without risk ( Straus, 1998 ). Further evaluation by domestic violence experts is
necessary before the order for supervised visitation is withdrawn.
• Staff and volunteers of programs serving domestic violence cases must be adequately
trained in the dynamics of domestic violence, the impact of domestic violence upon child
witnesses, behaviors common to batterers and how these behaviors are manifested in
supervised visitation settings. They must also be informed about legal remedies, such as
orders for protection ( NYSPCC,2000 ; Maxwell &Robinson, 1998 ).
• Programs must require participants to share orders for protection with staff and these orders
should be placed in the family’s case file. If the program employs security officers, they
should also be given an opportunity to review the order ( NYSPCC, 2000 ).
• Program staff and volunteers must pay strict attention to the confidentiality of program
participants. No information about addresses, living arrangements, means of transportation,
telephone numbers and children’s school should be released. To violate a participant’s
confidentiality in this manner could dramatically increase the physical risk to the victim and
American Bar Association. (2000). Commission on Domestic Violence. Policy 00a109A.
Bailey, M. (1999). Supervised access: A long-term solution? Family and Conciliation Courts
Review , 37: 478-486.
Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children’s witnessing of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence , 14(8), 839-870.
Field, J. K. (1998). Visits in cases marked by violence: Judicial actions that can help keep
children and victims safe. Journal of American Judges Association , 35: 3.
Johnston, J. R. (2000). Building multidisciplinary professional partnerships with the court on
behalf of high-conflict divorcing families and their children who needs what kind of help? University
of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 453.