Supervised visitation

Paul Clements

In August of 1994, The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children, a report to the President of the American Bar Association, recommended that "State laws should direct the establishment of appropriate supervised visitation programs." With this recommendation, the relevant committees of the ABA joined family court judges, child protective service agencies, and advocates for abused children and battered women in calling for supervised visitation services. Massachusetts has heeded the call, and its legislature is considering House bill 4440, which is a re-hash of last year's Gray-Cohen bill. This time around, it's being called the Jacques-Cohen bill.

In February 1996, the Massachusetts Department of Social Services drafted guidelines for visitation center use in domestic violence cases. These guidelines were approved by the Governor's Commission Against Domestic Violence and offered to the criminal justice system and domestic violence service-provider community for comment. They were not provided to father's groups until requested, after the deadline, for comments. They begin with an anti-male declaration which states that the heterosexual male is overwhelmingly responsible for domestic violence: "Although abuse also occurs in gay and lesbian relationships and, in rare instances, men are battered by women, these guidelines reflect the greater overwhelming likelihood that Visitation Centers will be dealing with male violence against women and/or children."

The guidelines require that the program coordinator should have an extensive background and training in working with families who have experienced domestic violence. "She" should be able to recruit and train staff, etc. Furthermore, all staff will be required to participate in regular supervision by the center coordinator (to ensure that they remain thoroughly brainwashed, we suppose). The staff will then be responsible for making a determination of risk to the custodial parent or child. High-risk cases, of course, will require intense observation, thereby justifying a higher fee. This presents a conflict of interest, and the possibility of extensive fraud. In extreme cases, center staff is even authorized to ignore court orders to provide visitation services. Referrals to a supervised center may be made by a variety of agencies, all of which stand to profit in some way from the referral. Such referrals must be evaluated by the center's staff, and may be overridden.

Allegations of sexual abuse require that the father admit guilt before visits may commence. Such orwellian policies are consistent with batterers treatment programs, which allow for two responses to accusation: guilty by admission or guilty by denial of guilt.

Section 6, Fees, establishes that the abusing parent must be responsible for the entire cost. This is consistent with the philosophy that victims should not be required to pay any cost to accommodate an abuser's parental rights. However, item 2 of the section renders this principle meaningless since it holds that women shall never be responsible for paying: "In cases where the offender has custody of the children, and the mother is the non-custodial parent, she will not be required to pay for visitation services unless a court orders otherwise." It appears that the drafters don't find it necessary to even pretend to be unbiased.

The staff training prescribed by the guidelines reads like the curriculum for a Smith College women's studies course:

1. History of violence against women.

2. Myths that perpetuate victim-blaming.

3. Why battered women remain in or return to abusive relationships.

4. Forms of domestic violence.

5. Effects of domestic violence on women.

6. Causes of battering (i.e., power and control in relationships).

7. Assessing the danger and lethality of batterers.

8. Child development [at last, one that makes sense]

9. Forms of child abuse and neglect, including sexual abuse.

10. Impact of domestic violence on children.

11. Laws protecting women and children from abuse, and how they work.

12. Overlap between domestic violence and child abuse.

13. Substance abuse among batterers and battered women - myths and realities.

14. Working with batterers.

15. HIV issues.

16. Cultural diversity training.

17. Racism, sexism, homophobia, religious concerns, ageism, classism, and working with people with disabilities [... any 'isms left out?].

18. Emergency response methods/crisis intervention.

19. Confidentiality.

The above training is to be provided (of course) in collaboration with battered women's programs, child welfare service programs, Department of Public Health approved batterers treatment programs, child life specialists, legal services programs, and experts in child trauma related to violence.

All centers must provide security, and all security personnel must go through training offered by a DPH approved batterers treatment program. Confidential and separate files should be maintained for the offending and non-offending parents. However, "the records of offending parents must include releases of information to promote communication with other agencies, and to ensure offender accountability. Centers must keep copies of protection orders, child abuse reports, and court orders on custody and/or visitation on file." Centers will also develop evaluation forms to be used by "consumers," and will be prepared to report to courts when requested. Centers may terminate parents who do not respect their rules, and report terminations to other agencies. Both parents will participate, as appropriate, in parenting and non-violence skills classes (presumable at extra cost).

The wording of these guidelines leaves no doubt as to the intent to suppress the right of men to parent their children, and to further empower radical, militant feminists, from whose philosophy they are derived.

Part 2: The academic underpinnings of supervised visitation

Part 3: Welcome to the visitation center - An expose

Return to top