Violence Against Women http://vaw.sagepub.

com/

Implacably Hostile or Appropriately Protective?: Women Managing Child Contact in the Context of Domestic Violence
Christine Harrison Violence Against Women 2008 14: 381 DOI: 10.1177/1077801208314833 The online version of this article can be found at: http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/14/4/381

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Violence Against Women can be found at: Email Alerts: http://vaw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://vaw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/14/4/381.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 21, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com by Claudine Dombrowski on October 23, 2013

Implacably Hostile or Appropriately Protective?

Women Managing Child Contact in the Context of Domestic Violence
Christine Harrison
University of Warwick

Violence Against Women Volume 14 Number 4 April 2008 381-405 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/1077801208314833 http://vaw.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

The United Kingdom has seen conflicting developments in safeguarding womens and childrens safety when there has been domestic violence. Although criminal justice responses have improved, child contact arrangements following parental separation remain dominated by pro-contact models that fail to take full account of the impact of domestic violence. Drawing on qualitative research in U.K. child contact (visitation) centers, this article presents womens perspectives to demonstrate how family court proceedings and welfare practices marginalized violence and exposed women and children to further abuse. This builds on previous articles in the journal to show how, in the postseparation family, contact now constitutes a significant site for continuing violence. Keywords: child contact; domestic violence; women

he past 10 years in the United Kingdom have seen the development of two conflicting areas of social concern and associated policy initiatives and legal reforms. The first is represented by a plethora of concerns about the family, including high levels of parental separation and the implications for children of losing contact with their fathers (Bradshaw, Stimson, Williams, & Skinner, 1999). This can be seen as part of a broader picture of opposition to the possibility of fatherlessness, not just in relation to lone motherhood following separation but also when parents have never lived together (i.e., in relation to teenage pregnancy), and it has also permeated debates about assisted conception (Smith, 2003). Concerns about the lack of men in childrens, and particularly boys, lives have effectively elevated their role and the perceived need to bolster the actual or symbolic presence of men in the lives of children and women. At the same time, because of the unstinting efforts of women survivors and organizations representing them, domestic violence and its impact on women and children have been recognized as a major source of harm imposing high individual

Authors Note: The research on which this article is based was conducted with Professor Cathy Humphreys, University of Melbourne, and Dr. Rosemary Aris, University of Warwick, to whom the author is grateful for their comments and advice. 381

382

Violence Against Women

and societal costs (Stanko, 2000; Walby, 2004). This has led to a number of recent legal and policy initiatives, particularly in relation to improving criminal justice and crime reduction (Radford & Tsutsumi, 2004). The tensions between these two discourses (Dalton, 1999) are at their most intense in relation to the issue of child contact following parental separation. Despite undoubtedly increased awareness of domestic violence, it appears that concerns about the family continue to dominate and that the political objective of reinforcing the position of the father in the postseparation family has frequently displaced considerations of womens safety and childrens well-being. In 2003, 67,184 applications for child contact to Family Courts in England and Wales led to the making of contact orders, and only 601 (fewer than 1% of the total number of applications heard) were refused (Judicial Statistics, 2003). In light of research about the incidence of domestic violence (Humphreys & Thiara, 2003; Kelly, 1999), this small number of refusals is perplexing. It raises questions about what arrangements are being made for contact and suggests that the fathers role continues to be viewed as inalienable, even when there is known previous or continuing violence. Whereas knowledge about domestic violence emphasizes the continuing safety needs of women, the dominance of a family values model that promotes shared and cooperative parenting as an ideal form (Smart & Neale, 1999) constructs women as implacably hostile if they resist a process that they feel compromises their own, or their childrens, protection (Rhoades, 2002). In the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, a vociferous and influential fathers movement has couched its objectives in terms of promoting childrens welfare but may be more interested in privileging fathers rights (Jaffe, Lemon, & Poisson, 2003; Rhoades & Boyd, 2004; Smart, 2004). Views about how childrens interests should be determined are embedded in these discourses about supposedly dispossessed fathers and alienating mothers. In this context, then, child contact remains an important site for the exercise of patriarchal practices, an examination of which again highlights the extent and enduring impact of domestic violence on women and children (Saunders, 2004). This article draws on a research study funded by the then Lord Chancellors Department in England and Wales (now the Department for Constitutional Affairs) to examine the role of supported and supervised contact centers in contact arrangements when there has been domestic violence (Aris, Harrison, & Humphreys, 2002). Often referred to as child visitation centers in other jurisdictions, supported child contact centers offer a neutral meeting place to facilitate child contact and usually volunteers to give support and advice. Supervised centers, on the other hand, offer the higher levels of vigilance needed when there are concerns about childrens safety and wellbeing related to domestic violence, child abuse, or mental health issues. The article begins by reviewing research about the incidence and impact of domestic violence on women and children and contrasts this with pro-contact perspectives. Against this background, womens accounts from the child contact research are presented to illustrate the ways in which private law proceedings are shaped by discourses of new

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

383

fatherhood and parental loss. The consequences for women of the minimization of domestic violence in making child contact arrangements are explored. This illustrates that as mens value is asserted, womens interests and their safetyand by association, those of their childrenare relegated. In such circumstances, women and children pay a high cost for the ideological objective of maintaining men in childrens lives as they contend with the long-term implications of domestic violence (Radford & Tsutsumi, 2004). Although the article draws on research conducted in England and Wales, the significant themes and issues explored have been noted in, and are relevant to, a number of other jurisdictions (Jaffe et al., 2003; Kaye, Stubbs, & Tolmie, 2003; Rhoades & Boyd, 2004; Rosen & Sullivan, 2005).

The Context
Unpacking the pro-contact discourse reveals a number of ideas about families, mothers, and fathers that appear in many recent social policy and welfare initiatives and have been influential in conceptualizing childrens interests. The Children Act 1989 in England and Wales marked a particular watershed. It redefined parental responsibility, gave legal sanction to shared parenting, and embodied a presumption in favor of contact. Concerns about unnecessary state interference in family life reinforced the role of voluntary agreements and statutory intervention as an avenue of last resort. Such implicit ideas about shared and equal parenting (Smart & Neale, 1999), associated with concepts of new fatherhood, assume a gender neutrality that is at odds with the reality that women take major responsibility for child care (Kaganas & Piper, 1999). The rapid organization and increasing influence of mens groups has resonated with concerns about the involvement of fathers in childrens lives (Bradshaw et al., 1999; Burghes, Clarke, & Cronin, 1997). This has heightened anxieties about the impact of parental separation on childrens development, particularly for those who rapidly lose touch with their nonresident father (Grief, 1997). In part, this reflects a belief that a positive sense of identity is promoted by maintaining contact with the nonresident parent. It also represents fears about the social consequences of a perceived weakening of the role of men in childrens lives. The extent of poverty experienced by lone mother families and decreasing levels of financial contributions being made by nonresident fathers (Gregg, 1999) have also supported interventions to keep fathers involved in financial, as well as emotional, terms. A critical dimension to these debates, however, suggests that separation per se is not the sole determinant of poorer outcomes for children and questions a presumption that contact is invariably in a childs interests. When examining the longer history of family change, factors thought to contribute to negative outcomes include the level of family conflict, multiple changes in family structure, level of parental recovery from distress, and the extent of economic hardship experienced (Rodgers

384

Violence Against Women

& Pryor, 1998). Maclean and Eekelaar (1997) emphasized that it is the quality of contact between child and nonresident parent that is important in reducing childrens difficulties on separation. Evidence supports the contention that the higher the level of conflict between parents, the poorer the outcomes for children (Johnston, 1995; Johnston & Roseby, 1997) and that a large proportion of cases classed as highconflict involve male violence against a former partner (Rhoades, 2002). For women and children, as Jaffe et al. (2003) have argued, The impact of divorce cannot be meaningfully researched without considering violence and abuse (p. 6), and not to do so can compromise womens safety and childrens well-being.

Domestic Violence and Children: Challenging a Pro-Contact Philosophy

Domestic violence represents more than a quarter of violent crime in the United Kingdom (Stanko, 2000). Women are the vast majority of victims, and research suggests that one in four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime (Hester, Pearson, & Harwin, 2000). It is more likely than other violent crimes to result in injury (Gregg, 1999) and is frequently accompanied by sexual assault and rape (Bergen, 1999; Richards, 2003). That domestic violence often commences or escalates during pregnancy (British Medical Association, 1998; Mezey & Bewley, 1997) makes it a dual attack on mother and fetus and, as Kelly (1994) has argued, a form of child abuse. Women are also at greater risk after childbirth (Gielen, OCampo, Faden, Kass, & Xue, 1994), including attacks on women holding babies (Kaye et al., 2003), often intended to undermine parenting and the motherchild relationship (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002). Despite living with the impact and consequences of domestic violence, women protect and nurture their children in ways that are often underestimated, according to Van Horn and Lieberman (2002). Violence against women is a major source of adversity for substantial numbers of children who witness violence, get caught up in violence, or suffer because their mother is constantly afraid (Mullender et al., 2002). Although those working in the judicial contact field often differentiate between direct and indirect violence, this can underplay the harm caused to children and young people. Even those who are indirect witnesses are likely to be aware of domestic violence (Mullender et al., 2002; Parkinson & Humphreys, 1998), and they will undoubtedly be affected if it has eroded their mothers ability to care for them (Rossman, Hughes, & Rosenberg, 2000; Wyndham, 1998). Children show a range of emotional, psychological, and behavioral responses to the complicated and traumatic impact of exposure to violence. Studies emphasize that children react individually and that age, gender, disability, and stage of development affect the consequences for them. The literature describes externalized responses, such as aggression, destructiveness, and defiance (Maker,

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

385

Kemmelmeier, & Peterson, 1998; OKeefe, 1995) and internalized responses, such as anxiety, depression, fear, and low self-esteem (Mathias, Mertin, & Murray, 1995; McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995). Children witnessing severe violence may experience posttraumatic stress syndrome (Graham-Bermann & Levendosky, 1998). A growing literature highlights the interconnections between violence toward women and child abuse (Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 2001; Hume, 2003). Domestic violence toward a mother increases the likelihood of violence toward her child, and the severity and length of time during which violence has occurred increase the risks for children (Cawson, 2002; Hester & Pearson, 1998; Humphreys, 2000). An extensive review of research by Edleson (1999) showed a correlation between the occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse of between 30% and 60%. Rosss (1996) U.S. study found an almost total correlation between the most chronic and severe violence of men toward women and their physical abuse of children. It is also important to bear in mind that the impact on children and women facing additional forms of adversity, such as racism, may be compounded and that they confront formidable barriers to their experiences being recognized (Humphreys & Thiara, 2002; Rai & Thiara, 1997).

Postseparation Violence
For many women, violence intensifies after separation (Kelly, 1999; Statistics Canada, 2002). In a recent U.K. study, Humphreys and Thiara (2002) found that 76% of women using domestic violence outreach centers experienced further abuse, and 36% suffered persistent postseparation violence. A number of studies demonstrate that child contact arrangements, including court-ordered contact, are used to track women to perpetrate domestic violence (Hester & Radford, 1996; Radford, Sayer, & AMICA, 1999), even when there are high levels of supervision (Aris et al., 2002). Murders of women and children when there is a history of domestic violence frequently take place at the point of separation (Hotton, 2001; Wilson & Daly, 2002), including during child contact (Saunders, 2001), as do child abductions (Kilsby, 2001; Plass, Finkelhor, & Hotaling, 1996). The London Metropolitan Police Service has recently developed the Risk Assessment Model for Domestic Violence Cases, which provides a framework for the analysis of risk to improve law enforcement and to contribute to safety planning for victims. This identifies separation with disputes about contact or custody as one of six high-risk factors for escalating domestic violence (Richards, 2003). Children living with postseparation violence may be among the most distressed in the population (Buchanan, Hunt, Bretherton, & Bream, 2001; Johnston, Kline, & Tschann, 1989). For these children, contact with violent men may be of little benefit (Jaffe et al., 2003) and may impede their recovery (Church, 1984; Mertin, 1995; Strategic Partners, 1998). Conversely, when children have no contact with violent

386

Violence Against Women

fathers, the harm they have sustained can be ameliorated. A childs recovery has been found to be related to that of his or her mother; continuing threats or contact proceedings used to protract conflict often mean that mothers are unable to recover, and this has an indirect effect on children (Mertin, 1995; Strategic Partners, 1998). Violence is significant in a sizeable proportion of cases being dealt with in private law and in public law processes, although less likely to be identified as child protection issues (Brown et al., 2001; Buchanan et al., 2001). Sturge and Glaser (2000), in reviewing research about the impact of direct and indirect domestic violence on children for the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, were unequivocal that there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a previously or currently violent parent is in the childs interest; if anything, the assumption should be in the opposite direction (p. 623). If postseparation violence is neglected, risk and safety issues for children and women may not be systematically assessed, leading to a judicial failure to protect (Saunders, 2004).

Trying to Reconcile the Irreconcilable?

Knowledge about the effects of domestic violence on women and children challenges a pro-contact philosophy. Although research about the impact of separation on children emphasizes the potentially negative effects of losing touch with a parent, Strategic Partners1 (1998) has argued that a greater risk is posed by the impact of domestic violence. The known relationship between a mothers recovery from violence and that of her child demonstrates that childrens interests cannot be straightforwardly severed from those of their mothers. Persistent postseparation violence, conflicts about custody, or high levels of fear about contact may signal the worst outcomes for children. It has been emphasized that those involved in legal processes and decisions about contact need a comprehensive understanding of domestic violence and its consequences to make sure that, in Edleson, Mbilinyi, and Shettys (2003) words, arrangements enhance both child and adult victim safety (p. 6). Recognition of the effects of domestic violence has led to recent legal and policy changes in the United Kingdom. A series of Court of Appeal decisions, An Experts Report for the Court of Appeal (Sturge & Glaser, 2000) and Guidelines on Child Contact Where There is Domestic Violence (Lord Chancellors Department, 2001) all highlighted the implications of domestic violence for child contact. Although the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has extended the definition of significant harm within the Children Act 1989 to include witnessing the ill-treatment of another person, the above provisions fall short of the mandatory consideration of domestic violence (Kernic, Monary-Ernsdorff, Koepsell, & Holt, 2005) or the rebuttable presumption in relation to contact (Edleson et al., 2003) required by many American states. Questions remain about whether changes are sufficient to ensure that childrens and womens safety are preeminent considerations in contact proceedings (Saunders, 2004; Saunders

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

387

& Barron, 2003). That the more recent Children (Contact and Adoption) Bill places a heavy emphasis on enforcement of contact, rather than safety, reinforces such concerns.

The Shifting Role of Child Contact Centers

In response to anxieties about separation and loss of fathers from childrens lives, there was rapid growth in child contact (visitation) centers beginning in the mid1980s (Furniss, 2000; National Association of Child Contact Centres [NACCC], 1994). The vast majority of these are supported centers, providing a neutral meeting place for nonresident parents and children, inappropriate when there has been domestic violence because they offer low levels of vigilance. In these situations, the higher levels of vigilance in supervised centers are needed, or no or indirect contact may be appropriate. Supported provision in the United Kingdom has mainly been provided through the voluntary (nongovernmental) sector, with little or no statutory (central government) funding. Supervised provision, more likely to be funded through the statutory sector, is limited and unevenly distributed; some regions have no supervised provision. Long-term structural difficulties have contributed to inconsistencies in staffing levels, training, and qualifications; levels of supervision; forms of assessment; and definitions and standards. Inevitably, these have also affected the adequacy of safety features and practices (Aris et al., 2002). Despite the majority of contact centers being provided by the voluntary sector, referrals to centers most frequently come from professionals involved in the family court process (solicitors, Children and Family Advisory Support Service [CAFCASS] officers,2 magistrates, judges, social workers, Childrens Guardians) but can also come from agencies providing postseparation support (e.g., mediation services) or parents themselves. Furniss (2000), in her study in England and Wales, found that solicitors were the principle referrers to centers (making 75% of referrals), followed by CAFCASS officers (15%). Fifty percent of referrals had a court order for contact, and 80% of families had been to court about child contact or residence prior to referral. Supported centers provide a short-term service based on assumptions about the constructive role that men can play in childrens lives. These ideas are different from those informing domestic violence services that emphasize the need to prioritize the safety of children and women. In the contentious area of child contact when there has been domestic violence, contact centers now occupy an ambiguous position (Aris et al., 2002). As the judicial process of determining contact has appropriated supported centers, their original aims have been distorted. It is known that supported centers have accepted referrals when there was a history of male violence (Furniss, 1998, 2000), and a large proportion of nonresident fathers using child contact centers are men with a history of domestic violence (Aris et al., 2002). Despite this, child contact centers are likely to remain pivotal when arrangements for contact in difficult situations are being considered by the Family Courts (Her Majestys Government, 2005).

388

Violence Against Women

The Child Contact Center Research

This study, funded by the Lord Chancellors Department, was undertaken between 2000 and 2002 by a team at the University of Warwick. The research examined the role of supported and supervised child contact in the context of domestic violence and child welfare concerns. To explore fully how arrangements for different forms of contact were shaped, consideration was given to a range of factors including legal practices and dominant professional and public discourses. In addition, the perspectives of professionals, mothers, fathers, and children were explored and set against the backdrop of social, legal, and policy frameworks. A range of complementary research methodologies was adopted. A questionnaire to all contact centers affiliated with the NACCC3 gave baseline policy data, and the main fieldwork took place in two family proceedings jurisdictions, each with a range of child contact provisions. Within these two sites, a number of contact centers provided a point of access to parents, children, and professionals that would not otherwise have been easily available and also allowed for the observation of supervised and supported contact in practice. The elements of the research, therefore, comprised the following:
A policy questionnaire to all contact centers affiliated with the NACCC (86 returns representing a 43% response rate) and Questionnaires and semistructured interviews with 70 resident (custodial) mothers, 1 nonresident (noncustodial) mother, 35 nonresident (noncustodial) fathers, 21 children, and 34 referrers (mostly CAFCASS officers), and 27 contact center staff from six contact centers (three offering supported, one supervised, and two both supported and supervised provision) in two family proceedings jurisdictions.

Given the sensitivity of the issues involved and potential risks for participants who agreed to talk about their experiences, the team navigated a careful course to ensure that obtaining methodologically robust data did not jeopardize their safety and well-being. When doubts existed about the implications of involvement for research participants, the team erred on the side of caution. Although concerted attention was given to achieving as high a response rate as possible, the issues highlighted above inevitably militated against this. Just as important was to ensure a diverse population, so that a range and depth of experiences was captured. This article draws substantively on those elements of the research that illustrate womens experiences and perspectives to centralize the implications for them of arrangements for child contact. Of the 70 participating resident mothers, 18% (n = 13) were aged between 16 and 25, 50% (n = 35) between 26 and 35, and 26% (n = 19) between 36 and 45. Between them, the women had 112 children. The majority, 57% (n = 40), had one child, 30% (n = 21) had two children, 9% (n = 6) had three children, and 4% (n = 3) had four or more children. The ethnic profile of participating women

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

389

was very different from that of the population of England and Wales as a whole; across the whole of the study sample, 49% of women were from Black and minority ethnic groups, compared with 12% of the general adult population. In the centers in one site, 60% of women were from Black and minority ethnic groups, and in one center within that site, the proportion was 84%. This overrepresentation could not be fully accounted for. It may have been that court and referral processes placed some families under more surveillance than others or that the impact of separation was more intense for some ethnic groups, producing greater demand for contact services. Abduction fears may have been greater when nonresident fathers held dual or nonBritish passports or extended family lived outside of the United Kingdom. The ethnic profile registered the need to recognize cultural differences and the needs of individual mothers and children; it also highlighted possible discrimination within referral and court processes.

Discussion of the Findings

Although the access point for the study was supported and supervised contact centers, insight was gained into the longer-term legal and welfare processes involved in arranging contact. This illustrated an array of problems emanating from the use of supported, and even supervised, child contact centers when there was domestic violence. It showed how in private law proceedings, the significance of domestic violence, including after separation, and issues of safety and protection, were persistently minimized. No single act was responsible, but rather at successive points in the process of determining contact arrangements, the impact of domestic abuse remained unrecognized or was dismissed as irrelevant. Child safety was pushed from the foreground to the margins, leaving children and women in a vulnerable and powerless position. A pro-contact philosophy exacerbated and prolonged the impact of violence, and both women and children were reliant on their own strategies for recovery and survival.

Before Contact at a Center: The Significance of Violence

The study confirmed how significant domestic violence is to so-called highconflict contact disputes and private law litigation (Jaffe et al., 2003). Eighty-six percent (n = 60) of the 70 participating resident mothers said that their experience of violence was the main reason for using either a supported or a supervised contact center. For the vast majority of women, violence was experienced before and continued after separation, although for a small minority, violence began after separation. Most women had been subjected to multiple forms of violence: physical, sexual, emotional, economic, and social. For some, violence was very severe.

390

Violence Against Women

We had a relationship for 10 months, the last 5 months of which I was pregnant. The relationship broke down because of his violencevery abusivebroken nose, black eye, broken vertebrae, broken ankle, head injuries, so it was very severe violence. (Lisa, supported contact center)

The extent of violence to which they had been subjected, and their knowledge of what their ex-partner was capable of, led some women to fear for their lives.
He told me he was going to kill me and he kept me in the house. Hed planned it all out and he left a letter, and he was going to blow my head off when I walked through the door, and he did all sorts of horrible psychological things. The children were in the house and I wanted to leave, and that was his solutionyou wont leave with the children, youll be dead before that. The police got me to a safe house. (Rachel, supervised contact center)

For most of the women who cited violence as the major reason for using a contact center, it was notable that postseparation violence had been experienced for lengthy periods of time, even when a relationship had been of short duration, and in the following case, for 8 years:
There was stalking and harassing me even though he was with a new partner. (Louise, supervised contact center)

In addition, a number of other significant issues and concerns for women were arising from the experience of domestic violence. The co-occurrence of child abuse was high (Radford et al., 1999) and described by 27% (n = 19) of participating women.
I am going because he used to beat the children. I said only supervisednot supported. (Tamara, started as supervised contact, now supported contact)

Other issues were generated when parents had separated before a child was born or when a child was very young. Then there could be concerns that a father had no meaningful relationship with a child, or parenting abilities were doubted (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).
It was the only safe wayfor both myself and my children. They are so young. They cant talk and so they cannot tell me if he hits them. (Monique, supported contact center)

A pronounced fear for 65% (n = 46) of women was abduction. Although the number of recorded actual and attempted child abductions is numerically not high, it is an offense against children that has recently markedly increased in the United Kingdom (Kilsby, 2001; Newiss & Fairbrother, 2004). Women in the study commonly

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

391

received threats to abduct as an aspect of violence, and their fears were not unreasonable because a history of domestic violence is known to increase the risk of abduction (Plass et al., 1996). Some women had experienced abduction; for others, stress and anxiety were generated because children had been kept overnight without agreement or had been brought back late from contact.
Hes threatened to abduct her before and told me exactly how easy it is, particularly when hes got a girlfriend whos got on her passport a child of exactly the same age; how easy it would be to get her out of the country and to Greece, and he looks Greek and he can speak Greek. And theres no extradition treaty and they would just disappear. (Adie, supervised contact center)

Women repeatedly said that professionals did not take seriously enough the impact of the retention of children for short periods of time, nor did they appreciate the fears associated with threats of abduction. In cases in which womens ex-partners had citizenship and the passport of a country outside the United Kingdom, fears were understandably grave. A significant minority of participating women explicitly questioned the way that child contact proceedings had been initiated and were being pursued by their expartner and saw this as part of an ongoing pattern of violence and control, rather than being about their childs interests.
Monique: I am just doing this because I am so scared. He is just pretending to be nice. I think that he is using contact as a way of continuing to see me. He pressurizes[sic] me to stay in the contact room. (Supported contact center) Lisa: I do think he has feelings for his child, but its not normal feelings that a father has for his son. He has four children and its kind of, Hes my sonhe wants some kind of pride in his child, but he doesnt do anything, he doesnt do anything. As a parent, he doesnt contribute in any way, shape, or formnot financially, not emotionally or anything. We started contact in December (every 2 weeks), and theres only 3 times that he has turned up. (Supported contact center)

Expectations and Experiences of Child Contact at a Center

Women held disparate views about whether they thought any form of child contact should occur. Although one third of the 70 women felt that maintaining contact with the father was important for their children, the remainder were just as sure that it would not benefit their child. Women who had experienced violence often remained frightened about going to a center. When there had previously been no contact or it had been difficult, or when there was a likelihood of contact being courtordered, a center was seen as a safer option than other arrangements and offered some relief from the anxiety of unsupervised arrangements.

392

Violence Against Women

Ive actually found it much better for me because I dont have any contact with him at all. (Salma, supervised contact center)

Given the levels of violence that many had suffered, safety was a primary consideration for the majority of women interviewed. However, although 86% (n = 60) of participating resident mothers cited violence as the reason for attending a center, 27% (n = 19) cited a co-occurrence of child abuse, and 65% (n = 46) had fears of abduction, only 25% (n = 18) were attending a supervised center. Despite serious and persistent pre- and postseparation violence, most mothers included in the study were attending supported centers offering low levels of vigilance; several fathers using these centers had served custodial sentences, including for attempted murder or grievous bodily harm. A common experience was that women were shocked and alarmed by how little direct supervision was provided within centers, even those that purported to be supervised:
I had an incident when my husband took my daughter out the back garden without anyone knowing, as there wasnt any supervision, and when I went out to see where my daughter was, they didnt know where she was. Even when I was told by the supervisor that he will not be able to take her out, he still did without them knowing. (Adie, supervised contact center)

As in other studies (e.g., Humphreys & Thiara, 2003), the incidence of postseparation violence was high. More than 60% (n = 42) of mothers described how violence, threats, or intimidation were continuing through the contact process, either getting to or from contact or during contact itself. Only a small proportion of centers had separate entrances and exits or more elaborate safety features, such as closecircuit cameras and internal security. Staggered arrival and departure times were the most common safety strategy used by centersreported by 94% (n = 32) of supervised and 85% (n = 29) of supported centers responding to the questionnaireand yet the most precarious when women and children were concerned. The difficulties of orchestrating arrival times when using public transport raised enormous anxieties for women.
The thing I find difficult about the center is access to it. Where it is located, you have to go up steps and down an alleyway, and I find that difficult. Im always very edgy, very nervous, and actually last weekend he was in the alleyway talking to someone. Although he saw us and he could have gone into the building, he didnt. He stayed there with a bit of an I can stand here if I want to type of attitude, and theres nothing you can do about it. We had a contact order previously, which said he had to wait behind for 5 minutes to give us a chance to leave. But as soon as the order finished, he was leaving directly behind us, which I found quite intimidatingyou know, walking down the alleyway behind us. (Rachel, supported contact center)

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

393

For the majority of women involved in the study, going to a contact center did not reduce levels of postseparation violence and harassment as they had hoped. A significant number of mothers described how contact within the center was being used to perpetrate violence.
Hes nasty, verbally abusive. Through the children, hell say things to the children about me and theyll come back and tell me what he has said about meeven though the contact center is public, it is not public enough. (Salma, supervised contact center)

Coordinators responding to the questionnaire reported few critical or threatening incidents during contact sessions. Members of the research team observing sessions, however, found that few entire contact sessions passed without some kind of incident occurring. This included fathers having verbal altercations with members of staff, directing verbal abuse toward women and sometimes children, men leaving the center and then waiting outside, men passing notes to women through children, or asking children to reveal womens addresses. It may have been that coordinators genuinely believed that these were not serious situations or felt that all these situations were within their control. Perhaps, however, they had become inured to such behavior to the extent that it was normalized and tolerated. What was notable was that when an incident occurred in a public area within a center, including sometimes in the contact room, everyone using the center was affected. Distressed children were desperate to find their mothers, who were usually waiting out of sight in another room; mothers could hear distraught children but did not know what was happening. This raised questions about how far mens behavior was being inappropriately accommodated, an issue discussed further below. Despite their own fears, and the absence of even basic safety features in many contact centers, women remained essential to contact happening. The majority of children using centers were young; many were babies. Women who participated in this study had between them 112 children, 64.2% (n = 72) of whom were younger than 4 years old. Some babies and children had never been in the care of their father. The security of their mother being nearby was important, and even in supervised settings, staff frequently called on mothers to pacify distressed children or to help with practical tasks such as nappy (diaper) changing. Being available for their children often brought women into direct contact with men with convictions for violence against them, including rape.
Its just a point that you may not feel safe with them, but the fact is that your child is safer with you being there. (Debbie, supported contact center)

Disbelief and Denial

The difficulties that women have in authenticating domestic violence to the standard required for judicial intervention or convincing to professionals are well documented (Humphreys & Holder, 2002). Minimizing the impact of their violence

394

Violence Against Women

and creating a situation in which the victim is disbelieved are known strategies of perpetrators (Harrison, Mullender, & Thiara, 2002). The combination of these two factorsdifficulties in producing evidence deemed sufficient and the denial and minimization of perpetratorscreated profound difficulties for women in the contact center research. The majority of participating resident mothers said that severe violence was the main reason for using a center. This was difficult for women to authenticate, but even when there were convictions for violence, men maintained that allegations were false and they continued to deny their relevance to child contact. This left women in an invidious position.
They wasnt listening. This guys hit me. They didnt seem to listen to me, until I went to find the facts and then they listened to me, which is even worse. Its like you have to prove yourself not to be a liar before anyone listens to you. (Rachel, supported contact center) I have been told that unless I can prove that he was violent in any previous relationship, then the courts are likely to believe that this was a situation brought on by the chemistry of these two particular peopleso, therefore, saying that I am the kind of woman who would make a man hit me. (Tamla, supervised contact center)

That women were disbelieved was also revealed by other elements of the research. Interviews with referrers and center staff revealed conflicting views about what they considered adequate evidence of domestic violence. Despite increased awareness of male violence and recognized difficulties for women in collating evidence, referrers and contact center staff established high thresholds for what they considered convincing. Verbal accounts of violence tended not to be accepted, and faced with situations in which women described violence that was denied by men, referrers and contact staff often saw no alternative but to frame this as one persons word against another. Referrers and contact center staff evidently struggled to integrate their knowledge about domestic violence within their practices, or to resolve dilemmas in favor of women (Dalton, 1999). Even incontrovertible evidence of violence, such as convictions or injunctions, did not result in referrers or center staff organizing higher levels of vigilance, and did not preclude judges ordering contact, solicitors referring, or contact center staff accepting such situations at supported centers. Sixty-five percent (n = 22) of referrers interviewed were explicit that they made referrals to supported centers even when they did not consider that the levels of vigilance available were commensurate with the safety issues posed and in situations in which they thought that supervised contact or no contact would, in their opinion, be more appropriate. Underfunded supported centers were understandably often unable to meet necessary safety standards. Structural and organizational factors, such as pressure of referrals on centers without paid or qualified staff, constrained attention to domestic violence, undermined safety practices, and distorted operational thresholds. Less understandable was inconsistent practices in information sharing, active questioning, and risk and safety assessment, all known to be critical in planning for safety and

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

395

ensuring appropriate levels of vigilance (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Humphreys & Harrison, 2003). Although referrers said that they routinely screened for domestic violence, contact center coordinators felt that this information was not always given to them and could emerge later when families were already attending centers that did not have appropriate safety or staffing levels. Centers also varied in how active they were in seeking information essential to the safety of children and women. Nearly half the 86 centers responding to the questionnaire did not ask direct questions on their referral form about domestic violence. More than three quarters of all centers and half of supervised centers did not screen through interview. More than half of all centers and a quarter of supervised centers did not undertake safety or risk assessments even when domestic violence was identified. The terms supervised and supported did not have clear, shared meanings among the professionals and center staff involved. Some supervised centers surveyed had fewer safety features than other supported centers, confusing referrers and mothers about the levels of vigilance available. Given how ready referrers and center staff were to hold women responsible for difficulties in the contact process, the explicit acknowledgement that they made arrangements that were unsafe for women and children was disturbing. It was an example of how, as Radford and Tsutsumi (2004) have argued, agencies and legal processes have pushed responsibility for violence and protecting children onto victimized women (p. 9).

Mother Blaming: Rehabilitating Men and Punishing Women

Despite past violence being the strongest predictor of future violence (Walby & Myhill, 2001), the research showed that when plausible men contested evidence of violence, even proven histories were disregarded by courts, professionals, and contact centers. The level of disbelief described by women was pervasive and illustrated the extent to which a pro-contact discourse, couched in terms of the childs right to contact, displaced other considerations (Dewar & Parker, 1999; Kovacs, 2002). In the postseparation period, which is known to hold more acute dangers for women and children (Wilson & Daly, 2002), characteristically in private law a test of womens ability to prioritize their childrens interests was their willingness to promote contact. This expectation was applied irrespective of whether or not a father had been violent and despite the contrary position in public law, when the test of women is more likely to be about their willingness to leave or evict a violent man (Eriksson & Hester, 2001). A perhaps inevitable corollary of the difficulty in providing evidence deemed convincing by professionals was that disbelief became mother blaming (Radford & Tsutsumi, 2004), inherent in an equally entrenched view that women made false allegations to sabotage contact. When mothers were deemed not to have produced acceptable evidence or men refused to accept substantiated evidence of domestic violence, the ground was laid for womens reasonable fears to be misunderstood. Women thought deliberately to be constructing barriers to child contact could be construed as deliberately obstructive or implacably hostile (Radford et al., 1999), as these women described.

396

Violence Against Women

I havent got a prison record, Im not a drug user, Ive never been violent and yet Im looked at as if Im implacably hostile, which is the term that is always used, because I dont feel happy with my child seeing his father. (Ruth, a mother whose ex-partner had served a custodial sentence for domestic violence; supported contact center) The feeling we often get there is that the fathers supported a lot more than we are and that if were concerned, its seen as obstructive. If were worried or anxious, were very often made to feel like youre being this kind of bitch, trying to sabotage the contact. (Sara, supported contact center)4

Continuing Fears About Violence and Survival Strategies

Womens awareness of attitudes toward and judgments of them on the part of legal and welfare professionals and contact center staff meant that their fears and anxieties arising from previous or continuing violence were difficult to convey and still constituted violating experiences for them.
I dont feel safe. I dont feel that I can say what I want to say. I never feel I can say what I want to say because I am still frightened of him.And hes always got some kind of story that hes made up that makes it sound very, all very beautiful, and Im just this paranoid, overreacting, neurotic woman. (Lisa, supported contact center) I am still very scared to come. Initially I was terrified. My family and friends said, Dont show your fear. Inside, I am shaking. (Mohinder, supervised contact center)

In the face of such adverse circumstances and their awareness that they were considered implacably hostile, women had to carefully weigh what protective strategies were available to them. Knowing that there was little chance of complete protection of either themselves or their children, women adopted forms of resistance that afforded them relative safety. In doing so, they frequently jeopardized their own interests to give the most protection they could to their children. They cooperated with supervised or supported contact, not because they believed this to be in their childrens best interests, but because they feared that without this minimal level of involvement, their children could be at greater risk. Louise, for example, has been subjected to postseparation intimidation and harassment for 8 years, since her children were 2 and 3, respectively. Contact proceedings had been contested and protracted, but eventually Louise acceded to a contact order with a condition of attendance at a supervised center. She did so because she felt that some form of contact was inevitable and that going to a center might at least reduce a level of harassment that was distressing to her children. When she first started attending 18 months ago, this was indeed the case. Gradually, however, harassment started again, which is frightening her children, and contact is an ordeal for all three of them. On the day that she and her children were seen at the center, both children were

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

397

genuinely reluctant to go into the contact session. Louises 11-year-old daughter returned to her mother mid-session, in a distraught state because her father had been questioning her about her mother. Louise had been to a solicitor the day before to initiate proceedings under the Protection from Harassment Act but had been afraid to breach the contact order. Understandably, because women in the United Kingdom have been imprisoned for not complying with contact orders, few women felt confident to be as defiant as the following mother:
I have broken two court orders. I remain 100% convinced that my daughter is at risk of violence and emotional abuse from her father. (Carley, supervised contact center)

In this case, the parents had never lived together, but there was a history of violence witnessed by the child and concerns about the fathers inappropriate sexual boundaries. There were additional issues for the disproportionate high numbers of Black and minority women using contact centers in the study. Those who did not speak English as a first language felt at a disadvantage in communicating with center staff. Those who were refugees or asylum seekers feared a negative effect on their immigration status. This resulted in womens overcompliance with arrangements about which they felt deeply unhappy.

Mothers Views About the Impact on Children: Feeling Compromised and Powerless
I believe that we have to earn the right to be a parent. Domestic violence has implications for the child. They are putting the fathers right to see his child before the child. We should be protecting the innocent, not supporting the man who has already proven he has been violent. (Allie, supported contact center)

As Edleson et al. (2003) found, domestic violence perpetrators are more likely to be inconsistent as parents and to undermine children and mothers, and their behavior in short periods of supervised contact may not be a good measure of their overall parenting style when not observed. Despite this, womens responsibilities for promoting contact were established by professionals disaggregating what they euphemistically described as conflict between parents from the needs and interests of children. This metaphorical conjuring trick meant that mens potential to be good fathers was routinely evaluated or assumed without any reference to their responsibility for violence (National Abuse Free Contact Campaign [NAFCC], 2004). In this way, the parenting capacity of violent men was easily overestimated, and the protective and nurturing strategies of women were underestimated. The other side of the mother-blaming coin was that little, or sometimes no, evidence of safe parenting was required by professionals for fathering to be restored or, as described earlier, mens difficult behavior was rationalized as caused by the pressures on them.

398

Violence Against Women

He had a temper tantrum once upstairs. He was slamming the door and effing and blinding and I was told, Well, you can understand that he is frustrated. Every time, I am told that he is frustrated. (Justine, supervised contact center) And they said to me, Oh, hes so lovely and Oh, hes so attractive. And I would think: Hang on a minute. This is the man you know beat me up. On two occasions, he threatened or tried to rape me, has beaten up my daughter, has done lots of things. (Siobhan, supervised contact center)

In some cases, overconfidence in mens parenting based merely on their immediate presentation to staff within a center led to an attenuation of previously agreed levels of supervision. This willingness to divorce mens violence from childrens well-being subscribed to a model of parental separation predicated on the concept of loss of a relationship with a father (Bradshaw et al., 1999). When the absence of men from childrens lives is strongly, if erroneously, associated with a range of social problems, and the significance of domestic violence is underestimated, a contact at any cost philosophy can flourish. One of a number of consequences related to dealing with a pro-contact welfare system that takes little account of the continuation of violence was that women constantly felt powerless to protect their children.
If there was any stopping contact, then I would because my children are suffering. But I have no choice. (Mandi, supported contact center) Its a natural feeling within you to always want to protect that child, but youre being told that you cant, and your rights as a mother or as a parent are completely taken way from you. And I feel very much that if this all goes wrong and something happens to her, Im just going to be told Im sorry: Youre a statistic. Its, you know, Im sorry, we should have listened to you. (Siobhan, supervised contact center)

Childrens perspectives on child contact arrangements made in the context of domestic violence are few, although their views are crucial. Some children in the contact center study were positive about contact. They described the loss felt when their parents separated and their pleasure at seeing their father. For others, contact in a center was better than previous arrangements, but only because they felt that these had been more harrowing. A significant minority of children, one third of the 21 children who participated, expressed ambivalence, reluctance, and in some cases, opposition, and for them, contact was neither positive nor safe.
I wish it (contact) never happened at all. (Samantha, 11-year-old girl, supervised contact center) (I dont like) everything about it (contact). (Bernadette, 8-year-old girl, supported contact center)

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

399

I dont like seeing him. (Ruby, 5-year-old girl, supervised contact center) He causes trouble. (Rifat, 7-year-old boy, supervised contact center)

From reports of contact center staff and mothers and from the observations of researchers, the highest levels of anxiety and insecurity affected children who had been exposed to domestic violence. There were some children having contact whose circumstances indicated the poorest outcomes (Buchanan et al., 2001), raising concerns about the manner and extent to which childrens views were taken into account when arrangements were made. Children were the least likely to be interviewed by centers and, in only a minority of cases, had there been detailed assessments based on sustained involvement with children. Once voluntary or court-ordered contact was in place, there was often no adult, professional or otherwise, with a responsibility to evaluate the impact of contact on children or to seek their views. Tellingly, two thirds of the 21 children said that they wanted their mothers to remain nearby within the center when contact was taking place, again illustrating that childrens and mothers interests, although not the same, were closely intertwined (Mullender et al., 2002). Perceptions of women formed a barrier to hearing childrens voices and belied the relationship between women and children. Although the concepts of parental alienation and implacable hostility are substantially challenged by the weight of research evidence (Brown et al., 2001; Jaffe et al., 2003), they were used to preclude taking account of the impact on children of domestic violence. Mothers accounts of their childrens needs were rendered inadmissible, exacerbating the marginalization of childrens perspectives that is characteristic generally of the divorce field (Smart, 2002). A presumption that contact was invariably beneficial led to a selective approach to childrenwho were believed if they said that they wanted contact but overruled if they did not. Some children were seen clearly expressing their views and showing their distress but were placed under pressure to have contact apparently against their wishes. When women were dismissed as unreliable in knowing their childrens needs and interests, not the least consequence was that an important source of support and recovery was ignored.

Facing the Future? The Enduring Impact of Domestic Violence

In the United Kingdom, contact center provision is seen as a short-term intervention with an expectation that it will progress to voluntary arrangements for child contact. In the majority of centers, not only was there little assessment of fathers parenting or the safety needs of women and children but also often no direct work to improve either parenting or safety (Aris et al., 2002).

400

Violence Against Women

A contact center cant change a personalitya father cant change just because of a contact center. (Hardeep, supported contact center)

Existing research emphasizes that the outcomes for children are poorest when postseparation contact forms the site for continuing violence and stresses that women and children need time and space for their recovery (Strategic Partners, 1998). There was a contradiction between the expectations and basis of contact at a center as a short-term, transitional measure and the needs and experiences of women and children affected by male violence, who had not had the space or support to fully recover. When the issue of moving on was raised, this frequently resulted in an intensification of the tensions that had characterized early stages of the process of determining contact arrangements. Although fathers viewed contact at a center as unnecessarily restrictive and invariably saw no problem with unsupervised contact, resident mothers did not want to lose the relative safety that supported and supervised centers afforded. When a history of domestic violence remained unknown or became obscured, and women appeared reluctant to move on, a perception of them as hostile and obstructive was reinforced, and their real fears were left unacknowledged. This threw into relief not just the enduring impact of domestic violence but also the ways in which contact at a center prolonged or intensified the impact of violence. It was not just a case of contact centers not making the situation safer or better for some women and children but that contact at a center appeared to prevent women and childrens recovery; it failed to ameliorate harm and, for many women and children, possibly compounded harm.
I think that it prolongs the violence at the end of the day. Hes got control over mecause I dread goingcause it really does upset me, and I think its wrong. (Denise, supervised contact center) Just even seeing him and jumping because I know what I went through was very hard. I just used to go away and hide. Im still not living a normal life. I dont think that it is ever going to go, no matter where I live. I think that it has emotionally set in. Its really damaged my emotions. I wont let anyone into my life.Im frightened that it will backfire on me. It has damaged my emotions completely. (Azza, supervised contact center)

Conclusion
Arrangements for child contact cannot be dissociated from the longer history of violence that a woman has suffered and its potential relationship with child abuse and negative outcomes for children. A large proportion of the women interviewed in the contact center research had experienced persistent postseparation violence and harassment for lengthy periods of time. A graphic picture emerged of a systemic failure to appreciate the impact of this or to assess the safety needs of women and

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

401

children. This resulted in lack of evaluation of mens parenting and ignored the ways in which women had sought to protect their children. Organizational factors and resource constraints played their part, but ideological aspects were more significant, indicating that, even with notable changes, beliefs about women and domestic violence remain embedded in popular and professional discourses. A pro-contact stance was fueled by the largely fallacious concepts of parental alienation and implacable hostility. Consequently, contradictory demands had been imposed on women. Expected by public child protection agencies to protect their children by leaving or excluding violent men, they were subsequently expected to promote contact with the same men, whatever the cost to them or their children. Misplaced attitudes about women also prevented childrens voices being heard and misconstrued the relationship between women and children. Once women were deemed implacably hostile they were assumed to be misrepresenting their childrens interests, and both their protective strategies and their role in childrens recovery were further sabotaged. Far from misusing their children, women in the study illustrated the extent to which they would go to shield their children from the impact of violence, despite serious repercussions for themselves. Child contact constituted a significant site for and form of postseparation violence. Not only was violence and intimidation perpetrated before, during, and after child contact, but also continuous litigation could be a form of harassment. With the complicity, if not collusion, of the private law system and associated legal and welfare discourses, this demonstrated that the desire to keep even violent men in positions of power in the nuclear family frequently overrode other considerations and allowed abuse to continue. What appeared as a focus on childrens welfare did not necessarily mean privileging their safety and well-being but, instead, was used to legitimate the scrutinizing and disciplining of women who were trying to protect their children.

Notes
1. Strategic Partners Pty. Ltd. is a social research agency engaged by the Australian Federal Government to evaluate various aspects of child contact provision. 2. In private law proceedings (relating to contact and residence applications) in England and Wales, the Family Court can request a welfare report from a Children and Family Reporter from the Court and Family Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) to inform the court of the childs wishes and to make a recommendation about what is considered to be in the childs interest. Only if the court orders that a child becomes a party to proceedings will a solicitor and Childrens Guardian be appointed to represent and advocate on behalf of the child. In public law proceedings, a child is automatically a party and a Childrens Guardian will be appointed by CAFCASS. 3. NACCC is an organization to which centers have in the past affiliated. It is in the process of changing to an organization through which agencies will be accredited based on meeting specified standards. 4. Interviews with referrers and contact center staff confirmed womens views about how often they were disbelieved or thought to be malicious. For example, They sit there and they are constantly slagging the fathers off. Mothers are just horrible to them. Sometimes I think that it is like a witches coven (Worker, supported contact center).

402

Violence Against Women

References
Aris, R., Harrison, C., & Humphreys, C. (2002). Safety and child contact: An analysis of the role of child contact centres in the context of domestic violence and child welfare concerns. London: Stationery Office. Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bergen, R. K. (1999). Marital rape. The Violence Against Women Online Resources Applied Research Forum. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.vaw.edu Bradshaw, J., Stimson, C., Williams, J., & Skinner, C. (1999). Absent fathers. London: Routledge. British Medical Association. (1998). Domestic violence: A health care issue? London: Author. Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (2001). The child abuse and divorce myth. Child Abuse Review, 10, 113-124. Buchanan, A., Hunt, J., Bretherton, H., & Bream, V. (2001). Families in conflict: Perspectives of children and parents in the Family Court Welfare Service. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Burghes, L., Clarke, N., & Cronin, N. (1997). Fathers and fatherhood in Britain. London: Family Policy Studies Centre. Cawson, P. (2002). Child maltreatment in the family: The experience of a sample of young people. London: NSPCC. Church, J. (1984). Violence against wives: Its causes and effects. Christchurch, New Zealand: Author. Dalton, C. (1999). When paradigms collide: Protecting battered parents and their children in the family court system. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 37(3), 273-296. Dewar, J., & Parker, S. (1999). The impact of the new Part VII Family Law Act 1975. Australian Journal of Family Law, 13, 96-116. Edleson, J. L. (1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134-154. Edleson, J. L., Mbilinyi, L. F., & Shetty, S. (2003). Parenting in the context of domestic violence. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Offices of the Court. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications Eriksson, M., & Hester, M. (2001). Violent men as good enough fathers? A look at England and Sweden. Violence Against Women, 7, 779-798. Furniss, C. (1998). Family contact centres: The position in England, Wales and Scotland (Working Paper 6). Leeds, U.K.: University of Leeds. Furniss, C. (2000). The process of referral to a family contact centre: Policies and practices. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 12, 225-281. Gielen, A., OCampo, P., Faden, R., Kass, N., & Xue, X. (1994). Interpersonal conflict and physical violence during the childbearing years. Social Science and Medicine, 39, 781-787. Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Levendovsky, A. A. (1998). The social functioning of pre-school aged children whose mothers are emotionally and physically abused. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 59-84. Gregg, P. (1999). Child development and family income. York, U.K.: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Grief, G. (1997). Out of touch: When parents and children lose contact after divorce. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Harrison, C., Mullender, A., & Thiara, R. (2002). Challenging violent men. Coventry, U.K.: Coventry Domestic Violence Partnership. Her Majestys Government. (2005). Parental separation: Childrens needs and parents responsibilities. Next steps. London: The Stationery Office. Hester, M., & Pearson, C. (1998). From periphery to centre: Domestic violence work with abused children. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Hester, M., Pearson, C., & Harwin, N. (2000) Making an impact: A reader. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

403

Hester, M., & Radford, L. (1996). Domestic violence and child contact arrangements in England and Denmark. London: Policy Press. Hotton, T. (2001). Spousal violence after marital separation. Juristat, 21(7), 1-19. Hume, M. (2003, May). The relationship between child sexual abuse, domestic violence and separating families. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution? Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Adelaide. Retrieved from www.aic.gov.au/ conferences/2003-abuse/hume.pdf Humphreys, C. (2000). Social work, domestic violence and child protection: Challenging practice. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Humphreys, C., & Harrison, C. (2003). Focusing on safety: Domestic violence and the role of child contact centres. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 15, 237-253. Humphreys, C., & Holder, R. (2002). An integrated criminal justice response to domestic violence: Its challenging, but its not rocket science. SAFE: The Domestic Violence Quarterly, 3, 16. Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. (2002). Routes to safety: Protection issues facing abused women and children and the role of outreach services. Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press. Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. (2003). Neither justice nor protection: Womens experiences of postseparation violence. Journal of Social Welfare Law, 25, 195-214. Jaffe, P. G., Lemon, N. K. D., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). Child custody and domestic violence: A call for safety and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnston, J. (1995). Domestic violence and parent-child relationships in families disputing custody. Australian Journal of Family Law, 9(1), 12-25. Johnston, J., Kline, J., & Tschann, J. (1989). On-going post-divorce conflict: Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59, 190-199. Johnston, J., & Roseby, V. (1997). In the name of the child: A developmental approach to understanding and helping children of conflicted and violent divorce. New York: Free Press. Judicial Statistics. (2003). Annual report 2003. London: Department for Constitutional Affairs. Kaganas, F., & Piper, C. (1999). Divorce and domestic violence. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate. Kaye, M., Stubbs, J., & Tolmie, J. (2003). Negotiating child residence and contact arrangements against a background of domestic violence. Nathan, Australia: Socio-legal Research Centre, Griffith University. Kelly, L. (1994). The interconnectedness of domestic violence and child abuse: Challenges for research, policy and practice. In A. Mullender & R. Morley (Eds.), Children living with domestic violence: Putting mens abuse of women on the child care agenda (pp. 43-56). London: Whiting and Birch. Kelly, L. (1999). Domestic violence matters. London: Her Majestys Stationery Office. Kernic, M. A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11, 991-1021. Kilsby, P. (2001). Aspects of crime: Children as victims, London: Home Office Crime and Criminal Justice Research Unit, Development and Statistics Directorate. Kovacs, K. (2002). Domestic violence, children and family law in Australia and New Zealand. Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, 10(1), 1-9. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/ nl12002/ winterhtml Lord Chancellors Department. (2001). Guidelines for good practice on parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence. London: Author. Maclean, M., & Eekelaar, J. (1997). The parental obligation: A study of parenthood across households. Oxford, U.K.: Hart Publishing. Maker, A., Kemmelmeier, M., & Peterson, C. (1998). Long-term psychological consequences in women of witnessing parental physical conflict and experiencing abuse in childhood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 574-589. Mathias, J., Mertin, P., & Murray, A. (1995). The psychological functioning of children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Australian Psychologist, 30, 47-56.

404

Violence Against Women

McCloskey, L., Figueredo, A., & Koss, P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on childrens mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261. Mertin, P. (1995). A follow-up study of children from domestic violence. Australian Journal of Family Law, 9, 76-85. Mezey, G., & Bewley, S. (1997). Domestic violence and pregnancy. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 104, 528-531. Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, G., Kelly, L., Malos, E., & Regan, L. (2002). Childrens perspectives on domestic violence. London: Sage. National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC). (1994). The origins and history of the network of access and child contact centres. Nottingham, U.K.: Author. National Abuse Free Contact Campaign (NAFCC). (2004). Response to a discussion paper, A new approach to the family law system implementation of reforms. Retrieved January 2005, from http://www.Austdvclearinghouse.UNSW.Edu.au/r&r_docs/NAFCC_discussion_paper Newiss, G., & Fairbrother, L. (2004). Child abduction. Understanding police recorded crime statistics: Findings 225. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. OKeefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violent families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 3-25. Parkinson, P., & Humphreys, C. (1998). Children who witness domestic violence: The implications for child protection. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 10, 147-159. Plass, P., Finkelhor, D., & Hotaling, G. (1996). Family abduction outcomes: Factors associated with duration and emotional trauma to children. Youth and Society, 28, 109-130. Radford, L., Sayer, S., & AMICA. (1999). Unreasonable fears? Child contact in the context of domestic violence: A survey of mothers perceptions of harm. Bristol, U.K.: Womens Aid Federation of England. Radford, L., & Tsutsumi, K. (2004). Globalisation and violence against women: Inequalities in risks, responsibilities and blame in the U.K. and Japan. Womens Studies International Forum, 17, 1-12. Rai, D. K., & Thiara, R. (1997). Re-defining spaces: The needs of black women and children in refuge support services and black workers in Womens Aid. Bristol, U.K.: Womens Aid Federation of England. Rhoades, H. (2002). The no contact mother: Reconstruction of motherhood in the era of the new father. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16, 71-94. Rhoades, H., & Boyd, S. B. (2004). Reforming custody laws: A comparative study. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 18, 119-146. Richards, L. (2003). Findings from the multi-agency domestic violence murder reviews in London. London: Metropolitan Police. Rodgers, B., & Pryor, J. (1998). Divorce and separation: Outcomes for children. York, U.K.: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Rosen, L. N., & OSullivan, C. S. (2005). Outcomes of custody and visitation petitions when fathers are restrained by protection orders: The case of New York family courts. Violence Against Women, 11, 1054-1075. Ross, S. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 589-598. Rossman, B. B., Hughes, H. M., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2000). Children and interparental violence: The impact of exposure. Victoria, Australia: Brunner/Mazel. Saunders, H. (2001) Making contact worse. Bristol, U.K.: Womens Aid Federation of England. Saunders, H. (2004). Twenty-nine child homicides: Lessons still to be learnt on domestic violence and child protection. Bristol, U.K.: Womens Aid Federation of England. Saunders, H., & Barron, J. (2003). Failure to protect? Bristol, U.K.: Womens Aid Federation of England. Smart, C. (2002). From childrens shoes to childrens voices. Family Court Review: An International Journal, 40(3), 305-317. Smart, C. (2004). Equal shares: Rights for children or recognition for children? Critical Social Policy, 24, 484-503.

Harrison / Managing Child Contact

405

Smart, C., & Neale, B. (1999). Family fragments. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press. Smith, J. L. (2003). Suitable mothers: Lesbian and single women and the unborn in Australian parliamentary discourse. Critical Social Policy, 23, 63-88. Stanko, E. (2000). The day to count: A snapshot of the impact of domestic violence in the U.K. Royal Holloway, U.K.: University of London. Statistics Canada. (2002). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2002. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Strategic Partners Ltd. (1998). Contact services in Australiaresearch and evaluation project. Canberra, Australia: Legal and Family Services, Attorney Generals Department. Sturge, C., & Glaser, D. (2000, September). Contact and domestic violence: The experts court report. Family Law, 30, 615-629. Van Horn, P., & Lieberman, A. (2002). Domestic violence and parenting: A review of the literature. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts. Walby, S. (2004). The cost of domestic violence. London: Womens Equality Unit/Department of Trade and Industry. Walby, S., & Myhill, A. (2001). Assessing and managing risk. In J. Taylor-Browne (Ed.), What works in reducing domestic violence? (pp. 307-334). London. Whiting and Birch. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2002). Homicide. New York: Aldine. Wyndham, A. (1998). Children and domestic violence: The need for supervised contact services when contact with the violent father is ordered/desired. Australian Social Work, 51, 41-48.

Christine Harrison is a senior lecturer in the School of Health and Social Studies, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. She is director of the Centre for the Study of Safety and Wellbeing, which researches all forms of violence toward women and children. She is an experienced social worker and has taught child protection social work for the past 15 years. She continues to have involvement with women living in adverse circumstances through work at a womens hostel and membership of the Management Committee of a Sexual Abuse Centre. Her recent work has focused on domestic violence and child contact, new information and communication technologies, and child abuse.