Gregory L. Lecklitner, Neena M. Malik, Sharon M.
Aaron and Cindy S. Lederman, Promoting Safety for Abused Children and Battered
Mothers: Miami-Dade County’s Model Dependency Court Intervention Program,
4 Child Maltreatment 175 (1999).
The judiciary has a unique opportunity to play
a central role in a coordinated
community response to domestic violence and child
abuse. In practice, however,
most courts fail to assess for multiple forms of
family violence" which
in the worst cases can revictimize and jeopardize
the safety of both parents
and children who have suffered from abuse. The
Dependency Court Intervention
Program for Family Violence is a unique project
that is located in Miami-Dade
County's Juvenile Court and collaborates with the
judiciary in an effort
to enhance the community's response to families
in which child maltreatment
and domestic violence co-occur. This article describes
the structure of
the Dependency Court Intervention Program, as well
as its primary goals,
assessment strategies, interventions, and research
methods. In addition,
some of the most important challenges to the project,
including creating
collaborations among child protection and domestic
violence workers, are
discussed.
Although courts can play a central role in developing
a coordinated community
response to family violence,judicial practice has
often fallen short in
this regard (National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges, 1994).
In particular, courts need to consider the dynamics
of family violence
when making decisions regarding child custody and
visitation so as not
to unfairly punish the victims of domestic violence
or threaten the safety
of women and their children (Pagelow, 1993; Saunders,
1994). Although allegations
of child abuse and neglect may be raised in a variety
of courtrooms, including
those devoted to family, criminal, delinquency,
civil, and appellate matters,
it is the dependency court that considers cases
brought by representatives
of the state's child protective service system.
It is here that many of
the most egregious cases of abuse and neglect of
children are addressed,
and it is here that many of the most important
decisions regarding matters
of child welfare, family safety, child custody,
visitation, and parental
rights are made.
Despite the gravity of the task, the dependency
court has limited tools
to accomplish its goals. Typically, judicial interventions
range from time-limited
case plans for parents to demonstrate improved
ability to care for children,
to removal of children from their homes, to an
ultimate sanction of termination
of parental rights. Clearly, if an abusive caretaker
is only peripherally
related to the family, most of these sanctions
will have minimal impact.
For example, when the abuser is an intimate but
unmarried, noncustodial
partner to a parent, the court cannot bind such
a person to a case plan,
order him or her into an intervention program,
or even order appearance
in dependency court. Without a legal or biological
bond, the dependency
court has minimal jurisdiction over such an individual.
Criminal prosecution
in such matters typically is in the hands of the
criminal court, where
state or district attorneys generally pursue only
the most serious cases.
Whether or not criminal prosecution is pursued,
the dependency court must
still address issues of child safety, and an individual
with a legal custodial
relationship to a child must be involved in the
planning for safety. Thus,
the dependency court is most likely to involve
as the subject of judicial
control the child's mother, who is most often the
primary caretaker and
who frequently may be a victim of family violence
herself (Malik, Lederman,
Aaron, & Lecklitner, 1998). It is through her
that the court seeks to ensure
the safety of the child; to retain or regain custody
of her children, she
may be ordered to perform avariety of tasks, including
evaluation and treatment.
These tasks may be ordered with little regard for
a mother's safety, particularly
in cases of domestic violence. The court may not
be aware of a history
of domestic violence because no inquiry has been
made by the child protective
services worker, the psychological evaluator, or
the court. For example,
a case plan that includes regular home visits or
therapy for a mother may
be violated by a mother seeking to avoid contacts
with service providers
who might then become aware of domestic violence,
particularly if she is
the victim of a batterer who has warned her against
revealing evidence
of domestic violence in the home.
Given these realities, it is little wonder that
advocates for battered
women have been critical of dependency court practices.
Dependency courts
often have been seen as insensitive to the experience
of battered women,
and dependency court judges have sometimes made
decisions that unwittingly
endangered both children and their mothers. Battered
women at times have
been charged with a "failure to protect"
their children from exposure to
their own victimization, prompting one vocal advocate
(Buehl, 1994) to
state
In the 16 years I've worked in the courts, I have
never seen a father charged
with failure to protect when the mom is the abuser.
Yet, in virtually every
case where Dad is the abuser, we charge Mom with
failure to protect....
If we want to protect our children, we damn well
better be interested in
protecting the mothers, because we as a society
hold mothers responsible
for the safety of their children. (p. 13)
As a result of practices such as these, the American
Bar Association (1994)
recently called on the courts and others who seek
to enhance family safety
to "exercise care so that their interventions
do not become unintentional
bludgeons used against children and their battered
parents" (p. 50).
THE DEPENDENCY COURT INTERVENTION PROGRAM FOR FAMILY
VIOLENCE
Only a handful of efforts are under way across
the nation to address the
issue of domestic violence within the context of
the child protection system
(Aron & Olson, 1997), and dependency courts
typically are not in the forefront
of such efforts. The Dependency Court Intervention
Program for Family Violence
(DCIPFV) in Miami-Dade County, Florida, however,
is the first program of
its kind to involve the judiciary in a comprehensive
effort to address
domestic violence within the context of the child
protection system. As
a national demonstration project funded by the
Violence Against Women Grants
Office of the U.S. Department of Justice, the DCIPFV
constitutes the first
effort in the nation to bring battered women's
advocacy to dependency proceedings.
We now turn to a discussion of the project goals
and a description of the
program, in addition to a description of some of
the initial challenges
the program has faced in its development and initial
months of implementation.
Goals of the DCIPFV
Miami-Dade County is a largely urban area, with
an ethnically and racially
diverse population of more than 2 million people.
In recent years, according
to the Florida Department of Children and Families
(1997), about 12,000
reports of child abuse or neglect have been made
to the state's child abuse
registry on behalf of Miami-Dade County children
each year, resulting in
the filing of about 700 detention or dependent
petitions per year. The
county's child protective service system maintains
supervision of about
5,000 children each year. The department has identifled
domestic violence
as a significant factor associated with child fatalities
due to maltreatment.
With the potentially overwhelming needs of families
dealing with issues
of violence in addition to poverty, stress, and
prejudice, it became clear
that the DCIPFV would have to focus on several
specific and clearly delineated
goals. Four primary goals have emerged for the
program, and each is described
below.
1. To develop collaborative relationships between
the child protective
service system, battered women's advocates, the
judiciary, attorneys, and
mental health and victim service providers. These
relationships are critical
in an effort to coordinate the responses of multiple
agencies to cases
of co-occurring domestic violence and child abuse,
so that actions that
increase danger to mothers and children can be
avoided, and battered women
will be less frequently revictimized by agencies
or held accountable for
the actions of the abuser. In a society with limited
resources for women
and children in distress, collaborations and resource
sharing among social
service agencies are essential to meet the multiple
needs of these families.
One of the strengths of the DCIPFV is the fact
that it was initiated by
the judiciary and carries with it that authority
in an effort to bring
multiple agencies together in an effort to coordinate
a response to family
violence.
2. To develop a coordinated system of domestic
violence screening within
the context of child maltreatment investigations
and legal proceedings.
Among the clearest problems in coordinating community
responses to family
violence is the lack of information about the nature
of the violence that
occurs in families. The traditional separation
of battered women's advocacy
and advocacy for children has led to distinct lines
of assessment and intervention,
and frequently, families victimized by both domestic
violence and child
abuse are unidentified by those working in the
child protection system,
domestic violence center staff, and the courts.
Identifying domestic violence
within child maltreatment investigations and dependency
court proceedings
is not without risks related to confidentiality
and revictimization. Thus,
a system of domestic violence identification must
be developed with particular
care and attention toward issues of when, where,
and how it is safest for
mothers and children to reveal domestic violence.
One of the tasks to be
undertaken by this project was the development
of such a protocol for use
by both child protective service workers as part
of their initial investigation
and by battered women's advocates working within
the dependency court setting.
3. To improve our understanding of the co-occurrence
of child abuse and
domestic violence and the effects of these two
forms of family violence
on children. Across the country, psychological
evaluations of children
often are conducted as part of child abuse investigations.
Rarely do these
evaluations, often designed to investigate abuse
and assess the psychological
and emotional needs of children, include an assessment
of domestic violence
in the home. This omission is particularly noteworthy
given research findings
indicating the frequent cooccurrence of domestic
violence and child maltreatment
(Edleson, in press) and findings that witnessing
domestic violence sometimes
has acute and potentially long-term effects on
children's development (see
Edleson, 1999) . As such, a goal of the DCIPFV
is to systematically and
reliably assess victimization, violence exposure,
and social and emotional
functioning in children under the jurisdiction
of the dependency court,
most of whom have been removed from their homes
due to allegations of maltreatment.
In addition, mothers and service providers are
interviewed to obtain multiple
perspectives on the cooccurrence of domestic violence
and child maltreat
ment, an important design element because the severity
and frequency of
family violence frequently depend on the source
of the report (Sternberg,
Lamb, & Dawud-Noursi, 1998).
4. To document the processes and outcomes of program
development and implementation.
It is not unusual for community-based intervention
programs to forgo issues
of process and evaluation research and program
oversight, given the more
proximal needs of service provision. Without full
documentation of the
context in which programs are developed and the
process by which development
and implementation of interventions occur, however,
it is not possible
to fully understand whether a program is successful
and can be used in
other settings. Particularly given the potential
for negative, unintended
consequences of intervention in this area, the
DCIPFV was designed to monitor
both process and outcomes variables.
Description of the DCIPFV
The Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family
Violence includes
several components, including domestic violence
screening and the provision
of outreach advocacy services, the evaluation of
children and selected
adults, a victim services or intervention program
for mothers and children,
and a program evaluation component.
The overarching mission of this project is to develop,
implement, and evaluate
a coordinated approach to the handling of child
abuse cases where domestic
violence is also present, in order to promote the
safety of both children
and mothers. Project partners include the judiciary,
the state child protective
services system, a battered women's shelter, a
courtoperated psychological
evaluation unit, and a county-based services program
that provides batterers'
intervention and battered women's support groups.
Domestic violence screening and advocacy for battered
women. Beginning
formal operations in October 1997, after a 6-month
period of building community
partnerships and program planning and design, the
DCIPFV's front-line efforts
begin with the use of a domestic violence screening
protocol by protective
investigators within one selected local unit of
the state child protection
department. In those cases where responses to this
screening protocol have
indicated a history of domestic violence, mothers
are referred to the program's
advocates. Advocacy services are offered on a voluntary,
no-cost basis
to referred women. Women are informed before they
accept services that
in the context of the child protection investigation,
advocates may be
sharing information with child abuse investigators
in order to coordinate
efforts to meet family needs and that advocates
are mandated reporters
of child abuse and neglect.
Not all cases of child abuse and neglect reach
the level of child removal
and court involvement; in fact, it is the exception
rather than the rule
for cases to become so serious. Nevertheless, when
cases do reach the dependency
courtroom, DCIPFV advocates are present and conduct
domestic violence screening
with women who are the subject of detention or
dependent petitions. Again,
those women who selfidentify as the victims of
domestic violence are offered
advocacy services on a voluntary, no-cost basis,
and they are fully informed
about confidentiality and the limits of confidentiality
prior to screening
and offering of services.
Florida statute allows for privileged communica
tion between a registered
domestic violence victim advocate and her client,
if the advocate is in
the employ of a domestic violence center (Domestic
Violence Advocate-Victim
Privilege, 1995). In MiamiDade County, the local
shelter has been instrumental
in collaborating with the DCIPFV to arrange for
advocacy services to be
subcontracted to their organization so that advocates
could engage in privileged
communications with their clients in judicially
involved cases. It was
felt that this privilege would be particularly
important in such cases,
where parents potentially are subject to serious
outcomes, including termination
of parental rights, to promote trust between the
advocate and her client
and protect the client from potentially incriminating
evidence divulged
to the advocate. To promote dialogue and trust
between the advocates and
child protective service workers, however, this
privilege is not part of
the advocacy framework in pre-court cases referred
by the local unit of
the state child protection department. In both
cases, as noted above, clients
are advised of the privileged or nonprivileged
nature of communications
prior to receiving services.
The confidentiality of advocate-client communications
and the limits to
such confidentiality are controversial issues within
the battered women's
movement, particularly in cases involving child
protection. Although some
battered women's advocates may argue that communication
between an advocate
and her client should be confidential, particularly
in the context of a
judicial hearing where personal safety issues or
child custody might be
compromised by the release of certain client information
(for example,
substance abuse history), others within the child
protective service system
may fear that the withholding of this type of information
might serve to
increase the danger for both mothers and their
children. The decision to
develop an advocacy structure wherein strict confidentiality
is maintained
in court and not in precourt cases was carefully
considered with both local
and national legal advocates and child welfare
experts. Tracking the successes
and failures of the confidentiality structure is
an important part of the
process evaluation of the DCIPFV.
Advocacy services for women who are referred pre-court
from child protective
service workers and for women who self-identify
as victims in dependency
court are based on a woman-defined advocacy model
(Davies, Lyon, & Monti-Catania,
1998) . Because most of the women who are the subject
of child abuse allegations
have not identified themselves as victims of domestic
violence to obtain
assistance, advocacy services need to be offered
on an outreach basis in
which women are allowed to define their own needs.
As such, each client's
advocacy plan is based on what she herself states
as her most pressing
needs. Services thus may include assistance with
a variety of needs such
as public entitlements and job training; provisions
for shelter and medical
care; and assistance with legal matters such as
custody and visitation
arrangements, divorce, and immigration issues,
in addition to more typical
battered women's advocacy tasks such as safety
planning, crisis intervention,
and assistance with restraining orders or orders
for protection. Flexibility
on the part of advocates is crucial for those working
in child protection
settings. Often, issues of food and shelter initially
take precedence over
concerns for personal safety. For example, one
mother found herself so
badly hurt after a violent attack by her partner
that she was hospitalized.
While this mother was in the hospital, she lost
her job, and on being released
from the hospital, she was destitute and unable
to provide food and shelter
for her children. The initial task for her advocate
in this situation was
to find food for this mother and her hungry children.
A significant challenge to helping battered mothers
whose children are
abused revolves around issues of communication
and transportation. Frequently,
mothers have access to neither telephones nor transportation,
and advocates
conduct most meetings with clients in community
centers, nearby social
services agencies, schools, and domestic violence
courts. Particularly
when going out into the community, issues of safety
for the advocate have
had to be addressed by the project as well as issues
of safety for mothers
and children. Thus, advocates often conduct outreach
work in pairs and
have been provided with pagers and cellular telephones,
not only for emergency
purposes but also so that mothers with infrequent
access to telephones
can reach their advocates quickly and obtain a
swift response from the
advocate.
As noted above, because the mothers who work with
the DCIPFV have not initially
sought services for themselves as victims of domestic
violence, outreach
advocacy that encompasses all the needs of a family
and does not focus
solely on issues of domestic violence has been
critical to forming and
maintaining a relationship with clients. The DCIPFV
seeks to provide advocacy
to mothers who are likely to be, at best, reluctantly
involved with child
protection but are no less in need than mothers
who take themselves and
their children to battered women's shelters. As
a disproportionate number
of ethnic minority families appear to be referred
to child protection (Malik
et al., 1998), outreach advocacy has been designed
to include an awareness
of and ability to combat the subtle and obvious
forms of institutionalized
racism and ethnocentrism, in addition to an understanding
of and respect
for the ways in which members of diverse cultural
groups express and meet
the needs of their families.
Court-based psychological evaluations of children
and adults. As part of
the DCIPFV, children age 5 and older may be referred
via court order for
evaluation to a psychological assessment unit administratively
attached
to the juvenile court. Evaluations consist of a
psychosocial history; clinical
interview; review of a variety of court, social
service, educational, and
mental health records; and psychological testing,
including intellectual
and academic achievement screening. Added to this
traditional psychological
evaluation by the DCIPFV are age-appropriate assessments
of trauma symptoms
and exposure to domestic and community violence.
Parents or custodians are also court-ordered for
evaluation, although only
in cases where good cause has been established.
Good cause as defined by
Florida law (Fruh v. State of Florida, 1983) requires
that the mental status
of the parent is in controversy and expert psychological
or psychiatric
testimony is needed to assist the court. In most
cases, the referred parent
will be the mother of the children, as many fathers
of abused and neglected
children do not have custody of their children,
nor are they seeking custody.
All too often, court-ordered evaluations have been
used against mothers
in court, as potential symptoms of trauma, depression,
and other psychological
distress that may be related to domestic violence
victimization have been
portrayed as more chronic indices of poor functioning.
To directly assess
domestic violence, maternal strengths and coping
skills within the context
of these evaluations, the DCIPFV has included assessments
of domestic violence,
trauma symptoms, and strategies used to handle
conflict and violence in
the home in standard forensic assessment batteries.
Intervention services for battered women and their
children. The DCIPFV,
in conjunction with the county's batterers' intervention
and victim services
center, developed an intervention program for children
and their mothers
where allegations of abuse or neglect and indications
of co-occurring domestic
violence have been identified. Initial referrals
to the program were generated
by project advocates. This program consists of
12 weeks of concurrent groups
for mothers and their school-age children, wherein
existing maternal and
child strengths and coping skills are supported
and encouraged, and clinical
efforts are directed toward improving parenting
skills, increasing safety
planning, and reducing trauma symptoms in mothers
and children. Separate
sessions are conducted for mothers and children,
with the clinicians involved
in the child group spending the final 20 minutes
of each session with parents,
informing them of what the children have been learning
and encouraging
mothers to work with their children on safety skills,
emotion identification,
and positive coping at home. These groups are conducted
in the early evening,
after school. Dinner, child care, and funds for
transportation are provided.
Piloting of the groups indicated high attendance,
with positive responses
from mothers and children, and this program will
continue to evolve. Work
is beginning on the development of a dyadic intervention
for victimized
mothers and their abused and neglected infants
and toddlers, as well.
Program evaluation. Outcome research in the context
of community interventions
is complex in terms of practice and methodology,
yet it is critical to
understanding whether a program flourishes or fails.
D'Aunno and Price
(1984a, 1984b) lay out some of the most critical
aspects of community-based
research, which include an accurate understanding
and thorough investigation
into researcher biases, judicious and efficient
choices of those elements
of program evaluation to be conducted, a priori
development of hypotheses
regarding what variables should be considered important
in the measurement
of program success or failure, assurance that research
products will be
useful for the community and based on the community's
needs, and use of
research methodologies that will yield public policy-relevant
data.
Seeking to meet these guidelines, the DCIPFV has
directed a significant
effort toward careful selection of appropriate
individuals to conduct program
evaluation and development of an intervention design
that can test certain
hypotheses regarding program success and failure.
In addition, the program
is working with local and national experts to ensure
that the questions
being asked and the design of the intervention
are appropriate for reporting
on the efficacy of the DCIPFV and the utility of
program intervention strategies
for other communities.
Initial Program Challenges
After 6 months of careful planning and 6 months
of program implementation,
the DCIPFV already has encountered several challenges.
Below is a brief
discussion of some of the difficulties likely to
be faced in any jurisdiction
attempting to address issues of domestic violence
and child maltreatment
simultaneously.
Challenges to developing a coordinated community
response to family violence.
First, the rifts between child protection and battered
women's advocacy
noted in the literature (Davis & Srinivasan,
1995; Schechter & Edleson,
1994; Schechter, 1996) became readily apparent
in practice. In hiring battered
women's advocates, the DCIPFV made every effort
to find women who had experience
with battered women's advocacy and yet some exposure
to child protection
issues. This proved to be an extremely difficult
task, and the decision
was made to hire advocates who at least had domestic
violence experience.
Particularly for smaller communities, it is likely
to be quite difficult
to find individuals who have training and experience
in both child protection
and domestic violence.
In conducting training and relationship-building
sessions prior to implementation
with child protective investigators and battered
women's advocates, several
clashes in ideology, consistent with their training
and experience, were
revealed. One of the important challenges to the
project has been the mediation
of these sometimes competing visions and the development
of cooperative
working relationships that build on common ground
and provide for respectful
dialogue on issues of disagreement. Prior to program
implementation, a
2-day training program for advocates and child
protective service investigators
was held, with 1 entire day devoted to relationship
building between the
two groups. Although this initial effort was fruitful,
it is clear that
ongoing communication between domestic violence
advocates and child protective
service workers is needed to forge a relationship
that can serve both the
adult and child victims of domestic violence. This
is hard work, requiring
patience and a tolerance for competing viewpoints
and priorities, as well
as considerable leadership and support.
Developing collaborative ties among community agencies
is a tremendously
difficult task, and it cannot be accomplished quickly,
as systems are slow
to change. Change is particularly slow when resources
are scarce, and among
the most significant barriers to collaboration
is the basic fact that resources
for women and children in danger and need in our
society are woefully scarce.
The knowledge that few solutions exist to complex
family problems weighs
heavily on the shoulders of child protection workers
in particular, who
repeatedly struggle with the fact that once they
uncover domestic violence
in conjunction with child maltreatment, tools are
limited to build safety
nets for both mothers and children. Frustrations
regarding a lack of resources
and services often have led to conflicts among
agencies that must scramble
for the few resources that exist to meet their
clients' needs.
Challenges to implementing services for battered
women. The program has
already encountered a variety of obstacles in attempting
to meet the needs
of battered women in child protection settings.
For example, the DCIPFV
initiated a protocol whereby each mother would
be screened for domestic
violence at her initial appearance in the dependency
courtroom. These initial
visits, however, typically occur within 24 hours
of children being removed
from their homes, which is a time of significant
disorientation, distress,
and anxiety for mothers. Domestic violence, which
may have been a decisive
factor leading to the removal of the child from
the home, is often of less
importance to mothers than the well-being of their
children, particularly
at the time of the court hearing. Mothers may feel
blamed for the abuse
of their children and angry that their children
have been removed and are
thus extremely hesitant to admit to any other difficulties
in their family
lives. As such, conducting screening of domestic
violence and offering
services to mothers in court presents particular
challenges to advocates.
Rapport and trust building is a delicate process,
and it is often difficult
for wary mothers to confide in advocates, even
when mothers are told explicitly
that communications between themselves and the
advocate are confidential.
The support of defense attorneys for mothers is
very important for the
work of advocates to succeed, as they can advise
mothers that the advocates
are in court solely for the purpose of supporting
mothers. The timing and
sensitivity of an advocate's approach to a mother
is also important for
mothers to feel safe confiding in an advocate.
Implementation challenges also take the form of
women's hesitancy to accept
services, for a variety of reasons. Among those
reasons has been the concern
on the part of immigrant women (especially those
residing in the United
States without documentation) that accepting services
and revealing their
immigration status would place them in jeopardy
of deportation. Thus, collaborations
are being forged with local immigration lawyers
and clinics to protect
these women, especially those whose abusers threaten
to report them to
immigration officials if they reveal the abuse.
Similarly, issues of diversity in culture and language
may present barriers
to service provision. The DCIPFV has hired a multicultural
staff of advocates,
three of whom are bilingual (speaking English and
Spanish). Multiple ethnic
groups in Miami-Dade County exist, with a variety
of cultural values expressed
in terms of the roles for men and women in relationships
and the appropriate
methods for physical discipline of children. The
role of advocates thus
encompasses support for safety and well-being,
as well as encouragement
and respect for the expression of cultural identity.
Accountability of batterers. One of the most significant
obstacles faced
by interventions designed to meet the needs of
battered mothers and their
abused children are the policies that stand in
the way of abuser accountability.
The tools available to a dependency court judge
faced with a family where
the abuser is not a legal family member are limited.
Advocates frequently
accompany their clients to other courts in an effort
to obtain restraining
orders, seek criminal conviction, and order the
batterer into an intervention
program. Still, the dependency court has little
or no authority to order
or monitor such actions and, thus, batterer accountability
is limited.
Forging collaborative relationships among each
of the courts in Miami-Dade
County to increase batterer accountability has
been an important task for
the DCIPFV and is likely to present a challenge
for those working in other
communities as well.
CONCLUSION
The DCIPFV is a response to the growing recognition
that family violence
interventions by domestic violence shelters, child
protective service systems,
and dependency courts need to be modified and coordinated
so as to protect
the safety and welfare of both the adult and child
victims of violence
in the home. With its roots in the dependency court,
the DCIPFV is in a
unique position to facilitate collaboration among
domestic violence and
child protective service systems. This program
will continue to evolve
in response to the needs of the women and children
it serves.
Establishing a program of this nature is not a
simple undertaking. A host
of complex issues, some of which have been discussed
in this article, must
be addressed and carefully considered prior to
implementation so as not
to further victimize the women and children or
diminish their opportunities
for safety. Although many jurisdictions will find
similar challenges, each
is likely to encounter unique obstacles due to
the distinctive character
of the community and the structures, policies,
and practices that have
been established to address domestic violence and
child maltreatment.
The initial findings of this project would suggest
that many, if not most,
of the families involved in the dependency process,
either under investigation
of protective services or through the jurisdiction
of the court, have significant
histories of domestic violence. Women who are the
subject of child maltreatment
allegations and who have histories of domestic
violence are in dire need
of substantial assistance to maintain safety and
welfare for themselves
and their children. Only through the forging of
collaborative relationships,
including the dependency court as a significant
component, the development
of trust between historical adversaries, and the
careful provision of intensive
advocacy can we hope to provide victims of domestic
abuse the support and
safety they deserve.
REFERENCES
American Bar Association. ( 1994) . The impact
of domestic violence on
children: A report to the president of the American
BarAssociation. Chicago,
IL: Author.
Aron, L. Y, & Olson, K. K (1997, Summer). Efforts
by child welfare agencies
to address domestic violence. Public Welfare, pp.
4-i3.
Buehl, S. (1994). The dynamics of family violence.
Courts and communities:
Confronting violence in the family (Conference
High
lights, pp. 7-16). Reno, NV: National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court
Judges.
D'Aunno, T. A., & Price, R. H. (1984a) . The
context and objectives of
community research. In K Heller, R. Price, S. Reinharz,
S. Riger, & A.
Wandersman (Eds.), Psychology and community change
(pp. 51- 67). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
D'Aunno, T. A., & Price, R. H. (1984b). Methodologies
in community research:
Analytic and action approaches. In K Heller, R.
Price, S. Reinharz, S.
Riger, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Psychology and
community change (pp. 68-113).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Davies,J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (
1998). Safety planning with
battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, L., & Srinivasan, M. (1995). Listening
to the voices of battered
women: What helps them escape violence. Aff:lia,
10, 49-69.
Domestic Violence Advocate-Victim Privilege. ES.'90.5036.
(1995) .
Edleson, J. L. (in press). Children's witnessing
of adult domestic violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Edleson,J. L. (1999) . The overlap between child
maltreatment and woman
battering. Violence Against Women, 5, 134-154.
Florida Department of Children and Families, District
11 (1997). Division
of family support and protective care at a glance.
Miami: Florida Department
of Children and Families.
Fruh v. State of Florida, 430 So. 2d 581 (Fla.
App. 5 Dist. 1983) .
Malik, N. M., Lederman, C. S., Aaron, S. M., &
Lecklitner, G. L. (1998).
A qualitative and quantitative evaluation of a
court-based family violence
intervention program. Paper presented at the Program
Evaluation and Family
Violence Research International Conference, Durham,
NH.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
(1994). Courts and
communities: Confronting violence in the family
(Conference Highlights).
Reno, NV: Author.
Pagelow, M. D. (1993) .Justice for victims of spouse
abuse in divorce and
child custody cases. Violence and Victims, 8, 69-83.
Saunders, D. (1994)
. Child custody decisions in families experiencing
woman abuse. Social
Work, 39, 51-59.
Schechter, S. (1996). The battered women's movement
in the United States:
New directions for institutional reform. In J.
L. Edleson & Z. C. Eisikovits
(Eds.), Future interventions with battered women
and their families (pp.
53-66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schechter, S.,
& Edleson,J. L. ( 1994,June
8-10) . In the best interests of women and children:
A call for collaboration
between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies.
Briefing paper
presented at the conference on Domestic Violence
and Child Welfare: Integrating
Policy and Practice for Families, Wingspread, Racine,
WI. Sternberg, KJ.,
Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Using
multiple informants to understand
domestic violence and its effects. In G. W. Holden,
R. Geffner, & E. N.Jouriles
(Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence (pp.
121-156). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Authors' Note: The Dependency Court Intervention
Program for Family Violence
is supported by a grant from the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Violence Against Women Grants
Office (97-WVX-0006) to
Miami-Dade County. We gratefully acknowledge the
continued assistance and
support of our consultants, including Susan Schechter,
M.S.W.; Joy Osofsky,
Ph.D.; Cathy Spatz Widom, Ph.D.; and Jeffrey Edleson,
Ph.D. Correspondence
concerning this article should be addressed to
the authors at the Dependency
Court Intervention Program for Family Violence,
2700 N.W. 36th Street,
Suite 114, Miami, Florida, 33142. Electronic mail
may be sent via the Internet
to lecklitner juno.com.
Gregory L. Lecklitner, Ph.D., served as the initial
project director for
the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family
Violence and currently
works as a psychologist at MacLaren Children's
Center in Los Angeles.
Neena M. Malik, Ph.D., currently serves as director
of the Dependency Court
Intervention Program for Family Violence. She also
holds a position as
adjunct assistant professor to the Department of
Psychology at the University
of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida.
Sharon M. Aaron currently serves as the assistant
director of the Dependency
Court Intervention Program and in its initial phase
served as advocacy
supervisor
Cindy S. Lederman is the administrative judge of
the Juvenile Court in
Miami-Dade County, Florida. She is a faculty member
of the National Judicial
College, former president of the National Association
of Women Judges,
and serves on the Board of Children, Youth, and
Families of the National
Research Council