FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1546811180> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1546811180 endingPage "140" @default.
• W1546811180 startingPage "121" @default.
• W1546811180 abstract "John and Kathy were married and had a daughter, Mary Elizabeth. (1) Both parents loved their daughter dearly. Although he never laid a hand on his daughter, John continuously battered his wife. (2) After two protective orders failed to stop the abuse, Kathy sought a divorce. (3) Not surprisingly, a bitter custody battle ensued. Despite Kathy's insistence that John's violence should prevent him from having custody or visitation, the court granted John unsupervised visitation every other weekend, one Monday per month, and three hours every Tuesday. (4) After one such visit, Kathy became worried when John did not return three-year-old Mary Elizabeth on time, so she sought police assistance. Upon investigation, police discovered John and Mary Elizabeth in John's truck in the garage at his home. Both were dead of gunshot wounds; John's gun was found in the truck. (5) John had taken anger management classes. (6) Although this story is an extreme example of what can happen if a batterer is given unsupervised visitation with his child, (7) it anecdotally disproves the all-too-common view of courts that interspousal violence has little to do with parenting ability and thus, merits little consideration in custody decisions. Hopefully, attitudes will continue to change in recognition of the effects such abuse actually has on children. Clearly, interspousal abuse is a hazard to victims during the relationship. What courts may fail to realize is that it continues to be a hazard to child witnesses and to victims even after the relationship has been legally dissolved. Children who witness interspousal violence often experience emotional difficulties, including anxiety, depression, increased aggression, and even Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (8) Exposure to interspousal violence during childhood may also lead to involvement in family violence later in life. (9) Children in homes where interspousal abuse occurs are also at a much greater risk of being physically abused themselves. (10) Unfortunately, for victims, divorce is not always the end of the violence. On the contrary, separation often escalates the abuse, and joint custody and unsupervised visitation may give abusers ample opportunity to continue abusing their former spouses. (11) In addition, even if the violence between the former spouses ends after divorce and/or after courts make custody arrangements designed to minimize the contact between the victim and the abuser, there is always the risk that the children will continue to be exposed to interspousal violence if the batterer becomes involved m a new relationship. (12) In response to the growing body of knowledge about the dynamics of interspousal violence and its effects on children, courts have begun considering interspousal violence in custody decisions. (13) Custody statutes in most states specifically list interspousal violence as a factor to be considered in custody decisions. In some states, there is even a rebuttable presumption that a batterer should not be awarded custody. (14) So, what is a batterer to do if he still wants more visitation with his children? Batterer's intervention programs (15) are one option for treatment of abusive men, and in custody cases courts may look more favorably on men who have completed such programs. (16) But how effective are such programs? Can a court rely on a batterer's completion of such a program to demonstrate that he is cured of his violent tendencies? This note examines the current state of research investigating the effectiveness of such programs in an effort to determine the weight such programs should be afforded in custody decisions. Part I provides a brief overview of the history of custody law and the part interspousal violence plays in custody decisions. Part II looks at the way courts use batterer's interventions in the context of custody determinations. Part III discusses what the interventions are, and Part IV examines current research on the effectiveness of such programs. …" @default.
• W1546811180 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1546811180 creator A5069503751 @default.
• W1546811180 date "2004-03-22" @default.
• W1546811180 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1546811180 title "Can a Leopard Change His Spots?: Child Custody and Batterer’s Intervention" @default.
• W1546811180 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W1546811180 type Work @default.
• W1546811180 sameAs 1546811180 @default.
• W1546811180 citedByCount "5" @default.
• W1546811180 countsByYear W15468111802013 @default.
• W1546811180 countsByYear W15468111802014 @default.
• W1546811180 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1546811180 hasAuthorship W1546811180A5069503751 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C2778627824 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C2778983918 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C2779033419 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C2780665704 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C526869908 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C542059537 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C118552586 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C144024400 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C15744967 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C166957645 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C17744445 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C199539241 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C2778627824 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C2778983918 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C2779033419 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C2780665704 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C3017944768 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C526869908 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C542059537 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C545542383 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C71924100 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C73484699 @default.
• W1546811180 hasConceptScore W1546811180C95457728 @default.
• W1546811180 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1546811180 hasLocation W15468111801 @default.
• W1546811180 hasOpenAccess W1546811180 @default.
• W1546811180 hasPrimaryLocation W15468111801 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W115403193 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W1525311034 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W1584069686 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W1601325193 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2007580440 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2113311391 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2195400893 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2259290292 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W226311457 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2760913168 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2896177044 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W2993846831 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W305099522 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3124313183 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3125000730 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3125661182 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3168339726 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3172498091 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W3186327262 @default.
• W1546811180 hasRelatedWork W611358791 @default.
• W1546811180 hasVolume "11" @default.
• W1546811180 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1546811180 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1546811180 magId "1546811180" @default.
• W1546811180 workType "article" @default.