A critique of virtual court for intimate partner abuse victims in child welfare cases: Another layer of disadvantage for female victims?

• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Author: Sharon Parsons
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12582

ARTICLE

A critique of virtual court for intimate partner

abuse victims in child welfare cases: Another layer

of disadvantage for female victims?

Sharon Parsons

College of Doctoral Studies, Grand Canyon

University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Correspondence

Sharon Parsons, Grand Canyon University,

Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Abstract

The purpose of this viewpoint and critique is to provide

theoretical considerations as to why virtual court may exac-

erbate the existing disadvantages of intimate partner vio-

lence victims in child removal cases. As a backdrop, this

paper uses a report of an unnamed but actual victim of inti-

mate partner abuse and her experience in a child removal

case in Florida.

KEYWORDS

child welfare, intimate partner abuse, psychological distance,

virtual court

Key points for the family court community

•There are numerous barriers for victims of Intimate

Partner Violence (IPV) in the Child Protective Services

(CPS) system

•Virtual court may be another psychological barrier for

female IPV victims in CPS cases

INTRODUCTION

This critique uses the literature to build a case of caution about the potential downside of virtual technology

in family court. Employing the psychological concept of distance, this paper argu es that the use of virtual

court can be an additional psychological liability for female victims in intimate partner violence (IPV) cases.

This potential disadvantage is layered on top of the well-documented stereotypes of mothers who are

survivors of IPV.

Received: 9 December 2020 Revised: 17 April 2021 Accepted: 9 May 2021

DOI: 10.1111/fcre.12582

© 2022 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Family Court Rev. 2022;60:375–390. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fcre 375

Researchers continue to warn about the use of virtual technology and remote platforms in criminal cases

(Abu, 2020; Granot et al., 2018; Ward, 2015), but the use of virtual court is too new in family court to ascertain the

role that virtual technology plays in court decisions. Those future studies, without a doubt, will be forthcoming as

the pandemic continues into 2022 and the globe braces for future pandemics. Virtual court is a blessing and a possi-

ble curse. We are experiencing that blessing during the pandemic without knowing if and how much of a curse exists

for victims of IPV in Child Protective Services (CPS) cases. This critique provides food for thought on why

psychological disadvantages may be one possible curse.

To “put a human face”on the topic, this paper uses the actual account and narrative of an African American IPV

victim (“Ashley”). There is a psychological advantage to framing this critique through the lens of Ashley. Narratives

not only transmit information, but they can bridge psychological distance and are better remembered than statistics

(Muralidharan & Kim 2019; Zak, 2015). Ashley's narrative details the events of her child's removal and recounts her

belief that virtual court silenced her voice and negated any hope of judicial fairness in the CPS decision to remove

her son. The chronicle of an IPV victim in Florida was selected not only for the reason of access to the narrative

(Parsons, 2020), but also because of the scope of CPS power and Florida's unique politicalculture in terms of a legis-

lative approach to family policy/social welfare (see Tress, 2006; Zimmerman, 2003). Due to the state's political cul-

ture, Florida, on one hand, is less likely to join the other states criminalizing IPV victims for “failure to protect”

children (Mahoney, 2019; Wingfield, 2018) while, on the other hand, the state remains legislatively inattentive to the

circumstances of victims of IPV in disentangling themselves from spouses. This lack of legislative protection formar-

ried victims can become even more burdensome if CPS becomes involved in IPV cases.

Florida's CPS, sti ll considered “fractured”(Beall et al., 2020), has long been plagued with problems. For exam-

ple, a decade ago, Florida led the nation in the number of child deaths after the Department of Children and Fam-

ily Services (DCF) intervened in those cases ("Children Who", 2014; Kaur, 2013, p. 93). A series of legislative

“fixes”consisted of a policy shift away from family preservation preceded by the privatization of community-

based management/other services with public-sector investigators responsible for children entering the system.

Public/private arrangements can make coordination (Zarei et al., 2018) and communication more precarious

(Bazunu, 2009; Flaherty et al. 2008; Hubel et al., 2013), as well as muddy a ccountability ( Forrer et al., 2010;

Marinetto, 2011; Reyes-González & Esteve, 2020; Stafford & Stapleton, 2017).

More recently, Florida, with widespread approval, passed laws and rewrote rules to stop parents from abusing

their children (Braga et al., 2020, para.1). With this fix for internal problems of understaffing and the harm to children

in protective care (see “534 Children”, 2014; Beall et al., 2020), the pendulum swung from a more state-parent part-

nership in family preservation to a more hawkish investigator power in child removal decisions. As Roberts empha-

sizes, the interpretation of child abuse/neglect is a political question (Roberts, 2014, p. 427), and in Florida, CPS

investigators were given a wide berth with legislative blessing.

As was true for the rest of the nation, the COVID-19 pandemic created a public health emergency in Florida.

The Chief Justice directed chief judges in Florida to take steps to lessen the impact of the emergency on the

courts in March 2020, eventually ushering in the use of virtu al hearings which opened a “seismic shift”of a

175-year traditi on in court operations (Schwar tz, 2020, para. 9). This also openedthe door to virtual court in child

protection cases.

Virtual court has become commonplace, even pioneering now into jury trials (Lee, 2020; United States

Courts, 2021); and, undoubtedly, virtual court saved the judicial system from grinding to a halt during the COVID-

19 pandemic. Virtu al technology in courts can offer great er access (Bailen son et al., 2006), and virtual courts can

enhance efficiency anduseoftime(Sung,2020). Without virtual court, permanency back with families would

have been greatly delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic (“What do we know”, 2020). In New York C ity, for

example, the famil y courts closed in March 2020 with the exce ption of essential or emergency case s, resulting in

amarkeddropinchildreunification(Firth&Hlavinka,2020). Judge Miskel, the administrative judge for 21 courts

in Collin County, Te xas, views virtual court as a partic ular boon to scared parents in court a fter their children have

been removed (Smith, 2020, para. 28).

376 FAMILY COURT REVIEW