Guidelines for Examining Intimate Partner Violence: A Supplement to the AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12270
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016

Guidelines for Examining Intimate Partner Violence: A Supplement to the

AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

Introduction

The Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (Model Standards)

1

were adopted

by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in 2006. These Guidelines for Exam-

ining Intimate Partner Violence (Guidelines) supplement the Model Standards with respect to the

evaluation of child custody and access cases where intimate partner violence may be an issue.

2

Allegations of intimate partner violence are common among custody-litigating families, and cus-

tody evaluators face special challenges when conducting evaluations in this context. Model Standard

5.11 states that evaluations involving allegations of domestic violence require specialized knowledge

and training as well as the use of a “generally recognized systematic approach to assessment of such

issues as domestic violence...”

3

These Guidelines help custody evaluators identify intimate partner

violence and examine the possible effects on children, parenting, and co-parenting.

An evaluator using a systematic approach formulates multiple hypotheses that are informed by

research and arise from the facts of the case. The evaluator independently investigates and analyzes

each hypothesis. These Guidelines only address hypotheses related to intimate partner violence.

They do not alter or diminish the need to form, investigate, and analyze other hypotheses. At the end

of the custody evaluation process, the evaluator combines and synthesizes information on all of the

hypotheses to form an integrated picture of the family.

The Guidelines describe and recommend systematic practices for evaluation but they do not

endorse specific tools, protocols, or models. An evaluator may exercise judgment about whether

existing tools, protocols, and models are consistent with the approach taken in the Guidelines. The

Guidelines do not constitute a training curriculum on intimate partner violence. Consequently, an

evaluator is advised to seek additional intimate partner violence-specific training or supervision. The

Guidelines reflect aspirational goals for child custody evaluators rather than mandatory thresholds.

Guiding Principles

The Guidelines encourage an evaluator to effectuate the following principles:

Prioritize the safety and wellbeing of children and parents. The overarching goal of the evalua-

tion process is to achieve the best possible outcomes for families. An evaluator plays a key role in

preserving, protecting, and promoting safe, healthy, and functional relationships and living arrange-

ments during and following separation.

Ensure an informed, fair, and accountable process.Anevaluator plays a key role in informing the

parties about the nature and purpose of the evaluation process, including how information will be used

and to whom it willbe disclosed. The evaluator establishes a fair and accountable process culminating in

a written report that describes the information collected on intimate partner violence, explains how the

informationwas analyzed and synthesized,and directly links the information to recommendations.

Focus on the individual family.Another goal of evaluation is to respond to the particular needs

and circumstances of individual families, without any preconceived ideas about whether or not

[Corrections added on 4 January 2017, after first online publication: The “Guidelines for Examining Intimate Partner

Violence: A Supplement to the AFCC Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation” has been separated from

the ‘Reporter’s foreword to “Guidelines for Examining Intimate Partner Violence: A Supplement to the AFCC Model

Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation”.]

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 4, October 2016 674–686

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts