presented by: merril cousin, executive director: king county … · 2020. 2. 28. · `draft...

Presented by:Merril Cousin, Executive Director: King County Coalition

Against Domestic ViolenceRachael DelVillar, JD: Program Manager, King County

Superior Court Family CourtAnne Ganley, PhD: Private Practice/University of Washington

M. Cousin, R. DelVillar, A. Ganley, BWJP Webinar - 11/17/11 1

The King County DV Parenting Evaluation Project: The ProcessThe DV Practice Guide for Parenting Evaluations in Family Court ProceedingsOne Evaluator’s Experience: King County Family Court ServicesAccomplishments and Limitations of the King County DV Parenting Evaluation Project


KCCADV Family Law Report (“I Just Wanted to Be Safe”) - focus groups and interviews with professionals & survivors, Dec. 2005 (www.kccadv.org/reports/family-law-reports )Establishment of Family Law Work Group 2006Summit on parenting evaluations & DV, May 2007Developing recommendationsDeveloping the concept/proposalAdvocating for funding

Project funding provided by the City of Seattle Human Services Department


Goal: facilitate systems improvements that increase safety for DV survivors & their children

Project Purpose: to improve the ability of parenting evaluators to identify DV, assess its impact, and develop recommendations that increase safety for the children and adult DV survivor, & to facilitate consistent application of the protocols

Objectives:Develop model parenting evaluation guidelines & procedures related to DV Provide training on the protocols for those who order, provide, and utilize parenting evaluation


Who Does Family Law Parenting Evaluations in King County, WA?Guardians Ad LitemPrivate Parenting EvaluatorsCourt Appointed Special AdvocatesFamily Court Services Social Workers

Decision to include all – (p)arenting (e)valuators

Additional information targeted to family law attorneys, judicial officers, and DV advocates


Review of the literatureReview of existing parenting evaluators’tools/protocolsDraft writtenDraft reviewed by family court commissioner, attorney, advocate, parenting evaluatorFinal first draftRevision after training provided


Overview: including definitions, framework, and safety strategies for conducting parenting evaluationsDV Specific Protocols for◦ Routine Screening for DV◦ Assessing/Responding to DV Imminent Danger◦ Specialized Assessment of DV Risks to

Child/ParentingDifferential Parenting Plan RecommendationsSuggested Format for Reports


Two-day training for parenting evaluators (Sept. 2008 – 49 attended)One-day training for attorneys (Nov. 2008 – 55 attended)Two-day evaluator training repeated (March 2010 – 34 attended – 6 repeats)

Recruitment strategiesTargeted recruitmentCLEs/CEUsRespected peers’ endorsementPre-training assigned reading


½ day training for advocates (June 2009)Briefing for KCBA (June 2009)Briefing for family court commissioners (Sept. 2009)Document for advocates – what to do when you disagree with an evaluator’s reportQuarterly evaluator networking meetings (2010 & 2011)


Meant to complement, not replace, existing protocols and tools DV protocols focus on DV conductEvaluation of behavior, not psychological assessmentGender neutral Same questions asked of both parties and collaterals


Immediately:• ID Adult Victim, DV Perpetrator• Assess for Imminent Danger

Specialized Assessment of DV Risks to Children and Parenting

Routine Screening for Domestic Violence

Immediately:Respond to Imminent Danger

Additional Assessments/Inquiry(co‐occurring issues, parenting capacities,

children’s needs, relationships)

Imminent Danger ‐ No

Imminent Danger ‐ Yes

DV ‐ No

DV ‐ Yes


Routine for all cases, not allegation basedPurpose: ID whether or not there is DV in case

if yes, ID adult victim & perpetratorStructured interview, standardized questionsEach parent describes own & other’s behaviorEvaluator determines whether conduct fits behavioral definition of DV Focus on conduct for entire relationshipDoes not use terms like DV, abuse, batteringFramed as routine part of all evaluations


Domestic violence, adult victim, perpetrator already identifiedHarm/risks vary greatlyFive domains: 1. Specific abusive behaviors used2. Specific impacts on the adult victim3. Specific impacts on children4. Lethality/dangerousness assessment5. Protective factors


Co-occurring issues for either adultSubstance abuseChild maltreatmentMental Illness

Needs of each child Parenting capacities of each parentParent/child relationshipOthers


NOT All DV the same; risks varyDV risks to children may be due to the perpetrator’s

Physical or sexual violence, orEmotional abuse, Continuing excessive control of child or DV victim,Or all


Suspended Contact Supervised Access/VisitationSupervised ExchangeParallel Parenting vs. Co-ParentingProvisions responsive to DV re:Residential TimeDecision MakingDispute ResolutionOther Provisions


Protocol complemented processes already in place at FCSProvided useful examples of gender neutral questions which also improved consistency between staff Lead to a new practice of screening for DV in all cases regardless of the presenting allegationsCreated opportunities to meet with other evaluators in the community on new issues


Defined group of social workers/evaluators working full timeConsistent training requirements; training provided in-house and/or training time providedConsistent forms/policies/proceduresOversight and supervision Commitment from leadership to improving/ maintaining response to DV


Training 1 evaluations (41 responses):98% understand more about DV88% better able to screen, assess safety, assess specific risks95% better able to develop recommendations

6 month follow-up survey (40 responses)Routinely screen for DV – 95%Better assess imminent safety – 95%Better assess risks to children/parenting-93%Apply findings to recommendations – 90%


Survey of networking meeting attendees 2010Presentations somewhat/very useful – 100% Peer support somewhat/very useful – 100%Address DV more effectively – 90%What concrete changes made

Routine screening for DVIncreased awareness @ DVUsing questions from practice guideBetter understanding of resources


Too few evaluators trainedNot enough awareness among court, attorneys, advocatesInconsistent application Not measuring actual changes in practice


The practice guide, training, and meetings:HAVE helped raise awareness among some evaluators, attorneys & advocatesHAVE improved some individuals’ practiceHAVE NOT significantly changed how the system handles parenting evaluations


Dedicated staff time to coordinate projectRegular training for parenting evaluators, advocates, attorneys, & judicial officersPolicy

requiring training requiring use of protocol specific list of evaluators for cases involving DV

Ongoing opportunities for training, peer support for evaluatorsOngoing monitoring


I Just Wanted to Be Safe: Battered Women’s Experiences with the Family Law System in King County

By Merril Cousin, for the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, December 2005

Domestic Violence, Parenting Evaluations and Parenting Plans: Practice Guide for Parenting Evaluators in Family Court Proceedings

By Anne L. Ganley, PhD, for the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2009

www.kccadv.org/reports/family-law-reports

Merril Cousin – [email protected] 206.568.5454


presented by: merril cousin, executive director: king county … · 2020. 2. 28. · `draft...

Documents