Intimate Partner Violence Survivors’ Perspectives on Coping With Family Court Processes

Abstract

Although intimate partner violence (IPV)-exposed mothers report distress during family court proceedings, no known research examines what helps them cope. We analyzed qualitative responses from 214 IPV-exposed mothers to the question of who/what helped during family court. Participants described (a) receiving social support, (b) accessing tools and resources, (c) modifying actions, thoughts, and emotions to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed, (d) being believed/validated, and (e) managing post-separation family life as helpful. Participants also reported (f) barriers to navigating family law proceedings; a few expressed nothing helped. Findings support a trauma-informed, network-oriented approach to supporting family court-involved survivor mothers.

Keywords

family court child custody intimate partner violence domestic violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects one in four women in the United States (Breiding et al., 2014) and has significant psychological, physical, social, and economic consequences for survivors (Dillon et al., 2013; Goodman et al., 2009). Leaving abusive relationships heightens survivors’ risk of violence, homelessness, and poverty, and thus increases their vulnerability as they seek protection and safety (Hardesty, 2002; Shoener, 2017; Tutty et al., 2013). For survivors who are mothers, separating from an abusive partner can be particularly challenging, as it often involves the need to navigate child custody and parenting arrangements through the family and/or civil court systems with abusive ex-partners (Hardesty & Chung, 2006). IPV-exposed mothers have reported experiencing significant distress during post-separation legal processes, as they must both adapt to a legal system that is not trauma-informed and face the person who abused them in court (Gutowski & Goodman, 2020, 2023a).

Family Court and IPV

The priority of family courts is to make decisions that serve children’s best interests, while following state-specific laws regarding parental visitation rights. In order to realize this, family court professionals must engage with the difficult task of making recommendations and determinations regarding child custody and visitation. Family courts in the United States often support contact between children and both parents (Saunders & Oglesby, 2016). Yet, many survivors attempt to limit their ex-partners’ custody and visitation rights to protect their children and themselves from future abuse, as ongoing contact with an ex-partner who has been abusive in the context of co-parenting can put survivors at risk for further victimization (Zeoli et al., 2013). There has been mounting concern that IPV victimization is too often not taken into account in family law proceedings (e.g., Miller & Manzer, 2021; Saunders et al., 2013). Many have reported that survivors are often required to navigate co-parenting with abusive ex-partners without effective supports, relevant interventions, or appropriate limits on parent–child contact (e.g., Archer-Kuhn, 2018; Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016; Hester, 2011; Zeoli et al., 2013) or may lose custody to an abusive ex-partner (Elizabeth, 2019). A recent study investigating self-report data and accompanying court records from 195 divorcing mothers indicated that self-reports of IPV were generally not documented in divorce cases (Ogolsky et al., 2023). While self-reports of IPV were associated with mothers being awarded sole physical custody, the authors concluded that family courts may frequently not be aware of a history of IPV as routine screening is rarely required (Ogolsky et al., 2023).

Determinations and processes that discount IPV are understandably distressing for survivors, who often begin family law proceedings with their children's safety as a priority (Jaffe et al., 2003). Though they may initially trust the legal system to protect their families, qualitative studies suggest that many survivor mothers are disillusioned by this notion (Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Khaw et al., 2021). Survivors in custody cases have described feeling invalidated by court professionals and disclosed that professionals have ignored, trivialized, or discounted their allegations of abuse (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2022; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020). Notably, there are exceptions to this; mothers report satisfaction with legal professionals (e.g., lawyers, mediators, judges) who demonstrate knowledge of IPV, validate their experiences, and make recommendations that protect their children (Gutowski & Goodman, 2020). Yet, qualitative literature reveals that many family law-involved survivors feel betrayed by a system they have had to depend on and/or put their trust in (Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Khaw et al., 2021).

Facing the Abusive Ex-Partner

Contributing to a stressful court experience for survivors, many partners continue a pattern of abuse by enacting coercive control through post-separation legal processes (i.e., “legal abuse”; Gutowski & Goodman, 2023a). Legal abuse includes threatening and attempting to reduce the other parent's custody and visitation time (e.g., Campbell, 2017; Watson & Ancis, 2013), threatening children's safety (e.g., Zeoli et al., 2013), using in-person proceedings to cause distress (e.g., Elizabeth, 2017; Miller & Smolter, 2011), defaming the other parent's character and ability to parent (e.g., Watson & Ancis, 2013), and harming the other parent financially, such as through threats or attempts to take or withhold finances (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023a). In addition to this misuse of court processes, partners can coerce and manipulate court-ordered mediation processes (Douglas, 2018) and shared parenting arrangements (Zeoli et al., 2013). Miller and Smolter (2011) compared these mechanisms to stalking, as abusive ex-partners may use court systems to maintain extended contact with survivors under the pretense of legal processes. Ex-partners’ use of litigation (e.g., challenging child support requirements, demanding greater visitation, or requesting custody rights) can place a burden on survivors’ economic and psychological resources by forcing them to return again and again to court (Campbell, 2017; Miller & Smolter, 2011; Watson & Ancis, 2013; Ward, 2016; Watson & Ancis, 2013). Similarly, abusive ex-partners may request adjournments, call unnecessary witnesses, or even file for protection orders against survivors to delay legal processes (Douglas, 2018; Ward, 2016). These actions can serve as a method for abusive ex-partners to maintain a level of power and control over survivors for years after a relationship has ended (Miller & Smolter, 2011; Ward, 2016).

Consequences for Survivors of Engaging in Family Law Processes

Accounts from survivors detail the psychological distress caused by ongoing contact with abusive ex-partners (e.g., via family court appearances, co-parenting, and mediation; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Ward, 2016; Zeoli et al., 2013). Some report that custody proceedings are a source of re-traumatization, as survivors must contend with being in the same room as the person who abused them and exposure to continued attempts by this other parent to regain control (Campbell, 2017; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Katirai, 2020). Many survivors describe entering into family law processes affected by the psychological, emotional, economic, and sometimes physical toll of the abuse only to experience a worsening of these sequelae as a consequence of legal abuse (Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Katirai, 2020; Miller & Manzer, 2021; Ward, 2016). Invalidating comments from court professionals and/or feeling judged or blamed can exacerbate this distress (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2022; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020, 2023b; Rivera et al., 2012). As a result, survivors report feeling exhausted, anxious, fearful, and terrified of losing their children (Ward, 2016; Watson & Ancis, 2013). Indeed, both legal abuse and harmful responses from judges are associated with elevated symptoms of both post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression for court-involved survivor mothers (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023b).

For those who seek access to legal representation, take time from work, or arrange for childcare to attend court hearings, engaging in family law processes may require significant economic resources (Douglas, 2020). Those who seek representation for custody proceedings may not meet income requirements to qualify for free legal aid while also not earning enough income to hire a private attorney (Miller & Smolter, 2011; Saunders & Oglesby, 2016). Further, survivors may be at a financial disadvantage due to the abuse: Leaving an abusive ex-partner may involve job or housing instability (Shoener, 2017). An abusive ex-partner may have been the sole provider of income or controlled the finances during the relationship and therefore may have significantly greater solvent income with which to hire and maintain legal representation throughout proceedings (Watson & Ancis, 2013). This financial disparity enables some abusive ex-partners to financially harm survivors by exercising legal abuse (Douglas, 2020; Gutowski & Goodman, 2023a; Ward, 2016). Ultimately, survivors have reported significant financial harms such as debt, job loss, and homelessness due to legal costs (Douglas, 2020; Ward, 2016).

Current Study

Survivor mothers often experience family court processes as distressing (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023b). They may be required to navigate co-parenting with abusive ex-partners without needed supports or interventions in place (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016; Zeoli et al., 2013), feel invalidated by family court professionals (Miller & Manzer, 2021; Rivera et al., 2012), and/or be met with an extension of the abuse when the other parent exercises coercive control through legal processes (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023a). Family law processes may be prolonged over the course of years and result in psychological and economic costs (Douglas, 2020; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020, 2023b; Ward, 2016). Given that mothers are often facing these challenges while both parenting and pursuing recovery (for themselves and their children) from an abusive relationship at a considerably high-risk time (i.e., separation), it is essential to consider how mothers cope and adapt with these experiences. However, little research has examined what survivors find helpful throughout family law processes. We sought to fill this gap by asking what and who custody-seeking survivor mothers found to be helpful throughout family law processes. We leveraged a qualitative approach to understand how survivors describe what is helpful in their own words.

Method

Consistent with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ; Tong et al., 2007), we present the following information on participant recruitment methods, data collection, sample characteristics, the number of coders involved in analyses, the process of coding, and author reflexivity.

Participants

Participants included 214 IPV survivor mothers who had sought or were currently seeking custody of one or more children under the age of 18 in family court in the United States. Participants reported high rates of psychological (n = 213; 99.53%), physical (n = 182; 85.05%), and sexual (n = 137; 64.02%) abuse from the other parent in their legal cases. One hundred sixty-nine (79%) participants were involved in ongoing cases at the time of data collection, while 35 (16.4%) had cases that were recently completed and 10 (4.7%) were unsure of whether their cases had been resolved. Participants’ cases lasted from less than 1 month to over 14 years, with over half of participants involved in cases that lasted 2 years or longer. Ages ranged from 20 to 58 years (M = 37.71; SD = 7.51). Participants were from 36 states and were located in the Northeastern (n = 51; 23.83%), Midwestern (n = 49; 22.90%), Western (n = 60; 28.04%), and Southern (n = 54; 25.23%) United States. For demographics, see Table 1.

Table 1.
Participant Demographics.

Demographic n (%)

Race/ethnicity

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2 (0.9)

Native American or Alaska Native 8 (3.7)

Other 8 (3.7)

Asian 11 (5.1)

Latinx 19 (8.9)

Black 27 (12.6)

White 168 (78.5)

Birthplace

Outside the United States 47 (22.0)

United States 167 (78.0)

Sexual orientation

Gay/Lesbian 3 (1.4)

Queer 3 (1.4)

Bisexual 8 (3.7)

Straight/heterosexual 196 (91.6)

Income

Less than $10,000 61 (28.5)

$10,000–$19,999 21 (9.8)

$20,000–$29,999 24 (11.2)

$30,000–$39,999 32 (15.0)

$40,000–$49,999 17 (7.9)

$50,000–$99,999 43 (20.1)

$100,000–$149,999 8 (3.7)

$150,000–$199,999 4 (1.9)

$200,000+ 4 (1.9)

Education

Less than high school 8 (3.7)

High school 22 (10.3)

Vocational/trade school 11 (5.1)

Associates 17 (7.9)

Some college 35 (16.4)

4-year Bachelors 66 (30.8)

Graduate degree 55 (25.7)

Procedure

This data collection was part of a larger study based on a survey on survivor mothers’ experiences in family law proceedings (Gutowski & Goodman, 2023a, 2023b). We sent email notifications to 908 legal and 478 domestic violence service agencies located throughout the United States. Emails identified the study's purpose as “to understand the experiences of mothers in family court.” Emails requested that providers refer family court-involved mothers of at least one child under 18 years. Potential participants were invited to respond to questions that determined their eligibility for participating in the study (i.e., over 18 years old, mother of a child under 18 years old, involved in a U.S.-based family law case with the child's other parent within the last 2 years, experienced abuse from this other parent—as indicated by a “yes” response to the question: “Have you ever been afraid of the other parent?”). Those eligible could take the full survey in Spanish or English. All potential participants, including ineligible individuals, were provided with information about domestic violence services. Respondents were provided with a $20 gift card as a “Thank you” for their participation. Of the 235 eligible and valid respondents, the 214 retained for the present study included all who responded to the open-ended question of interest.

Measures

Demographics

Participants completed demographic questions further described under “Participants.”

Prior abuse

Participants completed the Composite Abuse Scale (Ford-Gilboe et al., 2016), a 15-item, self-report measure that captures physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. This measure has been validated in a sample of 6,278 Canadian women (Ford-Gilboe et al., 2016). In the present study, participants indicated (yes/no) whether the other parent had demonstrated a series of abusive behaviors. A sample item includes “Told me I was crazy, stupid or not good enough.” The scale showed adequate internal consistency for the present study (α = .78).

Coping with court

Participants responded to the open-response question: “Who/what has been the most helpful thing to you in the court process?”

Data Analysis

To analyze participants’ qualitative responses, the authors used conventional content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). This type of inductive analysis is recommended for qualitative studies when prior research on a topic is minimal, to create categories that directly reflect the data (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). While researcher interpretation is an inevitable part of qualitative research (Sandelowski, 2010), inductive content analysis involves a systematic approach to best convey the data. The coding team consisted of the three authors. Authors engaged in several rounds of coding, meeting throughout to review and debate codes and to seek consensus at every stage of the process. Authors undertook an initial open coding process, a second round of coding, and a third round informed by a final codebook. The second author then audited all the codes. During the process, the authors used constant comparison (Fram, 2013), consulting the data throughout to ensure it was accurately reflected in the codes. This process resulted in three levels of coding, including codes, categories, and clusters.

Reflexivity

Consistent with recommendations for promoting the integrity of qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2017) and COREQ (Tong et al., 2007), the authors participated in reflexivity (Tracy, 2010). The authors are a team of three women all of whom have a longstanding interest in violence prevention work and use an anti-oppressive lens to conduct their research. The first author is a White Canadian woman living in the United States, who has volunteered with survivors of IPV in women's shelters and group therapy settings. The second author is a White American woman with Polish heritage who has several years of experience conducting research on IPV and post-separation legal processes and has provided psychotherapy services to survivors of IPV. The third author is a Black African woman from a war-torn country, who has worked with women affected by sexual assault/rape/domestic violence and disadvantaged children for the past decade and specializes in sexual violence prevention. We reflected on how our identities and past experiences made us aware of and attuned to core themes that emerged in this study. For example, we discussed how our lived experiences and social identities as well as our experiences researching and working in the field of domestic violence in a variety of contexts made us sensitive to participants’ experiences with marginalization, invalidation, and trauma. During a moment of reading a participant’s narrative about no longer reacting like a “victim” because of a perception that the judge in her case was not knowledgeable about victimology and would view her unfavorably, we discussed potential codes—some of which highlighted the judge's responses and some of which emphasized the survivor's behavior. We reflected on whether and how our personal and professional experiences altered our interpretations of the reported events and tendencies to emphasize the participant's actions or the environment. Ultimately, we decided to include a code that reflected the participant's efforts to modify her behavior in order to adjust to a system that is not trauma-informed, as this was closest to the participant's words about her own experience.

Results

Data analysis yielded six clusters (see Table 2). Five clusters described supports and actions that helped participants cope with the court process: (a) receiving social support, (b) accessing tools and resources, (c) modifying actions, thoughts, and emotions to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed, (d) being believed/validated, and (e) learning to manage post-separation family life. One cluster reflected participants’ reported obstacles to managing the process: (f) barriers got in the way of coping. In the sections below, each cluster is presented under a distinct heading with categories bolded and codes italicized. To reflect how frequently participants mentioned each code, we used the following terms: “a small number” (0–5), “a few” (5–10), “some” (10–20), and “many” (over 20). Consistent with COREQ guidelines, we have included participant quotations, as well as both major and minor themes found in the data (Tong et al., 2007).

Table 2.
Clusters and Categories.

Clusters and categories n (%)

CLUSTER 1: Receiving social support  170 (79.44)

Specific supportive people help
Characteristics of social support that help

CLUSTER 2: Accessing tools and resources 43 (20.09)

Accessing affordable legal resources helps

Legal professionals’ advocacy and fair treatment helps
Victim advocate's informed effort helps

Professionals’ knowledge about IPV helps

Privilege and access help

CLUSTER 3: Modifying actions, thoughts, and emotions to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed 42 (19.63)

Personal knowledge/education helps

Personal behavior modification helps
Shifting perspectives helps

Actions outside of court help

CLUSTER 4: Being believed/validated
Receiving validation helps
Having the abusive partner held accountable provides validation
Self-validation helps 24 (11.21)

CLUSTER 5: Managing post-separation family life 21 (9.81)

Managing ex-partner/co-parenting helps

Separation from abusive partner helps

Focusing on children helps

CLUSTER 6: Barriers got in the way of coping/managing 30 (14.02)

Barriers to coping/managing the court process
Nothing helps

Receiving Social Support

Many (79.44%; n = 170) participants described social support as an aid when going through family court processes.

Specific supportive people help

For many participants, informal support helped with coping. Participants listed family members and friends who encouraged them. One participant stated that without close friends, they would have “never made it through this process.” For some, peer support helped with coping. These participants were grateful to other family law-involved survivor mothers for support and guidance. One described their local network of divorced survivor mothers as having “an immense wealth of knowledge and collective experience about navigating the family court system,” citing the ability to share and learn “strategies that often lawyers don’t know or think about.” Another who found a sense of belonging with a group of “women…all experiencing the same thing” articulated the value of recognizing that they were “not […] alone in the atrocities of family court.” Many participants shared that formal support helps with coping, listing lawyers, therapists, domestic violence agencies, and victim advocates as sources of aid. One participant stated, “without [my victim advocate] I would be lost.” Another emphasized the comfort of knowing their lawyer “is available to answer all my questions and concerns.” One participant who was pro se after running out of money learned from a paralegal to “write [legally] and cite law” so they could draft their own paperwork.

Characteristics of social support that help

A small number of participants identified that parenting support helps with coping. One mother expressed how helpful it was to have “friends who have watched my kids while I worked on legal documents.” A few stated that, when permitted by the judge, having accompaniment to court was a source of reassurance. A small number highlighted that delegation of responsibilities to supports helps with coping. One survivor relayed the importance of having “friends who you are able to delegate things to so that you can breathe [and]…do what you need to do emotionally throughout the process.” Some also reported that being provided with time and resources helps with coping, both from informal and formal supports. One participant explained: “I had friends who took the time out to do research when I was overwhelmed to help me present the facts I had.” Another stated that they would “be lost” without their victim advocate, who “helps […] all hours of the day, tirelessly, and it appears effortless…although I know it is not.”

Finally, some explained that social support builds confidence, with one stating:
I have an amazing group of […] friends who I have been meeting with monthly for the last 5–6 years. The support of these women is the reason I had the strength and courage to leave an abusive marriage. Without them I would have never made it through this process.

Accessing Tools and Resources

Many (20.09%; n = 43) survivors spoke of the importance of accessing specific tools and resources to assist them with managing the court process, including affordable legal services and the assistance of individuals informed about IPV dynamics.

Accessing affordable legal resources helps

Some survivors expressed that access to affordable/free legal assistance helps with the process. One shared that they are “thankful everyday” for their lawyer, who “is doing this for no money but still fights for me as if I was paying her the big bucks.”

Legal professionals’ advocacy and fair treatment helps

In addition to affordable legal services, a few survivors reported that lawyer advocacy helps and articulated ways in which attorneys have helped them in and out of the courtroom. One survivor voiced:
My lawyer is absolutely amazing. I have wanted to give up so many times and she stayed on top of checking in and researching services for me to take part in to get my life together […] she always has my best interest in mind.
Another said, “[My lawyer] is able to stand up to bullies and I have not been.” A small number of participants explained that having the judge's fair treatment in court helps. One explained:
[My ex-partner] never punched or hit me. He beat up my feelings of self-worth and tore me down day by day until I finally broke free. I truly believe the judges saw that—their treatment toward me in court was amazing.

Victim advocate's informed effort helps

Some participants expressed that a victim advocate's informed effort helps. One stated, “I’ve never felt such support from a stranger before.” Survivors were grateful for domestic violence organizations that helped them by providing accompaniment to court, running background checks on lawyers, and in one survivor's words, “chang[ing] the trajectory of our lives to become resilient [to this] type of family violence.”

Professionals’ knowledge about IPV helps

A few participants shared that their legal representation's knowledge about IPV helps with the process. One felt fortunate to “have a strong lawyer who is reasonable, who gets abusers…who can litigate if necessary but tries to keep things out of court.” Relatedly, a small number of participants found that a judge's knowledge about IPV helps with the process. One described feeling “fortunate to have judges who know what [intimate partner violence] is.”

Privilege and access help

While survivors recounted financial difficulties and expressed a need for affordable legal assistance, a small number under less financial stress recognized that having disposable income helps navigate the process. One such participant “had money to spend and had access to a super high quality, experienced and responsible lawyer. She understood the situation and didn’t discount how manipulative it all is/was.” Another explained, “I think access to resources and legal assistance to those with any legal barrier (financial, language, etc.) is very important.”

Modifying Actions, Thoughts, and Emotions to Adapt to a System That Is Not Trauma-Informed

Many (19.63%; n = 42) participants felt their trauma was not taken into account and described examples of adapting behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally as a result.

Personal knowledge/Education helps

Some found that seeking information about family court/legal processes helps. A participant shared, “I read every book, listened to every podcast, followed groups, found appropriate therapists, [and] attended support group meetings.” A small number of participants emphasized the importance of seeking information about IPV/conflict dynamics. One said, “I doubt that my children and I would be thriving if I had not educated myself about high conflict dynamics, domestic abuse, the perception of these concepts (and responses) in family court processes, family court statutes, and family law philosophy and psychology.” Another who had a negative experience in court and with attorneys stressed seeking information “outside of attorney […] and court agendas.”

Personal behavior modification helps

A small number of survivors mentioned the necessity of adapting their personal demeanor to a system that is not trauma-informed. One participant shared:
I am no longer a victim and I do not “react” like a victim anymore…[judges] want to see strong empowered parents getting custody…I have to be like an actress and pretend I think [my ex-partner's] threats are funny or that he doesn’t scare me…it is too easy for judges who are uneducated in victimology to make mistakes and to retraumatize the victim.

Another described, “keep[ing]…calm and focused on the process, [knowing] not to cry or try to prove my point in court.” A small number, who received little help from outside sources, had to learn to navigate the system alone. One described, “I had to learn the process and learn to navigate through with minimal assistance.” A few found that a necessary coping strategy was informed self-advocacy. One stated, “I have been vocal, proactive and strident…I have been an advocate for myself and my children.” A small number of participants believed that distance from or avoidance of court was the only way to cope. The only thing that helped one participant was “realizing that it is a rigged system and trying to stay out of it as much as [possible].” A few emphasized self-preservation; one was grateful for their “brains and wherewithal to not completely fall apart.”

Shifting perspectives helps

A small number of participants shifted perspectives by managing reality verses expectations. One explained, “The court system is like that movie, The Matrix. Nothing you understood to be reality is actually reality.” For a small number of participants, understanding that their experience is not unique helped them cope. One expressed that in the course of “getting [their] education, writing and becoming an expert about this legal process, understanding that [their] experience is not unique” helped.

Actions outside of court help

Some participants described actions outside of court that helped them adjust. A small number stated that working helps with coping and participants found work in IPV-prevention and advocacy fields. One participant described working at the association that defended them in court: “It strengthened my self-esteem, made me feel safe. I found understanding there. Finally, someone believed in me, and the stalking and harassment I experienced on all the jobs I had, stopped.”

A few participants described how advocacy, activism, and providing support for others help with coping. One expressed that after going through family court processes, their “goal in life is to assist others in this messed up journey” as they are “in the process of attaining a graduate degree to become a therapist, legal advocate, or some other profession to allow me to fully use my experience and education” to help others. For another, “going to graduate school for social work, writing grad papers on cycles of abuse, and [getting] involved in political advocacy” was a way to heal.

Some found that spirituality helps with coping. One credited their “faith in God and the hope…in him for real justice” as an integral part of their adjustment. A few voiced that self-care helps with coping. One participant said, “learning to take one day at a time and decompress [has] been hugely helpful.” Another emphasized “the power of meditation and affirmations.”

Being Validated/Believed

While participants highlighted support from others as an important factor throughout the family court process, many (11.21%; n = 24) participants described an in-the-moment interpersonal experience separate from a sense of supportive, ongoing connection to others that stood out to them: being validated and believed by informal and formal supports both inside and outside of court.

Receiving validation helps

A few participants expressed that receiving validation from other(s) helps. For one participant: “[My therapist] helped me establish I wasn’t crazy and taught me how to take care of [my]self and unwind…from all the lies.” Another acknowledged the importance of “friends who remind me I am not crazy.” For a small number, having validation from an empathic lawyer helps. One participant felt understood by their attorney who “has said multiple times that in her 20-plus years of practicing family law, she has never seen a case as twisted and drawn out as this one.” A small number also expressed that validation from an empathic judge helps. One was grateful for “one of the magistrates in our case, [who] was particularly thoughtful/understanding of the abuse.”

Having the abusive partner held accountable provides validation

A small number of participants shared that having the abusive parent's requests (e.g., for child support) denied in court provided validation (e.g., “One judge did deny my ex's petition for temporary child support from me and to suspend his child support…it made me feel ecstatic that someone said no to him”). One participant found that having the abusive parent's lies exposed in court provided validation:
The judge was quick to stop my ex when he tried to lie about me, which made me feel validated (finally). My ex told a blatant lie, easily proved, and the judge called him out on it…It was a feeling of, “Finally! This is what I have been dealing with for years!” The validation was part of my healing process.

A small number of participants reported that professionals exposing abusive tactics provided validation. For example, one participant, whose ex-partner glared at them during court hearings, recalled: “The judge scolded him stating, ‘You will not glare over there! Keep your eyes straight ahead!’… I was fortunate to have judges who […] held him accountable.” A small number of participants expressed that their lawyer's familiarity with abusive behavior provided validation. One stated the importance of “getting a lawyer early…he could see my ex's behavior over the past year, [which afforded the lawyer] time to get to know me and my ex and see the changes in his behavior vs. his words in how he treats me.”

Self-Validation helps

Regardless of whether they received validation from others, a few participants expressed that believing in oneself helps with coping. When asked what helped throughout the family court process, one participant answered, “looking fear in the eye, learning to trust myself, [and] not allowing others to gaslight me about my experience.” For a few, self-empowerment helped with coping. One advised, “you MUST become stronger than the woman you were in the beginning if you want to get your children back.” Another emphasized, “being resourceful and persevering when I was told no.”

Managing Post-Separation Family Life

Many (9.81%; n = 21) participants stressed the need to find ways to manage communication with their ex-partners and prioritize their children's well-being.

Managing Ex-Partner/Co-Parenting helps

A small number of participants found that avoiding vindictive behavior toward the abusive partner was necessary to navigate the court process. One shared, “while I have been an advocate for myself and my children, I have not publicly shamed my ex-husband, nor have I been vindictive or punitive. I have consistently put my children first and took the high road.” A few voiced a commitment to boundary-setting with the abusive partner as a means of managing their experience (e.g., “I have strong personal boundaries in terms of communication with my estranged spouse”). For a small number of participants who faced their ex-partner constantly in court and/or when co-parenting, adapting to constant contact/co-parenting with the abusive partner was necessary. One said, “my ex is mean and abusive. I cannot react and defend, but [instead] ignore or respectfully respond. It is so hard.” Another who had to co-parent with their ex used the TalkingParents app, which helped to record conversations pertaining to the children.

Separation from abusive partner helps

For a small number of participants, the relief they felt during the custody process was due to separation from their abusive partner/a quick divorce. When explaining what was helpful, one shared, “getting away from him and the system.” A small number were grateful for a no-contact protection order. One voiced that obtaining a protection order “improved my feelings of anxiety and stress.”

Focusing on children helps

A few participants expressed that focusing on the protection of their children helped them persevere. One described finding solace “picturing me and my children safe and away from here.” Another stated, “knowing I have to protect [my children] at all costs” was a reason to remain resilient. A small number felt that advocating for their children helped them endure the process. One participant was thankful that they “possess[ed] enough self-awareness, self-possession and self-love to fight to the death for my child.” For a small number of survivors, relief came when they received custody. One shared, “The biggest help has been no longer having to interact with my abuser to co-parent since finally he is not allowed to see our daughter.” A small number stressed the need to help children cope. One mother described the importance of “[learning] how to help [my] children be resilient [while co-parenting] with an abusive ex in a way that is not alienating.” For a few, gratitude for their children was helpful. One expressed, “savoring the times I spend with my daughter.”

Barriers Got in the Way of Coping/Managing

In addition to and sometimes instead of naming what helped them cope with family court processes, many 14.02% (n = 30) articulated barriers that prevented them from managing the experience.

Barriers to coping/managing

Many described barriers to coping with or managing the process. One shared:
My ex-husband was allowed to cross examine me on the stand when he decided to rep himself…[…] every word was so encrypted with triggers. It was loaded with things [only] he and I knew and all I could think [was]…why was he allowed to talk to me directly[?]

Another voiced, “Victims should be exempt from custody battles.” One who described the court process as “very adversarial” shared, “I was painted as the worst mother in the world…It is easy to paint a couple as ‘high conflict’ and look past domestic violence.” Several survivors identified their challenges as systemic, with one stating the importance of “not seeing judges as gods.” Others found that circumstances did not change even when the desired result was reached in court. One participant, granted a divorce after a long court battle expressed, “Not much has changed as my ex is still not even complying with the court orders. We remain in fear daily.”

Nothing helps

For a few participants, nothing helped with the court process. Several stated “Nothing” in response to our question. According to one mother:
Nothing [has helped]. Absolutely nothing. No one has really been willing to help and everyone wants insane amounts of money. I believed in justice before this. Now I realize that the court system is nothing more than a source of income and politics. It's a business.

Discussion

Given the distressing nature of family court for many IPV-exposed mothers (e.g., Gutowski & Goodman, 2020, 2023b; Khaw et al., 2021), uncovering what helps them when engaging in this legal system is imperative. This study sought to address this question by soliciting the perspectives of family court-involved survivor mothers on who or what helped them during their court proceedings. Findings indicated that a number of external factors (i.e., receiving social support, being validated/believed, accessing affordable legal resources, accessing support from professionals knowledgeable about IPV, being separated from one's ex-partner and having the abusive partner held accountable), as well as internal and/or personal factors based on individual actions, strengths, and resources (i.e., providing self-validation, educating and informing oneself about abuse and court processes, modifying behaviors and emotional responses to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed, shifting one's perspective, taking actions outside of court, developing strategies for co-parenting, and focusing on children) were helpful for those managing court processes. However, participants also noted substantial barriers, with a few expressing that nothing helped them with their court processes.

While prior research has uncovered negative experiences of IPV-exposed mothers in family court (e.g., Khaw et al., 2021), this study illuminated factors—both external and internal—that helped survivors involved in this legal system. Many emphasized relational experiences as external factors vital to their managing in court. Specifically, participants underscored the importance of connecting with family, friends, peers, and legal professionals. This finding corroborates extant research indicating the importance of social support for survivors’ coping and mental health (Kocot & Goodman, 2003) and is unsurprising given that survivors often face social isolation and loneliness (Farris & Fenaughty, 2002). Partners may isolate a survivor from their support systems as an abusive tactic that enables them to gain control (Coohey, 2007). When survivors do take the risk of seeking support, they may be met with unhelpful reactions from their social networks (e.g., blame, disbelief, and a lack of understanding; Sylaska & Edwards, 2014) or failings from formal systems (e.g., invalidation, lack of concern, marginalization or discrimination; Archer-Kuhn et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2021). Such experiences likely magnify a sense of disconnection (Evans & Feder, 2016). Mothers involved in family law processes who are coping with the stress of court and stigmas such as divorce, abuse, and potential loss of custody, may be at particular risk for social isolation. Further, mothers reported that instrumental support from informal networks in addition to more formal, external tools and resources (e.g., affordable legal resources, knowledgable professionals) were critical to helping them manage the court process. While a few participants in this study described learning to navigate the system alone, when able to access committed attorneys, advocates, and therapists as well as supportive friends, peers, and family members during this time of vulnerability, such supports bolstered survivors’ ability to cope. Our findings echo calls for a network-oriented approach to supporting survivors that involves the engagement of survivors’ social networks (Goodman et al., 2016, 2023; Goodman & Smyth, 2011). Such an approach is likely key for family court-involved survivor mothers.

The finding that another external factor—validation from others—plays a central role in coping with family court is consistent with research that highlights the value of being heard and believed when disclosing experiences of abuse (Johnson & Belenko, 2021; Voth Schrag et al., 2021). Many participants noted a sense of relief when they were helped by professionals who had knowledge of abuse dynamics and described the importance of these professionals’ willingness to believe them and set limits with their abusive ex-partners. Indeed, research has suggested that custody evaluators with IPV knowledge are more likely to believe survivors’ stories of abuse (Saunders et al., 2013). Such validation is likely tied to outcomes that participants deemed helpful such as being separated from the abusive partner and having them held accountable. When they were not believed in family court, participants described relying on validating responses from both formal (e.g., advocates, therapists) and informal (e.g., friends, other mothers, family) supports outside of court, supporting that having one's experiences of abuse believed and recognized is not simply a means to an end (e.g., child custody), but an important element of recovery and healing. Indeed, as survivors often have their realities, including their abuse experiences, denied in the context of abusive relationships, re-experiencing a discounting of the abuse in court may create significant distress (Epstein & Goodman, 2019; Gutowski & Goodman, 2020). Ideally, families with IPV histories will be served by trained professionals who are knowledgeable about abuse dynamics and work with families from a trauma-informed lens. However, unfortunately, many survivors feel they are not taken seriously in legal proceedings, and describe benefiting from receiving validation outside of court as a way to cope with the process.

While there was variation in reported experiences, many participants highlighted internal factors that helped them adjust to a system that presumed the absence of trauma. Several participants described how in the absence of having their abuse experiences seen and understood by professionals in the court process, they validated themselves, sought out information on family law processes, developed strategies for co-parenting, and shifted focus to advocacy, activism, as well as appreciating and caring for their children. Some noted that they had to adapt their demeanor to ensure that their requests would be taken seriously in court. This finding is consistent with a prior study indicating that survivors’ demeanors (i.e., pleasant vs. hostile) are a predictor of custody evaluators’ recommendations (Hardesty et al., 2015) and existing qualitative research, in which survivors have described pressure to act in a calm and unemotional manner in the courtroom for fear of appearing unstable and unfit to parent (Khaw et al., 2021; Miller & Manzer, 2021). Displays of emotion or disordered testimony (sometimes a result of PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or the re-traumatization caused by facing an abusive ex-partner) may influence judges to see an abusive ex-partner, who may appear comparatively relaxed and organized, as more plausible (Campbell, 2017; Epstein & Goodman, 2019; Khaw et al., 2021; Saunders & Oglesby, 2016; Ward, 2016). As some survivors attempt to remain composed in court, they can also be perceived as aloof, hurting their cause (Katirai, 2020; Miller & Manzer, 2021; Saunders & Oglesby, 2016). Judges may therefore discount survivors’ credibility due to their demeanor (Epstein & Goodman, 2019). A small number of participants reported being aware of this and adapting accordingly.

Finally, a number of participants also named significant barriers to navigating court. Notably, a few stated that nothing—either external or internal—helped them with the process. While a small number noted that priviledge and access to resources helped with the process, unfortunately, many survivors do not have access to the financial resources necessary to face an abusive ex-partner in court. Civil legal aid, for example, due to insufficient funding, often has stringent qualifying criteria that eliminate many low-income mothers from eligibility (Lee & Backes, 2018). Further, some survivors who are eligible may be unaware that they can access civil legal aid (Lee & Backes, 2018). In addition to challenges accessing resources, several survivors who noted barriers spoke of systemic barriers as well as the retraumatizing nature of court, in which they were required to face abusive ex-partners (e.g., one participant described being forced to undergo cross-examination from an ex who had chosen to self-represent). These findings are consistent with prior scholarship illuminating how the trauma of abuse is re-inflicted on survivors in court (Katirai, 2020). For example, in a survey of 53 domestic violence advocates, Katirai (2020) found that the majority of the advocates’ court-involved survivor-clients experienced the actions of abusive ex-partners and their associates, court procedures, and court outcomes as retraumatizing (Katirai, 2020).

Implications for Practice

Survivors’ perspectives on what was helpful to them as they coped with family court processes yield implications for practice consistent with a trauma-informed orientation. While many participants exercised behavior modification to adapt to the family court system, in a trauma-informed system, survivors would ideally not be met with the burden of having to attempt to mask their symptoms or dampen their emotional reactions in court. Trauma-informed care emphasizes the importance of all professionals embedded within service systems (from receptionists to professional staff to administrative leaders) to be knowledgeable about the dynamics and sequelae of traumatic experiences, dedicated to limiting or modifying procedures and interactions that could cause a detrimental re-experiencing of service users’ original traumas, and committed to promoting healing (Harris & Fallot, 2001; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014). While implementing a trauma-informed approach requires substantial structural change, below are a number of implications from this study's findings that could pave the way for improved practices in this system. First, assessment for IPV by professionals who are versed in abuse dynamics as well as the effects of trauma on a survivor's demeanor and memory of events is essential (as previously recommended by others; e.g., Saunders, 2017). Detection of IPV in conjunction with greater knowledge of IPV dynamics across family systems could be a step towards preventing legal abuse, limiting the need for survivor mothers to adapt their demeanors in court, and enabling decision-making that enhances safety for children (Horwitz et al., 2015; Saunders, 2017), ultimately ensuring a more supportive experience for survivors entering family court processes. Second, court actors can be made aware of the importance of their responses to abuse disclosures for survivors’ well-being and be trained to respond compassionately. Consistent with this, Katirai (2020) emphasizes the importance of a trauma-informed approach that “bridges the gap” between legal professionals and survivors (p. 118). Third, upon entering family court proceedings, survivors should be provided with resources (e.g., information on affordable legal assistance, the process of family court proceedings, managing co-parenting; domestic violence agencies, support groups; for an example of such an effort see http://www.custodyawarenesscollaborative.com/toolkit; Hailes, 2018). Ideally, in the context of an initial screening process for IPV, those who screen positive can be offered such tools. Fourth, lawyers and advocates who spend time and energy providing survivors with support and access to resources can ease the burden of an often-distressing legal process by providing information, validation, emotional support, and resources. Fifth, advocates or other supports should be enabled to accompany survivors to court, as they can be a source of guidance and comfort. Several participants indicated that they were not allowed to bring advocates into the courtroom with them. Our findings indicate that survivors would benefit from having an advocate in addition to a lawyer versed in IPV dynamics and trauma throughout the family court process. Sixth, given responses that emphasized peer support and advocating to help other survivors, advocates may also be able to connect survivors to peers and to opportunities to engage in advocacy, if desired. Seventh, since many survivors do not have access to affordable or pro bono legal assistance, communities without these options should prioritize increased funding to allow survivors the opportunity to access competent legal representation. Ultimately, participant responses indicated that there is a clear need to transform practices in this system so that survivors receive compassionate and just responses to their experiences of abuse.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. As this study's sample is a convenience sample, it is conceivable that survivors who had negative experiences in family court may have been more likely to volunteer, and we cannot claim that our sample is representative of all mothers accessing family court services in the United States. Given that the sample was recruited from domestic violence and legal aid organizations, it may overrepresent survivors who were able to access legal aid and IPV organizations. As the majority of participants were White (78.5%) and heterosexual (91.6%), caution is advised when attempting to generalize results to survivors with other racial/ethnic and sexual identities. This sample also consisted of a high number of college-educated participants (72.9%), who may have had increased access to finances, support, and other resources and consequently fewer barriers. It is worth noting that the nature of the sample (i.e., largely White and educated) may relate to their reported ability to implement both external and internal coping strategies throughout the family court process, and future research should determine if our findings generalize more broadly to all IPV survivors. These data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected recruitment. Mothers with children at home during the pandemic may have been less likely to participate in the survey, for example, due to limited free time. As we used a single, open-ended question to examine factors that helped survivors with the court process, it is possible that survivors did not remember everything that was helpful to them throughout the process. The study was conducted with a written survey, which may have limited the amount of information shared by participants, depending on their level of comfort with written communication. Finally, as participants responded to this question in the context of a larger data collection effort, it is possible that survey fatigue impacted responses.

Implications for Research

This study shed light on factors—both external and internal—that helped IPV-exposed mothers as they navigated U.S. family law proceedings. This area of research needs further investigation to facilitate enhancing supports for survivors and their children involved in this legal system. As our study was composed of mostly White, heterosexual, highly educated mothers, future studies should explore family court experiences of IPV survivors with diverse identities including racial and ethnic backgrounds, sexual and gender identities, as well as education experiences. As survivors’ identities and related lived experiences may affect how they adapt to legal processes, future research should explore the ways in which intersectional identities may affect the strategies survivors use to cope with family court processes. For example, experiences of power, privilege, and oppression may affect one's access to and thus ability to rely on external supports (e.g., social, financial) or one's historical and current use of internal/personal strategies, such as personal behavior modification, in the absence of external supports. Furthermore, we did not differentiate between divorcing mothers and unmarried separating mothers, and, as these groups may differ in important ways, future research may examine distinctions between the two. Future studies should continue to investigate how family court processes may be modified to reduce distress to survivors and children (e.g., comparing the experiences of survivors who had an advocate throughout the process to those who did not; examining outcomes for survivors and children when an IPV screening took place). As some survivors described fear when their abusive ex-partners violated court orders, research examining tools for survivors with minimal supports whose ex-partners ignore the requests of the court is greatly needed (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2023). Future research may also employ a range of methodological designs using a trauma-informed approach to data collection (e.g., interviews; focus groups; quantitative designs).

Conclusion

The current study was the first to our knowledge to ask what helps IPV-exposed mothers navigate U.S. family court proceedings. Consistent with a trauma-informed orientation to service provision, participants named the importance of relational support as well as the need to be believed and validated rather than discounted and discredited. Participants also explained the importance of adapting their behavior to be taken seriously in a system that presumes the absence of trauma, of accessing tools and resources (e.g., professional support, financial support), and of learning to manage post-separation family life (including co-parenting) with an ex-partner who abused them and sometimes their children. Echoing past studies that have uncovered protective mothers’ negative experiences in family court (e.g., Gutowski & Goodman, 2020; Khaw et al., 2021; Miller & Manzer, 2021), many participants stated barriers to navigating this legal system, due in part to a lack of trauma-informed practices. Participant responses also reflected systemic inequities as those with financial means and privilege noted that such access helped them to take measures to protect their children and defend themselves in court against abusive ex-partners. As negative court experiences may be detrimental to the well-being of survivors and their children, and in some cases, prevent them from obtaining needed help, implementing trauma-informed practices that are accessible to all within the family court setting is an urgent necessity.

Demographic	n (%)
Race/ethnicity
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	2 (0.9)
Native American or Alaska Native	8 (3.7)
Other	8 (3.7)
Asian	11 (5.1)
Latinx	19 (8.9)
Black	27 (12.6)
White	168 (78.5)
Birthplace
Outside the United States	47 (22.0)
United States	167 (78.0)
Sexual orientation
Gay/Lesbian	3 (1.4)
Queer	3 (1.4)
Bisexual	8 (3.7)
Straight/heterosexual	196 (91.6)
Income
Less than $10,000	61 (28.5)
$10,000–$19,999	21 (9.8)
$20,000–$29,999	24 (11.2)
$30,000–$39,999	32 (15.0)
$40,000–$49,999	17 (7.9)
$50,000–$99,999	43 (20.1)
$100,000–$149,999	8 (3.7)
$150,000–$199,999	4 (1.9)
$200,000+	4 (1.9)
Education
Less than high school	8 (3.7)
High school	22 (10.3)
Vocational/trade school	11 (5.1)
Associates	17 (7.9)
Some college	35 (16.4)
4-year Bachelors	66 (30.8)
Graduate degree	55 (25.7)

Clusters and categories	n (%)
CLUSTER 1: Receiving social support	170 (79.44)
Specific supportive people help Characteristics of social support that help
CLUSTER 2: Accessing tools and resources	43 (20.09)
Accessing affordable legal resources helps
Legal professionals’ advocacy and fair treatment helps Victim advocate's informed effort helps
Professionals’ knowledge about IPV helps
Privilege and access help
CLUSTER 3: Modifying actions, thoughts, and emotions to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed	42 (19.63)
Personal knowledge/education helps
Personal behavior modification helps Shifting perspectives helps
Actions outside of court help
CLUSTER 4: Being believed/validated Receiving validation helps Having the abusive partner held accountable provides validation Self-validation helps	24 (11.21)
CLUSTER 5: Managing post-separation family life	21 (9.81)
Managing ex-partner/co-parenting helps
Separation from abusive partner helps
Focusing on children helps
CLUSTER 6: Barriers got in the way of coping/managing	30 (14.02)
Barriers to coping/managing the court process Nothing helps

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lisa A. Goodman, the many experts and community partners who offered expertise; Erin C. Miller; Newton Wellesley Hospital, the Larry J. Seigel Fellowship for Victimology Studies, the Center for Human Rights and International Justice, and Boston College for their financial support; and the participants who shared their experiences with the hope of helping someone else.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Larry J. Siegel Fellowship for Victimology Studies.

ORCID iDs

Julia Bradshaw

Ellen R. Gutowski

Author Biographies

Julia Bradshaw is a Clinical Psychology PhD student in Trauma at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. She has a longstanding interest in research addressing the needs of survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence.

Ellen R. Gutowski, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at University of Toronto in the Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Her research centers on intimate partner violence. She is particularly committed to understanding how systems-level responses to those affected may either promote well-being or unintentionally cause harm and to understanding how providers and systems can be trauma-informed and anti-oppressive.

Kashoro Nyenyezi, MPA, is a PhD student in Social Justice Education at the University of Toronto focusing on violence prevention work. She has worked with women affected by sexual and domestic violence and disadvantaged children for the past decade.

References

Archer-Kuhn

(2018). Domestic violence and high conflict are not the same: A gendered analysis. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 40(2), 216–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2018.1444446

Archer-Kuhn

Hughes

Saini

Still

Beltrano

Tam

(2023). Who’s going to keep US safe? Surviving domestic violence and shared parenting during COVID-19. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 32(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02458-z

Archer-Kuhn

Hughes

Saini

Tam

Beltrano

Still

(2022). A balancing act when children are young: Women’s experiences in shared parenting arrangements as survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00452-z

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization–national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(8), 1–18.

Campbell

(2017). How domestic violence batterers use custody proceedings in family courts to abuse victims, and how courts can put a stop to it. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 24(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.5070/L3241036415

Coohey

(2007). The relationship between mothers’ social networks and severe domestic violence: A test of the social isolation hypothesis. Violence and Victims, 22(4), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007781554008

Dillon

Hussain

Loxton

Rahman

(2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/313909

Douglas

(2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380

Douglas

(2020). Family violence, lawyers and debt. Australian Journal of Family Law, 33(3), 264–281.

10.

Elizabeth

(2017). Custody stalking: A mechanism of coercively controlling mothers following separation. Feminist Legal Studies, 25(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-017-9349-9

11.

Elizabeth

(2019). ‘It’s an invisible wound’: The disenfranchised grief of post-separation mothers who lose care time. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 41(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1554788

12.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

13.

Epstein

Goodman

L. A.

(2019). Discounting credibility: Doubting the testimony and dismissing the experiences of domestic violence survivors and other women. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 167(2), 399–461. https://www.pennlawreview.com/print/167-U-Pa-L-Rev-399.pdf

14.

Evans

M. A.

Feder

G. S.

(2016). Help-seeking amongst women survivors of domestic violence: A qualitative study of pathways towards formal and informal support. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 19(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12330

15.

Farris

C. A.

Fenaughty

A. M.

(2002). Social isolation and domestic violence among female drug users. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28(2), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1081/ADA-120002977

16.

Fleury-Steiner

R. E.

Miller

S. L.

Maloney

Postel

E. B.

(2016). “No contact, except . . .”: Visitation decisions in protection orders for intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114554259

17.

Ford-Gilboe

C. N.

Wathen

Varcoe

H. L.

MacMillan

Scott-Storey

Mantler

Hegarty

(2016). Development of a brief measure of intimate partner violence experiences: The Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)-Short Form (CASR-SF). BMJ Open, 6(12), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012824

18.

Fram

S. M.

(2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1569

19.

Goodman

Chronister

K. M.

Gutowski

Mendoza

M. M.

Kumar

(2023). Measuring the network engagement practices of domestic violence agency social service providers. Journal of Family Violence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00553-3

20.

Goodman

L. A.

Banyard

Woulfe

Ash

Mattern

(2016). Bringing a network-oriented approach to domestic violence services: A focus group exploration of promising practices. Violence Against Women, 22(1), 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215599080

21.

Goodman

L. A.

Smyth

K. F.

(2011). A call for a social network-oriented approach to services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 1(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022977

22.

Goodman

L. A.

Smyth

K. F.

Borges

A. M.

Singer

(2009). When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women’s mental health and coping? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(4), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838009339754

23.

Gutowski

Goodman

L. A.

(2020). “Like I’m invisible”: IPV survivor-Mothers’ perceptions of seeking child custody through the family court system. Journal of Family Violence, 35(5), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00063-1

24.

Gutowski

E. R.

Goodman

L. A.

(2023a). Coercive control in the courtroom: The legal abuse scale (LAS). Journal of Family Violence, 38, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00408-3

25.

Gutowski

E. R.

Goodman

L. A.

(2023b). Legal abuse and mental health: The role of judicial betrayal. Psychology of Violence. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000483

26.

Hailes

(2018). A survivor's guide to custody in Massachusetts family and probate court . http://www.custodyawarenesscollaborative.com/#/toolkit/

27.

Hardesty

J. L.

(2002). Separation assault in the context of postdivorce parenting: An integrative review of the literature. Violence Against Women, 8(5), 597–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102400388452

28.

Hardesty

J. L.

Chung

G. H.

(2006). Intimate partner violence, parental divorce, and child custody: Directions for intervention and future research. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 55(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00370.x

29.

Hardesty

J. L.

Hans

J. D.

Haselschwerdt

M. L.

Khaw

Crossman

K. A.

(2015). The influence of divorcing mothers’ demeanor on custody evaluators’ assessment of their domestic violence allegations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 12(1), 47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.943451

30.

Harris

Fallot

R. D.

(2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

31.

Hester

(2011). The three planet model - towards an understanding of contradictions in approaches to women and children’s safety in contexts of domestic violence. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), 837–853. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr095

32.

Horwitz

S. H.

Benowitz

J. R.

LaRussa-Trott

Santiago

Pearson

Skiff

Cerulli

(2015). Family law attorneys’ perceptions and experiences with intimate partner violence: An exploratory study. Journal of Child Custody, 12(3-4), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1090298

33.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

34.

Jaffe

P. G.

Crooks

C. V.

Wolfe

D. A.

(2003). Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to evaluate intended and unintended consequences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024914517072

35.

Johnson

I. D.

Belenko

(2021). Female intimate partner violence Survivors’ experiences with disclosure to informal network members. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15-16), NP8082–NP8100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519843282

36.

Katirai

(2020). Retraumatized in court. Arizona Law Review, 62(1), 81. Retrieved February 6, 2022, from: https://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/62-1/62arizlrev81.pdf

37.

Khaw

Bermea

A. M.

Hardesty

J. L.

Saunders

Whittaker

A. M.

(2021). “The system had choked me too”: Abused mothers’ perceptions of the custody determination process that resulted in negative custody outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4310–4334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791226

38.

Kocot

Goodman

(2003). The roles of coping and social support in battered women’s mental health. Violence Against Women, 9(3), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801202250075

39.

Lee

J. G.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Civil legal aid and domestic violence: A review of the literature and promising directions. Journal of Family Violence, 33(6), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9974-3

40.

Levitt

H. M.

Motulsky

S. L.

Wertz

F. J.

Morrow

S. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082

41.

Miller

S. L.

Manzer

J. L.

(2021). Safeguarding children’s well-being: Voices from abused mothers navigating their relationships and the civil courts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9-10), 4545–4569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791599

42.

Miller

S. L.

Smolter

N. L.

(2011). “Paper abuse”: When all else fails, batterers use procedural stalking. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407290

43.

Ogolsky

B. G.

Hardesty

J. L.

Theisen

J. C.

Park

S. Y.

Maniotes

C. R.

Whittaker

A. M.

Akinbode

T. D.

(2023). Parsing through public records: When and how is self-reported violence documented and when does it influence custody outcomes? Journal of Family Violence, 38, 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00401-w

44.

Rivera

E. A.

Zeoli

A. M.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2012). Abused mothers’ safety concerns and court mediators’ custody recommendations. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9426-4

45.

Robinson

S. R.

Ravi

Voth Schrag

R. J.

(2021). A systematic review of barriers to formal help seeking for adult survivors of IPV in the United States, 2005–2019. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1279–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020916254

46.

Sandelowski

(2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362

47.

Saunders

D. G.

(2017). Evaluating the evaluator: Research-based guidance for attorneys regarding custody evaluations in cases involving domestic abuse. Michigan Family Law Journal, 47(1), 8–14. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/135941

48.

Saunders

D. G.

Oglesby

K. H.

(2016). No way to turn: Traps encountered by many battered women with negative child custody experiences. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, 13(2-3), 154–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1213114

49.

Saunders

D. G.

Tolman

R. M.

Faller

K. C.

(2013). Factors associated with child custody evaluators’ recommendations in cases of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032164

50.

Shoener

(2017). The price of safety: Hidden costs and unintended consequences for women in the domestic violence service system. Vanderbilt University Press.

51.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services. Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 57. Retrieved May 3, 2022 from: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/d7/priv/sma14-4816.pdf

52.

Sylaska

K. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013496335

53.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

(2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal For Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042

54.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

55.

Tutty

L. M.

Ogden

Giurgiu

Weaver-Dunlop

(2013). I built my house of hope: Abused women and pathways into homelessness. Violence Against Women, 19(12), 1498–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213517514

56.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

Ravi

Robinson

Schroeder

Padilla-Medina

(2021). Experiences with help seeking among non–service-engaged survivors of IPV: Survivors’ recommendations for service providers. Violence Against Women, 27(12–13), 2313–2334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220963861

57.

Ward

(2016). In Her words: Recognizing and preventing abusive litigation against domestic violence survivors. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 14(2), 11. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol14/iss2/11

58.

Watson

L. B.

Ancis

J. R.

(2013). Power and control in the legal system: From marriage/relationship to divorce and custody. Violence Against Women, 19(2), 166–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801213478027

59.

Zeoli

A. M.

Rivera

E. A.

Sullivan

C. M.

Kubiak

(2013). Post-separation abuse of women and their children: Boundary-setting and family court utilization among victimized mothers. Journal of Family Violence, 28(6), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9528-7

Clusters and categories	n (%)
CLUSTER 1: Receiving social support	170 (79.44)
Specific supportive people help Characteristics of social support that help
CLUSTER 2: Accessing tools and resources	43 (20.09)
Accessing affordable legal resources helps
Legal professionals’ advocacy and fair treatment helps Victim advocate's informed effort helps
Professionals’ knowledge about IPV helps
Privilege and access help
CLUSTER 3: Modifying actions, thoughts, and emotions to adapt to a system that is not trauma-informed	42 (19.63)
Personal knowledge/education helps
Personal behavior modification helps Shifting perspectives helps
Actions outside of court help
CLUSTER 4: Being believed/validated Receiving validation helps Having the abusive partner held accountable provides validation Self-validation helps	24 (11.21)
CLUSTER 5: Managing post-separation family life	21 (9.81)
Managing ex-partner/co-parenting helps
Separation from abusive partner helps
Focusing on children helps
CLUSTER 6: Barriers got in the way of coping/managing	30 (14.02)
Barriers to coping/managing the court process Nothing helps