A culture of compromise
Family court encourages friendly litigation as well as friendly parenting, both of which can have deadly consequences for women with highly abusive former partners.
Furthermore, family court tends to focus on encouraging families to “move on,” to put the past behind them, which is very difficult for a woman who is traumatized and/or continuing to be subjected to abuse post-separation.
The focus on early settlement, on compromise by both parties and on alternative dispute resolution – particularly mediation – further exacerbates the challenges for women being subjected to ongoing abuse by their former partners. In some cases, it can lead women to concede to unsafe arrangements for the children or unfair division of property because they feel heavily pressured to do so – not just by their abusive former partners, but by those they encounter through the family court process.
Safety seems of low value
Often when women won’t compromise because of legitimate concerns for the safety of their children as well as their own safety, they are seen as unreasonable, vindictive and as trying to alienate their children from the other parent. While not said in so many words, and certainly not set out explicitly in the law, there appears to be a culture in many Canadian family courts that “good” parents – parents who put their children’s best interests first – will find a way to parent collaboratively post-separation, regardless of any historical or ongoing abuse.
Many women report that subtle and not so subtle hints are dropped by those they encounter through the family court process that they should set their concerns for safety aside in order to put their children first. This is a profound insult to women who are intensely focused on their children’s well-being, often to the detriment of their own.
What’s “reasonable” when there’s been violence?
Women are told – sometimes even by their own lawyer – that judges like parents who are prepared to work together to raise their children and are warned that if they do not appear “reasonable” (which seems to mean being receptive to shared decision-making and/or extensive parenting time for the abusive former partner with no built-in safeguards), they will suffer consequence for their failure to cooperate in the form of inappropriate and unsafe arrangements for the children.
For women who have escaped severe, controlling abuse and who continue to be impacted by post-separation violence, these messages are unsupportive, at best. This approach denies the realities of the violence that these women have been subjected to and undermines their attempts to gain the court’s support for long-term safety of themselves and their children.
Mothers who leave abusive partners want to ensure their children are safe. Where they try to limit the abuser’s time with the children or have it supervised, it is because they believe that is what is in the best interests of their children, not because they are seeking revenge against their former partner.