We advance systemic improvements for at-risk children starting with the premise that children are:
a) individuals with human and civil rights, not property of their parents or the state
b) uniquely vulnerable in relation to adults and therefore in need of unique protections which are greater than those afforded adults.
Silencing children is not protecting them. Silencing their safe caregivers is not protecting them. Relying on faulty theories or methodologies which do not meet admissibility standards endangers at-risk children.
Working together with trusted collaborators, we are at the forefront of creating systemic advances and victories for children in the family court context. Please join us.
What We've Achieved
© United Nations Press
Provided expert consultation for the UNSRVAW Report Child Custody, Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children, which was then presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, 2023.
© Getty Images, Alex Wong
Originated, co-drafted, and successfully shepherded through U.S. Congress the landmark Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act (aka “Kayden’s Law”), enacted in 2022 as part of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Pictured at the White House signing is Danielle Pollack, right, with President Biden and Kathy Sherlock, Kayden’s mother, left.
Draft model child safety provisions and consult with lawmakers, including for state Kayden’s Law in Pennsylvania legislature (beginning 2018-19) and for federal Kayden’s Law in Congress, adopted within VAWA (2022).
Advise on many successful child safety state bills, including Jennifer’s Law in Connecticut, Julie’s Law in Colorado, both adopted in 2021, Piqui’s Law in California and Abrial’s Law in Tennessee, both adopted in 2023, and Om’s Law in Utah, adopted 2024.
Provide live testimony and consultation to legislative bodies and policymakers in several states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, Montana, and Colorado.
Co-organize and moderate family court judicial candidate forums, open to the public and in advance of judicial elections.
Provide frequent press interviews and panel presentations on policy matters, including at the Beau Biden Foundation’s National Conference to Protect America’s Children, 2023.
Organize and engage diverse stakeholder groups which share a common interest of prioritizing child safety in policies and laws. Found the U.S. umbrella organization, National Safe Parents Organization (NSPO), and lead a monthly live advocacy and education series.
Together with national and international leading medical, legal, and mental health experts, devise continuing education programming, including Child Abuse and the Criminal, Civil, and Family Courts with keynote speaker First Deputy Attorney General Michelle Henry (details below), and various professional trainings with NFVLC and IVAT.
Join our effort. Children are counting on you.
Child Abuse and the Criminal, Civil, and Family Courts - CLE Program
General Overview
This essential 6-credit CLE course with keynote address by Michelle Henry, First Deputy Attorney General, brings together leading national and local experts on child abuse, child protection, and the courts. It is hosted by the think tank for child protection, CHILD USA, and designed in collaboration with the Offices of the Bucks County District Attorney and County Commissioner. It will review the latest research and provide evidence-based approaches to protecting children in the criminal, civil, and family court contexts. Special focus will be trained on cases involving intrafamilial abuse, especially child sex abuse.
National research shows that state family courts have struggled to evaluate reports of child abuse and domestic violence, including the appropriate burdens of proof. Admissibility standards often dip below those required in the criminal and civil court systems. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, reports that four-fifths (79.3%) of all child fatalities involve an abusive parent.
According to the Administration for Children & Families’ most recent report, there were over 4,000 confirmed child victims of abuse or neglect in Pennsylvania, which is an 18.2% increase from 2014. Of these children, 38.5% were physically abused and 50.4% were sexually abused, with youngest children under the age of 8 being the most vulnerable. A new national study from George Washington University School of Law by Joan Meier reveals in its preliminary findings that in contested custody cases where abuse is alleged, the parent who is an alleged child sex abuser is winning over the safe parent 81% of the time; this is despite research confirming intentionally fabricated allegations of intrafamilial child sex abuse are under 14%. In practice, the system is not working in the best interests of the child. This forum will be an opportunity for people serious about systemic reform on behalf of vulnerable children to share knowledge and build more effective systems of analysis and legal protection in Pennsylvania.
Opening Remarks:
Matthew D. Weintraub, Esq., Bucks County District Attorney
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Michelle A. Henry, Esq., First Deputy Attorney General for the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
PANELS
Panel I: Child Sex Abuse
Moderator:
Professor Marci Hamilton, Fox Professor of Practice, University of Pennsylvania, CEO & Academic Director, CHILD USA
Speakers:
Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Psychologist, Sheppard Pratt Health System, Executive VP of Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence
James Carpenter, Prosecutor, Former Chief of Family Violence & Sexual Assault Unit at Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office
Dr. Steven Berkowitz, MD, Child Traumatologist and Director Penn Center for Youth & Family Trauma Response and Recovery
When a parent is an alleged child sex abuse perpetrator, courts are faced with the challenging task of balancing traditional parental rights with the evolving concept of individual children’s rights. Many of these contests play out in the family courts, especially custody cases. Complicating the issue is how “best interest” is interpreted, with the maintenance of the parent-child relationship often taking importance over claims of physical or sexual abuse.
As we have seen in other settings such as churches, schools, and sports, many factors work in tandem to silence child victims and stymie their protectors. The family context can operate under a unique set of “closed system” factors that tend to silence child victims. This panel will address those factors, among others. Panelists will address trends, approaches, and resources both locally and nationally; available options, weighing the pros and cons of each; and practical parameters for practitioners and the courts.
Panel II: Custody and Visitation
Moderator:
Judge Flora Becker, Family Court Judge (ret.)
Speakers:
Barbara Price, Former Executive Director, New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence
Brad Jackman, Esq., Solicitor for Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services
Joyana Silberg, PhD, Psychologist, Sheppard Pratt Health System, Executive VP of Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence
Family courts are trained to view time-sharing or joint custody as the gold standard for child placement, and inherently in the best interests of the child. This approach can favor a shared parenting model above all other considerations, at times sacrificing child safety. An empirical study of six states by Allison Morrill of the Capacities and New England Research Institutes found that court preferences for joint custody and the so-called “friendly parent” principle outweighed judicial consideration of abuse claims. In addition, in some cases, a safe parent can lose custody to the alleged abusing parent due to a claim of “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) or “parental alienation” (PA). Although PAS does not meet legal admissibility standards in criminal and civil courts, and PA is widely challenged in the scientific community and has never been tested, PAS - and variations of it under other names - remains the most common, and successful, defense in family courts. Panelists will explore how courts can and should balance these competing interests when making custody determinations.
Panel III: Qualifying Experts
Moderator:
Diane Ellis-Marseglia, LCSW, Bucks County Commissioner
Speakers:
Dr. Steven Berkowitz, MD, Child Traumatologist and Director Penn Center for Youth & Family Trauma Response and Recovery
Dr. Philip V. Scribano, DO, MSCE at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP,) Director Safe Place: The Center for Child Protection and Health
Matthew S. Lannetti, Esq, Deputy District Attorney Bucks County, Special Victims Unit
Erika Goettler, MA, Child Forensic Interview Specialist, Bucks County Children's Advocacy Center
As children are often prohibited from testifying due to a combination of factors, including a desire to protect minors, competency determinations, and many others, courts turn to experts to provide testimony regarding what is in the child’s best interests. Competency determinations often prevent a child from testifying, despite the fact that the child is often the witness with first-hand knowledge of the facts. Competency assessment standards are rarely adjusted for a child’s developmental stage. Experts may therefore be substituted for child victim testimony in the courtroom. As a result, a largely unregulated cottage industry of family court experts has grown, without clearly defined national or even statewide standards. The increase in the use of expert witnesses, along with a tendency of some courts and precedents to relax the rules of evidence in the family courts raises questions on how to best meet vulnerable children’s needs. For adult expert testimony to have value in the courts it must fulfill the criteria for admissibility of the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is taking place. Forensic interviewing techniques as well as custody evaluation methodology should meet admissibility standards. The two evidentiary standards for expert scientific testimony are the Frye standard and Daubert standard. The prevailing standard in the past, the Frye standard, rests on what is called a “general acceptance” standard. It is no longer dominant. In contrast, Daubert, embraced by over 40 states, requires that the court establish the scientific validity of the testimony.
Pennsylvania is one of the few remaining states to continue to adhere to the Frye standard of admissibility for scientific evidence, as opposed to Daubert (or Federal Rule of Evidence 702). This panel will explore how these experts are and should be qualified in family, civil, and criminal courts (in the Commonwealth and federally) including the specific challenges faced in each.
Interactive roundtable with panel moderators
Closing Remarks
“Only 12% of all child abuse allegations made by a custodial parent were deemed intentionally fabricated; only 6% of child sexual abuse allegations.”