Views of the Child Reports: Key Considerations for Practice Given the Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence in Contested Separating/Divorcing Families

ABSTRACT

In family law proceedings, children’s views are increasingly sought and included in non-evaluative reports, such as Views of the Child Reports. This paper explores the controversial nature of including children’s voices in contested separation/divorce cases and examines the implications of interviewing children given the prevalence, hidden nature, and potential harm to children in cases of intimate partner violence. We contend that voices of children, and their potential exposure to intimate partner violence must be considered during Views of the Child Reports interviews. These factors inform our proposed practice strategies for professionals conducting these reports and our recommendations for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Children
• voice
• intimate partner violence
• separation/divorce
• Views of the Child Reports

Introduction

With the strengthening of children’s rights to citizenship over the years, particularly with the 1991 inception of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), there has been a shift toward the importance of including children’s views in family law proceedings (Lansdown, 2014; Logan & Walker, 2004; Smart et al., 2001). Presently, there are many valuable tools for children’s voices to be heard through the family law process. These include access and custody evaluations, judicial interviews, and counsel representing the child. Views of the Child Reports (VCRs), also referred to as Voices of the Child Reports or Hear the Child Reports, are being increasingly used for this purpose. VCRs are broadly described as non-evaluative reports summarizing the child’s perspective and preferences for consideration in contested custody cases between caregivers (Birnbaum & Bala, 2017). VCRs are typically conducted by mental health or legal/judicial professionals.

During the preliminary implementation phase in Ontario, Canada, VCRs have been shown to be a cost effective and timely way of capturing the voices of children involved in contested custody proceedings (Birnbaum et al., 2016). While there are established benefits to VCRs, the authors of this article, raise serious issues related to IPV in the VCR process. Research indicates that IPV is often undisclosed and hidden (Bagshaw et al., 2010; Litvack, 2008). Therefore, we contend that practitioners must be vigilant and consider hidden IPV prior to, during, and post the VCR interview process. IPV is broadly described as violence perpetrated by a previous or current partner and is the most common form of violence against women (Phillips & Vandenbroek, 2014). The terms “Domestic Violence” (DV) and IPV are used interchangeably, but IPV has been favored as it makes space for diversity in relation to the gender of the perpetrator. There has been increased attention to the significant harmful impacts of exposure to IPV on children. Though IPV may be screened initially in the VCR process, authors agree that in general, even when attempts are made to screen for IPV, it can remain hidden (Bagshaw et al., 2010; Litvack, 2008). Given the high prevalence of IPV in contested separating/divorcing cases (Logan et al., 2002; Stover, 2013; DVDRC, 2016) and its hidden nature, it is important to consider the implications this presents for the VCR process.

Consideration of these implications has been taken up by the authors. This article evolved from the collaboration of two Canadian clinical- researchers (Razbani & Kaptyn). For the past seven years, Razbani’s research and clinical practice has specifically focused on matters related to children and youth in contexts of family separation and blended family formation. Over the years, she has come to recognize the importance and effectiveness of giving space to voices of children in family matters. Kaptyn has spent over twenty years facilitating group and individual IPV intervention with men, women, and children. Her research focus is broadening our understanding of effective IPV interventions, while highlighting the often-hidden nature of IPV and the serious harm it causes families. Their collaboration provides an opportunity to ensure proposed practice strategies taken up during the VCR process both honor the voice of the child and do not miss an opportunity to disrupt IPV.

This collaborative paper will firstly address the controversial nature of the inclusion of the child’s voice, arguing that the voice of the child should be honored and that VCRs are effective in that respect. Secondly, it will establish the harm associated with exposure to IPV, the high prevalence of IPV in child custody disputes, and its often-hidden nature in spite of initial screening for IPV in the VCR process. Thirdly, it will examine the implications of the potential presence of IPV on the VCR process. Finally, these implications will inform our proposed practice strategies for professionals conducting VCRs and our recommendations for future research.

Voice of the child

There exists a longstanding debate on children’s inclusion and participation in family law matters. Historically in Canada, children have been denied the opportunity to participate and have their voices be heard in access and custody matters that impact their lives (Coley, 2007). Opponents to children’s participation and inclusion in family law proceedings caution against involving children; arguing that asking children their wishes or recommendations in contested family matters puts the burden of decision-making on them and that this has detrimental impacts (Warshak, 2003). Conversely, there is evidence that not listening to children in family law matters concerning them can cause greater harm than good (Coley, 2007; Pryor & Rodgers, 2001; Smith et al., 2000). For instance, scholars have found that excluding children from meaningful participation in access and custody matters can have negative effects on them, such as feeling more distressed and insecure or feeling rejected and angry for not being included in family matters pertaining to them (Kelly, 2002).

Proponents for the inclusion of children’s voices in family law matters maintain the need for a distinction between sharing children’s experiences and preferences versus putting the onus of decision-making on the child or solely relying on the child’s input in decisions surrounding access and custody matters. Aside from the view of advocates that children have the right to be heard about matters relating to their family lives, there is immense literature supporting the benefits associated with children’s participation in family cases before the courts (Birnbaum et al., 2016; Buckley et al., 2007; Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008). Children’s involvement in access and custody decisions has been shown to reduce the negative effects of family breakdown on them (Cashmore, 2008; Smart, 2002). Similarly, Taylor, et al., (2007) mentioned that listening to children develops their self-esteem, competence, and relatedness, all of which are vital factors in coping with stressful life situations, such as family separation. In addition, there is considerable international literature demonstrating that for the most part, children prefer not to be kept in the dark about family proceedings that impact their lives (Aubrey & Dahl, 2005; Bala et al., 2005; Birnbaum, 2017; Birnbaum & Bala, 2009; Birnbaum & Saini, 2012; Birnbaum & Saini, 2015; Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008). This knowledge coupled with the wealth of literature reporting children’s expressed need to be heard on matters relating to their family lives (Birnbaum, 2017; Birnbaum & Saini, 2012; Birnbaum & Saini, 2015; Cashmore & Parkinson, 2008), solidifies the importance of examining the means by which children’s voices are heard in family law proceedings. The VCR is one such tool. However, in capturing the voice of the child in the VCR process, we contend it is important to consider the potential presence of IPV in these cases and the implications therein.

Presence of IPV

Prevalence of children’s exposure to IPV

Prevalence of children’s exposure to IPV is difficult to establish due to several factors: the underreporting of IPV, children choosing not to disclose it, parents not recognizing behaviors as IPV, and challenges as to how IPV is defined (Jaffe et al., 2012). In Canada, it is estimated that between 248 −1,057 per 100,000 children are exposed to IPV (Unicef & Body Shop, 2006 as cited in Jaffe et al., 2012). Consistent with Drozd et al.’s (2004) study, the phrase “child exposure” rather than “child witness” is used in our article as an accurate term to describe children’s experience with IPV, since children can be exposed to IPV in many ways, not just by seeing an assault. Further, Morrill (2005) indicates “that there is a high incidence of IPV in high-conflict separating/divorcing families, ranging from 25 to 50%” (as cited in Stover, 2013, p. 219). These statistics support the practice of screening cases for IPV thoroughly before engaging in the VCR process.

Underreporting of IPV

With the high incidence of IPV found among contested separating/divorcing couples, researchers indicate that there is a lack of consistent and formal IPV assessment and under-detection of IPV in these cases (Cleak et al., 2014; Drozd et al., 2004; Holtzworth‐Munroe et al., 2010). Birnbaum (2012) concluded, “not much has changed with respect to the silent and insidious nature of family violence and more so when children are involved” (as cited by Alaggia & Vine p. 388). The literature demonstrates little evidence of consideration of IPV when interviewing children generally in formal custody evaluations (Logan et al., 2002). Further, in many cases practitioners have identified discomfort with screening for IPV, and when practitioners probe, adult experiences were privileged over children’s and children may never have been asked about their experiences (Callaghan et al., 2017).

Houston et al. (2017) concluded that Child Protection Service (CPS) agencies are involved in many high-conflict cases, and yet training, policies, and adept co-ordination among professionals involved in these cases were found missing, potentially leading to a failure to protect children from harm. This was also linked with evidence that CPS agencies are not intervening frequently enough to address safety issues for children exposed to IPV. This evidence of poor assessment of IPV in contested separating/divorcing families highlights the importance of being vigilant during any interaction with these families. The VCR process is one such interaction that must presume the possibility that IPV may be undisclosed, so it is prudent to be considered both prior to and during the VCR process.

Authors agree that even when attempts are made to screen for IPV, it can remain hidden (Bagshaw et al., 2010; Litvack, 2008). This may be due to IPV being normalized by both the mother and child(ren) (OACAS, Module 2, Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies [OACAS], 2019). There are many other reasons for this. Abused women often indicate that the abuser will impact their ability to be forthright in court because they are cognizant of possible future harm to themselves or their children should they antagonize the perpetrator (Logan et al., 2002). The overlap between family law, CPS, and criminal law also creates challenges. Women may fear that their children will be apprehended if they report IPV and that this may in turn be used against them in court, given that mothers who are victims of IPV have historically been blamed for failing to protect their children (Lessard et al., 2010). Research indicates that Canadian Aboriginal women in particular may choose to live with violence rather than invoke the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in fear that their children will be taken from them (Fong, 2010). Under Canada’s Immigration Act, women may be forced to remain legal dependents of men to retain their immigration status (Fong, 2010), which presents a deterrent to the disclosure of IPV. In addition, immigrant and refugee women may not call the police because of language barriers, being undocumented workers, or a general fear of the police. They may stay with their abusive partners, fearing downward mobility, including unemployment, deskilling, linguistic barriers, and racism resulting from police involvement (Fong, 2010). Another significant barrier to reporting IPV by marginalized families includes a fear of subjecting them to further surveillance by the state (Arnold & Ake, 2013), in which they may be treated inequitably.

An Australian study (Bagshaw et al., 2010) found that a minority of respondents who were victims of violence were advised not to disclose the IPV in court. Lawyers reasoned that alleged IPV may be assumed to be false by the contested party. Allegations may be viewed as a tactical advantage or revenge in disputes between couples over children. Though understandable, all of these reasons for silence account for children’s exposure to IPV often remaining hidden.

Disclosure of IPV during the VCR process is also hindered by the principle set out in the Ontario Section 16(10) of the Divorce Act, known as the “friendly parent rule.” It states that ”a child … should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child.” This provision reflects a general assumption that the needs and interests of a child following separation and divorce are best met when the child maintains significant contact with both parents. Consequently, a mother may choose not to disclose any form of IPV, lest she present as an “unfriendly” parent and jeopardize her legal position. Ironically, the reason she is deemed “unfriendly” is because she believes promoting a relationship with the father may subject their child(ren) to harmful IPV exposure (Jaffe et al., 2008). Both separation and visitation arrangements may exacerbate the mother and child(ren)’s vulnerability to IPV. Research supports the high prevalence of IPV in contested separating/divorcing families (Logan et al., 2002; Stover, 2013) as well as the heightened risk of lethal violence a few months after the initial separation (Campbell et al., 2007; Jaffe et al., 2005; Lessard et al., 2010). Consequently, the practitioner cannot definitively assume that IPV is not a factor in these families and must be vigilant when interviewing children with respect to the warning signs of IPV.

Effects of IPV exposure on children

Unreported IPV can perpetuate the significant harmful impacts of children’s exposure to IPV. We now know the impact of IPV exposure on children is greater than had previously been understood (Øverlien, 2010). Jaffe et al. (2012) discuss exposure to IPV as disrupting healthy development for children and claim that outcomes are comparable to those in children who have been physically abused themselves. Many studies of the impacts of childhood exposure to IPV focus on adjustment variables such as anxiety, depression, disruptive behavior, and aggression (Etherington & Baker, 2018). Brown et al. (2009) posit that a link between childhood traumatic stressors, such as exposure to IPV, and long-term behavioral, health, and social problems. Adolescents are also impacted by exposure to IPV. They are vulnerable to becoming both perpetrators and victims of dating violence (Narayan et al., 2014). However, this is not an exhaustive description of the harmful effects of IPV exposure on children. Jaffe et al. (2012) may be sourced for further details on the harmful outcomes in relation to stages of development of children exposed to IPV.

Another landmark study, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study by Brown et al. (2009) provides further evidence supporting the harmful outcomes of exposure to IPV. The ACE study is a comprehensive survey measuring baseline data on health behaviors, health status, and exposure to ACEs for 17,337 adults between the years 1995–1997. The ACEs included abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), as well as witnessing IPV. ACEs are associated with negative neurodevelopmental impacts, risk factors for chronic disease, and even premature death. The ACE study suggests the importance of treating childhood adversity in order to reduce extensive harm to both the child and the community (Brown et al., 2009). This study is consistent with overwhelming evidence of the harmful impacts of exposure to IPV and emphasizes the importance of ongoing vigilance during the VCR process.

It is essential to acknowledge that although all children exposed to IPV are in some manner or another impacted, it is now recognized that survivors “do not speak with one voice” (Boehm as cited in Oxman-Martinez et al., 2002, p. 15). Some children are even quite resilient in the face of IPV (OACAS, Module 2, 2019). Practitioners have also failed to attend to how a child’s social positionalities intersect to impact the experience of his or her exposure to IPV (Etherington & Baker, 2018; Hankivsky & Cormier, 2011). Race, gender, class and other categories of identity influence one’s experience of IPV exposure. For instance, a racialized child living in poverty may experience more serious impacts from exposure to IPV. The social determinants of health can be mitigating factors associated with a child’s resilience. We advocate for both being vigilant with respect to the possible presence of IPV in contested separating/divorcing families as well as acknowledging that intersectionality must play a vital role in our efforts to listen to and understand these children. Understanding the role of structural oppression in precluding resiliency may broaden our understanding of how to mitigate the harm of exposure to IPV for not only that child but other children in the future.

Implications of children’s IPV exposure during the VCR process

Decision-making considerations within the context of intersecting legal systems

Having established that exposure to IPV is harmful to children and that it may be undisclosed in contested separating/divorcing families, it is imperative that we explore the implications of this during the VCR process. For instance, decision-making during the VCR process may involve a variety of legal processes including criminal, family, child protection, civil protection, housing, social assistance, immigration and refugee status, and their associated legal systems. Decision-making with respect to the VCR process takes place at the intersection of these various legal systems and we explore the implications of this for parents and their children.

Initial findings from an ongoing research study by Koshan and Mosher (2019) indicate that state actors often ignore intersections between these legal processes as well as litigant’s diverse identities and proceed with problematic assumptions. Professionals involved may proceed with problematic assumptions about the family during the VCR process. This may inadvertently jeopardize safety for parent and children experiencing IPV. For example, any allegations of IPV involving criminal behavior arising during the VCR process are made within the context of the CJS. The VCR process may be halted in order to address a criminal charge and respond appropriately within the legal constraints. If the charges are deemed unfounded or criminal resolutions do not include a criminal conviction, the VCR process may resume with serious implications for parents and their child(ren) outlined below.

Firstly, should the VCR process resume, the fact that there are allegations of criminal behavior brought against the adversary in the case may fuel the adversary’s anger and increase the family’s vulnerability to IPV. Secondly, CPS involvement would be invoked in the case of criminal allegations, further complicating matters for the family. The victim may fear accusations of him/her not protecting the children and consequent threats by CPS to apprehend the child(ren). Thirdly, the outcome of the criminal charges with respect to IPV could involve resolutions that do not include a criminal conviction. Even when a criminal act has occurred, evidence may not be satisfactory for a conviction. Access to a competent defense attorney can vary and alter the outcome of a court case. Court resolutions excluding a conviction may result in a conditional discharge, suspended sentence or a peace bond. As these outcomes do not carry the weight of a criminal conviction for IPV, they may be minimized and/or disregarded during the VCR decision-making process. Veteran Partner Assault Response (PAR) program leaders who facilitate intervention for IPV perpetrators in Ontario, have vigorously challenged the use of peace bonds and conditional discharges in cases of IPV (Mathieu, 2015). Their concern is that these resolutions may minimize risk without taking a history of IPV or a pattern of coercive control within a family into account (Mathieu, 2015). A lack of a criminal conviction does not preclude a history of unreported IPV, and criminal acts or ongoing abusive/coercive behavior within the family may remain unaddressed. These scenarios all involve the intersection of legal systems and have serious implications for the parent and child’s welfare and safety. Therefore, decision-making must proceed with caution in relation to the presence of potential IPV in these families.

Decision-making given competing definitions of IPV

A criminal act that precludes a criminal conviction or abuse that is viewed less seriously than a criminal offense does not mean a child is not being exposed to harmful behavior. Physical assault is only one form of IPV. Callaghan et al. (2017) posit that it is essential to move beyond a consideration of a physical assault only, when attempting to understand IPV. They summarize the concerns raised by other experts in the field that psychological impacts and safety concerns are related to abusive/coercive behaviors described by Stark (2009)as “domination, fear, control, isolation, and degradation … ” (Callaghan et al., 2017, p. 3371). A focus solely on physical assault does not capture other potential harms associated with IPV that may be present in contested separating/divorcing families. Kleinman and Kaplan (2016) posit the role of coercive control in contested separated families with respect to decision-making by professionals, indicating that this often leads to the use of legal custody proceedings to control their former partners (Lessard et al., 2010). When coercive control remains invisible, children’s best interests are not prioritized.

Decision-making given practitioners typologies of the IPV offender

Research has shifted from a simple present/absent approach to understanding violence to take a more contextual view (Cleak et al., 2014). Though IPV offenders may be differentiated by gender and sexual orientation, for our purposes this discussion centers on male heterosexual IPV offenders. However, Saunders (1992) encourages researchers to accept that there is no single profile of men who abuse. For instance, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) recommend typologies consisting of three subtypes of abusers: family-only, dysphoric/borderline, and generally-violent/antisocial. Johnson finessed his (Johnson, 2010) typologies of violence in 2010, situating an “IPV offender” in the context of differing understandings of IPV behavior itself. He identified four patterns: coercive controlling violence (intimate terrorism), violent resistance, situational couple violence, and separation-instigated violence. Coercive controlling violence (intimate terrorism), which is associated with a high risk for IPV, refers to a range of oppressive behaviors that can include psychological or emotional abuse, fits of jealousy, financial control, stalking/harassment, and threats to harm self and others (Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, 2019). Since coercive control does not invoke the CJS, it may remain invisible. Categorical systems breaking IPV offenders down by “type” or “typology” finesse the understanding of the heterogeneity of IPV offenders. However, typologies are viewed with caution. Birnbaum (2013)points to the “lack [of] sensitive, reliable[,] and effective screening mechanisms to identify these various typologies” (as cited in Alaggia & Vine, 2013, p. 385). Birnbaum acknowledges that typologies do not capture the complexity of many relationships, yet they may assist clinicians in understanding and intervening in contested situations (as cited in Alaggia & Vine, 2013).

Adequate background information and a comprehensive understanding of IPV typologies could be very useful in responding to contested separating/divorcing families. Without understanding of these typologies, a practitioner may unwittingly cause harm. For instance, a practitioner might assume a gender-neutral approach to IPV, misreading a female IPV offender as having an anger management problem, rather than a defensive response related to an unreported history of serious IPV. It is imperative that a practitioner’s education and training incorporates a thorough understanding of the power dynamics involved in IPV and some understanding of IPV typologies. This will ensure that the VCR process is conducted in a manner that prioritizes the safety of women and child(ren).

Decision-making given the risk of parental alienation

Assessing the veracity of allegations of IPV during the VCR process can also have implications for how thoroughly a practitioner understands a child’s experience. There is a commonly held belief that IPV survivors put forward false allegations to try to alienate children from perpetrators or oppose co-parenting. Literature does not support this (Kleinman & Kaplan, 2016). In addition, many individuals assume that kids overstate or exaggerate things. However, “[t]his social belief contradicts vast amounts of research which says that children do not generally lie about abuse and, if anything they tend to underreport” (Sjöberg & Lindblad, 2002as cited in Kleinman & Kaplan, 2016, p. 79). Therefore, it is imperative that allegations of IPV from women and their children be considered seriously and investigated thoroughly by utilizing collaboration with stake holders.

If such an allegation leads to suspicion of IPV, but the case is not resolved with a criminal conviction, the case may not be excluded from the VCR process. Subsequently, the delicate issue of the nature of the father-child relationship remains pertinent in relation to decision-making regarding parental plans. The presence of abusive/coercive behavior or criminal charges that did not meet the threshold for conviction have implications for the best interests of the child. Lessard et al. (2010) discuss authors who argue that contact with the father may be harmful to the child’s development and expose the child to poor role modeling when IPV is present. “The impact of a court imposing an unsupervised contact … on a child to be with an abusive parent poses long term negative consequences for that child’s mental health and development” (Kleinman & Kaplan, 2016, p. 75). However, Lessard et al. (2010) indicate that some authors support contact between an abuser and his child asserting that their interaction may facilitate the abuser’s recognition of the impact of violence on his child and motivate him to change.

Another reason for supporting the father-child relationship may be a practitioner’s fear of escalating a father’s anger when alleged or suspected IPV is present. The fear of liability should there be child abuse or lethal violence while working with a contested separating/divorcing family may also influence any professional interactions with the abuser (Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, 2019). Collaboration among professionals involved with the family can illuminate the nature of the father-child relationship and lighten the burden of decision-making given these challenges.

Decision-making given the social construction of gender and IPV

The social construction of both gender and IPV influence decision-making among professionals. How a practitioner understands social construction of gender and IPV can sway a practitioner’s perception of the children’s experience in relation to the veracity of allegations and denials of IPV. The narrative of IPV has traditionally been the “IPV offender” as a bad man who physically harms the “vulnerable victim,” a good woman (Morrison, 2003). This image still dominates the public response to IPV. The deficient “IPV offender” subject is associated as monstrous (Wood, 2004). Further, stereotypes may be racialized, in turn impacting the veracity of allegations. In general, people of color and low-income people are overrepresented in those targetd by the CJS. Racial tensions persist in communities and courts where discriminatory prosecutorial practices prevail (Belknap & Potter, 2005, p. 563). Allegations of IPV may be taken more seriously for a racialized male. In turn, if a female victim presents as “angry” and “strident,” her allegations may be discounted (Wood, 2004). When a mother presents as a hysterical parent attempting to minimize the father-child relationship, she may be reacting to a coercive controlling father (Birnbaum, 2012), yet her account may be dismissed. The effect of these stereotypes can subsequently mislead a practitioner’s assessment of the actual risk of IPV for women and their children.

In addition, these rigid stereotypes may impede disclosure of IPV. Both the father and the mother may resist a narrow representation of themselves; the father as a “monster” and the mother as a “vulnerable victim.” The former representation may be resisted out of shame, the latter as disempowering. Practitioners may also assume these rigid stereotypes. A male practitioner may resist allegations of IPV by a father who may share the practitioner’s social position in terms of gender, class, race, or ethnicity. Additionally, the stereotype of the “monster” may play into the fear and terror mentioned earlier, influencing the professional dealing with the father. Associating the stereotypical figure of an IPV offender with the parent, a practitioner may respond in fear; avoiding engagement with the parent and steering clear of the potential liability associated with such complex cases by glossing over significant indicators of IPV. Acting out of a conscious or unconscious fear, an opportunity to disrupt IPV may be missed by the practitioner.Therefore, practitioners must reflect on the role of the social construction of IPV offenders while attempting to understand the child’s experience.

Practitioners/ interviewers proposed practice strategies

Practice strategies prior to the VCR interview

Prior to the VCR interview, a robust amount of literature suggests that the practitioner ought to be mindful of their own competency and subscribe to ongoing education and training with respect to interviewing of children (Birnbaum & Bala, 2014, 2017; Coley, 2007; Hardestry & Chung, 2006; Kleinman & Kaplan, 2016; Logan et al., 2002). Given that VCRs are typically conducted in the context of contested family cases, education should include the following areas: general IPV (Hardesty et al., 2017; Haselschwerdt et al., 2011; Stanley et al., 2012), typologies of IPV (Johnson, 2010; Kleinman & Kaplan, 2016), impacts of children’s exposure to IPV (Jaffe et al., 2012), family transitioning in contested separation and divorce cases (McIntosh et al., 2004), child development (Litvack, 2008), interviewing techniques with children (Litvack, 2008), trauma-informed principles and practices (Campo, 2015; Hines, 2015) and issues relating to intersectionality (Litvack, 2008).

With respect to preparing for the VCR interview, the literature also supports practitioner’s attempts to connect with the child’s parents or the parents’ counsel in assisting with identifying issues and initial impressions of the child, including the potential needs of the child during the interview (Birnbaum et al., 2016). It may also be worthwhile for other stakeholders (such as teachers or therapists) to be contacted prior to the interview, as they may have helpful information to better prepare the practitioner for the VCR process.

Practical considerations before the VCR interview

Prior to the VCR interview, there are practical considerations. It is also suggested that the practitioner check in with the child in order to make the appropriate arrangements. For instance, decisions about factors such as time and location ought to consider the child’s wishes (Bala et al., 2013). In addition, it has been recommended that practitioners consider “the presence of conditions such as foetal alcohol syndrome, autism spectrum disorders and other neurodevelopmental disorders, geography, and the nature of the matters at issue will all affect how interviews are conducted” (Birnbaum et al., 2016, p. 173). This may entail reconsidering the child’s participation and accessing further collateral resources or making accommodations specific to the individual child. For instance, the practitioner may seek out a sensory room for a child in which to conduct the VCR interview. Collaboration among multi-informants not only provides screening for IPV, but it also informs practitioners’ understanding of the child’s needs and parameters of the interview. Further, practitioners are encouraged to prepare a comfortable (Eriksson & Christianson, 2017) and safe climate (Morris et al., 2015) for the child prior to the VCR interview.

Practice strategies during the VCR interview

Although creating a comfortable environment begins at the preparatory pre-interview stage, it is also essential during the VCR interview. This includes tactics such as creating a child friendly space (i.e., having comfortable furniture/toys) or having snacks available (Birnbaum & Bala, 2017). Additionally, inquiring as to with whom the child may feel comfortable and safe may determine who accompanies the child to the VCR interview.

A pertinent consideration for a safe VCR interview environment is constituted by a respect for the child’s privacy and confidentiality (Birnbaum & Bala, 2017; Birnbaum et al., 2016). For example, in practice, the privacy and confidentiality of the child may be jeopardized if the parent accompanying them can overhear the interview. During the interview, the child may also need to be reassured in an age appropriate manner that their confidentiality is protected to the fullest extent possible by law. Additionally, the child should be informed as to how information collected in the VCR process will be used. Bala et al. (2013) recommend the child be provided the opportunity for a final review and approval of the VCR report prior to its release. This may also facilitate the child to be less guarded and more forthcoming in the interview process.

The extant literature discusses effective interviewing with children. From this literature, we draw on strategies that we deem suitable for the VCR interview. For instance, the literature speaks to the importance of screening for IPV. Holtzworth‐Munroe et al. (2010) cite ample literature supporting the use of screening for IPV in settings such as family mediation, though they note this is controversial. Further, evidence suggests that safety is not always considered by custody evaluators (Bow & Quinnell, 2002; Logan et al., 2002, p. 735; Rivera et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2004), let alone VCR practitioners conducting briefer non-evaluative VCR reports. Given the hidden nature of IPV exposure coupled with the knowledge that children want their voices to be heard even in situations of IPV exposure (Buckley et al., 2007), ongoing IPV screening during the VCR interview is warranted. Should children directly disclose IPV exposure, scholars recommend that significant weight be given to their disclosures (Callaghan et al., 2017; Eriksson & Nasman, 2008; Kenkel & Couling, 2006; Macdonald, 2017; Paetsch et al., 2009).

When screening for IPV, research indicates that environmental factors influence the rates of IPV. Practitioners should be alert to such contextual factors during the VCR interview. Environmental factors can range from poverty and unemployment to global phenomenon, such as natural disasters. Raphael and Stoll (2013) contend that environmental concerns factor into the responsibilization of crime. IPV includes criminal behavior and as such, may be linked with these factors. Increasingly, studies (Rao, 2020; Schumacher et al., 2010) are exploring the prevalence and correlation of IPV during and following natural disasters. In their study documenting IPV following Hurricane Katrina, Schumacher et al. (2010) conclude “that IPV may be an important, but often overlooked public health concern following disasters” (p. 1)

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies’ (IFRC) (2018) report states that gender-based violence in disasters and crisis calls for more protection of women, men, and children from gender-based violence including IPV. The global context of more frequent natural disasters and crises must be considered during the VCR process. For instance, the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic may raise the incidence of IPV, and these rates may be even more elevated in contested separating/divorcing families. Therefore, VCR practitioners must be cognizant of the increasing possibility of hidden IPV during times of crisis.

During the VCR interview, it is essential that the child feels emotionally and physically safe to share their authentic experiences without fear of reprimand from any stakeholders involved (i.e., parents, extended family, etc.). Birnbaum and Bala (2017) claim that physical and emotional safety matters should be of ongoing concern to practitioners, both when the child is being interviewed and afterward. Assessing a child’s safety during the VCR process is also supported by literature that suggests that separation and parenting plans must “prioritise the safety, rights, and needs of children” (Bagshaw, 2007, p. 461). However, as Birnbaum et al. (2016) argue, VCRs should not be substituted for a formal child custody assessment when IPV is alleged and a thorough investigation is called for. While we recognize that VCRs are not evaluative in nature, we feel that they provide viable opportunities to screen children for hidden IPV exposure and connect them with the appropriate resources and supports.

Given the delicate and highly sensitive nature of the VCR interview process, the interviewer ought to be prepared to halt the interview when the need arises. While there are multiple circumstances that would warrant the discontinuation of the VCR interview, we highlight three here. The first being during the interview when a child changes their mind and explicitly refuses to continue with the interview. At such time, it is important to discontinue the interview, recognizing that the child has the right to participate or not. The second situation is when the child becomes excessively emotional or distressed. The interviewer would pause the interview, but ensure the child is feeling emotionally grounded and safe before they leave the interview room. The final instance is when the child displays consistent guarded behavior. This behavior may indicate that there are unknown factors that preclude the child’s safety or comfort in continuing with the interview. In addition, the need for further support for a child/ their family may arise from any of these circumstances. Best practice would compel the interviewer to provide the child and or their family with up-to-date resources to consider.

As indicated previously, VCR practitioners must also be cooperative through multidisciplinary collaboration. We believe that multidisciplinary collaboration is fundamental to conducting a comprehensive VCR. Collaboration amongst stakeholders begins with the gathering of background information, but is vital throughout the VCR process. It facilitates access to various supports and resources to enhance the child and family’s welfare.

There is a caveat: throughout the VCR process, practitioners ought to be cautious that children being interviewed and their families are not exploited in the practitioners’ earnest attempts to assist them. Practitioners must be vigilant not to perpetuate the surveillance and criminalization of marginalized groups by colluding with negative stereotypes. Niman (2019), an anti-fascist scholar, contends that the surveillance and criminalization of racialized and marginalized populations drives discourses of difference that contribute to social injustice. For instance, practitioners’ misguided beliefs about a certain cultural group being associated with IPV behavior, may lead to harm. Such stereotypical beliefs may influence assumptions and assessments of both the veracity of IPV claims and the need for intrusive surveillance. This may distort practitioners’ judgment, causing further harm. Engaging in ongoing reflexivity, that how who we are personally and socially constructs the way we see and act in the world (Fook, 1996), is essential to honoring the dignity of those involved in the VCR process. The practitioner must be mindful of his or her own bias in relation to IPV.

Practice strategies post the VCR interview

It is essential that children are presented with the opportunity to review the content of the interview prior to its release. Although, this may necessitate an additional meeting with the child, it is prudent for two reasons. Firstly, it would allow for the information gathered during the VCR interview to be verified for accuracy. Secondly, the content of the interview suggests the resources and supports that may be beneficial to the child. Post VCR interview, multidisciplinary collaboration is also essential to ensure effective communication and subsequent appropriate referrals.

Direction for future research

Overall, there is a dearth of literature on VCRs, and more studies concerning VCRs are recommended in general. Though VCRs are being increasingly utilized across Canada, there may be inconsistencies in their implementation, as there is scant literature on practice guidelines/best practices on which practitioners can draw. For this reason, prospective studies should consider exploring practice matters relating to the application of VCRs.

Moreover, forthcoming research on VCRs ought to cover matters relating to children’s safety and protection. For instance, future studies should specifically look into how VCR practitioners assess children’s safety prior to, during, and post VCR interviews. This is supported by findings of earlier scholars that have pointed to the need for further studies of contested family cases involving child protection service agencies (Houston et al., 2017). Researchers should be cognizant and inclusive of the diverse family structures in these cases. It is our hope that such research findings would inform consistent safety assessments, protocols, and practices amongst practitioners conducting VCRs.

Additionally, we need formal outcome studies on screening children for exposure to hidden IPV during the VCR process. Research should include the experiences of all stakeholders involved in the VCR process, prioritizing children’s experiences to honor their voices. Understanding their voices must also include adopting an intersectional lens; we have an ethical duty to protect children, and we believe their diverse voices should be heard, understood, and attended to.

Conclusion

Attending to ongoing safety issues that are associated with the potential presence of IPV in contested separating/divorcing families will need to be in the forefront of practitioners’ minds throughout the VCR process. If not, will practitioners reproduce the shame and secrecy a child exposed to IPV often experiences? Or, will the practitioner boldly take up the interview as an opportunity to ensure that the voice of the child is truly heard and understood. That would be in the best interest of every child.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).