Family courts often don't do enough to protect domestic violence survivors when making decisions about child custody, visitation, and protective orders. Domestic Violence is defined as any acts of harm between family or household members which can include spouses, former spouses, people who live together and people who have children together. Domestic Violence can have long-lasting effects on the victims and their children and there are many behavioral problems that children can suffer from. Despite the widespread acknowledgment of the dangers posed by domestic violence, many courts overlook the emotional and psychological harm it causes, focusing instead on parental rights and shared custody arrangements. These shortcomings stem from systemic issues, including outdated laws, insufficient training for court professionals, and a misguided emphasis on fostering parental cooperation, even in cases where one parent has a history of abuse. Studies show that courts sometimes ignore the emotional and mental harm caused by abuse, and they may not fully understand the danger abusers pose to both survivors and children. This happens because of outdated laws, a lack of proper training for court workers, and a focus on trying to make parents get along again, which can sometimes put families in danger. Jeremiah et al., in their evaluation of the Partnership for Peace Domestic Violence Diversion Program, highlight the importance of informed and sensitive approaches in addressing domestic violence cases. They note, "Systems that fail to recognize the pervasive nature of domestic violence often reinforce harmful behaviors, leaving survivors at risk of continued abuse" (Jeremiah et al.). This insight shows how a lack of proper training and understanding within family courts adds to the danger instead of reducing it. Reforming the system requires mandatory training for judges on the dynamics of domestic violence, the implementation of more comprehensive risk assessments, and prioritizing the safety and well-being of survivors and children over the goal of parental cooperation. Stronger legal safeguards, informed by evidence-based practices, are essential to address this systemic failure and provide the protections survivors deserve. Although there is not a quick fix to protecting domestic violence survivors and their children. There are plenty of action plans that can be placed to start slowly bringing justice to the survivors and protecting the children, making sure the children's mental and emotional wellbeing is the number one priority. This paper will go over a few topics such as, systemic flaws, the risks to children, and proposed reforms to help people understand the affects this could and is having on families all over the place.
Family courts operate with the principle that children benefit from contact with both parents. While this ideal applies to most cases, it can be dangerous in situations involving abuse. One significant issue is the failure to fully recognize the emotional and psychological harm caused by abuse. Courts frequently prioritize parental rights over the safety of survivors, perpetuating a dangerous environment. This problem is compounded by outdated laws that fail to reflect current research on domestic violence dynamics. For example, many family courts still adhere to the presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of the child, even in cases where one parent has a history of abuse. This presumption can create situations where abusers retain access to their victims under the guise of co-parenting, further exposing survivors and children to harm. Research shows that abusers often use custody cases to exert continued control over survivors. For instance, the National Domestic Violence Hotline reports that "abusers may file for custody not out of genuine interest in parenting but as a means to harass their victims." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) Furthermore, family court professionals, including judges and mediators, may lack adequate training to identify and address abuse dynamics. A lack of adequate training for judges, mediators, and other court professionals further exacerbates the problem. Studies reveal that many court officials are not equipped to identify or understand the complex dynamics of domestic violence. For instance, abusers may use subtle forms of coercion or manipulation that are not immediately apparent to someone without specialized knowledge. Without training, court professionals may dismiss survivors' allegations as exaggerated or as attempts to alienate the other parent. Jeremiah et al. emphasize that "systems failing to recognize the pervasive nature of domestic violence can unintentionally reinforce harmful behaviors, leaving survivors at risk of continued abuse." (Jeremiah et al.) Survivors frequently encounter skepticism about their claims, with courts sometimes dismissing allegations as attempts to alienate the other parent. Additionally, the focus on fostering parental cooperation often overshadows the need for safety. Many courts prioritize conflict resolution and mediation, if parents can co-parent effectively despite a history of violence. However, such approaches ignore the power imbalances inherent in abusive relationships. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, abusers often use custody disputes to maintain control over survivors, undermining the premise of equal cooperation. Survivors entering mediation may feel pressured to compromise for the sake of appearing cooperative, potentially placing themselves and their children in danger. Systemic bias also plays a role in perpetuating these issues. Survivors, particularly women, often face skepticism about their claims. They may encounter assumptions that their reports of abuse are exaggerated or fabricated to gain leverage in custody disputes. These biases are not only harmful but also reflective of societal attitudes that downplay the severity of domestic violence. Reforming these systemic issues requires a fundamental shift in how family courts address cases involving abuse. Proper training, updated laws, and a focus on survivor safety over parental rights are critical steps toward creating a system that protects those most vulnerable.
People who support shared custody often believe it's best for kids to have both parents in their lives. They argue that if one parent is left out because of unproven claims of abuse, the child might miss out on a relationship that could be good for their growth and happiness. This idea sounds fair because no one wants a child to lose out on a loving bond. But what gets ignored in this view is how harmful it can be for a child to be forced to spend time with an abusive parent. Survivors of domestic violence and their children face significant risks when family courts fail to address the realities of abuse in custody and visitation decisions. One of the most pressing concerns is the continued exposure to harm. Abusers often use custody arrangements to exert control over their victims, a tactic known as post-separation abuse. This dynamic can take many forms, including harassment during visitation exchanges, manipulation of children to intimidate or emotionally harm the survivor, or using court proceedings as a tool for ongoing control. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, "abusers may pursue custody not out of genuine interest in parenting but as a method of retaliation and coercion, leaving survivors in a state of constant fear and distress." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) In their book Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon emphasize how abuse dynamics can deeply affect children: "Exposure to domestic violence can shape a child's development and emotional health in ways that can last a lifetime" (Davies and Lyon). This book effectively highlights how children living through or even just witnessing abuse will carry emotional scars that far outweigh the "benefits" of maintaining contact with both parents. Imagine being a kid and feeling unsafe around a parent or watching them hurt someone you love. Children exposed to domestic violence also face profound risks. Research indicates that even witnessing abuse can have long-lasting effects on a child's emotional and psychological development. Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon, in Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, note that "children who live through or observe domestic violence often experience anxiety, depression, and difficulties in forming healthy relationships later in life." (Davies and Lyon) This trauma can lead to academic struggles, behavioral issues, and long-term mental health challenges. Despite these risks, family courts frequently prioritize shared custody or visitation, often overlooking the profound harm that maintaining contact with an abusive parent can cause. That fear doesn't just go away-it can stick with the child for years, affecting their mental health, trust in others, and ability to feel safe. Courts sometimes downplay these risks because they're focused on giving both parents equal time, even when one parent has a history of control or harm. This isn't just about fairness anymore; it's about choosing safety over appearances. The emotional and psychological well-being of a child should always be coming first, whether that mean keeping them away from a parent who has caused harm to the family system or not. This is not about punishing the abusive parent it's about protecting the children. I feel like the protection of children and their wellbeing's has been overlooked throughout so many custody cases over the years. Ultimately, these risks highlight the critical need for family courts to implement survivor-centered practices. By prioritizing safety and recognizing the lasting impact of domestic violence, courts can better protect survivors and their children from ongoing harm.
To understand this topic, I reviewed articles from reputable sources, including The National Domestic Violence Hotline, scholarly studies on custody disputes, court reform advocacy organizations, and the annotated bibliography where I wrote about multiple sources supporting this claim, "Family courts are failing to protect domestic abuse survivors." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) I also examined real-life survivor testimonies, which provided personal insights into the lived experiences behind the data. As well as personally living through and dealing with the effects that the family courts have when they are not putting the children first in the court cases. The research underscored the disparity between the legal system's ideals and its outcomes, especially in cases involving abuse. Advocacy for shared custody is rooted in the belief that children benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents, a principle that holds true in many cases. Proponents argue that shared custody arrangements promote emotional stability and balanced development, ensuring that children have access to the love, support, and resources of both parents. However, this perspective often oversimplifies the complex dynamics of domestic violence and fails to account for the unique dangers posed in cases where abuse is a factor. Shared custody advocacy, when applied indiscriminately, can place survivors and their children at significant risk. One critical flaw in shared custody advocacy is its assumption of equal parenting capability, which ignores the imbalance of power and safety inherent in abusive relationships. In cases of domestic violence, abusers frequently use custody arrangements as a means of continuing control and harassment. This phenomenon, known as post-separation abuse, can manifest through ongoing legal battles, coercive behavior during custody exchanges, and manipulation of children to intimidate the survivor. For example, the National Domestic Violence Hotline notes that many abusers file for custody not to care for their children but to maintain leverage over their former partners. This undermines the foundational goal of shared custody-ensuring the child's well-being-and instead creates an environment where the child becomes a tool for control. Another significant issue is the failure of shared custody advocacy to prioritize the child's emotional and psychological safety. While advocates often cite studies highlighting the benefits of maintaining relationships with both parents, they overlook research showing the long-term harm caused by exposure to abuse. Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon, in Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, emphasize that "exposure to domestic violence can shape a child's development and emotional health in ways that can last a lifetime." (Davies and Lyon) Children forced to spend time with an abusive parent may experience fear, anxiety, and confusion, as well as a normalization of harmful behaviors. This exposure not only affects their immediate mental health but also increases the likelihood of perpetuating cycles of violence in their own future relationships. Moreover, the legal system's focus on promoting shared custody often results in a minimization of abuse allegations. Survivors who raise concerns about their abuser's behavior are sometimes accused of attempting to alienate the other parent, a tactic that is discouraged in shared custody frameworks. This bias can lead to courts dismissing legitimate claims of abuse as unfounded or vindictive, ultimately prioritizing the appearance of fairness over the reality of safety. In such cases, shared custody becomes less about fostering healthy relationships and more about enforcing equality, regardless of the consequences for the survivor or the child. Finally, shared custody advocacy tends to emphasize parental rights over the child's best interests. While maintaining relationships with both parents is ideal in non-violent cases, it is not always the safest or healthiest option when one parent has a history of abusive behavior. The child's emotional and physical safety should always take precedence over the abstract principle of shared parenting. Courts must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and adopt nuanced, case-specific evaluations that prioritize the well-being of children and survivors over the ideology of parental equality. In summary, while shared custody can be beneficial in appropriate cases, its advocacy becomes problematic when applied indiscriminately, particularly in situations involving domestic violence. By failing to account for the dynamics of abuse and the risks posed to survivors and children, shared custody frameworks often prioritize fairness for parents at the expense of safety and well-being. Reform is needed to ensure that custody decisions are informed by a thorough understanding of domestic violence dynamics and a commitment to prioritizing the best interests of the child.
Reforming family courts to better protect domestic violence survivors and their children requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes safety, informed decision-making, and trauma awareness. Current systems often fail survivors due to a lack of specialized training, outdated practices, and inadequate legal safeguards. To address these deficiencies, proposed reforms focus on mandatory education for court professionals, enhanced risk assessment protocols, survivor-centered legal processes, and stronger protective measures for children. Judges, mediators, attorneys, and child welfare evaluators must receive comprehensive training on the dynamics of domestic violence and its impact on survivors and children. This training should include recognizing patterns of coercive control, understanding the risks of post-separation abuse, and debunking myths about false allegations. For instance, Jeremiah et al. emphasize the importance of informed systems that can identify and respond to the pervasive nature of domestic violence. Mandatory education would equip court professionals with the knowledge needed to differentiate between genuine safety concerns and routine conflicts, ensuring that custody decisions are rooted in the realities of abuse. Family courts must incorporate standardized risk assessments to evaluate the potential for continued harm to survivors and children. These assessments should consider the abuser's history of violence, threats, and coercive behaviors, as well as the survivor's safety concerns. Tools such as the Danger Assessment (DA), which evaluates the likelihood of lethal violence, can help courts make informed decisions. Additionally, courts should prioritize the use of child-focused evaluations that assess the psychological and emotional impact of abuse on children. Implementing these protocols ensures that safety risks are thoroughly examined before custody or visitation arrangements are finalized. Children's safety must take precedence over the assumption that maintaining contact with both parents is always beneficial. Courts should adopt a precautionary approach, erring on the side of caution when allegations of abuse are raised. Protective orders should include clear restrictions on abusers' access to children, and supervised visitation should be mandated in cases where contact is deemed necessary. Trauma-informed therapy and support services should also be provided for children exposed to domestic violence to address the emotional and psychological effects of abuse. By implementing these reforms, family courts can create a safer and more equitable system that prioritizes the well-being of domestic violence survivors and their children. These changes represent a critical step toward addressing systemic failures and ensuring that custody decisions reflect a commitment to safety, justice, and long-term healing.
Family courts' current practices frequently jeopardize the safety of domestic abuse survivors and their children. The lack of specialized training for court professionals, combined with the systemic prioritization of parental rights over survivor protection, creates a dangerous environment for everyone involved. To fix this problem, judges, lawmakers, child protection workers, mental health experts, and domestic violence specialists need to work together to change how family courts run. Courts should make sure judges, and legal workers get training on how to spot and understand the dangers of domestic violence in custody cases. There also needs to be new rules to make sure the safety of survivors and kids comes first, with stronger protection orders, trauma-aware processes, and safety checks that focus on keeping everyone safe Survivors deserve a system that prioritizes their safety and respects their lived realities.[R][/R]
Family courts operate with the principle that children benefit from contact with both parents. While this ideal applies to most cases, it can be dangerous in situations involving abuse. One significant issue is the failure to fully recognize the emotional and psychological harm caused by abuse. Courts frequently prioritize parental rights over the safety of survivors, perpetuating a dangerous environment. This problem is compounded by outdated laws that fail to reflect current research on domestic violence dynamics. For example, many family courts still adhere to the presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of the child, even in cases where one parent has a history of abuse. This presumption can create situations where abusers retain access to their victims under the guise of co-parenting, further exposing survivors and children to harm. Research shows that abusers often use custody cases to exert continued control over survivors. For instance, the National Domestic Violence Hotline reports that "abusers may file for custody not out of genuine interest in parenting but as a means to harass their victims." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) Furthermore, family court professionals, including judges and mediators, may lack adequate training to identify and address abuse dynamics. A lack of adequate training for judges, mediators, and other court professionals further exacerbates the problem. Studies reveal that many court officials are not equipped to identify or understand the complex dynamics of domestic violence. For instance, abusers may use subtle forms of coercion or manipulation that are not immediately apparent to someone without specialized knowledge. Without training, court professionals may dismiss survivors' allegations as exaggerated or as attempts to alienate the other parent. Jeremiah et al. emphasize that "systems failing to recognize the pervasive nature of domestic violence can unintentionally reinforce harmful behaviors, leaving survivors at risk of continued abuse." (Jeremiah et al.) Survivors frequently encounter skepticism about their claims, with courts sometimes dismissing allegations as attempts to alienate the other parent. Additionally, the focus on fostering parental cooperation often overshadows the need for safety. Many courts prioritize conflict resolution and mediation, if parents can co-parent effectively despite a history of violence. However, such approaches ignore the power imbalances inherent in abusive relationships. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, abusers often use custody disputes to maintain control over survivors, undermining the premise of equal cooperation. Survivors entering mediation may feel pressured to compromise for the sake of appearing cooperative, potentially placing themselves and their children in danger. Systemic bias also plays a role in perpetuating these issues. Survivors, particularly women, often face skepticism about their claims. They may encounter assumptions that their reports of abuse are exaggerated or fabricated to gain leverage in custody disputes. These biases are not only harmful but also reflective of societal attitudes that downplay the severity of domestic violence. Reforming these systemic issues requires a fundamental shift in how family courts address cases involving abuse. Proper training, updated laws, and a focus on survivor safety over parental rights are critical steps toward creating a system that protects those most vulnerable.
People who support shared custody often believe it's best for kids to have both parents in their lives. They argue that if one parent is left out because of unproven claims of abuse, the child might miss out on a relationship that could be good for their growth and happiness. This idea sounds fair because no one wants a child to lose out on a loving bond. But what gets ignored in this view is how harmful it can be for a child to be forced to spend time with an abusive parent. Survivors of domestic violence and their children face significant risks when family courts fail to address the realities of abuse in custody and visitation decisions. One of the most pressing concerns is the continued exposure to harm. Abusers often use custody arrangements to exert control over their victims, a tactic known as post-separation abuse. This dynamic can take many forms, including harassment during visitation exchanges, manipulation of children to intimidate or emotionally harm the survivor, or using court proceedings as a tool for ongoing control. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, "abusers may pursue custody not out of genuine interest in parenting but as a method of retaliation and coercion, leaving survivors in a state of constant fear and distress." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) In their book Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon emphasize how abuse dynamics can deeply affect children: "Exposure to domestic violence can shape a child's development and emotional health in ways that can last a lifetime" (Davies and Lyon). This book effectively highlights how children living through or even just witnessing abuse will carry emotional scars that far outweigh the "benefits" of maintaining contact with both parents. Imagine being a kid and feeling unsafe around a parent or watching them hurt someone you love. Children exposed to domestic violence also face profound risks. Research indicates that even witnessing abuse can have long-lasting effects on a child's emotional and psychological development. Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon, in Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, note that "children who live through or observe domestic violence often experience anxiety, depression, and difficulties in forming healthy relationships later in life." (Davies and Lyon) This trauma can lead to academic struggles, behavioral issues, and long-term mental health challenges. Despite these risks, family courts frequently prioritize shared custody or visitation, often overlooking the profound harm that maintaining contact with an abusive parent can cause. That fear doesn't just go away-it can stick with the child for years, affecting their mental health, trust in others, and ability to feel safe. Courts sometimes downplay these risks because they're focused on giving both parents equal time, even when one parent has a history of control or harm. This isn't just about fairness anymore; it's about choosing safety over appearances. The emotional and psychological well-being of a child should always be coming first, whether that mean keeping them away from a parent who has caused harm to the family system or not. This is not about punishing the abusive parent it's about protecting the children. I feel like the protection of children and their wellbeing's has been overlooked throughout so many custody cases over the years. Ultimately, these risks highlight the critical need for family courts to implement survivor-centered practices. By prioritizing safety and recognizing the lasting impact of domestic violence, courts can better protect survivors and their children from ongoing harm.
To understand this topic, I reviewed articles from reputable sources, including The National Domestic Violence Hotline, scholarly studies on custody disputes, court reform advocacy organizations, and the annotated bibliography where I wrote about multiple sources supporting this claim, "Family courts are failing to protect domestic abuse survivors." (National Domestic Violence Hotline) I also examined real-life survivor testimonies, which provided personal insights into the lived experiences behind the data. As well as personally living through and dealing with the effects that the family courts have when they are not putting the children first in the court cases. The research underscored the disparity between the legal system's ideals and its outcomes, especially in cases involving abuse. Advocacy for shared custody is rooted in the belief that children benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents, a principle that holds true in many cases. Proponents argue that shared custody arrangements promote emotional stability and balanced development, ensuring that children have access to the love, support, and resources of both parents. However, this perspective often oversimplifies the complex dynamics of domestic violence and fails to account for the unique dangers posed in cases where abuse is a factor. Shared custody advocacy, when applied indiscriminately, can place survivors and their children at significant risk. One critical flaw in shared custody advocacy is its assumption of equal parenting capability, which ignores the imbalance of power and safety inherent in abusive relationships. In cases of domestic violence, abusers frequently use custody arrangements as a means of continuing control and harassment. This phenomenon, known as post-separation abuse, can manifest through ongoing legal battles, coercive behavior during custody exchanges, and manipulation of children to intimidate the survivor. For example, the National Domestic Violence Hotline notes that many abusers file for custody not to care for their children but to maintain leverage over their former partners. This undermines the foundational goal of shared custody-ensuring the child's well-being-and instead creates an environment where the child becomes a tool for control. Another significant issue is the failure of shared custody advocacy to prioritize the child's emotional and psychological safety. While advocates often cite studies highlighting the benefits of maintaining relationships with both parents, they overlook research showing the long-term harm caused by exposure to abuse. Jill Davies and Eleanor J. Lyon, in Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices, emphasize that "exposure to domestic violence can shape a child's development and emotional health in ways that can last a lifetime." (Davies and Lyon) Children forced to spend time with an abusive parent may experience fear, anxiety, and confusion, as well as a normalization of harmful behaviors. This exposure not only affects their immediate mental health but also increases the likelihood of perpetuating cycles of violence in their own future relationships. Moreover, the legal system's focus on promoting shared custody often results in a minimization of abuse allegations. Survivors who raise concerns about their abuser's behavior are sometimes accused of attempting to alienate the other parent, a tactic that is discouraged in shared custody frameworks. This bias can lead to courts dismissing legitimate claims of abuse as unfounded or vindictive, ultimately prioritizing the appearance of fairness over the reality of safety. In such cases, shared custody becomes less about fostering healthy relationships and more about enforcing equality, regardless of the consequences for the survivor or the child. Finally, shared custody advocacy tends to emphasize parental rights over the child's best interests. While maintaining relationships with both parents is ideal in non-violent cases, it is not always the safest or healthiest option when one parent has a history of abusive behavior. The child's emotional and physical safety should always take precedence over the abstract principle of shared parenting. Courts must move beyond a one-size-fits-all approach and adopt nuanced, case-specific evaluations that prioritize the well-being of children and survivors over the ideology of parental equality. In summary, while shared custody can be beneficial in appropriate cases, its advocacy becomes problematic when applied indiscriminately, particularly in situations involving domestic violence. By failing to account for the dynamics of abuse and the risks posed to survivors and children, shared custody frameworks often prioritize fairness for parents at the expense of safety and well-being. Reform is needed to ensure that custody decisions are informed by a thorough understanding of domestic violence dynamics and a commitment to prioritizing the best interests of the child.
Reforming family courts to better protect domestic violence survivors and their children requires a multifaceted approach that prioritizes safety, informed decision-making, and trauma awareness. Current systems often fail survivors due to a lack of specialized training, outdated practices, and inadequate legal safeguards. To address these deficiencies, proposed reforms focus on mandatory education for court professionals, enhanced risk assessment protocols, survivor-centered legal processes, and stronger protective measures for children. Judges, mediators, attorneys, and child welfare evaluators must receive comprehensive training on the dynamics of domestic violence and its impact on survivors and children. This training should include recognizing patterns of coercive control, understanding the risks of post-separation abuse, and debunking myths about false allegations. For instance, Jeremiah et al. emphasize the importance of informed systems that can identify and respond to the pervasive nature of domestic violence. Mandatory education would equip court professionals with the knowledge needed to differentiate between genuine safety concerns and routine conflicts, ensuring that custody decisions are rooted in the realities of abuse. Family courts must incorporate standardized risk assessments to evaluate the potential for continued harm to survivors and children. These assessments should consider the abuser's history of violence, threats, and coercive behaviors, as well as the survivor's safety concerns. Tools such as the Danger Assessment (DA), which evaluates the likelihood of lethal violence, can help courts make informed decisions. Additionally, courts should prioritize the use of child-focused evaluations that assess the psychological and emotional impact of abuse on children. Implementing these protocols ensures that safety risks are thoroughly examined before custody or visitation arrangements are finalized. Children's safety must take precedence over the assumption that maintaining contact with both parents is always beneficial. Courts should adopt a precautionary approach, erring on the side of caution when allegations of abuse are raised. Protective orders should include clear restrictions on abusers' access to children, and supervised visitation should be mandated in cases where contact is deemed necessary. Trauma-informed therapy and support services should also be provided for children exposed to domestic violence to address the emotional and psychological effects of abuse. By implementing these reforms, family courts can create a safer and more equitable system that prioritizes the well-being of domestic violence survivors and their children. These changes represent a critical step toward addressing systemic failures and ensuring that custody decisions reflect a commitment to safety, justice, and long-term healing.
Family courts' current practices frequently jeopardize the safety of domestic abuse survivors and their children. The lack of specialized training for court professionals, combined with the systemic prioritization of parental rights over survivor protection, creates a dangerous environment for everyone involved. To fix this problem, judges, lawmakers, child protection workers, mental health experts, and domestic violence specialists need to work together to change how family courts run. Courts should make sure judges, and legal workers get training on how to spot and understand the dangers of domestic violence in custody cases. There also needs to be new rules to make sure the safety of survivors and kids comes first, with stronger protection orders, trauma-aware processes, and safety checks that focus on keeping everyone safe Survivors deserve a system that prioritizes their safety and respects their lived realities.[R][/R]