People subjected to abuse by an intimate partner sometimes minimize or do not know about the effects of domestic violence on their children. Or sometimes they have strongly held beliefs that children should have close and continuing contact with the other parent, regardless of a history of abuse. Not only can it be painful for parents to acknowledge the true effects of violence on their children, but survivors also receive conflicting messages from family, friends, religious institutions, and society that prioritize two-parent households over freedom from abuse. It is the lawyer’s job to give clients the information they need to make informed decisions—not to tell them what to do or to substitute their own judgment about what is best for their children. Ultimately, it is the client’s decision whether to plead the PSFVRA and whether to pro-actively seek restrictions on an abuser’s access to children.
Lawyers can help clients make informed choices by encouraging them to consider questions such as whether it is realistic to believe that the other parent can engage is safe shared parenting without intimidation or emotional abuse (i.e. does his past behavior support this conclusion), whether it is realistic to assume that unsupervised visitation will take place in a manner that is physically and emotionally safe for the child(ren), and whether the decision is informed by research about the impact of domestic violence on children and parenting. Make sure to advise clients that if co-parenting and shared decision making proves impossible, they could be prevented from raising the issues of abuse later in subsequent custody litigation or be disbelieved because those issues weren’t raised sooner.
Additionally, the law now requires that PSFVRA restrictions be imposed against parents with a history of family violence even if no party pleads or invokes the Act.1 So, lawyers should advise their clients that any hearing on child custody could result in PSFVRA restrictions whether or not they want them.
- 1La. C.C. art. 134(B).