44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

1 

JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS OF INTIMATE 
PARTNER VIOLENCE CONFERENCE REPORT 
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 

Domestic violence survivors seeking justice and safety in New York State’s 
family and supreme courts often encounter a deeply flawed, poorly functioning 
system that exposes them and their children to further harm.1 On October 13 and 
14, 2022, a coalition of leading nonprofit agencies that serve and advocate for 
survivors2 convened a conference in New York City to address these systemic 
inequities and identify meaningful solutions.3 During the conference, Justice for 
Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Transforming an Inequitable Family 
Law System, attorneys, scholars, survivor leaders, members of the judiciary, 
social service professionals, psychologists and advocates identified key 

 
1 This Report was prepared by members of the Family Law Roundtable (see infra note 3), 
including Jennifer Friedman, Senior Program Director, Bronx, Manhattan and Queens Family 
Law Project & Policy at Sanctuary for Families, and Jennifer Barry, Legal Volunteer, Sanctuary 
for Families, with support from Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett LLP, including Susan Cordero, 
Deputy Pro Bono Counsel and Nora Hood, J. Carr Gamble, and Kelly Johnson, Associates, and 
Proskauer Rose LLP (Proskauer), including William C. Silverman, Partner, and Lauren Altus, 
Alisha Bruce, Celeste Kim, and Makenzie Way, Associates. 
 
2 The conference was presented by the nonprofit organizations Sanctuary for Families 
(Sanctuary), Her Justice, the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), and Safe Horizon, 
with support from the law firms Gibson Dunn and Proskauer. It was co-sponsored by the New 
York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NYSCADV), the Urban Justice Center 
Domestic Violence Project, Pace Women’s Justice Center, The Legal Aid Society - Civil, Day 
One, the Lawyers Committee Against Domestic Violence (LCADV), Empire Justice Center, 
Legal Services NYC, and the Bronx Women’s Bar Association. 
 
3 The Conference followed a Family Law Roundtable which met virtually for ten sessions 
between March 2021 and December 2021, and included the leaders who organized the 
Conference. Roundtable members include: Shani Adess, Vice President, New York Legal 
Assistance Group (NYLAG); Jennifer Barry, Legal Volunteer, Policy, Sanctuary for Families 
(Sanctuary); Rachel Braunstein, Director, Policy, Her Justice; Anna Maria Diamanti, Director 
Family and Matrimonial Practice; Her Justice; Jennifer Friedman, Senior Program Director, 
Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan Family Law Project & Policy, Sanctuary; Karla George, Associate 
Program Director, Family Law Project, Sanctuary; Maya Grosz, Director of Training, NYLAG; 
Barbra Krysko, Senior Program Director, Brooklyn and Staten Island Family Law Project, 
Sanctuary; Christine Perumal, Former Director, Domestic Violence Project, Safe Horizon; 
William C. Silverman, Partner and Head of Pro Bono, Proskauer Rose LLP, and Chair, The Fund 
for Modern Courts; Lisa Vara, Director, Matrimonial and Economic Justice Project, Sanctuary. 
The sessions were divided into three phases: identifying the obstacles to obtaining justice for 
domestic violence survivors in Family Court; knowledge-building about domestic violence, 
discrimination, and bias relevant to New York family law systems; and articulating solutions that 
would improve the experience of domestic violence survivors in family law systems and result in 
outcomes that protect their safety and that of their children. To this end, the Roundtable developed 
the Conference to share its analysis, discussion, and conclusions more broadly with the legal 
community. 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

2 

obstacles facing survivors and recommended needed reforms to New York 
State’s family law system.4  

 
Specifically, the conference focused on widespread inequities in custody, 

visitation, and family offense cases, which proceed in both the family and 
supreme courts, and the devastating impact they have on survivors.5 Throughout 
the two days, panelists confronted the ways in which these courts fail to provide 
an effective and equitable system for domestic violence survivors seeking safety 
and protection for themselves and their families, and identified the most 
significant challenges they face. In family law proceedings, the stakes could not 
be higher for survivors and their children, as this inadequate and inequitable 
system of justice has led to tragic consequences, including death or injury at the 
hands of abusers, loss of child custody and/or visitation rights, and further 
trauma inflicted by the litigation itself. Panelists also addressed the egregious 
under-funding and poor functioning of the Family Courts and the endemic bias 
woven into these institutions.  

 
The Conference included ten keynote and panel presentations addressing 

significant systemic challenges and potential solutions for survivors of intimate 
partner violence in the family law system.6 The Conference featured first-hand 
accounts by survivors and practitioners, original research presented by 
renowned experts, and insights provided by prominent sitting and retired judges. 
Conference panelists drew from materials regarding the intersection of racism, 
misogyny, and other forms of oppression and its impact on systems,7 including 
groundbreaking reports on gender and racial bias in the court system. In 
addition, each panel provided relevant materials, including scholarly research, 
reports, studies, articles, statutes and proposed legislation, all of which remain 
available on the Conference website at https://www.familylaw2022.com/.  

 
 
4 There is a Family Court in each county across New York State. The Family Court possesses 
original jurisdiction over disputes involving minors, as well as over family offense proceedings. 
Issues related to custody and visitation are also heard in the New York State Supreme Court, in 
connection with divorce proceedings. This Report uses the term “family law system” to 
encompass matters adjudicated by both courts, in which survivors of domestic violence proceed in 
disputes over child custody, visitation, and orders of protection. 
 
5 The proceedings are available for viewing at https://www.familylaw2022.com/. 
 
6 A complete list of the Conference panelists follows as Appendix A to this Report.  
 
7 Columbia Law School and UCLA School of Law Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw developed the 
conceptual framework for and coined the term “intersectionality,” which addresses how 
intersectional parts of identities such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, immigration status, 
and others combine to produce specific experiences of discrimination and oppression. Rich Russo, 
Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw Defines Intersectionality, YOUTUBE (Sept. 14, 2018) 
[https://perma.cc/593U-JQ49]. 
 

https://www.familylaw2022.com/


44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

3 

 
The conference identified the following obstacles to justice and key reform 

recommendations to address these systemic challenges. 
 
I. Obstacles to Justice and Safety for Survivors of Domestic Violence in 
New York’s Family Law System 
 
Justice and equal protection under the law are often denied in New York 

State’s family law system due to: 
 
1. Bias against survivors and counsel on the basis of intersecting identities, 

including race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, 
immigration status, gender identity, and poverty; 

 
2. Lack of understanding of trauma, coercive control, lethality factors, and 

femicide resulting in substantial safety risks to survivors and children; 
 

3. Failure to prioritize the safety of survivors and children and their 
allegations of domestic violence and child safety risks over the other 
party’s demands for custody and visitation and claims of “parental 
alienation”; 

 
4. Under-resourced and poorly-functioning family courts, including 

insufficient numbers of judges to handle overwhelming case dockets, 
which undermine the equitable and timely administration of justice for 
survivors and families; 

 
5. Lack of administrative oversight of judges, uniform court rules, 

transparent mechanisms to report misconduct by judges and court staff, 
and a viable appellate mechanism for improper interim decisions; and 

 
6. Insufficient training of judges, court personnel, and other stakeholders 

in family law, domestic violence, and trauma. 
 
II. Key Reform Recommendations 
 
The family law system is failing New York’s most vulnerable families. 

These reforms are necessary to create an equitable family law system. 
 

A. Enhance Training, Assignment, and Accountability of Judges, 
Court Personnel, and other Stakeholders 

 
1. Require enhanced training for court personnel including judges, court 

officers, forensic evaluators, and court-appointed attorneys; 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

4 

a. Require ongoing and immersive training on bias, cultural 
sensitivity, substantive family law, and domestic violence, 
including trauma, vicarious trauma, lethality factors, coercive 
control, and litigation abuse; and 

 
2. Require the same level of training for all judges hearing family law 

cases, regardless of duration of assignment. Increase the number of 
qualified family law judges and the diversity of the bench;  

 
3. End rotation of judges through the family court on temporary 

assignments;  
 

4. Enhance accountability of family law judges. 
a. Develop effective case management strategies and procedures 

for family law judges, mandate training, and implement 
oversight process to ensure compliance; 

b. Enhance administrative oversight of judges; 
c. Establish uniform procedural rules for family court, including 

for virtual proceedings, handling of evidence/exhibits, and other 
court procedures; 

d. Improve complaint process for reporting and tracking incidents 
of bias and other misconduct in the courts, make widely 
available to court users, and ensure transparency and 
accountability for violations; and 

e. Implement transparent fatality review process for both child and 
adult fatalities.  

 
B. Reform Family Law 

 
1. Reform Custody Law to Protect Children and Families; 

a. Require judges to conduct a preliminary safety assessment that 
prioritizes the safety of children and considers lethality factors 
before issuing temporary custody and visitation orders; 

b. Implement an interim appellate process for temporary custody 
and visitation orders in family court; 

c. Prohibit the courts from considering allegations of parental 
alienation or “unfriendly parent” in domestic violence cases; 

d. Introduce best interest factors that discourage disrupting 
primary caretaking relationship and prioritize protecting the 
safety of the child; and  

e. Ban use of “reunification therapy” and “reunification camps.” 
 
2. Recognize coercive control in New York State law. 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

5 

a. Amend the social services law definition of domestic violence 
to include coercive control; and 

b. Include coercive control in the family offenses enumerated in 
the Family Court Act. 

 
C. Implement Court Reforms 

 
1. Institute court unification and simplification; and 

 
2. Increase resources for and modernize the court system; 

 
a. Increase funding for adequate staffing of court attorneys, clerks, 

and other necessary staff; 
b. Modernize the Office of Court Administration website; 
c. Repair and upgrade dilapidated courthouse facilities; 
d. Improve accessibility of virtual proceedings; 
e. Institute New York State Courts Electronic Filing system in the 

family court and expand access to the Unified Case 
Management System; 

f. Ensure all courthouses provide childcare services;  
g. Improve availability of interpreters; and 
h. Allocate resources to increasing compensation for court 

appointed attorneys. 
 

D. Institute Collaboration Among Stakeholders 
 

1. Institute coordinated community response task force to meaningfully 
engage stakeholders, including law enforcement, judges, domestic 
violence advocates and others. 

 
CONFERENCE FINDINGS: 

OBSTACLES TO PROTECTION AND JUSTICE IN THE FAMILY LAW 
SYSTEM 

 
The objective of this Report is to highlight the primary issues raised by 

conference participants that continue to perpetuate an inequitable and under-
resourced family law system for survivors, and the recommendations and 
advocacy plans proposed by the panels in order to promote justice and safety. 

 
I. Bias against survivors and counsel on the basis of intersecting 
identities, including race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, 
immigration status, gender identity, and poverty 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

6 

Survivors and the practitioners who represent them experience negative case 
outcomes and denigrating experiences due to biased treatment in New York 
State’s family law system. Rather than impartial decisions that reflect the facts 
of a case and the applicable law, counsel and litigants face bias due to their 
intersectional identities, including race, class, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual 
orientation, immigration status, and gender identity. In a court system that 
serves diverse communities, and primarily those in poverty, bias remains a 
foundational problem, and subverts equal protection under the law and the 
proper administration of justice for the most vulnerable. In order to confront 
systemic intersectional bias, conference keynote panelists discussed how 
litigants and practitioners experience bias, how bias influences evaluations and 
decision-making by judges and key court personnel, and the role bias plays in 
perpetuating an under-resourced court system. 

 
A. Race and Gender Bias in the Courts Yesterday and Today 

 
First, during a keynote panel entitled Addressing Inequity and Injustice in 

the Family Law System, the Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin (Chair, New York 
State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts), Hon. Judy Harris Kluger 
(Executive Director, Sanctuary for Families), and Hon. Troy K. Webber 
(Associate Justice, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Judicial 
Department and Co-Chair, Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission) 
discussed the extent to which gender and race biases have been found to exist in 
the New York court system. 

 
Both Justice Ellerin and Justice Webber elucidated the history of bias in the 

court system and ongoing bias within the courts by explaining the findings from 
four groundbreaking reports: 

 
1. The 1986 Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts 

(“1986 Report”); 
2. the 1991 Report of the New York State Judicial Commission on 

Minorities, by the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission of the 
New York State Courts; 

3. the Gender Survey 2020 (“2020 Gender Survey”)8 by the New York 
State Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts; and  

 
8 In order to compile responses from a broad spectrum of practitioners, the Gender Survey was 
distributed online and utilized the New York State Attorney Registration database. From the 
database pool, 5,340 attorneys responded and had their answers recorded. N.Y. STATE JUD. COMM. 
ON WOMEN IN THE CTS., GENDER SURVEY (2020), 
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/IP/womeninthecourts/Gender-Survey-2020.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/3K6K-W7NH]. This Survey followed the 1986 Report of the New York Task 
Force on Women in the Courts, 15 FORDHAM URB. L. REV. 11 (1987). Both are discussed in detail 
herein. 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

7 

4. the Report from the Special Adviser on Equal Justice in the New York 
State Courts 2020,9 produced by former U.S. Secretary of Homeland 
Security Jeh Johnson (“Johnson Report”). 

 
One of the most disturbing takeaways of their discussion was that many of 

the recent report findings and current survivor and practitioner experiences 
repeats much of the gender and race bias that was identified in the earlier reports 
close to forty years ago. In fact, Justice Webber memorably exclaimed, the 
findings of Secretary Johnson were “a mirror image of what Franklin Williams 
found in his report in 1991,” to an extent that “you could have just taken the 
page from the Franklin Williams report and put it on [the Johnson Report], and 
say ‘hey!’ or, ‘here’s the report!’”  

 
In the context of gender bias, the 2020 Gender Survey found that female 

lawyers, litigants, and witnesses continue to experience higher levels of 
inappropriate and inequitable behaviors, stemming from gender bias, than their 
male counterparts despite any advancements that may have been made.10 In 
addition, in the 1986 Report, and as panelists indicated remains true today, 
“[p]erhaps the most insidious manifestation of gender bias against women – one 
that pervades every issue respecting the status of women litigants – is the 
tendency of some judges and attorneys to accord less credibility to the claims 
and testimony of women because they are women.”11  

 
Another disturbing finding of the 1986 Report that has remained a constant 

is that judges often perceive the testimony and allegations of women to be 
unpersuasive in cases involving allegations of abuse. As explained by Justice 
Ellerin at the Conference, the lack of credibility afforded to women in domestic 
violence cases often requires these litigants to, in effect, “double prove” their 
case, because their testimony and evidence are given less weight than their male 
counterparts. Ultimately, the 2020 Gender Survey concluded that “there is all 
too often an atmosphere of inappropriate behavior experienced by female 

 
 
9 JEH JOHNSON, REPORT FROM THE SPECIAL ADVISER ON EQUAL JUSTICE IN THE NEW YORK STATE 
COURTS (Oct. 1, 2020), 
https://www.nycourts.gov/whatsnew/pdf/SpecialAdviserEqualJusticeReport.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/7MEU-HB2H] (“Johnson Report”). The Johnson Report found that the New 
York State court system faces a lack of resources, an overabundance of cases, and many instances 
of implicit and explicit racial bias from people working in the court system. To confront these 
concerns and create a more equitable justice system, the report proposed changes to the court’s 
existing policies and the introduction of new programs. The report was based on 96 interviews, 
during which 289 individuals shared their opinions. These interviewees consisted of those who 
work within and outside of the official court system.  
 
10 GENDER SURVEY (2020), supra note 8, at 10.  
 
11 Report of the New York Task Force on Women in the Courts, supra note 8, at 113-14.  



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

8 

lawyers, litigants, and witnesses that continues to infect our courthouses and 
legal proceedings to varying degrees requiring significant remedial efforts.”12 

 
With regard to racial bias, the Johnson Report chronicled the extent to 

which litigants, counsel, and court personnel reported personal experiences and 
observations of racial bias within the New York State court system, including 
instances of “dehumanizing language” being directed at litigants of color by 
court personnel.13 Appallingly, the Johnson Report noted what had been found 
by the Minorities Commission in 1991, and remains true today, “there are two 
justice systems at work in the courts of New York State, one for Whites, and a 
very different one for minorities and the poor.”14 Justice Webber further 
expounded on the second-class status of the family courts by detailing facts such 
as the unacceptable deterioration of the Bronx Family Court’s physical building, 
which leaks during heavy rain. It is even the conventional sentiment among 
judges that they are punished for infractions by being assigned to that court, and 
it is known that judges cannot be promoted to the appellate divisions directly 
from serving in the family court. Moreover, because judges are “human, too,” 
and “not above the reach of the implicit racial biases that pervade our society,” 
efforts to expose and confront bias and to undo its systemic and implicit roots 
have proved difficult in New York’s under-resourced court system.15 

 
Importantly, while each of these groundbreaking reports addressed race and 

gender bias separately, Judge Kluger pointed out that the survivors accessing 
family court in New York City are predominantly low-income women of color, 
and many are immigrants, and that an intersectional analysis must be applied to 
fully understand the compounded experiences of bias that they experience. 

 
B. Manifestations of Bias 

 
The second keynote panel, entitled How Bias Manifests in New York State’s 

Family Law System, as well as the keynote address delivered by Stephanie 
McGraw, provided vivid examples of the systemic bias that has led to tragic 
outcomes, including the death of women and children. Ms. McGraw, a survivor 

 
 
12 GENDER SURVEY (2020), supra note 8, at 10. 
 
13 Johnson Report, supra note 9, at 4.  
 
14 Johnson Report, supra note 9, at 3, 27 (citing REPORT OF THE NEW YORK STATE JUDICIAL 
COMMISSION ON MINORITIES VOL. 1, at 1 (1991), available at 
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/files/2018-
11/Judicial%20commission%20%20vol%201_0.pdf [https://perma.cc/X7RA-JVHS]). 
 
15 Johnson Report, supra note 9, at 81. See also Solangel Maldonado, Bias in the Family: Race, 
Ethnicity, and Culture in Custody Disputes, 55 FAMILY CT. REV. 213 (2017). 
 

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/ethnic-fairness/index.shtml
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/ip/ethnic-fairness/index.shtml


44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

9 

of child abuse and intimate partner violence, and founder and CEO of the 
nonprofit organization W.A.R.M. (We All Really Matter), holds vigils for 
victims of intimate partner homicides, provides support services for those left 
behind in these tragedies, and assists survivors and their children who need to 
flee for their safety. She critiqued the lack of services made available to low-
income Black and Brown communities, noting that W.A.R.M. sheds light on 
implicit bias in systems, because “what happens to women and children and 
Black and Brown women when it comes to family court – when it is ‘just us,’ it 
is not ‘justice’ for all.” 

 
The psychological origins of implicit bias were described by Conference 

panelist Dr. Carolyn Springer, an applied social psychologist and Associate 
Professor in the Gordon F. Derner School of Psychology at Adelphi University. 
She explained that humans develop associations of characteristics with certain 
social groups in order to build mental maps—or “schemas”—that are needed to 
help process information. Through this process, presumptions are made about 
certain groups or populations pre-reflexively, inadvertently leading to prejudices 
and stereotypes that are linked to particular demographics.16 Unfortunately, 
refusing to acknowledge the presence of these biases can cause people to 
unknowingly constrict and distort information they receive and consider, which 
leads to impaired thinking and decision making. Dr. Springer noted that implicit 
bias is universal; it exists within nearly everyone, including attorneys, litigants, 
and court personnel. In the context of family law proceedings, bias, implicit or 
otherwise, is particularly detrimental because judges are afforded wide 
discretion and determinations of survivor credibility are crucial. In addition, the 
lack of safeguards in the family law system, including a thorough understanding 
of bias, domestic violence and trauma, uniform rules and protocols, proper 
oversight and accountability, ample resources and support services, exacerbate 
the impact of bias on survivors. Thus, to the extent that research, supported by 
the evidence collected in the Johnson Report, suggests that judges and court 
personnel tend to hold many of the same implicit associations on race, gender, 
sexual orientation, and gender identity as most adults, a judge’s position of 
influence means that their biases have real-life consequences for litigants.  

 
Conference panelists discussed specific examples of tragic consequences 

that have resulted from biased decision making. One conference panelist, 
Jacqueline Franchetti, spoke of the devastating failure of the Nassau Family 

 
16 Bias can either be explicit or implicit. Explicit bias is a conscious preference, whether positive 
or negative, for a particular social category. Implicit bias is a preference that operates outside of 
social awareness. A host of factors contribute to our implicit biases, including societal and media 
influences and portrayals of different groups and stereotypes. Dr. Springer explained the natural 
reluctance to recognize or admit to implicit bias, especially when such biases go against what we 
believe to be our values or ethics. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

10 

Court judge, forensic evaluator, and attorney for the child to believe or accept 
her presentation of evidence establishing the danger posed by her child’s father. 
Tragically, he went on to murder their two-year-old daughter during a court-
ordered visit that was ordered over Ms. Franchetti’s vehement objection.17 
 

Indeed, in 2020, then Governor Cuomo convened a commission of experts 
“charged with providing recommendations to the Governor regarding if and/or 
how forensic custody evaluations should be used by New York courts…after 
hearing from parents, attorneys, and other court actors who reported negative 
experiences with forensic custody evaluators.”18 The Commission was adopted 
by Governor Hochul, and ultimately, the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission 
on Forensic Custody Evaluations independently reviewed the use of such 
evaluations throughout the state and concluded, in a vote of 9-11, that forensic 
evaluations are so rife with bias that they should be eliminated entirely. These 
Commission members argue: 

 
“these reports are biased and harmful to children and lack 
scientific or legal value. At worst, evaluations can be 
dangerous, particularly in situations of domestic violence or 
child abuse – there have been several cases of children in New 
York who were murdered by a parent who received custody 
following an evaluation. These members reached the conclusion 
that the practice is beyond reform and that no amount of 
training for courts, forensic evaluators and/or other court 
personnel will successfully fix the bias, inequity and conflict of 
interest issues that exist within the system.” 

 
Another example of implicit bias in the New York court system is the 

consideration and reliance on stereotypes in judicial decision making. 
Specifically, cultural stereotypes of women’s roles in marriage and parenting 
unduly influence custody determinations. For instance, women’s behavior and 
life choices are frequently held to a higher and/or different standard than that of 
men. Conference panelist Linda Lopez, Sanctuary for Family’s Deputy Legal 
Director, echoed Justice Ellerin’s observation on credibility and lamented that 
her clients often experience a double standard regarding parenting. While judges 
expect mothers’ behavior and decisions to be perfect, they accept far less from 
fathers. Moreover, in her experience, women are seen as “hysterical, mentally 

 
17 See infra pp. 76. Details of this case and the murder of 2-year-old Kyra are discussed in the 
section of this Report addressing the law’s failure to incorporate lethality factor assessments in 
custody and visitation proceedings. 
 
18 REPORT OF THE BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION ON FORENSIC CUSTODY EVALUATIONS, Delivered to 
New York Governor Kathy Hochul December 2021. https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/news/for-
release.php?idx=14041 [https://perma.cc/Y27U-2FGT]. 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

11 

unstable, master-manipulators and frauds,” and are treated as such by the court 
system. Immigrant clients are also too often accused of committing immigration 
fraud by raising allegations of domestic violence in order to obtain immigration 
relief, even where there are documented instances of abuse.  

 
Moreover, parenting is most often assessed “in accordance with dominant, 

predominantly white middle-class norms,” leaving low-income and/or women 
of color at risk of losing custody when their personal circumstances fall outside 
that inherently biased standard.19 Panelist Shain Flicher, Executive Director, 
LGBT Bar Association & Foundation of New York, explained that the Family 
Court system was “not designed for” LGBTQ families and that courts question 
the credibility and experiences of parents who are outside the heterosexual 
“norm.” 

 
The impact of bias can be compounded when judges are guided by other 

participants in the family court system, such as forensic evaluators, case 
workers, and visitation supervisors, who fall prey to the same biases. 20 Such 
bias can cause litigants to abandon their cases with decidedly unjust results. Ms. 
Lopez shared that one of her clients in a custody case was forced to testify on 
the first day of trial in detail about the severe physical abuse perpetrated by her 
children’s father. Even as the client shared testimony about her abuser 
repeatedly banging her head against a wall, the judge admonished her 
repeatedly, even yelling at her for answering a question before the judge could 
rule on an objection. The client was so distraught after this experience that she 
relinquished custody instead of enduring further berating by the judge. Nothing 
Ms. Lopez said could change her mind. 

 
Unfortunately, female attorneys have also been subjected to bias and gender 

stereotypes by judges, court personnel and male attorneys. Ms. Lopez recounted 
an incident when she advocated strenuously for appropriate legal remedies when 
her client’s abuser violated an order, and the judge responded that she was 
“personalizing” the case. The Reports of the Task Force on Women in the 
Courts have also noted instances in which male attorneys speak disparagingly to 
female attorneys, and jurists often do not correct or reprimand this appalling 
behavior. 

 

 
 
19 See Maldonado, supra note 15, for a detailed discussion of the extent to which custody 
evaluators, lawyers, and judges are influenced by racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds of the 
parents and the child in custody disputes, and how implicit biases may influence testimony and 
outcomes. 
 
20 Id. at 214, 242. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

12 

At the Conference, New York State Court Deputy Chief Administrative 
Judge Edwina Mendelson highlighted the Office for Court Administration’s 
(OCA) recognition of systemic bias and efforts to address it. Judge Mendelson 
noted that (then) Chief Judge Janet DiFiore commissioned Secretary Johnson to 
take an unflinching look at the court system after the murder of George Floyd 
coincided with public exposure of overtly racist social media posts made by 
court officers. OCA has embraced the findings and recommendations of the 
Johnson Report and the 2020 Gender Survey, and tasked Judge Mendelson with 
implementing them in her capacity as Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for 
Justice Initiatives and leader of OCA’s Equal Justice in Courts Initiative.21 It is 
incumbent upon advocates to demand accountability from OCA in 
implementing reforms within its purview, while continuing to push for changes 
that require support from external actors, such as the need to increase funds 
allocated to the court system to remediate dilapidated buildings. 

 
C. Training and Accountability 

 
Conference panelists agreed that training of judges and all court personnel is 

necessary to combat bias. Robust anti-bias training that is immersive, as 
opposed to simply lecture-style, would be interactive, enable participants to 
broaden their perspective, and assist in curtailing implicit biases. This form of 
training would support judges as they work to comply with the revisions to the 
New York State Administrative Rules on Judicial Conduct, which now 
explicitly direct that a judge “shall perform judicial duties without bias or 
prejudice,” including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon age, race, 
creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, 
religion, national origin, disability, marital status, or socioeconomic status.22 As 
noted by the Hon. Tamra Walker, the ultimate goal of these training efforts is to 
ensure that “when the parties, the families, the people that we serve walk into 
the courthouse….everyone that they come across has to know how to treat 
others with dignity and respect and avoid any bias because that's not the court 
system that we want to promote.” 

 

 
21 HON. EDWINA G. MENDELSON, OFFICE FOR JUSTICE INITIATIVES, EQUAL JUSTICE IN THE COURTS 
https://www.nycourts.gov/legacyPDFS/IP/NYA2J/Equal-Justice-in-the-Courts.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/6MQL-AHK5]. 
 
22 The rules stipulate that “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against 
or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by words or 
conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon age, 
race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, religion, national 
origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, and shall require staff, court officials and 
others subject to the judge’s direction and control to refrain from such words or conduct.” 22 
N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.3(B)(4). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

13 

Increased accountability was also raised as an important remediation of 
bias. As Linda Lopez strongly stated, “oppression, discrimination, racism, and 
sexism” in the Family Courts lead to women, and especially women of color, 
being viewed unfavorably merely because of who they are—a dynamic which 
can only be changed with a culture-shift within the system that is spurred by 
“accountability.” 

 
D. Culture Change in the Family Law System  

 
In order to eliminate the second-class system of justice, there must be 

recognition that the family law system serves an important role. In order for this 
to be accomplished, attitudes towards survivors and their intersectional 
identities must change. 

 
In order to mitigate this harm, judges must reduce the role of stereotypes in 

their decision making. This requires less reliance on intuition, “gut-checks,” and 
hurried rulings. Wherever possible, judges should instead use checklists and 
objective criteria to promote more structured legal analysis. Additionally, judges 
should seek feedback where possible and be amenable to motions for 
reconsideration. This will allow them to reexamine whether bias may have 
played a role in their decision making. 

 
Judges should also promote diversity in chambers and within the court as a 

whole. Being exposed to different groups helps eliminate stereotypical thinking. 
And, in exposing judges to the unique lived experiences of their colleagues, 
clerks, and assistants, they can also gain a deeper understanding of the litigants 
they serve. 
 

E. Key Recommendations to Address Bias in the Family Law 
System 

 
1. Conduct Immersive Training for Judicial and Other Court 

Personnel: 
 
Effective training is crucial. Prior to taking a position with the 
Family Court, and on an annual basis, all court personnel, 
including judges, clerks, and court officers, should be required 
to participate in immersive bias, cultural sensitivity, and 
trauma-informed training to:  
 

a. Address implicit bias related to race, gender, ethnicity, 
religion, immigration status, gender identity, poverty 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

14 

and LGBTQI+ identity as it impacts litigants and those 
who appear in court, including counsel; 
 

b. Address the intersection of these attributes; 
 

c. Become culturally sensitive to litigants’ lives, including 
their cultural backgrounds, poverty and immigration 
status;  
 

d. Become more informed about domestic violence, child 
abuse and associated trauma; and 
 

e. Immersive training designed to expand a participant’s 
understanding of a litigant’s life, for instance, as a low-
income domestic violence survivor and immigrant 
woman of color, would provide judges and court 
personnel with invaluable insight about how a trauma 
survivor experiences the court process and provide 
context and perspective when making credibility 
determinations. All training should be conducted by 
experts in the field and tracked to ensure court 
personnel participation. 

 
2. Increase diversity of the bench. 
 
3. Monitor implementation of recent legislation to require 
forensic evaluators in custody or visitation proceedings to 
receive training on the dynamics of domestic violence and child 
abuse.  
 
4. Hold the Office for Court Administration accountable for 
implementing recommendations of the Gender Survey 2020 and 
the Johnson Report, with transparent information available to 
the public annually on the progress made. 

 
II. Lack of understanding of trauma, coercive control, lethality factors, 
and femicide resulting in substantial safety risks to survivors and 
children 
 
In the last several decades, the domestic violence field has evolved to 

include a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the trauma experienced by 
survivors, the dynamics of coercive control, and how to better assess the level of 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

15 

danger a survivor may be in. The ability of the court system to adequately 
protect and serve the families that come before it for relief is hindered by the 
failure of the family law system to keep pace with these advancements. The fact 
that courts often do not engage with cases in a trauma-informed manner, 
examine instances of coercive control, or use lethality assessment tools, has led 
to tragic consequences, including the murder of children. Conference panelists 
raised numerous examples of ignored warnings that led to instances of femicide 
or continued abuse, for individuals who were involved in family law 
proceedings at the time. Conference panelists shared their own experiences and 
those of their clients with these shocking and tragic outcomes, in order to 
expose the gaps in the law and in the training of judges and evaluators that 
could prevent the reoccurrence of such tragedies.  

 
A. Trauma and “Trauma-Informed” Practices 

 
Courts frequently fail to understand that survivors often experience trauma23 

as a result of domestic violence, and that repetitive or severe trauma is likely to 
have detrimental and chronic effects on the survivor.24 Post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD) is a frequent reaction to experiencing domestic violence, and is 
characterized by intrusion (emotional reactions, flashbacks, images, 
nightmares), avoidance (dissociation, minimizing, numbing, denial), and arousal 
(anger, difficulty concentrating, insomnia).25 Additional responses to traumatic 
stress may include a sense of helplessness, becoming aggressive, nervousness, 
withdrawal, and substance abuse or addiction.26 Domestic violence can be even 
more traumatic to survivors than, for example, natural disasters, because it 
shatters their “fundamental sense of trust and attachment.”27 Any one or 

 
23 The symptoms of psychological trauma can range from depression, often accompanied by 
listlessness or flattened affect, to panic attacks and extreme emotionality. See Dorchen A. 
Leidholdt, Interviewing and Assisting Trafficking Survivors: Barriers to Interviewing and 
Assisting Survivors, in LAWYER’S MANUAL ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING PURSUING JUSTICE FOR 
VICTIMS 169, 170 (Jill Laurie Goodman and Dorchen A. Leidholdt ed., 2013). 
 
24 See Trauma FAQs, INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF TRAUMA AND DISASSOCIATION, 
https://www.isst-d.org/resources/trauma-faqs/ [https://perma.cc/2BTW-X5ZF]. 
 
25 Leidholdt, supra note 23, at 170. 
 
26 See NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FACTS ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 
AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE 
https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/domestic_violence_and_psychological_abuse_ncadv.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/KJJ3-RJA2] (citing M.J. BREIDING, J. CHEN & M.C. BLACK, NATIONAL CENTER 
FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL, DIVISION OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION, CDC, INTIMATE 
PARTNER VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES 2010 (2014)). 
 
27 See Trauma FAQs, supra note 24 (citing Naomi Breslau, The epidemiology of posttraumatic 
stress disorder: What is the extent of the problem? 62 J. CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY 16 (2001), Jean-
Michel Darves-Bornoz, et. al. Predictive factors of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder in rape 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

16 

combination of these responses may impact a litigant’s demeanor and/or 
presentation and can be negatively misconstrued by judges and other court 
personnel who lack understanding of or disregard the manifestations of trauma. 
Moreover, engaging with an abuser through the litigation process itself can be 
traumatic for survivors.  

 
There have been significant advancements in the study and understanding of 

trauma in the context of domestic violence, including the physiology of the 
traumatic response, how it impacts brain functioning, and how survivors are 
often re-traumatized or “triggered.”28 Like coercive control and lethality factors, 
the courts have failed to keep pace with this research, and their lack of 
understanding is evident in their interactions with litigants. For example, courts 
frequently fail to assess and understand the extent to which experiences of 
trauma may impact a litigant’s demeanor and/or presentation, or how being 
forced to engage with an abuser through the litigation itself can be triggering. 
Unfortunately, several of the most common trauma-related reactions are those 
that may otherwise be viewed negatively in a courtroom setting. For example, a 
survivor may engage in “minimization” (where a litigant might downplay the 
importance and intensity of their experiences to avoid their emotional impact) or 
“disassociation” (where traumatic events are compartmentalized and not 
immediately “unlocked” for recollection or testimony).29  

 
As a result, judges can misconstrue a survivor’s actions or statements that 

stem from symptoms of trauma and instead make negative credibility 
assessments, chastise the survivor for how they react and behave, or deny 
reasonable requests, such as protective measures during visitation exchanges. 
This misinterpretation and the contentious nature of the court process itself can 
both trigger underlying trauma and expose survivors to further trauma.30 
Victims then become more reluctant to trust that the family courts will protect 
them or that judges understand the trauma they have suffered. 

 

 
victims, 13 EUROPEAN PSYCHIATRY 281 (1998); and Troy Holbrook, et. al., Gender differences in 
long-term posttraumatic stress disorder outcomes after major trauma: Women are at higher risk 
of adverse outcomes than men, 53 J. TRAUMA 882–888 (2002)). 
 
28 Id. 
 
29 See Leidholdt, supra note 23, at 170. See also PUBLIC INTEREST PRO BONO ASSOCIATION, 
WORKING WITH SURVIVORS OF ABUSE: A TRAUMA INFORMED APPROACH, at 2, 
https://volsprobono.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Trauma-informed-Lawyering-Tip-Sheet-
PIPBA-2019.pdf [https://perma.cc/9PCF-X73L].  
 
30 Sarah Katz & Deeya Haldar, The Pedagogy of Trauma-Informed Lawyering, 22 CLINICAL L.R. 
359, 374 (2016). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

17 

To avoid such misinterpretation, Family Court can and should adopt a 
“trauma-informed approach” to the interactions it has with litigants during a 
proceeding and place the realities of an individual’s trauma at the forefront of 
how its systems are designed and interactions measured. Such an approach must 
include a required training component for judges and other court personnel, in 
order to assist courts in understanding the manifestations of trauma, guide courts 
in viewing certain reactions from a litigant as a product of trauma, and inform 
the court’s interactions with that person. This type of training can also help the 
court system identify actions and practices that appropriately avoid retriggering, 
such as speaking respectfully and calmly to litigants, attention to positioning of 
the litigant in relationship to exits, explaining note taking, and explaining the 
roles and responsibilities of the various personnel in a courtroom.31 In addition 
to training, a comprehensive inventory of practices within the Family Court 
system to assess the effects of trauma on the people being served and practical 
modifications to acknowledge how trauma manifests in contentious litigation 
would benefit all of those who serve and appear in Family Court. 

 
B. Coercive Control  

 
Moreover, the New York State family law system fails to recognize that 

many abusers use coercive control, defined as: an ongoing implementation of 
abuse tactics designed to limit a survivor’s decision-making ability by denying 
her liberty, autonomy, and equality in a context of chronic power imbalance that 
is created and/or exploited by an intimate partner.32 This type of abusive 
behavior, described by Evan Stark in his groundbreaking book, Coercive 
Control: The Entrapment of Women in Personal Life,33 can sometimes seem 
subtle, but instills overwhelming fear and harm to the survivor and is 
“[i]ncreasingly argued to constitute the core of an abusive relationship.”34 

 
Conference panelist Chitra Raghavan, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist in New 

York City and a tenured professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 
outlined a range of coercive tactics that are used to continuously exploit a power 
imbalance, including surveillance to an extent that a survivor feels constantly 
“watched,” isolation of the survivor, micro-regulation and demanding 
compliance with trivial unpredictable demands, and degradation.35 Dr. 

 
31 See PUBLIC INTEREST PRO BONO ASSOCIATION, supra note 29, at 3–4. 
 
32 Jenny E. Mitchell & Chitra Raghavan, The Impact of Coercive Control on Use of Specific 
Sexual Coercion Tactics, 27 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 187, 187 (2021). 
 
33 EVAN STARK, COERCIVE CONTROL: THE ENTRAPMENT OF WOMEN IN PERSONAL LIFE (2009). 
 
34 Mitchell, supra note 32. 
 
35 Id. at 188. 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

18 

Raghavan compared the power imbalance associated with coercive control to a 
constant electric current causing steady pain, where “every now and then the 
voltage goes up.” As Dr. Raghavan stated at the Conference, courts and 
practitioners often “misclassify” incidents of coercive control “as minor, but if 
we actually understood the context, we would know that . . . the cold look, the 
silence, the breaking of the teacup was not minor, but extremely severe, in the 
context.” Whereas in a healthy relationship, one would expect negotiation and 
compromise, in a relationship permeated by coercive control, resistance is met 
with “increased coercion and increased retaliation.” The end result is constant 
fear, which ultimately leads the survivor to submit to the abuser’s power.  

 
A key feature of coercive control is that the control is so pervasive within 

the relationship that survivors may have trouble identifying what is happening 
to them, especially at first. Indeed, many insidious forms of technology-
facilitated abuse constitute coercive control, including monitoring using GPS 
and stalker ware technology, cyber sexual abuse, image-based abuse,36 hacking 
into a survivor’s devices and accounts, and using other evolving technologies to 
harass, intimidate, and threaten survivors. For survivors engaged in family law 
cases, “litigation abuse,” or “legal abuse” is another overlooked yet extremely 
detrimental aspect of coercive control. Delay tactics that adjourn cases 
repeatedly, filing unnecessary or additional cases or petitions that are time-
consuming and often expensive to defend, and extensive negotiations over 
simple issues related to visitation orders are common examples of this form of 
abuse. This abuse further triggers survivors who are still recovering from the 
trauma inflicted by the abuser.37  

 
Panelist Tanya Selvaratnam, herself a survivor of coercive control, 

discussed the abuse perpetrated by her ex-boyfriend, then-New York State 
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Ms. Selvaratnam read an excerpt from her 
book, Assume Nothing,38 which chronicled the relationship and how she 
extracted herself from it, and detailed the destructive effect of threats of 
surveillance, isolation, and controlling behavior inflicted by Schneiderman. Ms. 
Selvaratnam discussed how this intense, controlling behavior included glaring at 

 
 
36 This form of abuse is also commonly referred to as “revenge porn,” a term advocates find to be 
prejudicial to survivors, who are not engaging in pornography; rather, their images are being 
weaponized against them. 
 
37 Ellen Gutowski, Coercive Control in the Courtroom: Legal Abuse and its Correlates (2021) 
(Ph.D. dissertation, Boston College) (on file with the Boston College Libraries), 
https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:109251/datastream/PDF/view [https://perma.cc/8ZPU-
NREA]. 
 
38 Tanya Selvaratnam, Assume Nothing: A Story of Intimate Violence (2021). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

19 

her when she spoke on the telephone, preventing her from eating foods she 
enjoyed, and critiquing her body. His threats that he could have her followed 
were especially credible and frightening given that he was the top law 
enforcement official in the state of New York.39 Ms. Selvaratnam was broken 
down by these dynamics, in addition to Schneiderman’s40 slapping, spitting on, 
and choking her during sex, without her consent.41 She was subjected to a year 
of this conduct before extricating herself from the relationship. When Ms. 
Selvaratnam learned there were other women abused by Schneiderman, she 
bravely chose to share her experience with the New Yorker. Schneiderman 
resigned only a few hours after the publication of an article detailing an eerily 
similar pattern of abuse of Ms. Selvaratnam and three other women.42  

 
As Raghavan and Mitchell noted in their 2019 study, The Impact of 

Coercive Control on Use of Specific Sexual Coercion Tactics, conventional 
questions posed by a court as to a history of domestic violence may not fully 
capture the traumatic environment which the survivor has endured, where 
compliance behaviors were repeatedly enforced.43  

 
For a domestic violence survivor to obtain an order of protection in family 

court, she must first file a petition alleging that at least one of the family 
offenses enumerated in the Family Court Act was committed.44 These family 
offenses are defined in New York State penal law, and include offenses such as 
harassment, assault, menacing, stalking, sexual offenses, strangulation, unlawful 
dissemination or publication of an intimate image, among others.45 Then, the 

 
39 Schneiderman’s abuse of Ms. Selvaratnam and three other women was first revealed in an 
article by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow, published in The New Yorker on May 7, 2018. See Jane 
Mayer & Ronan Farrow, Four Women Accuse New York’s Attorney General of Physical Abuse, 
NEW YORKER (May 7, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-
new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse [https://perma.cc/254A-PY8Z]. Three hours after 
the publication of this story, Schneiderman resigned from his position. Id. 
  
40 Id. 
 
41 This experience aligns with the research of Professors Mitchell and Raghavan, who identified a 
direct relationship between instances of coercive control and sexual coercion, including an 
increased likelihood of coercive tactics to obtain unwanted sex. Jenny E. Mitchell & Chitra 
Raghavan, The Impact of Coercive Control on Use of Specific Sexual Coercion Tactics, 27 
Violence Against Women 187, 187–206 (2021). 
 
42 Mayer & Farrow, supra note 39. 
 
43 Raghavan & Mitchell, supra note 41, at 187. 
 
44 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 812. 
 
45 The full list of family offenses is: Disorderly conduct; Unlawful dissemination or publication of 
an intimate image; Harassment; Aggravated harassment; Sexual misconduct; Forcible touching; 
Sexual abuse; Menacing; Reckless endangerment; Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

20 

case will either go to trial, at which the survivor must prove by a preponderance 
of the evidence that every element of at least one family offense occurred, or 
will settle with the respondent consenting to the issuance of an order of 
protection, usually with no admission of wrongdoing. Such an order can direct 
that an abusive party stay away from a survivor, her home, her job, her children, 
end any contact with the survivor, including electronic communication, or 
refrain from engaging in further similar acts, in order to protect both survivors 
and their children.46 

 
Notably, coercive control is not among the enumerated family offenses in 

Article 8 of the Family Court Act, and therefore cannot be alleged in a petition 
for an order of protection. Certainly, a petitioner can allege behaviors that might 
constitute coercive control, and at the same time might also constitute another 
enumerated family offense. For example, threatening suicide, withholding food, 
or monitoring of a partner’s emails or phone could potentially be found by a 
court to constitute the family offenses of harassment, disorderly conduct, or 
stalking. 

 
In addition, whereas coercive control is an ongoing and pervasive pattern of 

behavior, New York State’s legal architecture requires an incident-based 
analysis, asking the court to look specifically at each individual allegation. 
Because the family offenses derive from the penal code, the family court 
essentially adopts the criminal law’s hierarchy of crimes, in which an offense is 
deemed more serious, or more deserving of the court’s concern, depending on 
the severity of violence, or the presence of “aggravating circumstances,”47 
elements such as whether a weapon was used or whether physical injury 
resulted from the incident. The court’s analysis of the domestic violence 

 
circulation; Strangulation; Assault or attempted assault; Stalking; Criminal mischief; Identity 
theft; Grand larceny; Coercion. Id. 
 
46 New York Family Court Act § 841 provides that upon a finding that one or more family 
offenses was committed, a court may, inter alia, place a respondent on probation for a period of 
up to one year, and require the respondent to participate in a batterer’s education program, which 
may include referral to drug and alcohol counseling; direct payment of restitution; and/or make an 
order of protection in accordance with § 842 of the Family Court Act. In turn, § 842 provides that 
an order of protection “shall set forth reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a 
period not in excess of two years by the petitioner or respondent or for a period not in excess of 
five years upon a finding by the court on the record of the existence of aggravating 
circumstances.” Such an order may, inter alia, direct a respondent to “stay away” from the home, 
school, business or place of employment of any other party, the other parent, or the child, or other 
specific location, or to refrain from committing a family offense. Moreover, a court may enter an 
order directing the respondent to abstain from communicating by any means, including but not 
limited to email or other electronic means, with the person against whom the family offense was 
committed. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 §205.74 (Uniform Rules for the Family Court).  
 
47 N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 842. 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

21 

therefore often overlooks the subtle ways in which an aggressor can utilize the 
tactics of coercive control against a survivor. Indeed, research indicates that 
coercive control may more accurately signal danger to survivors than the 
presence of physical abuse.48  

 
Many domestic violence advocates believe the damage and danger of 

isolating, degrading, and manipulative behavior should stand as independent 
grounds for seeking an order of protection. Otherwise, such conduct may go 
unreported or unacknowledged for years.49 As panelist Anna Maria Diamanti, 
(Director of the Family and Matrimonial Practice, Her Justice) noted, advocates 
in New York are seeking to address the legal gap in defining coercive control as 
a form of intimate partner violence. One advance would be enabling survivors 
to obtain orders of protection as a result of coercive control by amending Article 
8 of the Family Court Act to include it as a family offense. Another would be to 
introduce coercive control as a factor that is considered in custody, divorce, 
and/or child support matters.50 These reforms would align with those achieved 
in the United Kingdom and several other states, including California, which 
enacted the type of “coercive control” legislation that has provided a non-
limiting list of behaviors that may comprise acts of coercive control, and 
protects those whose lives are upended by such behavior.51  

 
48 Connie J. A. Beck & Chitra Raghavan, Intimate Partner Abuse Screening in Custody 
Mediation: The Importance of Assessing Coercive Control, 48 FAM. CT. REV. 555 (2010). 
 
49 Richard A. Dollinger & Alan Feigenbaum, Repeat After Me: Coercive Control is Domestic 
Violence, N.Y.L.J. (2022). 
  
50 In New York, a bill also has been introduced to establish the crime of coercive control as a 
Class E Felony. State Assembly Bill A3147/Senate Bill S5650 provides that “[a] person is guilty 
of coercive control when he or she engages in a course of conduct against a member of his or her 
same family or household…without the victim's consent, which results in limiting or restricting, 
in full or in part, the victim's behavior, movement, associations or access to or use of his or her 
own finances or financial information.” A. 3157, 2021-22 Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2021). The bill 
provides that “lack of consent results from forcible compulsion or from fear that refusal to consent 
will result in further actions limiting or restricting the victim's behavior, movement, associations 
or access to or use of his or her own finances or financial information.” However, there is 
consensus among the Family Law Roundtable participants that the family offense provisions of 
Article 8 in the Family Court Act should be decoupled from the Penal Law, such that coercive 
control would be included as a means of obtaining an order of protection and other relief in the 
Family Court, without criminalizing the underlying conduct.  
  
51 In California, Senate Bill 1141 was signed into law on September 29, 2020. The law amends 
Section 6320 of the California Family Code so that “disturbing the peace of the other party,” 
which is grounds for a domestic violence restraining order, includes coercive control. The law 
defines the term as a “pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a 
person’s free will and personal liberty,” and the legislature recognized while making this law that 
such non-physical actions “destroy the mental or emotional calm” of victims. S.1141, 2019-20 
Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2020). Coercive control is also recognized in the U.K., as well as in Hawaii. In 
Hawaii, H.B. 2425 was signed into law on September 15, 2020. The law revised statutes to 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

22 

 
Conference panelist Paula Cohen, Senior Attorney at the Survivor and 

Family Justice Workgroup of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles 
(LAFLA), touted the benefits to her clients of California’s coercive control law. 
She described one client in California whose husband had monitored every 
aspect of her life by camera and other forms of surveillance, keeping her a 
prisoner in her own house. The court in California was able to use the coercive 
control statute to identify the extreme harm caused by this isolation and control, 
and issue her a restraining order and other relief. Ms. Cohen also described a 
California case in which the court found that an Orthodox Jewish husband who 
refused to agree to a religious divorce had committed coercive control, and 
issued the survivor an order of protection.52  
 

C. Lethality Factors and Danger Assessment Tools 
 

Lives are threatened or in some cases tragically ended when judges who are 
responsible for making determinations in child custody and visitation cases are 
not trained in, or do not have knowledge of, lethality factors. In fact, despite 
their wide use by domestic violence advocates and law enforcement partners to 
help determine the risk of danger of death or near fatal assault in a domestic 
violence situation, New York State’s family law systems generally do not 
understand or utilize evidence-based lethality indicators, also known as danger 
assessment tools, first developed by researcher Dr. Jacquelyn Campbell.53 These 
lethality factors, as defined by Dr. Campbell, are a set of factors that can help 
determine the increased likelihood that an abuser will murder a survivor of 

 
include coercive control as a form of domestic abuse, defining it as “a pattern of threatening, 
humiliating, or intimidating actions, which may include assaults or other abuse that is used to 
harm, punish, or frighten an individual…a pattern of behavior that seeks to take away the 
individual’s liberty or freedom and strip away the individual’s sense of self, including bodily 
integrity and human rights, whereby the ‘coercive control’ is designed to make an individual 
dependent by isolating them from support, exploiting them, depriving them of independence…” 
H.B. 2425, 30th Leg. (Haw. 2020). 
 
52 See Michelle H. v. Yaron H., (Cal. Super. Ct., Cnty. of Los Angeles, Fam. Div. 2022). 
 
53 Assessing Dangerousness: Domestic Violence Offenders and Child Abusers (Jacquelyn C. 
Campbell & Jill Messing eds., 3d ed. 1995). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

23 

intimate partner violence.54 Examining these factors can help assess any 
increased risk of danger to a survivor and/or a child.55 The factors include:56 

 
1. Increase in physical violence over the past year  
2. Respondent/Defendant owns a gun  
3. Use or threatened use of lethal weapon  
4. Separation within the past year  
5. Unemployment  
6. Strangulation  
7. Jealousy  
8. Controlling behavior  
9. Drug/Alcohol abuse  
10. Abuse during pregnancy  
11. Child abuse threats  
12. Child that is not the biological child of the defendant/respondent  
13. Stalking  
14. Avoidance of arrest  
15. Victim belief that defendant/respondent is capable of killing 
him/her. 

 
While these factors are now used frequently by law enforcement, legal 

advocates, and case workers, there is no legal requirement nor common practice 
that a court consider or apply them in assessing risk in a family offense or 
custody/visitation proceeding. As a result, courts often focus more on the 
presumption in the law that a parent should be permitted as extensive contact 
with a child as possible, than on the consideration of the risk to the other parent 
or child where visits or custody transfers are ordered. 

 
As discussed above, Jacqueline Franchetti shared the heartbreaking story of 

her own such experience in a New York State Family Court. In the case related 
to custody of Ms. Franchetti’s two-year-old daughter, Kyra, a Nassau County 
Family Court judge permitted unsupervised overnight visits between Kyra and 
her father over Ms. Franchetti’s vehement objection. Only a few days after the 

 
54 Lethality Indicators, Special Topic Seminar for District Court Judges, Univ. of N.C. Sch. Of 
Gov’t (July 2015), 
https://www.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/course_materials/Lethality%20Indicators.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/VW63-27A7]. 
 
55 The New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence recognizes a lethality 
screen based on Campbell’s Danger Assessment tool. See OFF. FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE, NYS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW (June 2021), 
https://opdv.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/07/nys-domestic-violence-fatality-review_0.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/VP5L-N7MN]. 
 
56 See Lethality Indicators, supra note 53. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

24 

court granted the father overnight visits with Kyra, he shot and killed the child 
while she slept, and then set his house on fire and killed himself in a murder-
suicide. Kyra is now among the 23 children murdered by their own parent 
during a custody case, separation, or divorce in New York State in the past 6 
years alone.57  

 
In Kyra’s case, Ms. Franchetti repeatedly warned the court and the forensic 

evaluator of prior conduct by Kyra’s father that, under a lethality factor analysis, 
would have indicated that the father posed a grave risk to the child. This 
included Ms. Franchetti’s testimony and that of third parties that the father had 
stalked, harassed, and threatened her, had expressed suicidal ideation and 
engaged in fits of rage, and that he had access to firearms. However, tragically, 
during those court proceedings, the judge presiding over the case viewed Ms. 
Franchetti’s opposition to Kyra’s father having visits as a sign of Ms. 
Franchetti’s vindictiveness, rather than reflecting her real and credible fear 
because of his stalking and threats against her. The court admonished Ms. 
Franchetti that “just because he abused you, doesn’t mean he will abuse the 
child.” When she continued to express her fear for her daughter’s safety, she 
was told that she needed to “grow up.” Similarly, the attorney for the child who 
was assigned to represent Kyra in the Family Court and the forensic evaluator 
appointed in Kyra’s case58 both dismissed the documented evidence of the 
father’s dangerous behavior and his recent purchase of firearms.  

 
57 During the period from 2008 to 2016, 58 children around the country who were the subjects of 
Family Court proceedings were killed by custodial parents. Almost always (in 52 of the 58 cases), 
these fatalities occurred in instances where mothers had attempted to warn the court that their 
children’s safety was in danger because of an abusive father. See Laurie Udesky, Custody in 
Crisis: How Family Courts Nationwide Put Children in Danger, 100 Reporters (December 1, 
2016), https://100r.org/2016/12/custody-2/ [https://perma.cc/FRH6-WQQX]. 
  
58 Shortly after the Conference, New York State enacted legislation that specifies that when a 
court appoints a forensic evaluator to evaluate and investigate the parties and child in a custody or 
visitation proceeding, the evaluator must be a licensed psychologist, social worker, or psychiatrist 
who has received training on the dynamics of domestic violence and child abuse within the last 
two years. The Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV) is directed to contract 
with the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NYSCADV) to develop this 
training. This law takes effect on June 21, 2023, and amends Domestic Relations Law § 240(1) 
with a new paragraph (a-4). The new paragraph requires a child custody forensic evaluator to 
notify the court in which such individual requests to be considered for such court ordered 
evaluations; requires such individuals to notify the court should they fall out of compliance 
(regarding the biennial training requirement); and includes training documentation requirements. 
The legislation also amended Executive Law § 575(3) to add a new paragraph (n) that requires the 
Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence to contract with the New York State Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence to develop a training program for psychiatrists, psychologists and 
social workers, so that such individuals may conduct court ordered forensic evaluations involving 
child custody and visitation. The new paragraph lists the topics that shall comprise such training, 
including but not limited to: relevant statutes, case law and psychological definitions of domestic 
violence, coercive control and child abuse; the dynamics and effects of domestic violence and 
child abuse; trauma, particularly as it relates to sexual abuse and the risks posed to children and 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

25 

 
In the years since Kyra’s murder, Ms. Franchetti has become an outspoken 

advocate and leader in efforts to reform the law to better address evidence of 
safety risks. As a result, “Kyra’s Law” has been introduced in the New York 
Assembly and Senate.59 Kyra’s Law would, among other things: require judges 
in custody and visitation disputes to make the health and safety of the child the 
top priority and to conduct an early safety assessment that would include 
lethality factors and coercive control; update the best interest factors judges use 
in determining custody to prioritize the safe (non-abusive parent) receiving 
custody of the child; prohibit the court from considering claims of parental 
alienation in domestic violence cases; and require training for judges and 
hearing officers on domestic violence, including lethality factors.60 Kyra’s Law 
remains pending in the New York state legislature. 

 
D. Femicide 

 
Femicide, which is defined as the killing of women and girls on account of 

their gender, is tragically occurring every day and is a devastating form of 
gender violence. While the international feminist community has begun to name 
and confront femicide, this scourge is not directly being addressed or prioritized 
as a crisis in the United States. Conference panelists noted that murders of 
women are reported in local New York City newspapers with alarming 
frequency, but are described as individual crimes, not linked to a larger pattern 
of violence against women and girls. Indeed, each time a murder is reported, 
agencies like Sanctuary for Families check their client databases to confirm 
whether the victim was a client. Tragically, on many occasions they have been. 
The vicarious trauma impacting staff from these femicides is also a serious 
concern for nonprofit agencies and must be addressed.  

 
Stephanie McGraw poignantly elucidated the profound impact of these 

devastating losses of life on families and communities. By holding vigils 
honoring femicide victims, she raises awareness that these murders are not 
simply isolated cases. Ms. McGraw called upon conference attendees to “raise 
your conscious level,” “get a little uncomfortable,” and “stay woke” to these 

 
the long-term dangers and impacts imposed by the presence of adverse childhood experiences; 
and the danger of basing child custody decisions on claims that a child’s deficient or negative 
relationship with a parent is caused by the other parent. 
  
59 A.3346-A (Hevesi)/S.3170 (Skoufis), 2022–2023 Leg. Sess. (N.Y. 2023). For more information 
about Kyra’s law, see Kyra’s Champions, available at https://www.kyraschampions.org/kyras-law 
(last visited Mar. 20, 2023) [https://perma.cc/N2R7-39QL]. 
 
60 Id. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

26 

atrocities.  
 

In fact, the incidence of femicide in the United States is steadily rising. One 
study estimates that American female intimate gendered killings are happening 
at a rate of almost three women every day.61 The New York City Domestic 
Violence Fatality Review Committee Annual Report for 2020 found that 
"communities of color are disproportionately affected, with Black females being 
particularly adversely impacted," and that communities of color in "low-income 
neighborhoods account for just over 20% of the City’s population but 40% of 
NYC’s intimate partner homicides."62 Moreover, using National Center for 
Health Statistics, researchers in a 2021 report in the Journal of Obstetrics & 
Gynecology found the homicide rate was 16% higher for pregnant women than 
their peers of reproductive age and noted that "homicide during pregnancy or 
within 42 days of the end of pregnancy exceeded all the leading causes of 
maternal mortality by more than twofold."63 Conference panelists called upon 

 
61 See Mary Emily O’Hara, Domestic Violence: Nearly Three U.S. Women Killed Every Day by 
Intimate Partners, U.S. News (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-
news/domestic-violence-nearly-three-u-s-women-killed-every-day-n745166 
[https://perma.cc/HT2A-FB4B]. Research shows that femicide increased before and during the 
COVID-19 pandemic. Anthony Vasquez-Peddie, Femicide Rates On the Rise Amid COVID-19 
Pandemic: Canadian Researcher, CTVNEWS (Dec. 16, 2021), 
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/femicide-rates-on-the-rise-amid-covid-19-pandemic-
canadian-researcher-1.5681807 [https://perma.cc/P3KS-DGMY]. Myrna Dawson, the Founder 
and Director of the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability and Co-
Director of the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations 
and Senior Advisor for the Femicide Watch Platform, a joint project of the United Nations Studies 
Association (UNSA) Global Network and the UNSA Vienna Femicide Team, points to repeated 
lockdowns and a lack of access to services and shelter as well as violent home environments for 
the steady increase in sex- and gender-related killings of women and girls. As the pandemic 
persists, so do these obstacles to safety for survivors, especially those marginalized by gender, 
race, ethnicity, and gender identity. 
 
62 N.Y.C. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY REVIEW COMM., ANNUAL REPORT 2 (2020), 
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/ocdv/downloads/pdf/2020-FRC-Annual-Report.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/W4PG-AGK8]. According to the CDC, Black and Indigenous women are at 
greatest risk, followed by Latinx and Asian women. 2021 was the deadliest year for transgender 
individuals, with 9 out of 10 victims (96%) trans women or transfeminine. Women in the sex 
trade have the highest homicide victimization rate of any set of women ever studied. Devon D. 
Brewer et al., Extent, Trends, and Perpetrators of Prostitution – Related Homicide in the United 
States, 51(5) J. FORENSIC SCI. 1101, 1101–1108 (2006). Femicide profoundly negatively impacts 
marginalized communities, especially communities of color, leaving children motherless, families 
without the members who do the lioness’s share of nurturing and caregiving, and communities 
without the members who frequently are the most service-oriented. Survivor-of-color-led 
community-based anti-domestic violence organizations have prioritized this issue. Autodidact 17, 
Harlem Mothers S.A.V.E. Hosts Anti-Violence Forum, Amsterdam News (Oct. 14, 2021), 
https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2021/10/14/harlem-mothers-sve-hosts-anti-violence-forum/ 
[https://perma.cc/4AEH-K4NG]. 
 
63 Maeve Wallace et al., Homicide During Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period in the United 
States, 138(5) Obstetrics & Gynecology 762 (2021). 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

27 

domestic violence advocates in New York to join the international feminist 
community in exposing the crisis of femicide and promoting policies to address 
it. 

 
E. Key Recommendations on Trauma, Coercive Control, Lethality 
Factors, and Femicide 
 

1. Train Family Law Actors, including Judges, Evaluators, 
Police, and ACS to Identify Lethality Factors: 
 
The burden should not be on the survivor to establish the risk of 
harm to a litigant or children; the burden should be on the Court and 
evaluators to assess the risk. The Court and evaluators within the 
system must understand both when and how to perform a risk 
assessment in any case where domestic violence is a factor. 
Therefore: 
 

a. Require training for judicial personnel and all actors within 
the system (police, ACS, forensic evaluators) on lethality 
assessment and factors;  
 

b. Temporary/interim orders: When judges issue temporary 
visitation and custody orders in a child custody/visitation 
case:  
 

i. They should be reduced to writing and include the 
judge’s basis for the determination and factors that 
the judge took into consideration;  
 

ii. There should be a mechanism for appeal or 
intermediate review so that immediate relief can be 
accessed if an order poses a risk to a child. 

 
2. Enact Legislative Changes: 
 

a. Pass legislation prioritizing the health and safety of the 
child:  
 

i. Require judges in custody and visitation disputes to 
make the health and safety of the child the top 

 
  



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

28 

priority and to conduct an early safety assessment 
that would include lethality factors;  
 

ii. Update the best interest factors judges use in 
determining custody to prioritize the safe (non-
abusive parent) receiving custody of the child and 
not disturbing the primary caretaking relationship;  
 

iii. Prohibit the court from considering claims of 
parental alienation in domestic violence cases; and  
 

iv. Require training for judges and hearing officers on 
domestic violence, including lethality factors.64 

 
b. Lethality Factors: Judges, custody evaluators, attorneys for 

the child, and other court actors involved in custody and 
visitation determinations should be required to consider 
lethality factors when assessing the safety of and risk of 
harm to a child, especially with respect to any temporary 
and/or final order that is issued.  
 

c. Coercive Control: The definition of “victim of domestic 
violence” in New York State Social Services Law (Section 
459-a) should be updated to include coercive control, and 
Article 8 of the Family Court Act should be amended to 
include coercive control as a family offense.65 
 

3. Train judges and court personnel on trauma-informed 
practices and conduct an inventory of the ways in which re-
traumatizing practices and interactions within the Family 
Court system can be minimized. 

 
III. Failure to prioritize the safety of survivors and children and their 
allegations of domestic violence and child safety risks over the other 

 
64 KYRA’S LAW, https://www.kyraschampions.org/kyras-law [https://perma.cc/N2R7-39QL] (last 
visited May 24, 2023). 
 
65 Conference panelists agreed that while coercive control should be actionable in civil actions in 
the family and supreme courts, it should not be added to the penal code, and should therefore not 
be actionable in criminal actions. 
  



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

29 

party’s demands for custody and visitation and claims of “parental 
alienation” 

 
Conference participants agreed that court decisions that preceded the tragic 

murder of two-year-old Kyra and the experience of her mother in Family Court 
were not outliers, but examples of a systemic pattern in which domestic 
violence survivors are punished or have negative case outcomes as a result of 
raising allegations of domestic violence or child abuse during custody/visitation 
cases. These unjust consequences for survivors are closely tied to another 
dynamic in family law: abusers invoking the concept of “parental alienation” 
when protective parents raise legitimate safety concerns.  

 
“Parental alienation” is a debunked junk science theory first introduced by 

psychologist Richard Gardner in his 1998 book, “The Parental Alienation 
Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals.”66 Gardner’s 
theory posits a scenario in which one parent (almost always the mother) through 
emotional manipulation turns a child against the other parent (almost always the 
father) as a form of retaliation, often by making false allegations of sexual 
abuse. “Parental Alienation Syndrome” has never been scientifically 
substantiated or recognized by the American Psychiatric Association or any 
other medical or professional association, and it is not admissible in child 
custody hearings because of its lack of scientific basis.67 However, the term 
“parental alienation” often gets considerable traction in family court, where 
allegations that one parent is “alienating” children from the other parent are 
commonplace, and regularly used by attorneys representing abusive parents to 
undermine the credibility of domestic violence or abuse allegations. Indeed, one 
parent “may be ‘re-framed’ as a parent severely ‘emotionally abusing’ their 
children by falsely teaching them to hate and fear their other parent.”68 

 
66 RICHARD A. GARDNER, THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: A GUIDE FOR MENTAL HEALTH 
AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS (1992). 
 
67 See Alyssa G. Rao, Rejecting ‘Unjustified’ Rejection: Why Family Courts Should Exclude 
Parental Alienation Experts, 62 B.C. L. REV. 1759, 1760 (2021) (noting that parental alienation 
syndrome “has yet to gain acceptance by any major scientific organizations, including the 
American Psychiatric Association (APA) and World Health Organization,” and that the “drafters 
of the most recent versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (DSM-5) 
and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) declined to include parental alienation 
syndrome in either of these highly-respected and highly-utilized diagnostic tools, notwithstanding 
proposals by the syndrome's advocates”). 
  
68 See Joan S. Meier, U.S. Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and 
Abuse Allegations: What Do the Data Show? 42 J. SOC. WELFARE & FAM. LAW 92 (2020). See 
also History of “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” SANCTUARY FOR FAMILIES (October 5, 2022), 
https://3fdc78ed-344c-4d81-afe2-
78712303deb0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdc783ed5874a97d0444ab1738afc05588306.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/M3L9-7YQ7]. 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

30 

 
In many cases, parental alienation claims lead to legitimate warnings69 

about child safety made by survivors of intimate partner violence being ignored 
or rejected by judges who instead accept abusers’ unverified claims that 
survivors are “unfriendly parents.” These outcomes are often rooted in the fact 
that New York and other states have case law that specifically adopts the 
“friendly parent principle,” which holds that if one parent is more likely to 
support the child’s relationship with the other parent, and/or if one parent is 
more likely to comply with the concept of shared parenting, then that more 
supportive parent should be awarded custody.70 Although consideration of the 
friendly parent factor is just one of several best interests factors to be assessed in 
a custody proceeding, others of which include a demonstrated history of 
domestic violence,71 this legal principle is frequently leveraged by abusers and 
their counsel when concerns about violence and ongoing threats to a child are 
raised. Thus, credible claims of prior history of domestic violence and/or child 
abuse have led to changes in custody to the abuser due to a perception that 
raising such claims constituted “alienating” behavior by the parent seeking to 
protect a child from violence72 or as an attempt to “block” a child from the other 
parent.  

 
Jennifer Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project and Policy 

at Sanctuary for Families, identified this dynamic as a backlash against 
survivors that has taken hold in family law since the early 2000s. She described 
one case in which a judge “scolded” her client for engaging in “alienating 
behavior,” and warned she could transfer custody of the children, after Ms. 
Friedman’s client shared legitimate fears that her ex was attempting to track her 
location by giving the parties’ child a cell phone during a supervised visit. This 
followed a history of abuse perpetrated by the father, including the presence of 
lethality factors, such as stalking and a suicide attempt in the home while the 
children were present.  

 
  
69 Certainly, in cases where allegations of abuse are not present, a judge’s focus on encouraging 
co-parenting is reasonable.  
 
70 For a detailed analysis of the “friendly parent principle” and its application, see The “Friendly 
Parent” Principle: Does it Get Conflated with Parental Alienation?, SANCTUARY FOR FAMILIES 
(October 5, 2022), https://3fdc78ed-344c-4d81-afe2-
78712303deb0.usrfiles.com/ugd/3fdc78_72fd5f77c43e47c48fce0abab1852e3e.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/67CQ-XD9G]. 
  
71 See N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law § 240(1)(a) (while not determinative, a court must consider domestic 
violence that is proven by a preponderance of the evidence in determining custody and visitation 
arrangements).  
 
72 These are often referred to as “alienation cross-claims.” 
  



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

31 

 
This example, and other conference participants’ observations on the extent 

to which claims of “alienation” can be weaponized in custody proceedings 
aligns with empirical data presented by panelist Joan Meier, the National Family 
Violence Law Center Professor of Clinical Law at the George Washington 
University School of Law. Professor Meier’s work examines the outcomes of 
reflected bias in reported custody and visitation cases from around the United 
States73 and reveals the extent to which judges undervalue survivors’ allegations 
of domestic violence and safety threats and over-value non-custodial parent 
custody “rights” where parental alienation is asserted. Specifically, the data 
reveal that mothers’ “losses” in custody cases (where a primary caregiver 
mother saw transfer of custody to the father) skyrocketed if an allegation of 
abuse was met by a cross-allegation of alienation by the father.74 Professor 
Meier’s research also highlighted gender bias within the realm of parental 
alienation claims, as her studies demonstrated that there was no effect on 
frequency of fathers’ custody loss when mothers cross-claim alienation to a 
father’s initial accusation of abuse.75 Moreover, the cases reviewed by Professor 
Meier uncovered that when fathers assert alienation cross-claims, courts are far 
less inclined to accept a mother’s abuse claims, including claims of partner 
abuse, child abuse, or child sexual abuse.76 Incredibly, a review of published 
cases reflects that courts are half as likely to believe a mother’s claim of abuse 
when a father presents an alienation cross-claim.77  
 

Thus, survivors of domestic violence are constantly faced with a 
predicament: reporting abuse to the court during a custody dispute to seek 
protection for their children can pose the risk of being perceived as hostile, 

 
73 A 2020 study conducted by Professor Joan S. Meier describes how the impact of parental 
alienation on mothers and fathers varies in situations of abuse. Her findings relied on analyzing 
and codifying judicial opinions posted online across the United States over a ten-year period. The 
research found that, in situations where fathers alleged abuse against the mother of the child, they 
gained custody at higher frequencies than when the mother alleged abuse against the father. 
Meier, supra note 68. 
  
74 Samantha Schmidt, ‘A Gendered Trap’: When Mothers Allege Child Abuse by Fathers, the 
Mothers Often Lose Custody, Study Shows, WASH. POST (July 29, 2019), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/a-gendered-trap-when-mothers-allege-child-
abuse-by-fathers-the-mothers-often-lose-custody-study-shows/2019/07/28/8f811220-af1d-11e9-
bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html [https://perma.cc/35X6-XWRB]. 
 
75 Meier, supra note 68, at 100 (“Fathers who were accused of alienation by the mother they 
accused of abuse lost custody only 29% (5/17) of the time, but this is not a statistically significant 
result due to the relatively low numbers.”). 
 
76 Id. at 98. 
 
77 Id.  
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

32 

“unfriendly,” or “alienating,” with adverse implications for the outcome of a 
litigation. As has been noted: 
 

Courts typically immediately demand co-parenting and take 
risks before they have time to consider the evidence of abuse or 
the critical context. Many court professionals immediately start 
promoting and pressuring for shared parenting. Victims are 
routinely punished if they object to cooperating with their 
abusers. Victim’s lawyers often tell clients not to raise abuse 
issues and not to object to dangerous arrangements. This results 
in courts making harmful decisions without ever learning about 
the history of abuse. This approach also serves to silence 
children who are exposed to the abuser.78 

 
That environment frequently drives litigants to accept custody and visitation 
terms that threaten their safety and the safety of their children, or terms that 
require a level of communication with an abusive party that enables ongoing 
coercive control, including: 
 

o Granting unsupervised visitation to noncustodial parents who 
have been physically abusive, including those with a history of 
child sexual abuse;  

o Permitting exchanges of children in unsafe locations;  
o Permitting access to parents who have threatened to abduct 

children; 
o Pushing survivors to accept joint legal custody, in violation of 

controlling case law, which would require extensive 
communication and contact; and 

o Awarding mutual decision-making to abusers.  
 

Extreme and dangerous programs such as “reunification therapy” and 
“reunification camps” have also emerged from this overall trend of prioritizing 
claims of alienation over credible allegations of abuse by a parent. One 
conference panelist, Ally Cable, founder of the Youth Initiative at the Center for 
Judicial Excellence, offered her horrifying personal experience as a 16-year-old 
subject child in a contentious custody litigation. The court in her case accepted 
the father’s narrative that her mother’s claims of abuse were simply “alienation” 
and issued an order removing Ally and her sister from Kansas and forcibly 
bringing them to a “reunification camp” in a remote part of Montana, where 

 
78 Barry Goldstein & Veronica York, Shared Parenting Places Ideology Over Children, CTR. FOR 
JUD. EXCELLENCE (Aug. 16, 2022), https://centerforjudicialexcellence.org/2022/08/16/shared-
parenting-places-ideology-over-children/ [https://perma.cc/78GM-VM6T].  
  



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

33 

they were made to endure a “therapy” program with their father, who sexually 
abused them. In her case, the guardian ad litem rejected the statements that Ally 
and her sister made describing their father’s abuse and accused them of lying 
about the abuse. Ally’s case exemplifies the courts re-traumatizing adult and 
child survivors by prioritizing parental relationships with abusers over the 
emotional and physical safety of children and survivors. In fact, New York State 
is home to Linda Gottlieb, a social worker whose so-called “therapeutic 
visitation” programs involve sequestration and prohibitions on contact with 
family members other than the parent claiming “alienation.”79 In many cases, 
children are removed from their primary caretaker, a safe parent, and custody is 
awarded to an abusive parent who had claimed alienation. 

 
Moreover, Ally’s story illustrates the extent to which participants other than 

judges in custody proceedings, including evaluators and guardians ad litem,80 
can also improperly prioritize parental relationships over legitimate concerns for 
child safety.81 Indeed, as discussed above regarding bias in the family law 

 
79 See Hannah Dreyfus, Barricaded Siblings Turn to TikTok While Defying Court Order to Return 
to Father They Say Abused Them, PROPUBLICA (Feb. 26, 2023), 
https://www.propublica.org/article/parental-alienation-utah-livestream-siblings 
[https://perma.cc/ZG5X-FAQD]. The “reunification camps” and other programs where children 
are held or forced to participate against their will, or made to interact with a parent who has 
credibly been alleged to pose a threat or risk to their emotional or physical health, differs greatly 
from the form of “supervised therapeutic visitation” that has long been accepted in New York 
State Family Courts, where children may engage in individual therapy sessions with a parent 
facilitated by a mental health professional for limited periods, such as one hour per week. See 
Stephanie B. v. Joshua M., 183 N.Y.S.3d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dept. 2023) (granting 
supervised therapeutic visitation where “the record presents no evidence that supervised 
therapeutic visitation with the father would physically endanger the child,” and where the 
“strictures that Family Court imposed on the visitation, as well as the inherent nature of the type 
of visitation ordered, will operate to mitigate any emotional strain on the child”). The distinction 
in approaches can also be traced to whether an order is made as part of an effort to protect a 
child’s best interests, including their emotional well-being, or whether the order is being made to 
prioritize the parent’s interests.  
 
80 Ally’s case was heard outside of New York. In New York State Family Courts, children are 
represented by attorneys for children, as their independent counsel, rather than by guardians ad 
litem. Conference panelist Michael Sherz, Esq., Director of the Domestic Violence Project at 
Lawyers for Children, noted the importance of providing children with this form of direct and 
independent representation, in order to ensure that their experiences and position can be put 
before the court and considered along with that of the parties. 
 
81 See Udesky, supra note 57 (describing a Tennessee Family Court case where the child was 
placed in custody of a father who had sexually abused him based on the court’s reliance on the 
recommendations of the custody evaluator, and an Ohio case where the judge quoted from a 
custody evaluator’s report that the “mother was found to have demonstrated a pattern of efforts to 
alienate the children from their father, to remove father from their lives, and to convince the 
children that only she has their interest and safety at heart,” but where children’s statements and 
evidence of past medical treatment supported claims that the father was physically abusive). 
Professor Meier also has documented how in cases with a guardian ad litem or an evaluator, 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

34 

system, in New York State, a majority of the Governor’s Blue Ribbon 
Commission on Forensic Custody Evaluations members believed that the state’s 
custody evaluation system is so deeply biased that their use should be 
eliminated entirely. If these and other reports are to continue to influence the 
outcomes of contested custody cases, we must require training on domestic 
violence for all such actors and adopt assessments and factors that promote the 
best interests and well-being of litigants and children. 

 
A. Key Recommendations to Prioritize the Safety of Survivors and 
their Children 

 
1. Early Safety Assessment: 
 
When ordering visitation and temporary custody in a child 
custody/visitation case, judges should be required to make and 
prioritize an early determination of safety risks to the child or 
children when there is a credible allegation of child abuse or 
domestic violence. Provide clear direction in the law as to when in 
the course of a proceeding the Court is mandated to perform such 
an assessment, such as at the first appearance. 

 
2. Parental Alienation/Friendly Parent: 
 
When presented with credible evidence of domestic violence or 
child abuse, judges should not be permitted to consider arguments 
regarding the “friendly parent principle” or “parental alienation” at 
any point in a custody/visitation case. 
 
3. Redefine Best Interest Factors to Prioritize Safety: 
 
Safety of the child should be a primary best interest factor and 
accorded more weight than other factors in custody cases. Other 
factors to be considered should include: the negative consequences 

 
mothers alleging abuse are more likely to lose custody. Joan S. Meier, Ending the Denial of 
Family Violence: An Empirical Analysis and Path Forward for Family Law, GW LAW FACULTY 
PUBLICATIONS & OTHER WORKS 28 (2021), 
https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2792&context=faculty_publications 
[https://perma.cc/7MPG-P8RG] (“Not surprisingly, custody losses mirror these findings. Whereas 
without a GAL, abuse-alleging mothers’ custody losses average 25%, with a GAL their custody 
losses average 36%. Mothers thus have 1.8 greater odds of losing custody when a GAL is present 
(p<0.001, CI 1.4-2.2); when alleging physical child abuse this difference increases to 3.4 
(p<0.001, CI 1.8-6.4), and when alleging mixed physical and sexual child abuse, to 5.3 (p=0.033, 
CI 1.1-24.5).” Professor Meier observed that these data indicate that “these neutral court 
professionals are putting a heavy thumb on the scale against mothers.” 
  



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

35 

associated with separating the child from their primary attachment 
figure (the parent who best provides emotional security and comfort 
to the child); and whether either parent is better able and more 
likely to attend to the daily physical, emotional, developmental, 
educational, and special needs of the child. 

 
4. Ban Use of Family Reunification Therapy: 
 
No court should be permitted to authorize “family reunification 
therapy” or “reunification camps” where allegations of abuse are 
present. 

 
IV. Under-resourced and poorly-functioning family courts, including 
insufficient numbers of judges to handle overwhelming case dockets, 
which undermine the equitable and timely administration of justice for 
victims and families 

 
New York State’s antiquated court system itself is a profound barrier to 

justice for survivors of domestic violence. Indeed, insufficient resources for the 
family courts have negatively impacted the safety and security of our most 
vulnerable populations, including primarily Black and Brown low-income 
women, children, and families. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare 
longstanding inequities impacting the families accessing the New York City 
Family Court. During the pandemic, the Family Court shut down for a 
substantial number of so-called “non-essential” matters over an extended period 
of time. These matters, however, were anything but “non-essential,” leaving 
many New Yorkers, including survivors of domestic violence, without access to 
justice on issues impacting the safety and security of their families and children. 
With a substantial backlog resulting in unreasonable delays, the impact of 
COVID will be felt for years to come, and accordingly, the need for reform has 
never been greater. Finally, the family law system, encompassing the Family 
and Supreme Courts, does not have programs, protocols, or effective training in 
place that acknowledge and address the vicarious trauma experienced by 
counsel, jurists, and other service providers who handle difficult cases on a daily 
basis. 

 
A. New York State’s Outdated Court Structure 
 

At the heart of this crisis lies New York’s antiquated court structure, 
combined with a lack of judges, resources, and adequate technology. As panelist 
Denise Kronstadt, Interim Executive Director/Director of Advocacy and Policy 
at the Fund for Modern Courts, described in detail, New York State has the 
unwanted distinction of possessing the most complex court structure in the 
nation, with eleven separate trial courts with varying and sometimes 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

36 

overlapping jurisdiction.82 The system is not only confusing but also leads to 
wasteful parallel proceedings with the possibility of inconsistent results. Those 
most negatively impacted are people of limited means, vulnerable populations, 
and unrepresented litigants. Of note, survivors of domestic violence often have 
to make repeated appearances in multiple courts, represented by different 
lawyers on each case – if represented at all – while subject to inconsistent court 
orders and rules. Furthermore, if litigants are seeking a divorce, they cannot do 
so in Family Court but must bring an action in the Supreme Court, where they 
would have to pay filing fees and are not entitled to an appointed lawyer. 

 
Also of concern, this Byzantine court structure locks in resource disparities, 

negatively impacting courts—like the Family Court—which disproportionately 
serve the poor and people of color. The lack of sufficient funding compounding 
over decades means that there are not sufficient judges, staff, or technology to 
effectively manage the volume and seriousness of the cases before the court. 
This is especially detrimental given that 80% of litigants in Family Court are 
unrepresented. 

B. Shortage of Family Court Judges 
 

The severely inadequate number of judges and insufficient staffing has for 
decades caused significant delay in New York City Family Court proceedings. 
To make up for this critical shortage, the Office of Court Administration (OCA) 
transfers judges from other courts (mostly the Civil Court) and assigns them to 
the Family Court on a temporary basis, usually (but not in all cases) for two 
years.83 However, these temporary transfers create significant problems for 
litigants who are survivors of intimate partner violence and the attorneys who 
represent them. 

 
First, while the Rules of the Chief Judge, Section 17.4(a), require that 

judges in a court that exercises criminal jurisdiction, Family Court judges, and 
each justice of the Supreme Court who regularly handles matrimonial matters, 
“shall attend, every two years,” an approved program “addressing issues relating 
to domestic violence,” judges from other courts are often temporarily assigned 

 
82 See New York Compared to Other States, FUND FOR MODERN COURTS, 
https://simplifynycourts.org/new-york-compared-to-other-states/ [https://perma.cc/FV69-FJ6S] 
(last visited May 24, 2023). The website lists other states that have simplified their court systems, 
including California, which adopted a single trial court throughout the state. 
  
83 The Family Court Judicial Appointment and Assignment Process, N.Y. CITY BAR (Dec 15, 
2020), https://www.nycbar.org/member-and-career-services/committees/reports-
listing/reports/detail/the-family-court-judicial-appointment-and-assignment-process 
[https://perma.cc/ZF2H-5NEA] (the “Family Court Report”). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

37 

to the Family Court without receiving the required training.84 As a result, it is 
not uncommon for judges serving in Family Court to be unfamiliar with the 
issues and needs of survivors of intimate partner violence.85 To illustrate this 
problem, a panel participant described a case where a temporarily assigned 
Family Court judge did not know the meaning of a “therapeutic visitation”—a 
common term that refers to visitation between a child and the noncustodial 
parent with supportive services— and was poorly prepared to consider services 
that would protect the custodial parent and subject child in that case.  

 
Family Court litigants also often appear before judges who have not made 

family law a professional priority, and others who seek to minimize their time 
serving in that Court. As Justice Webber explained, judges cannot be promoted 
to the departments of the Appellate Division directly from Family Court, 
meaning that any judge with ambitions to promotion would seek transfer from 
the Family Court as soon as possible.86 

 
According to a New York City Bar Association report, the constant flow of 

judges in and out of the family court presents serious challenges. Specifically, 
the court found, “[e]very time an acting judge departs from the Family Court, 
that judge’s cases must be reassigned,” causing delay and confusion among 
litigants, and when judges are assigned without experience or expertise in 
family law as they take over cases lacking familiarity with prior proceedings, 
they understandably do not perform at the same level of efficiency as full-time 
Family Court Judges.87 Vacancies often are not filled immediately, and “cases in 
front of a departing judge will be adjourned until a new judge is reassigned from 
another court or is appointed to the Family Court,” thereby causing 
unacceptable delay and potentially putting lives at risk in cases involving 
domestic violence.88 As explained by the Bar Association report, “the current 
system leaves the Family Court in a state of constant flux, referred to by some in 
court leadership as a ‘transient bench,’ that compromises the administration of 

 
84 Rules of the Chief Judge, New York State Unified Courts, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 17.4(a) (March 1, 
2021), https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefjudge/17.shtml. 
 
85 As discussed throughout, advocates believe the current training requirements are insufficient to 
educate jurists about domestic violence and the needs of survivors. However, judges on temporary 
assignment are not even subject to these minimal training requirements. 
 
86 See also, 42 Tarinelli, Ryan, Power Struggle Continues Over Return of Older NY Judges as 
System Announces Assignment Plan. NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, May 21, 2021, 
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/05/21/power-struggle-continues-over-return-of-
older-ny-judges-as-system-announces-assignment-plan/ [https://perma.cc/35R6-NE4A]. 
 
87 The Family Court Report, supra note 83. 
 
88 Id. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

38 

justice, often at critical points for the safety and security of families and 
children.”89 

Thus, in January 2022, when many judges were reassigned, attorneys at 
Sanctuary for Families reported to Justice Webber that several judges sitting in 
the Manhattan and Brooklyn family courts declared mistrials in cases that were 
open before them, requiring survivors to be forced to either re-testify to their 
traumatic experiences at a new trial or accept unfavorable settlements to avoid 
this scenario. Although Justice Webber, in her capacity as Co-Chair of the 
Franklin H. Williams Commission, contacted the Office for Court 
Administration supervising judge of the Family Courts and confirmed that this 
practice was contrary to official court policy (which was for the judge to either 
try the case before leaving the jurisdiction or take the case with them to the new 
assignment), several Sanctuary attorneys handled cases that were, in fact, 
ultimately mistried. 

 
Indeed, the swapping of judges is especially prejudicial and traumatizing to 

survivors of domestic violence who have no choice but to bring the court up to 
speed and recount their experience over and over again every time a new judge 
is reassigned. One Sanctuary attorney is currently representing a survivor of 
sexual abuse and domestic violence who filed for an Order of Protection and 
custody in June of 2019. Her matters have proceeded before seven separate 
judges. A full order of protection trial took place before one judge (number 6), 
who sat in family court for less than a year and made findings of multiple family 
offenses committed. The case was then transferred to a new judge (number 7), 
who is unfamiliar with the case history and is conducting a full custody trial. 
This outrageous situation is requiring the client to re-testify to the abuse in order 
to educate the new judge about the history, which is imperative to best 
understand the custody issues. This case is not an outlier; practitioners report 
that many of their cases currently before the family courts have been handled by 
multiple judges over the course of years. 

The shortage of judges also was addressed in a compelling report recently 
issued by the Franklin H. Williams Judicial Commission of The New York State 
Courts. The Commission, which is charged with addressing racial bias in New 
York’s courts, noted: “Further increasing the number of Family Court judges 
will address unconscionable delays in resolving cases, avoiding longer periods 
of stay in foster care for children, longer periods of uncertainty in custody cases, 

 
89 Id. The report raises a number of concerns including: 1) Family Court parts go without a 
complete complement of judges for extended periods of time due to the lags in the appointment 
process and delays in the replacement of judges from other courts whose temporary assignments 
to Family Court have ended; and 2) Short-term appointments result in cases being handled by 
several different judges over the life of the case (some of whom without sufficient family law 
training). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

39 

longer time for resolution of juvenile delinquency cases, longer periods of 
anxiety for domestic violence victims, and protracted periods of the stress, 
instability and trauma implicit in the cases heard in Family Court.”90 

 
The staffing issue also pertains to the inadequate number of appointed 

counsels, including attorneys for children, who ensure that their clients’ 
positions, experiences, and views can be properly assessed by the Court to 
protect their safety and well-being. Moreover, the only-recently addressed 
insufficient pay rate for court-appointed (18-B) attorneys, which had been set at 
$75/hour, severely exacerbated these inequities, as a flood of departures left the 
remaining members of the panel with overwhelming caseloads, resulting in an 
inability in many cases to spend adequate preparation time on each client’s 
case.91 The rate in New York City was recently raised to $158 per hour as the 
result of a judge’s order in a class action lawsuit brought to increase counsel 
rates, and the 2023 New York State budget finally includes funds to pay 18-B 
attorneys at this rate.92 Thus, with a lack of judges and counsel to adequately 
serve those who seek to appear and pursue their claims, the pressures on the 
Family Court system have never been greater. 

 
Many efforts have been made over the years to reform New York’s court 

structure in order to not only simplify the system that “works against equality 
and dignity for everyone who enters the courtroom,” but to streamline the 
system to have “the authority to better distribute resources and to provide them 
where they are needed the most, reduce court appearances and give all litigants 
a better and more equal justice system.”93 Simplifying the outdated and highly 

 
90 FRANKLIN H. WILLIAMS JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF THE NEW YORK STATE COURTS, REPORT ON 
THE NEW YORK CITY FAMILY COURTS, https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/IP/ethnic-
fairness/pdfs/FHW%20-%20Report%20on%20the%20NYC%20Family%20Courts%20-
%20Final%20Report.pdf [https://perma.cc/7WXX-RBEU] (the “Williams Commission Report”). 
 
91 Susan Desantis, New York State Bar Association Commences Lawsuit To Raise 18-B Rates, 
N.Y.S.B.A (Nov. 30, 2022) https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-sues-to-ensure-
people-who-cannot-afford-counsel-have-constitutionally-mandated-representation/ 
[https://perma.cc/948Q-VAYP]. In July 2022, a court injunction raised pay for 18-B counsel in 
New York City, and efforts remain underway to expand the increase outside the city, and to 
include funding for the raise in the New York State budget.  
 
92 Brian Lee, Legal Groups Encouraged by 'Partial Win' for Defense Counsel Pay Hike, N.Y. 
LAW J., May 4, 2023. https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2023/05/04/bar-groups-
encouraged-but-not-100-satisfied-with-partial-win-for-defense-counsel-pay-hike/ 
[https://perma.cc/L723-BKP4]. 
 
93 Talking About Court Reform & Simplification, The Fund For Modern Courts, THE N.Y. 
COMMUNITY TRUST https://simplifynycourts.org/talking-about-court-simplification 
[https://perma.cc/QH26-GTVD]. The Fund for Modern Courts explains the advantages of reform 
would be: 1) Interrelated issues could be decided in one court; 2) Resources would be allocated 
where they are most needed which would mean more judges in Family, Civil and Criminal 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

40 

inefficient court structure has proven difficult, however, because it requires a 
constitutional amendment, which in turn requires passage from two successive 
legislative sessions followed by a public referendum.94 There are, however, 
other reforms that can be implemented through legislation and by the Court 
itself. 

 
To address the “revolving door” of Family Court judges that, as explained 

above, causes disruption and delay, the New York City Bar Association has 
identified several recommendations in their comprehensive report, which 
include increasing the number of Family Court judges, providing them with 
better and more uniform training, and improving communication between OCA 
and the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary in order to avoid delay in 
the appointment process and to provide adequate notice of vacancies to the 
public.95 The report also recommends that OCA “collect, compile and analyze 
data in each county as to the length and frequency of delay caused by vacancies, 
which would help track caseload and staffing needs and would also help identify 
the causes of delay.”96 While this Conference strongly endorses these 
recommendations, it also contributes the perspective that the outrageous 
condition of the family courts also places domestic violence survivors and their 
children at greater risk of harm and of re-traumatization by the court system 
itself. 
 

C. Family Court’s Lack of Childcare Services and Other Supports 
for Low-Income Parents 

 
Access to the family courts and court resources is another way in which 

implicit bias manifests against domestic violence survivors who are 
predominantly women of color from low-income communities. For example, at 
the Conference, Justice Ellerin discussed how litigants who do not have (or 
cannot afford) reliable childcare are often forced to miss court hearings or are 
turned away at the court for attempting to bring their children with them. For a 
period of time, this issue was remedied through the operation of Children’s 
Centers inside the courts, where litigants could leave their children with 
appropriate care while they attended their court proceedings. Unfortunately, in 
recent years budget reductions have eliminated this service in many courts. This 

 
Courts; 3) There would be greater opportunities in the Appellate Division which would draw from 
a bigger pool of Supreme Court Justices; 4) A five-year implementation period would allow an 
orderly process for change; and 5) Court Administration could be standardized and streamlined. 
 
94 N.Y. Const. art. XIX, § 1. 
 
95 Family Court Report, supra note 83, at 25. 
 
96 Id. 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

41 

one issue has significant ramifications for all participants in an overburdened 
system and should remain an issue of central importance to advocates for 
judicial reform. 

 
The Conference also cited the economic disadvantages faced by women 

litigants, who often hold jobs with inflexible hours and who may recently have 
re-entered the workforce to achieve financial independence, especially in the 
domestic violence arena where economic control and restrictions/monitoring of 
outside employment are commonplace. In such circumstances, the inability to 
miss work or to not be paid for taking off an hourly shift poses too great a 
burden on litigants who otherwise would actively participate in their cases.  

 
The Conference also discussed the need for accessible, high quality 

interpretation services in court, the absence of which has a disproportionate 
impact on low-income, immigrant litigants and impedes their ability to 
successfully litigate. 

 
D. Impact of COVID-19 on Court Administration 
 

In early 2020, the Family Court operated much as it had for many decades. 
With no electronic filing system in place, petitions had to be filed in person. If 
litigants needed a court document or help in filing papers, they had to show up 
in person at the clerk’s office to make a request. Court staff did not even have 
the ability to work from home. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that 
when the pandemic struck, a court with an insufficient number of judges and 
inadequate staffing levels and burdened with limited resources and technology, 
would face difficulty functioning and challenges transitioning to a virtual 
model. This is especially true given the high volume of cases: in 2019, there 
were a total of 192,000 new Family Court filings across the City’s five 
counties.97 Without the benefit of any increased funding or resources during the 
pandemic, the Family Court had to make difficult decisions which, as described 
below, severely impacted vulnerable populations. 

 
1. Essential v. Non-Essential Matters 

 
During COVID-19, the Court distinguished between matters it deemed 

“essential,” including orders of protection and certain child protective and 
delinquency proceedings, and those it deemed “non-essential,” including 
visitation, custody, adoption, guardianship, and support matters. While 

 
97 The Impact of COVID-19 on the New York City Family Court: Recommendations on Improving 
Access to Justice for All Litigants, THE ASS’N OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF N.Y. 6 (JAN. 2022), 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/documents.nycbar.org/files/Final_Family_Court_Report_22.2.4.pdf 
[https://perma.cc/SBS2-MQZW] (hereinafter “COVID Report”). 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

42 

“essential” matters proceeded, non-essential matters stagnated for months, many 
for almost a year, without being calendared. The Court heard certain “non-
essential” matters to the extent they qualified as an “emergency,” but that term 
was never defined nor broadly applied. Furthermore, the best way to attempt to 
have a case heard as an emergency is to file an order to show cause, something 
only an attorney would have the legal knowledge to do. As a result, the vast 
majority of the litigants—especially unrepresented litigants who make up 80% 
or more of the court population—had virtually no access to the Family Court. 

 
As the pandemic progressed and especially as other New York courts were 

transitioning to virtual proceedings, the distinction between “essential” and 
“non-essential” matters in Family Court became more and more arbitrary. Thus, 
it is impossible to explain to a mother trying to provide food for her children or 
the survivor of domestic violence without the means to leave an abusive 
household that their child support cases were somehow “non-essential” and that 
their lack of access to the Court was somehow justifiable.  

 
Panelist Karla George, Deputy Director of the Family Law Project at the 

Bronx Family Justice Center for Sanctuary for Families, shared a compelling 
experience from her practice. An abusive father who had a finding of neglect 
against him took the children away from Ms. George’s client, a survivor of 
domestic violence. When Ms. George called the Administration for Children’s 
Services (“ACS”), they refused to remove the children from the father as the 
situation was not considered an “emergency.” Despite the fact that the daughter 
constantly texted the mother about feeling unsafe and having suicidal ideations, 
ACS refused to take action, and when Ms. George filed an order to show cause 
with the Family Court, it was denied, as the Court categorized the situation as 
“non-essential.”. 

 
The effects of COVID were often felt even when “emergency” matters were 

taken up by the Family Court. Christine Perumal, then the Director of the Safe 
Horizon Domestic Violence Project, provided an example where she filed an 
order to show cause in a pending custody case where there was concern for the 
safety of her client’s daughter. Ms. Perumal explained that it took the Court 
about four weeks to schedule the order to show cause on what could have been a 
life-or-death situation for the child. When Ms. Perumal followed up, she was 
told that there was limited capacity, that the judge did not have a court attorney, 
and that she should check back in with the petition room. Ms. Perumal 
recounted the stories of other survivors who contacted Safe Horizon and stated 
that the inability to obtain child support orders and payments during the 
pandemic forced them to remain in a household with an abuser, so as to not be 
left without resources while seeking safety. 

 
2. Virtual Proceedings and Access to Justice 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

43 

As highlighted by the pandemic, nowhere is the disparity among New 
York’s various trial courts more profound than in the use of technology. Many 
New York courts transitioned relatively smoothly to remote proceedings, 
including the Supreme Court which, in divorce proceedings, even addressed 
many of the same family law issues as the Family Court. While the Supreme 
Court had embraced electronic filing and had the capacity for remote 
proceedings leading up to the pandemic, the same was not true for the Family 
Court. In addition, Family Court personnel were not even equipped with the 
technology to enable them to work from home.”98 As discussed above, this 
epitomizes what former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson 
observed in his groundbreaking report on racial justice in the New York Courts 
system as a “second-class system of justice for people of color in New York 
State.”99 

 
While COVID-19 exposed weaknesses and inequities in the court system, it 

also underscored the importance of technology in furthering access to justice. 
Panelist Joan Gerhardt, NYSCADV’s Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, 
explained some of the advantages of remote proceedings for survivors of 
domestic violence. Avoiding a trip to the courthouse means not having to take a 
day off from work and makes child care concerns more manageable. It also 
provides physical separation from abusers who otherwise would be in close 
proximity both in the courtroom and the waiting area, reducing both the 
anticipatory anxiety of court dates and trauma experienced by survivors from in-
person experiences. 

 
However, special considerations must be taken into account as remote 

proceedings become a permanent fixture in Family Court. Some litigants do not 
have access to technology, a reliable internet connection or a safe place to 
access court proceedings remotely. There is also a lack of technical support 
from the court, making it difficult for some to navigate remote proceedings. 
Cases have been compromised and even dismissed as a result of these issues. 
This is especially of concern when English is not the litigant’s first language. 
Also of concern is that the expansion of remote proceedings has occurred 
without any uniform rules about when and how these proceedings should be 
conducted and without sufficient training for judges and staff. 

 
E. Vicarious Trauma 

 
98 COVID Report, supra note 97, at 4. 
 
99 Id. at 25 n.37. The report further notes the following: “Making matters worse, the Family Court 
struggled to develop an effective system to disseminate updates and guidance to the public. 
People were turned away from courthouses with limited information. Even now, the Family 
Court’s website provides limited and often unclear information on the status of the Court’s 
operations and offers only limited guidance for unrepresented litigants.” Id. at 5. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

44 

 
Trauma in the court system also extends beyond survivors, and affects 

social workers, lawyers, and other professionals who routinely engage with 
survivors about their trauma and work closely with them throughout their cases. 
As discussed in the panel, Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding 
Vicarious Trauma & Enhancing Support for Providers, the issue of vicarious 
trauma (clinically referred to as Secondary Traumatic Stress) is particularly 
acute for attorneys, and, as one conference panelist observed, has become a 
“workplace hazard” for those who work and appear in Family Court.  

 
In an empirical study on secondary traumatic stress, lawyers—compared to 

mental health professionals and social workers—ranked highest in levels of 
secondary traumatic stress, burnout, and caseloads with traumatized clients.100 
Family Court attorneys and court personnel, who face traumatic client 
experiences in their work on a daily basis,101 frequently report symptoms 
associated with vicarious trauma, including irritability, emotional detachment or 
exhaustion, secretive self-medication, and over-vigilance.102 Typically, the 
effects of this secondhand or vicarious trauma manifest over a period of years, 
reflecting the cumulative, transformative effects of working with survivors in a 
cycle of trauma. This trauma may be particularly acute for women and people of 
color, who often share intersecting experiences of trauma with their clients 
based upon experiences of race and/or gender bias. 

 
Accordingly, courts must be trained in identifying the manifestations of 

trauma and secondary trauma among litigants, attorneys, and court personnel 
themselves. Indeed, at the conference Professor Joan Meier posited that judges 
themselves may be responding to vicarious trauma from handling voluminous 
dockets involving abuse when they minimize survivors’ experiences. When 

 
100 Mark Rabila, Dawn McQuistona & Kimberly D. Wiseman, Secondary Trauma in Lawyering: 
Stories, Studies, and Strategies, 56 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 825, 832 (2021) (citing Andrew P. 
Levin & Scott Greisberg, Vicarious Trauma in Attorneys, 24 PACE L. REV. 245, 250 (2003)). 
 
101 See, e.g., Jennifer Baum, Compassion Fatigue: Caveat Caregiver?, AMERICAN BAR 
ASSOCIATION (Jan. 13, 2016), 
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/childrens-
rights/articles/2016/compassion-fatigue-caveat-caregiver/ [https://perma.cc/J9ZM-HC3R]; 
Jennifer Brobst, The Impact of Secondary Traumatic Stress Among Family Attorneys Working 
with Trauma-Exposed Clients: Implications for Practice and Professional Responsibility, 10 J. 
HEALTH & BIOMEDICAL L. 1 (2014); William Silverman, Coping With Secondary Trauma From 
Pro Bono Work, LAW 360 (Aug. 9, 2021), 
https://www.law360.com/pulse/articles/1408481[https://perma.cc/CE5T-VHMM]. 
 
102 Compassion Fatigue, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, 
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/lawyer_assistance/resources/compassion_fatigue/ 
[https://perma.cc/XRV6-ZNN2] (last accessed Oct. 4, 2022). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

45 

courts come to understand the manifestations of trauma in the courtroom, case 
outcomes will more closely align with the needs of litigants and subject 
children. 
 

F. Key Recommendations for Increasing Resources and 
Modernizing the Court System: 

 
1. End Rotation of Judges Through Family Court: 

 
Rotating judges through the Family Court for temporary 
assignments causes massive turnover of judges’ entire case 
dockets. Litigants whose lives have been laid bare to one jurist 
suddenly have a new jurist with no knowledge of the family 
history. The new judge might not be adequately trained. 
 

2. Expand Mandated Domestic Violence Training to Members 
of the Judiciary Throughout the Court System:  

 
Expanding domestic violence training to all judges 
acknowledges the reality that domestic violence impacts 
litigants throughout the legal system. 
 

3. Attract Quality Talent Committed to Serving in the Family 
Court: 
 
Family Court should not be a mere stepping stone toward more 
prestigious court appointments. The mayoral committee must 
find judges who are deeply committed to the Family Court, 
want to remain there and will undergo the necessary training to 
succeed.  

 
4. Increase Resources, Modernize the Family Courts: 

 
The Family Courts must be allocated more resources to address 
the profound operational problems and institutional inequities 
that lead to unjust outcomes and appalling litigant experiences. 
Court simplification and unification would ameliorate the gross 
imbalance of resources faced by the Family Courts as compared 
to other courts by reducing costs, centralizing administration 
and providing greater access to qualified judges. However, 
Conference participants were aware that the process necessary 
to fully reform and unify the court system would be long, 
complex, and challenging. In the interim, and to immediately 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

46 

address the current problems with the overburdened Family 
Court system, resources from other courts should be redirected 
to the Family Courts now and additional court reforms be 
implemented. These include:  
 

a. Increase the number of judges with long-term 
assignments in the Family Courts, and require full 
training, including on the dynamics of domestic 
violence. 
 

b. Increase funding for adequate staffing of clerks, court 
attorneys, and other personnel to put on equal footing 
with other courts; 

 
c. Address language barriers for litigants; 

 
d. Improve accessibility of virtual proceedings by 

bridging the digital divide (the gap between those who 
have internet access and those who do not) and 
enabling accessibility for those with limited 
technological abilities;  

 
e. Adopt NYSCEF, which is used effectively in the 

Supreme Court and other trial courts across the state. 
Until that system is in place, the Court should grant 
UCMS access to all attorneys in Family Court, 
including nonprofit legal services agencies representing 
low-income litigants. Court staff should be made 
available in person and remotely to help unrepresented 
litigants file documents; 

 
f. Modernize the Office for Court Administration (OCA) 

website to be more transparent, user-friendly and 
informative, providing information including advance 
notice regarding appointments and reassignment of 
judges, posting easily understandable basic court 
information in multiple languages, such as filings, court 
appearances, scheduling/deadlines, and related court 
requirements. 

 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

47 

5. Institute a system for tracking and investigating litigant 
complaints of bias and unfair treatment by judges, court 
personnel and the court system, and providing notice of 
outcomes of investigations. 
 

6. Fund and develop programs to address vicarious trauma to 
recognize its impacts as a workplace hazard/issue among 
advocates, attorneys, and court personnel. 
 

7. Institute coordinated community response for stakeholders, 
including law enforcement, courts, and domestic violence 
advocates. 

 
V. Lack of administrative oversight of judges, uniform court rules, 
transparent mechanisms to report misconduct by judges and court 
staff, and a viable appellate mechanism for improper interim decisions 

 
The New York State Family Court system suffers from a lack of 

transparency and methods of oversight. There are few official protocols that are 
consistent across courts, and judges are afforded wide discretion in how they 
manage their courtrooms. For example, there is a lack of uniform procedural 
rules that specify the methods by which litigants introduce various forms of 
evidence in virtual and in-person proceedings. Nor are there rules that clarify 
when virtual proceedings are available, including proceedings by phone. This 
lack of accountability and consistency allows bias and other judicial 
mistreatment to go unchecked. Moreover, whether due to shortcomings in 
training, unfamiliarity with the family court system, error, or a failure to abide 
by a rule of judicial conduct,103 including, but not limited to, a misapprehension 
of the role of the judge as a neutral arbiter, or making inappropriate or 

 
103 See Part 100. JUDICIAL CONDUCT, RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, NEW YORK 
STATE UNIFIED COURTS, 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100, 
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml [https://perma.cc/DU6T-NDWX] (provide 
guidance to judges and candidates for elective judicial office and provide a structure for regulating 
conduct through disciplinary agencies). The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct is 
the independent state agency, established under New York State law, that will review a complaint, 
and, if a complaint proceeds to a final Determination, the Commission’s actions can include 
dismissal of charges, issuance of a letter of caution, admonition, censure, or removal from office. 
See N.Y. State Comm’n on Jud. Conduct, https://cjc.ny.gov/ [https://perma.cc/CN22-JP3V]. 
Notably, many of the individuals who preside in Family Court matters in New York State are not 
“judges” who are subject to the Commission’s disciplinary system, including Support Magistrates 
and Referees. However, these individuals are employees of the Unified Court System and can be 
subject to disciplinary action through the supervising or administrative judge of the court in which 
they serve, and through the Inspector General of the Unified Court System. 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

48 

humiliating statements towards a litigant,104 panelists described the barriers that 
prevent litigants and attorneys from obtaining full relief through the court 
system. 

 
As conference panelist Robert Tembeckjian, Administrator & Counsel, 

NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, explained, when judges behave 
improperly, litigants or counsel can file a formal complaint with the New York 
State Commission on Judicial Conduct. If proven, the result can be a decision to 
admonish, censure, or remove the judge. This solution has multiple drawbacks. 
Often, attorneys are reluctant to report or invoke available disciplinary 
procedures, for fear of delaying or undermining claims within a particular case, 
or of retribution—either within the court system overall or by a particular judge. 
Also, this process does not apply to a judicial ruling within a case itself, such as 
where a judge’s application of the law threatens the health or safety of litigants 
or subject children. In those instances, even if such interim or final order was 
the result of an improper departure from application of the law that constituted 
misconduct or of bias or conflict of interest, that ruling still must be addressed 
by re-argument or appeal. 

 
Moreover, with regard to judicial decisions, the current appellate process is 

insufficient for temporary orders, which are put in place by judges early on and 
can stay in place for years during the pendency of a case until a final result is 
reached. The challenge is that temporary orders are often issued with very little 
background information or in some instances, by coerced agreement of the 
parties. As discussed above, long delays in cases result in temporary orders 
remaining in place for years, thus becoming the status quo. The temporary order 
then becomes exceedingly difficult to undo, even at times in the face of 
evidence that it was inappropriate in the first place. Moreover, since a temporary 
order granting or denying custody is not a final order, it is not appealable as of 
right. The only recourse for litigants in this predicament is to obtain permission 
for an interim appeal, the process of which is strict, confusing, and not easily 
obtainable.  

 
A. Key Recommendations for Selection, Training and 
Accountability of Judges and Court Personnel 

 

 
104 For example, a decision of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct removed a 
judge from office after finding that he or she violated the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct by 
failing to comply with the law when he did not inform several Family Court litigants of their right 
to an attorney, and also by making “inappropriate comments of a sexual nature while presiding 
over” a proceeding in a Treatment Court. Matter of Abramson, 2010 WL 4485946 (N.Y. Comm’n 
on Jud. Conduct). 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

49 

Judges presiding over family law cases in the Family and Supreme Courts 
should be knowledgeable in family law and family procedure, and have an 
understanding of domestic violence, child abuse and related trauma. This should 
be the case both for judges assigned to family court on an interim basis and 
those taking the bench longer-term. The application process should require that 
applicants demonstrate an awareness of bias and facility with cultural 
sensitivity. 

 
1. Require annual, enhanced training on legal updates and 

related family law issues for judges presiding in Family 
Court: 
 
This training would address judges’ misapplication of the law 
when presiding over custody/visitation cases. The process 
would also require annual training requirements on substantive 
law, family court procedure, understanding of domestic 
violence, child abuse and related trauma, as well as robust anti-
bias training. Such training must include segments addressing: 

 
i. “parental alienation” as a commonly-raised defense 

when a litigant raises safety concerns, and the 
gendered aspects of how alienation allegations are 
considered; 
 

ii. coercive control and lethality factors, to move away 
from “incident-based” view of domestic violence; 
 

iii. the opportunities provided for under the law for a 
subject child’s views and safety concerns to be heard 
directly by the Court, through an attorney for the child 
or directly to the Court through testimony or 
interviews in camera; 
 

iv. vicarious trauma and how it may impact counsel, court 
staff, and the judiciary itself; 
 

v. all judges should be trained in domestic violence, not 
only those in the Family Court. 

 
2. Establish Uniform Procedural Rules: 

 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

50 

There should be uniform procedural rules across parts, 
including for evidence/exhibits, virtual proceedings, and all 
other aspects of court procedure. 

 
3. Commission a Study: 

 
Examine long-term impact of Family Court 
experience/decisions on a diverse range of subject children, for 
presentation to judges and court personnel. 

 
4. Temporary/Interim Determinations:  

 
There should be transparency regarding the factors that a judge 
considers in making temporary/interim determinations and a 
process for interim appeal of such decisions.  

 
5. Broaden Access to Information about Available 

Disciplinary Tools for Judicial Misconduct:  
 
The court system should provide litigants and counsel with 
easily accessible information about when and how complaints 
can be made. 

 
VI. Insufficient Training of Judges and Court Personnel in Family 
Law, Domestic Violence and Trauma 

 
Conference panelists agree that enhanced training of judges and court 

personnel in family law, domestic violence and trauma is crucial to transforming 
the current family law systems. In topics ranging from bias to coercive control 
to custody law, panelists described experiences in which judges, court 
personnel, forensic evaluators, court-appointed attorneys and others have 
displayed a need for training in these areas. Therefore, training has been 
integrated in the key recommendations in every section of this report.  
 

CONCLUSION 
 
The New York family law system will continue to marginalize domestic 

violence survivors and their families unless a multi-faceted reform strategy is 
implemented to address the numerous barriers to justice. It is our hope that the 
broader domestic violence community will be successful in its efforts to 
advocate for meaningful reforms that will not only achieve equitable treatment 
of survivors, but also ensure the safety and protection for survivors and their 
children.   



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

51 

APPENDIX A: FAMILY LAW ROUNDTABLE AND CONFERENCE 
 

Jennifer Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project & Policy 
at Sanctuary for Families, launched this initiative and led the Conference 
alongside Jennifer Barry, Legal Volunteer, Sanctuary for Families’ Legal 
Center. The work of the Conference flowed from a previously convened Family 
Law Roundtable led by Friedman and Barry, consisting of lawyers from the 
following organizations which provide legal services to domestic violence 
survivors and their families in New York City: Sanctuary for Families, New 
York Legal Assistance Group, Her Justice, Safe Horizon, and Proskauer Rose 
LLP, a law firm which provided pro bono support to the Roundtable. The vast 
majority of clients served by these organizations are low-income or indigent 
women of color residing in New York City, and a significant proportion are 
immigrants. Maya Grosz, an independent consultant, facilitator and former 
family law practitioner and legal educator (who is now the Director of Training 
at NYLAG), facilitated the Roundtable meetings. 
 

The law firms of Proskauer Rose LLP and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
hosted the Conference. Pro bono support in the preparation of this Report was 
provided by Proskauer Rose LLP and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. 
 

I. Roundtable Participants: 
 

A. Shani Adess, Vice President, NYLAG  
 
B. Jennifer Barry, Legal Volunteer, Sanctuary for Families 
 
C. Rachel Braunstein, Director, Policy, Her Justice 
 
D. Anna Maria Diamanti, Director, Family and Matrimonial Practice, 
Her Justice  
 
E. Jennifer C. Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project 
& Policy, Sanctuary for Families 
 
F. Karla George, Associate Program Director, Family Law Project, 
Sanctuary for Families  
 
G. Maya Grosz, Director of Training, NYLAG 
 
H. Barbra Kryszko, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project, 
Sanctuary for Families 
 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

52 

I. Christine Perumal, Former Director, Safe Horizon Domestic Violence 
Project, Safe Horizon 
 
J. William C. Silverman, Partner and Head of Pro Bono, Proskauer 
Rose LLP, and Chair, The Fund for Modern Courts 
 
K. Lisa Vara, Director, Matrimonial and Economic Justice Project and 
Cynthia B. Rubin Matrimonial Fellow, Sanctuary for Families 

 
II. Conference Co-Sponsors: 

 
A. Bronx Women’s Bar Association 
 
B. Day One 
 
C. Empire Justice Center 
 
D. Lawyers Committee Against Domestic Violence 
 
E. Legal Services NYC 
 
F. New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 
 
G. Pace Women’s Justice Center 
 
H. The Legal Aid Society, Civil 
 
I. Urban Justice Center 

 
III. Conference Agenda 

 
A. DAY 1: 

 
Welcoming Remarks 
 

● William C. Silverman, Partner and Head of Pro Bono at Proskauer Rose 
LLP, and Chair of The Fund for Modern Courts 

● Jennifer C. Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project & 
Policy, Sanctuary for Families 

 
Keynote Panel 1: Addressing Inequity and Injustice in the Family Law 
System 
 
Moderator:  



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

53 

● The Hon. Judy Harris Kluger, Executive Director, Sanctuary for 
Families 

 
Speakers: 

● Hon. Troy K. Webber, Associate Justice, New York Supreme Court 
Appellate Division First Judicial Department 

● The Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Chair, New York State Judicial 
Committee on Women in the Courts 

 
Keynote Panel 2: How Bias Manifests in New York State’s Family Law 
System 
 
Moderator:  

● Hamra Ahmad, Director of Law and Policy, Her Justice 
 
Speakers: 

● Shain Filcher, Executive Director, LGBT Bar Association & 
Foundation of New York ("LeGaL") 

● Jacqueline Franchetti, Executive Director & Kyra’s Mom, Kyra’s 
Champions 

● Linda Lopez, Deputy Director, CBWLS, Sanctuary for Families 
● Dr. Carolyn M. Springer, Associate Professor, Gordon F. Derner School 

of Psychology, Adelphi University 
 
Lunchtime Keynote 
 
Introduction: 

● Dorchen Leidholdt, Director, CBWLS, Sanctuary for Families 
 
Speaker: 

● Stephanie McGraw, Founder CEO, W.A.R.M. (We All Really Matter) 
 
Aligning the Law with Today’s Conceptions of Domestic Violence: 
Coercive Control, Lethality, and Femicide 
 
Moderator:  

● Jennifer C. Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project & 
Policy, Sanctuary for Families 

 
Speakers: 

● Paula Cohen, Senior Attorney, Supporting Families Workgroup, Legal 
Aid Foundation of Los Angeles (LAFLA) 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

54 

● Anna Maria Diamanti, Director of the Family and Matrimonial Practice, 
Her Justice 

● Dr. Chitra Raghavan, Professor of Psychology and Director of The 
Forensic Mental Health Counseling Program, John Jay College 

● Tanya Selvaratnam, Writer and Emmy-Nominated Producer 
 

Fixing What’s Broken: Reforming the System 
 
Moderator:  

● William C. Silverman, Partner and Head of Pro Bono at Proskauer Rose 
LLP, and Chair of The Fund for Modern Courts 

 
Speakers: 

● Karla S. George, Deputy Director, Bronx Family Law Project, 
Sanctuary for Families 

● Denise Kronstadt, Deputy Executive Director/Director of Advocacy and 
Policy, The Fund for Modern Courts 

● Christine Perumal, Former Director, Safe Horizon Domestic Violence 
Project 

● Joan Gerhardt, Director, Public Policy and Advocacy, NYSCADV 
 

B. DAY 2: 
 
Welcoming Remarks: 
 

● Mylan Dennerstein, Partner, Gibson Dunn 
 
Protecting the Child: Focus on Intimate Partner Violence and Custody 
Law 
 
Moderator: 

● Angela Yeboah, Advocacy Services Program Manager, Fairfax County 
Division for Domestic and Sexual Violence Services (DSVS) 
 

Speakers: 
● Kara Bellew, Partner, Rower LLC 
● Ally Cable, Founder, Center for Judicial Excellence (CJE) Youth Speak 
● The Hon. Anne-Marie Jolly, Administrative Judge, New York City 

Family Court 
● Joan Meier, National Family Violence Law Center Professor of Law, 

George Washington University Law School 
● Michael Scherz, Director, Domestic Violence Project, Lawyers for 

Children 
 



44.1 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW  

 

55 

Spotlight on Justice Initiatives: 
● The Hon. Edwina Mendelson, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for 

Justice Initiatives, NYS Office of Court Administration 
 
Promoting Equity from the Bench: Judicial Selection, Oversight and 
Training 
 
Moderator: 

● Hon. Shahabuddeen A. Ally, Supervising Judge/Acting Justice of 
Supreme Court, New York County Civil Court 

 
Speakers: 

● The Hon. Juanita Bing Newton, Retired Judge, New York Court of 
Claims 

● Savina P. Playter, President, Bronx Women's Bar Association 
● Robert H. Tembeckjian, Administrator & Counsel, NYS Commission 

on Judicial Conduct 
● The Hon. Tamra Walker, Family Court Judge 

 
Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding Vicarious Trauma & 
Enhancing Support for Providers 
 
Moderator: 

● Lisa Alexander, Former Supervising Attorney, Day One 
 

Speakers: 
● Hawthorne Emery Smith, Director, Bellevue Program for Survivors of 

Torture 
● Victoria Goodlof, Senior Staff Attorney, NYLAG, Coordinating 

Attorney, Community Outreach and Clinics* 
● Dorcas Miller, Senior Trainer, Safe Horizon 
● Josie Torielli, LCSW 

 
Advocacy Planning 
 
Moderator: 

● Maya Grosz, Director of Training, NYLAG 
 
Speakers: 
 

● Shani Adess, Vice President, NYLAG 
● Hamra Ahmad, Director of Law and Policy, Her Justice 
● Anna Maria Diamanti, Director of the Family and Matrimonial Practice, 

Her Justice 



 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF GENDER & LAW 44.1 

 

56 

● Jennifer C. Friedman, Senior Program Director, Family Law Project & 
Policy, Sanctuary for Families 

● Karla S. George, Deputy Director, Bronx Family Law Project, 
Sanctuary for Families 

● Christine Perumal, Former Director, Safe Horizon Domestic Violence 
Project 

● Lisa Vara, Director, Matrimonial and Economic Justice Project and 
Cynthia B. Rubin Matrimonial Fellow for Sanctuary for Families