search | site index | faq | about us | what's new
Jill Davies
Attorney
National Resources Center on Domestic
Violence/PCADV (800-537-2238)
with valuable assistance from members of the Welfare and Domestic Violence Technical Assistance National Workgroup 1
Publication Date: Not Available
Note:Welfare and Domestic Violence Technical Assistance Initiative, Paper 1 of 2
This practice paper series, developed by the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is part of an initiative to provide technical assistance to state administrators and domestic violence advocates implementing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) in TANF and child support enforcement (CSE) contexts. This initiative is a partnership between the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRC) and the Administration for Children and Families, DHHS.
The purpose of this series is to provide practical information that will help states implement welfare and child support enforcement reforms that promote both the safety and self-sufficiency of battered women 2 and other domestic violence victims.
Welfare reform has raised new opportunities, challenges and uncertainties. The range and pace of the change makes it difficult to predict the effects on battered women and their families. As with many aspects of welfare reform, there are more questions about the intersection of domestic violence and welfare than there are answers. As state programs, pilot projects, and research proceed, the NRC will continue to update and incorporate new information and make it available to you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions.
The first two papers in the series discuss interrelated issues and are designed to compliment each other. Practice Paper # 1 includes background information about domestic violence and the options battered women need to be safe and self-sufficient, and concise discussions of key implementation issues. Practice Paper # 2 provides detailed guidance on developing family violence protocols for: the disclosure of domestic violence information; TANF/CSE program response to such disclosures; and the safe enforcement of child support when family violence may be a risk. Future practice papers will address other family violence protocol areas, such as training, state implementation of Federal Parent Locator Service privacy protections, and welfare-to-work initiatives.
Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of assaultive and coercive behaviors, including physical, sexual, and psychological attacks, as well as economic coercion, that adults and adolescents use against their intimate partners 3 . The overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women abused by a male partner 4 . However, formal definitions and statistics do not convey the complexity and difficulty of the lives of battered women and their children. When building opportunities for battered women's safety and self-sufficiency, it is critical to understand both the risks battered women face because of their partner's behavior, and the safety plans battered women use to try to reduce those risks.
Note: For the purposes of this paper series, domestic violence and family violence will be used interchangeably. In addition to the risks and obstacles faced by all poor people, poor battered women face an additional set of risks created by their partners' behavior. These are batterer-generated risks. (For more information see the Appendix: Safety Planning .)
A common image of a domestic violence victim is a woman with a black eye and bruised face. Domestic violence is often understood as solely or primarily physical violence. However, physical violence is just one of the tactics used by batterers to control their partners, and therefore it is just one of the risks battered women and their children face. Batterers' controlling behavior may also cause risks to the children, psychological harm, the loss of housing, health care, employment, or current standard of living. (See Battered Women's Risk Analysis Chart in the Appendix: Safety Planning .) In addition, some battered women may not consider the physical violence they are experiencing to be their greatest risk. For example, some battered women may see risks to the children or the loss of financial support as their greatest danger.
A battered woman will face one set of batterer-generated risks if she stays in the relationship and a different set if she leaves. Leaving a relationship does not guarantee the reduction or elimination of violence, threats, or other risks. For some battered women, leaving may create new risks or increase existing ones.
Battered women continually analyze the risks they face. Part of a battered woman's risk analysis is consideration of the effect that staying in or leaving the relationship will have on those risks. A question frequently asked about battered women is, "Why do they stay?"
This question does not reflect the real issues and considerations a battered woman must face. In contrast, the questions a battered woman may ask herself are more complete, such as: "Should I stay and risk the violence?" "If I leave will the violence be worse?" "Should I leave and place myself and my children in poverty?" "Should I leave and risk losing my children in a custody battle?"
Beth and Don have been together for two years and have a 1-year old daughter. Don made all the decisions in the family, and when Beth tried to assert herself, Don beat her up "to show her who is boss." Beth left Don right after their daughter was born. Don then harassed and threatened Beth at her job until she was fired. He also filed for custody of their daughter alleging that Beth was a bad mother. Don told Beth, "If the judge gives you custody, I'll make sure you never see your daughter again."
Discussion: Beth left Don because he hit her. Beth faced new risks once she left, including the loss of her daughter. For Beth, the risk of losing her daughter was her greatest concern. Don knew this and continued his control by using their daughter. Don caused Beth to lose her job, knowing this would undermine her ability to fight for custody and independently provide for herself and her daughter. He then filed for custody, knowing Beth would not separate from her daughter.
Typically, when a battered woman experiences a batterer-generated risk, such as physical violence, she tries to figure out why it happened and how to keep it from happening again.
She may develop a number of strategies to reduce or eliminate the risk. She may reach out to family or friends, try to talk with her partner about what happened, seek the help of a domestic violence project, counselor, employer, or clergy person. These strategies are "safety plans," although few battered women would actually use that phrase. Each battered woman faces different risks and has different options and resources. Therefore, each woman's safety plan will be unique.
Battered women use complex and creative safety plans to reduce the risks that they and their children face. As any person making a significant life decision, battered women must consider the consequences of pursuing certain options.
Such consequences may make a particular option useless or raise additional risks the battered woman must address in her plan. Although most battered women understand the risks they face and develop useful strategies to address them, some battered women do not. A battered woman may have an incomplete analysis of the risks surrounding her. In addition, some safety plans may be incomplete and some are based on inaccurate assumptions and information. For some battered women, mental health issues including drug/alcohol abuse will affect their ability to do accurate risk analysis and safety planning.
Tina has left her partner several times. The first time she left she became homeless and rather than living on the street she went back. The next time she left she had a job, but couldn't find child care after he said he wouldn't watch the kids anymore.
Tina needs a job and child care.
Keisha plans to leave her abusive partner once she saves enough money to get her own place. Her partner steals money from her and keeps her from getting a job so she can't leave.
Keisha needs money and affordable housing so she can move and go to work without interference.
Dawn attends a welfare-to-work program but misses class regularly because she is afraid to leave her children alone with their alcoholic, abusive father when he's been drinking. He hits her any time she talks about other child care arrangements. She's thought about filing for custody, but is afraid she'll lose because her partner spends more time with the children than she does.
Dawn needs advocacy, legal representation/advice, and time to pursue the options that will protect her and her children. This might mean flexibility by her welfare-to-work program or temporary relief from the requirement that she participate. If Dawn is able to gain custody of the children and protection from her partner, she will also need child care in order to work or participate in work activities.
Lisa has survived many years of abuse, first as a child by her parents and then as an adult by her partner. Lisa has not been able to keep a job for more than a few days.
Lisa needs financial support and a skilled response to the effects of years of victimization until she is either able to support herself through work or is determined to be permanently disabled.
Elsa left her abusive partner a year ago. When the state contacted him about child support, he beat her up. He told her, "If you don't stop this, you'll never see your kids again."
Elsa needs a child support enforcement strategy that protects her and her children.
As these examples illustrate, each battered woman faces different risks and therefore has different needs for safety and self-sufficiency. Because each battered woman's risks are different, determining what battered women need must be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no formula for safety or self-sufficiency. Options that may work for one woman will increase danger for another. For example, leaving a relationship can increase risks for some battered women and their children and diminish them for others. In addition, particular responses may vary greatly from one jurisdiction to another. For example, the prosecutor in one jurisdiction may work hard to prosecute batterers and protect victims, and a prosecutor in another jurisdiction may just immediately dismiss domestic violence cases.
In some cases, determining what a particular battered woman needs will be as simple as asking her. Some battered women will know exactly what they need to be safe and self-sufficient. Others may need advocacy to explore their risks and options and develop a safety strategy. Working with battered women to enhance their safety plans can be complex. It begins with understanding her risk analysis and current safety plans and then requires a skilled integration of additional information and options. It is work best done by trained advocates who can provide battered women confidential opportunities to explore their risks and plans.
Like all people, battered women have basic needs for housing, food, health care, and physical safety. Like all people, they also need the basics of human dignity - privacy, opportunity, and self-determination.
These broad needs can be refined into more specific responses that will enhance safety and self-sufficiency, such as:
TANF/CSE program domestic violence response
This might include: process for confidential and voluntary disclosure of domestic violence; program flexibility to meet battered women's safety needs; confidential records, including the protection of her address and other information from her partner; specially trained staff to respond to domestic violence disclosures.
Employment
Battered women who can work need jobs that pay a living wage and provide health insurance for themselves and their children. To obtain and maintain such a job, a battered woman might need: job training or other educational opportunities to obtain employment; a job site at which she will be safe from interference or attack by her abusive partner/ex-partner; child care; housing; transportation; or flexible work activities or temporary time free from required work activities to allow her to respond to her children's needs, attend court hearings, participate in counseling, or take other action that will enhance her safety and self-sufficiency.
Services and advocacy to enhance safety
This might include: relocation services; confidential advocacy, shelter, and other domestic violence support services; legal representation in divorce, custody/visitation, protective order, immigration, or related issues; effective enforcement of criminal laws and court orders to help free her from her partner's control and keep her and the children safe.
Battered women need a wide range of responses to enhance their safety and self-sufficiency. It is unrealistic to expect that TANF/CSE programs alone will provide all that battered women and their children need. To be successful, TANF/CSE programs will need to build their response to domestic violence in collaboration with domestic violence advocates and others. In addition, the response will need to connect with and expand existing advocacy and service networks.
There is a growing understanding that some - but not all - battered women will need a different response from TANF/CSE programs in order to be safe and self-sufficient. This response could include:
Numerous state efforts are underway to expand access to existing domestic violence services and to develop new services to help battered applicants/recipients. In addition, the majority of states and territories have already adopted some form of temporary relief by certifying implementation of the Family Violence Option or passing similar statutory provisions.
There is considerable debate over how to get the available services and temporary relief to the battered women who need them.
This may be difficult. The inherent risks and realities of domestic violence mean certain approaches may increase danger or be ineffective.
As the examples above illustrate, even well meaning approaches can cause unintended harm. One time notices may not work. Poorly trained or insensitive workers can help to reinforce a batterer's threats to his partner that, "no one will believe you." A batterer may use a range of physical, psychological and sexual attacks to control his partner's interactions with a worker. In addition, each battered woman will have different feelings about telling a welfare or CSE worker about her experiences. Some will appreciate that someone cares enough to ask, others will find it extremely difficult, and some may never feel comfortable enough to disclose the domestic violence they are dealing with.
Battered women who do not need services or temporary relief have no reason to disclose domestic violence to a TANF/CSE program. In addition, some battered women may disclose but are unable to meet the program requirements for temporary relief. Therefore, it is essential that battered women have the opportunity to make informed decisions about disclosing domestic violence information and that all disclosures are truly voluntary.
States are exploring a variety of approaches in their response to family violence. Two principal strategies that allow for voluntary and informed disclosure are universal notification and screening for voluntary disclosure of domestic violence .
Universal notification provides all applicants and recipients with information about domestic violence and the options and services that are available to victims. The notice also provides information about how to apply for temporary relief from program requirements.
Screening for voluntary disclosure of domestic violence means a trained worker asks an applicant/ recipient a number of domestic violence related questions and it is up to the applicant/recipient whether or not to answer the questions. This opportunity might happen at the initial intake and at other points in the program when the worker interacts with the woman. To ensure voluntary disclosure, the worker first explains why s/he is asking the questions, what s/he will do with the information the applicant/recipient provides, and clearly states that the applicant/recipient does not have to answer the questions. The domestic violence questions might be quite simple, such as: "Are you afraid of your partner or ex-partner?" "Has he done anything to hurt or scare you?"
These two strategies are not mutually exclusive. A program could provide both universal notification and screening for voluntary disclosure. For example, a worker might affirmatively ask questions once an applicant or recipient brings up safety or other concerns regarding program requirements.
Building options for safety and self-sufficiency will require the performance of a number of tasks, which might include: provision of universal notification, screening for voluntary disclosure of domestic violence, identification of relevant services and resources, responding to domestic violence disclosures, reviewing applications for temporary relief, and implementation of strategies to safely enforce child support. A key implementation issue facing administrators is who will perform these tasks. There are a number of "realities" that will determine staffing, such as the number and workload of current staff, collective bargaining agreements or other employment parameters, and budgetary concerns. Some additional factors to consider are:
States are exploring three principal staffing approaches to implement family violence aspects of their TANF/CSE programs.
Staff trained and skilled in responding to family violence issues can be used in a variety of ways. One approach is for TANF/CSE program staff to provide basic family violence information and response to applicants/recipients and then refer those with family violence issues to specialized TANF/CSE staff. Another approach might be to use specialized staff in particular roles in the program, such as intake, assessment for services, or case management.
There are several strengths of a specialized staff approach:
There are also some key considerations:
This approach places responsibility for implementation of family violence protocols on existing staffing structures. Some states may already have staffing patterns that lend themselves to this work.
There are several strengths of a non-specialized staff approach:
There are also some key considerations:
Local community resources such as domestic violence shelter services can be integrated with TANF/CSE programs. This might mean that TANF/CSE program staff provide basic information and response and then refer applicants/recipients with family violence issues to community resources. It could also mean that a particular task or role, such as identifying the services battered applicants/recipients need, is carried out by a community agency.
There are several strengths of an approach that utilizes community resources:
There are also some key considerations:
There are a number of reasons why states might consider making the pursuit of safety options a program requirement for battered applicants/recipients. These might include a belief that women will not take action on their own behalf unless it is a requirement, and/or that everyone must "do something" in order to receive assistance. In addition, each program has its own unique "carrot and stick" approach to welfare reform/CSE which may affect this decision.
Requiring the pursuit of safety options can be inappropriate or have unintended negative consequences for battered women. Before implementing such a requirement, agencies should consider the following:
Battered women should not be held responsible for a batterer's behavior.
Batterers cause domestic violence, not battered women. Therefore, requiring a battered woman to stop the violence of a batterer is inappropriate. For example, requiring her to keep her partner from interfering with her work activities is making her responsible for his behavior.
Battered women should not be required to pursue options that do not enhance their safety or increase their risks.
Some options do not enhance safety for some women. Battered women's safety plans must be customized to their particular risks, the nature of their partner/ex-partner's abuse, and the options available. There is no one safety plan or option that will reduce all battered women's risks. In addition, the pursuit of a particular option may increase some risks for some women.
Example: Protection orders
Protection orders issued by criminal or civil courts can enhance the safety of some women, but do not work for all. Some of the reasons a protection order might not work are:
Battered women should not be required to pursue options that are unavailable or beyond their control to access.
Some options are not available. Options, such as a domestic violence shelter, may not exist in some regions or an agency may not have the resources to meet the need. Access to the services may also be a problem if transportation is unavailable, unaffordable, or takes too much time from the woman's other responsibilities. For example, the bus ride to the support group at the domestic violence program takes two hours and does not return her in time to meet her children coming home from school. Some options have certain eligibility requirements, such as income limits, geographic requirements, or meeting the agency's definition of who they serve. For example, some domestic violence agencies will not serve people actively abusing substances and other agencies are only for people who have a substance abuse problem. Drug treatment facilities may not allow a woman to bring her child, forcing her to "give up her children" in order to get help.
A number of safety options have specific legal requirements that must be met before a court will order them. For example, protection orders typically require a certain relationship between the batterer and victim, a particular type of violence to have occurred, certain papers to be filed, and the batterer to be given official notice of the court hearing. Any one of these could keep a battered woman from getting the protection order and some are beyond her control (e.g., a batterer who avoids "official notice" in order to keep her from getting the order).
It is also important to remember that at the time a battered woman is talking to a TANF/CSE agency, she may not know the availability, eligibility requirements, or legal requirements related to a particular option. Therefore, she might agree to pursue an option only to find out later that it is unavailable or inaccessible to her.
This section focuses on child support enforcement safety issues for battered mothers who are applicants/recipients of TANF programs. Battered mothers who are not currently involved with the TANF system may also have safety concerns regarding enforcement, and some of the provisions discussed will affect them.
In general, the PRWORA tries to streamline and automate the child support process and institute a more aggressive approach to establishing paternity and collecting child support. In addition, the PRWORA made changes in the following areas:
Cooperation/Good Cause
Databases
Paternity Establishment
More effective child support enforcement can provide essential financial security to the children of battered women. Child support can also enhance the safety and security of the childrens' battered mothers. However, enhanced enforcement may also raise significant safety concerns for some battered women and their children. A more detailed discussion of the safety considerations regarding cooperation, databases, and paternity establishment follows.
Given the time limits on TANF assistance and the overall benefits of child support, many battered women will actively "cooperate" with the State to enforce child support and establish paternity. However, some battered women may not cooperate because it will increase the risk of violence or because they are unable to do so.
Examples include:
The privacy and safety issues for battered women raised by the CSE databases will be the topic of a future paper in this series. An overview of the some of the key issues is included below.
The PRWORA introduces and strengthens a number of provisions to automate child support enforcement and make it easier to find absent parents. A key strategy is the development of new databases and the integration of databases. These include state new hire directory, state case registry, and the federal parent locator service which includes the national directory of new hires and Federal Case Registry of Child Support Orders. In addition to establishing these databases, the PRWORA requires that information in the various databases be regularly compared. When the comparison reveals a match, a report is then to be made to the state agency responsible for the case.
To the extent these databases and services help enforce proper court orders, they will be a great benefit to the children of battered women. However, if a battered woman is in hiding to protect herself and/or her children, then these databases may make it easier for an abusive ex-partner to find her. This situation may also arise when a batterer has the child and is seeking child support from the child's mother who is hiding from him for her safety.
The PRWORA contains strong language restricting disclosure and use of the information in the Federal Parent Locator Service 11 and other databases 12 . However, before the privacy protections can be achieved, there are a number of implementation issues to resolve, including computer information systems. State procedures and systems are essential to the implementation process.
Databases also allow for significant automation of the enforcement process. Computers will seek and attach assets of delinquent obligors. This could cause unintended negative consequences for a battered mother unaware of this approach.
Rita divorced Manny four years ago. Manny was ordered to pay $40 per week child support as part of the divorce, but he "disappeared" after making a few months of payments, and Rita doesn't know where he is. Since Manny paid for awhile, she thought it would be safe to cooperate with child support enforcement. They couldn't find him for three years, but through a new automated process they find Manny and attach all his bank accounts. Manny calls Rita and threatens to fight for custody if he loses any money.
Establishing paternity can bring significant benefits to a child. It might mean the child's father will be more involved in the child's life in a positive way. It can also lead to child support, medical insurance and other essential assistance. However, sometimes paternity establishment can lead to complications that can harm the child and endanger the child's mother as well.
Given the importance of child support to children, it is essential that support be pursued whenever possible. Many battered mothers will want child support enforced, and some will not. If child support enforcement will increase a battered mother's or child's danger, current approaches generally force her to choose between two alternatives: 1) enforce the support and face the danger; or 2) do not enforce child support. In addition, battered mothers who need TANF assistance will need to ask for a good cause exception to the cooperation requirement. In order to meet the important goals of child support enforcement and to avoid "rewarding" batterers for their threats and violence, states might consider developing a third option - safely enforcing child support . This means that an enforcement strategy would be developed with the battered mother that would reduce the danger to her and the children.
Examples include:
Jeanette is afraid her child's father will find her if the state establishes paternity and enforces child support.
CSE meets with Jeanette and together they develop a strategy that will keep her address from certain child support records. CSE also flags Jeanette's address in the state's database and reports this to the Federal Parent Locator Service. CSE takes the actions necessary to ensure that the child's father won't find out when and where Jeanette will give samples for the paternity test. Jeanette develops a safety plan for the child support hearings, at which she may have contact with her child's father.
Gwen is a year old. Her father Tony is an alcoholic and slaps Gwen if she cries. Gwen's mother Sema is afraid to ask for child support because she believes Tony will want visitation with Gwen.
CSE meets with Sema to talk about her concerns. CSE agrees not to pursue child support while Sema seeks a court order protecting Gwen. They also give her the numbers of several agencies that might help her get such an order.
Developing such customized strategies may be difficult given the automation of enforcement currently underway. A key challenge is to develop a system that can pull particular cases out of the "assembly line" and pursue them individually.
As services and temporary relief provisions are put in place to enhance battered women's safety and self-sufficiency, some TANF/CSE administrators and others have expressed concern that those who do not need such help will try to obtain it by falsely "claiming they are battered." Fear of wholesale improper use of TANF/CSE domestic violence services and provisions have led some programs to establish very high legal standards, require extensive documentation of domestic violence, and limit information and notice about services and temporary relief available. Early statistics from current TANF/CSE domestic violence responses indicate that such fears may be unwarranted.
The Massachusetts experience:
In November 1997, the Massachusetts' TANF program mailed notices about domestic violence waivers along with other general notices 13 to every TANF recipient, approximately 78,000 notices. From September 1997 to February 4, 1998, only 68 individuals requested a domestic violence waiver.
Findings from Denver, Colorado:
Over 400 AFDC applicants completed brief questionnaires administered by Eligibility and Child Support Technicians associated with the Model Office Project at the Denver Department of Social Services. Ninety-four applicants (23%) claimed to be abused by the father of their child/ren. Fifty-one applicants (12%) agreed with the statement "If I try to get child support, my child's father will harm me." However, only 1% of the applicants actually submitted an application for good cause 14 . This study shows a low application rate for good cause exceptions, but also raises serious concerns about the applicants who thought they may be in danger but did not apply.
These results are preliminary and there is still a great deal to be learned about battered women using the TANF/CSE programs, including the types of responses they need, the best way to give battered women access to these responses, and the number of women in need of each response.
However, procedures that "err" on the side of fraud protection over access may have unintended negative consequences. Fraud protections such as high legal standards and requiring extensive corroborating evidence can also "screen out" those who should be getting the help but can't meet the standards. For example, there a numerous reasons why poor battered women may not be able to produce specific documentation, including:
The stakes are very high for poor battered women who need domestic violence services or temporary relief and can not meet the standards. Therefore, it is important to balance fraud protection with providing meaningful access to help.
It is also important to remember that batterers sometimes coerce and threaten their partners into fraudulent activities. For example, he may threaten to hurt her if she tells the welfare office that she has a job because he doesn't want the amount of assistance to be reduced. In addition, some batterers give their partners money so they can use the threat of "turning them in" to further their control.
This paper was prepared under a grant from the Department of Health and Human Services (ACF Order-970082) and with the valuable assistance of the Welfare and Domestic Violence Technical Assistance National Workgroup. The points of view expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of DHHS or workgroup participants.
Workgroup participants included:
Kevin Aguirre, Oregon Child Support Enforcement
Division; Joan Entmacher, National Partnership on Women
and Families; Valorie Faretra, Massachusetts Dept. of
Transitional Assistance; Susan Greenblatt, OCSE, DHHS;
Janne Hellgren, Massachusetts Coalition of Battered
Women's Services Groups; Yvonne Howard, OFA, DHHS;
Shirley Iverson, Oregon Adult and Family Services;
Kathleen Krenek, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic
Violence; Marilyn Leonard, Minnesota Department of
Social Services; Gina McClard, Oregon Coalition Against
Domestic and Sexual Violence; Anne Menard, National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence; Susan Notar,
OCSE, DHHS; Jeanne Raffesberger, Minnesota Coalition
for Battered Women; Marilyn Ray Smith, Massachusetts
Child Support Enforcement Division; Bill Riley, OCS,
DHHS; Paula Roberts, Center for Law and Social Policy;
Marilynn Sager, Massachusetts Child Support Enforcement
Division, Jerry Silverman, ASPE, DHHS.
42 U.S.C. 653(b): No information [from the Federal Parent Locator Service] shall be disclosed to any person if the State has notified the Secretary that the State has reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such information could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child of such parent, provided that:
(A) in response to a request from an authorized person (as defined in subsection (c) of this section and section 663(d)(2) of this title), the Secretary shall advise the authorized person that the Secretary has been notified that there is reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse and that information can only be disclosed to a court or an agent of a court pursuant to subparagraph (B); and (B) information may be disclosed to a court or an agent of a court described in subsection (c)(2) of this section or section 663(d)(2)(B) of this title, if (i) upon receipt of information from the Secretary, the court determines whether disclosure to any other person of that information could be harmful to the parent or the child; and (ii) if the court determines that disclosure of such information to any other person could be harmful, the court and its agents shall not make any such disclosure.
42 U.S.C. 654: A state plan for child and spousal support must ... (26) have in effect safeguards, applicable to all confidential information handled by the State agency, that are designed to protect the privacy rights of the parties, including:
(A) safeguards against unauthorized use or disclosure of information relating to proceedings or actions to establish paternity, or to establish, modify, or enforce support, or to make or enforce a child custody determination;
(B) prohibitions against the release of information on the whereabouts of 1 party or the child to another party against whom a protective order with respect to the former party or the child has been entered;
(C) prohibitions against the release of information on the whereabouts of 1 party or the child to another person if the State has reason to believe that the release of the information to that person may result in physical or emotional harm to the party or the child. [FN2]
(D) in cases in which the prohibitions under subparagraphs (B) and (C) apply, the requirement to notify the Secretary, for purposes of section 653(b)(2) of this title, that the State has reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse against a party or the child and that the disclosure of such information could be harmful to the party or the child; and
(E) procedures providing that when the Secretary discloses information about a parent or child to a State court or an agent of a State court described in section 653(c)(2) or 663(d)(2)(B) of this title, and advises that court or agent that the Secretary has been notified that there is reasonable evidence of domestic violence or child abuse pursuant to section 653(b)(2) of this title, the court shall determine whether disclosure to any other person of information received from the Secretary could be harmful to the parent or child and, if the court determines that disclosure to any other person could be harmful, the court and its agents shall not make any such disclosure; This method of sending combined notices was used to diminish the risk to a battered recipient whose abusive partner might see the domestic violence notice and think his partner had requested the information or disclosed domestic violence information.
This document was not developed by Violence Against Women Online Resources. The document's author or sponsoring organization granted VAWOR permission for placement on this site. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This web site is a cooperative project of Office on Violence Against Women and Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse at the University of Minnesota and is supported by grant number 98-WT-VX-K001 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Additional information about this site can be obtained by reading Email us for more information and assistance.
©Copyright 1998-2005 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse (MINCAVA)
File Last Modified on: 6