Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Focus group study reveals broad support for trauma-informed risk assessment tools in family court custody cases, highlighting the need for stakeholder education on implementation.
The study objective was to explore trauma-informed, transdisciplinary opinions on judicial decision-making and the utility of an evidence-based child abuse and neglect (CAN) risk assessment tool in family court settings. Through focus groups, we explored barriers and facilitators to judicial decision-making in family court CAN-related cases and if deploying such an assessment would be useful as compared to current decision-making processes in family court in child custody and visitation in CAN cases. We conducted six focus groups (N = 27) from May 2024 – October 2024 with key family court stakeholders: judges, attorneys who represent survivors and perpetrators, court staff, survivors of domestic violence and advocates. We analyzed the qualitative data utilizing framework analysis. All participants concurred that we need a different approach to determining custody decisions with CAN allegations and system-level changes to address highly fraught and trauma-filled cases. Participants voiced discordant opinions when discussing the “who” and “when” for the administration of an evidence-based assessment. Results highlight the opportunity to provide education on child maltreatment, domestic violence, and the use of evidence-based tools, such as the FAIR system, for court personnel and other professionals assisting families in the family court setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spearman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: