eNews

Bernard of Chartes was a 12^th century French philosopher and teacher. He is credited with the metaphor that modern thinkers are but ‘dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants’. Isaac Newton adapted this metaphor in the 17^th century when he wrote in a letter: ‘if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.’

This metaphor applies not just to modern thinkers, but to modern leaders.

As your new President, at this very humbling highlight in my life as a family law professional, I too feel that I am standing on the shoulders of giants. I stand on the shoulders of the past presidents of this great organisation, foremost of whom is my colleague and friend, AFCC now past President, Hon. Dolores Bomrad. Her quiet wisdom, total selflessness, enormous insight and humility has steered AFCC into another successful year.

Families arrive in our courtrooms and offices at some of the hardest moments of their lives. Many carry histories of harm that long predate the case in front of us, and the legal process itself can stir those histories back to the surface. A trauma-informed lens helps us see this clearly. It does not ask every professional to become a therapist, and it does not ask us to set aside neutrality or critical judgment. It asks us to understand how adversity and fear shape behavior, and to do our work in a way that does not add to the harm.

What follows are ten practical considerations for bringing that lens to family court, whatever role we play. Judges, evaluators, mediators, parenting coordinators, minor's counsel, attorneys, and treating clinicians each have a different vantage point, but the lens is available to all of us.

There is always more to a separation or divorce case than the single overt incident that may have been “the last straw” provoking a couple to separate.

People who manage to escape an abusive relationship want safety first, for themselves and their children. Next, many long for justice.

Picture this: an attorney for the favored parent is convinced the other parent is dangerous and files emergency motions accordingly. A therapist working with the rejected parent shares, candidly, that they believe the child is being "brainwashed." The child's therapist, having only ever met with one parent, produces notes that read more like an advocacy document than a clinical record. Meanwhile, the family therapist — who was appointed to work with the whole system — is fielding calls from lawyers who want to know when she'll be "recommending" the child resume overnight visits. No one is collaborating. No one is certain what anyone else's role actually is. And the family, watching all of this unfold, is more entrenched than ever.

Sound familiar?