Amicus Curiae Brief — Tamra L. Lamprell, Petitioner v. Rex E. Stuckey

Supreme Court briefDec 3, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 19-577

================================================================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

-----------------------------------------------------------------TAMRA L. LAMPRELL,

Petitioner,

REX E. STUCKEY,

Respondent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To

The Court Of Appeals Of New Mexico

-----------------------------------------------------------------BRIEF OF BATTERED WOMEN’S

JUSTICE PROJECT AS AMICUS CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER

-----------------------------------------------------------------ELLIOT H. SCHERKER

BRIGID F. CECH SAMOLE

Counsel of Record

VANESSA PALACIO

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue

Suite 4100

Miami, FL 33131

305.579.0500

(F) 305.579.0717

CechSamoleB@gtlaw.com

SANDRA TIBBETTS MURPHY

GABRIELLE DAVIS

BATTERED WOMEN’S

JUSTICE PROJECT

1801 Nicollet Avenue South

Suite 102

Minneapolis, MN 55403

800.903.0111

(F) 612.824.8768

================================================================================================================

COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964

WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................

iii

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ...............................

STATEMENT OF AMICUS BATTERED WOMEN’S

JUSTICE PROJECT ...........................................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................

ARGUMENT ...........................................................

Family Courts Across the Country Rely on

Largely Impressionistic Evaluations Prepared by Outside Investigators, who Render Opinions on the Ultimate Issues of the

Case, Without Affording Parties Adequate

Due Process of Law .....................................

A. Evaluations are Inconsistent, Unregulated and Highly Impressionistic..........

B. These Investigations and Reports Are

Fraught with Due Process Concerns .... 10

II. These Due Process Concerns Are Exacerbated In Cases Involving Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence or Child Sexual

Abuse ............................................................ 17

A. Investigators’ Focus on Isolated Incidents Disguises Abuse and its Effects

on Parties and Children ........................ 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

B. Investigators’ Concentration on Physical Violence Alone Presents an Incomplete and Inaccurate Account of the

Parties’ and Children’s Experience of

Abuse ..................................................... 21

C. Investigators Subjectively Select and

Weigh Information During the Evaluation Process ............................................ 22

D. Investigators Often Mistakenly Consider Abuse Through the Lens of Other

Concepts ................................................. 24

E. Investigators’ Assumptions and Untested

Observations Are Often Described and

Treated as Facts to Support Their Custody Conclusions .................................... 25

III.

Notwithstanding These Common Infirmities, Evaluations Are Highly Influential and

Often Conclusive of Custody Cases ............. 26

CONCLUSION..................................................... 28

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) ................22

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) .....................2

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).......................16

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) .......................16

STATUTES

Colorado Rev. Stat. §14-10-116.5(1) .............................4

MCL 552.505(1)(g) ........................................................4

NMSA 1978 §40-12-3 ....................................................7

RULES

2019 California Rules of Court, Rule 5.220,

Court-Ordered Child Custody Evaluations............11

Alaska R.Civ.P. 90.6(a)..................................................4

California Family and Juvenile Court Rule

5.210 ..........................................................................4

Local Court Rule 15, Court of Common Pleas,

Domestic Relations Division, Lucas County,

OH .............................................................................4

Local Court Rule 407(4), Circuit Court, Dane

County, WI .................................................................4

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-125 .......................................4

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-125[E] ................................14

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

New Jersey Rules of Court, Rule 5:8-1, Investigation Before Award ................................................11

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3109.04(C) ...............................14

Ohio Sup. R. 48 (2009) ................................................11

Sup. Ct. R. 37.3 .............................................................1

Sup. Ct. R. 37.3(a) .........................................................1

Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 .............................................................1

Utah R. 4-903 (2016) ..................................................11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers,

Child Custody Evaluation Standards (2011) ..........6

American Psychological Association, Guidelines

for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law

Proceedings (2010) ....................................................6

Andrea Flynn & Kathryn Graham, Why Did It

Happen? A Review and Conceptual Framework for Research on Perpetrators’ and Victims’ Explanations for Intimate Partner Violence,

15 AGGRESSION & VIOL. BEHAVIOR 239 (2010) .........19

APA Guidelines, AFCC Model Standards, and

AAML Standards ......................................................8

Assessing Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse,

Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource and Poole,

D.A. & Lamb, M.E. (1998) .........................................9

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment (2009)............. 7, 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts,

Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (2006).................................. 4, 23, 24

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts,

Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (2007).......................................... 6, 7

Barbara J. Fidler, Nicholas Bala & Michael A.

Saini, CHILDREN WHO RESIST POSTSEPARATION

PARENTAL CONTACT 77 (Oxford University

Press 2013) ..............................................................19

CASA/GAL Association, https://casaforchildren.

org/our-work/the-casa-gal-model/ (last visited

Nov. 21, 2019) ............................................................4

Claire V. Crooks, Peter G. Jaffe & Nicholas Bala,

Factoring in the Effects of Children’s Exposure

to Domestic Violence in Determining Appropriate Postseparation Parenting Plans, in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE & CHILD CUSTODY (Hannah

& Goldstein eds.) Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, 2010 .............................................21

Colleen Varcoe & Lori G. Irwin, “If I Killed You,

I’d Get the Kids”: Women’s Survival and Protection Work with Child Custody and Access in

the Context of Woman Abuse, 27 Qualitative

Soc. 77 (2004)...........................................................18

Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directive

04-08, Directive Concerning Court Appointments of Child & Family Investigators to C.R.S.

14-10-116.5 ..............................................................11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court,

Probate and Family Court Department, Standards for Category F Guardian ad Litem Investigators (2005) ....................................................11

Custody and Parenting Time Investigation Manual, Michigan State Court Administrative Office, Friend of the Court Bureau (2018) ............. 6, 11

Cynthia Grover Hastings, Letting Down Their

Guard: What Guardians Ad Litem Should

Know About Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes, 24 B.C. THIRD WORLD L.J. 283

(2004) .........................................................................4

Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D., Kathleen C. Faller,

Ph.D., Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D., Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About Domestic Abuse

Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator

Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody Visitation Recommendations, National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/

pdffiles1/nij/grants/238891.pdf ...............................18

Deborah Epstein & Lisa A. Goodman, Discounting Credibility: Doubting the Testimony and

Dismissing the Experiences of Domestic Violence

Survivors and Other Women, 167 U. PENN. L.

REV. 399 (2019) ........................................................25

Domestic Violence as a Factor to be Considered

in Custody/Visitation Determinations (Nov.

13, 2013), http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/

files/chart-custody-dv-as-a-factor.pdf .....................17

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Ellen Pence et al., Mind the Gap: Accounting for

Domestic Abuse in Child Custody Evaluations

(2012) ............................................................... passim

Erica M. Woodin, Alina Sotskova & K. Daniel

O’Leary, Intimate Partner Violence Assessment

in an Historical Context: Divergent Approaches

and Opportunities for Progress, 69 SEX ROLES

120 (2013) ................................................................19

Family Court Services & Mediation, New Mexico

Courts, https://firstdistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/

family-court-services-mediation.aspx (last visited

Nov. 21, 2019) .................................................... 11, 12

George W. Holden, Children Exposed to Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Terminology and

Taxonomy, 6 CLINICAL CHILD & FAM. PSYCH.

REV. 151 (2003)........................................................17

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Prediction of Homicide

of and by Battered Women, in Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Batterers and Child

Abusers 92-98 (Jacquelyn C. Campbell ed., 2d

ed. 2007) ..................................................................23

James Bow, Review of Empirical Research on

Child Custody Practice, 3 J. Child Custody 23

(2006) ......................................................... 6, 9, 18, 26

James N. Bow & Paul Boxer, Assessing Allegations of Domestic Violence in Child Custody

Evaluations, 18 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 1394

(2003) .........................................................................5

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Jeffrey L. Edleson, Lyungai F. Mbilinyi & Sudha

Shetty, Parenting in the Context of Domestic

Violence, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (2003) ................18

Joan S. Meier, Sean Dickson, Chris O’Sullivan,

Leora Rosen & Jeffrey Hayes, Child Custody

Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations, GWU Law School

Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-56 (2019),

GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-56.

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=

3448062 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/3448062.......25

Leslie Eaton, For Arbiters in Custody Battles,

Wide Power and Little Scrutiny, New York

Times, May 23, 2004 ...............................................10

Marc J. Ackerman and Tracy Brey Pritzl, Child

Custody Evaluation Practices: A 20-Year Follow-Up. 49 FAM. CT. REV. 618 (2011) ........................5

Marcia M. Boumil, Cristina F. Freitas & Debbie

F. Freitas, Legal and Ethical Issues Confronting Guardian Ad Litem Practice, 13 J.L. &

FAM. STUD. 44 (2011) ...............................................13

Mary A. Kernic, Daphne J. Monary-Ernsdorff,

Jennifer K. Koepsell, & Victoria L. Holt, Children Caught in the Crossfire: Child Custody

Determinations Among Couples With a History

of Intimate Partner Violence, 11 VIOL. AGAINST

WOMEN 991 (2005) ...................................................17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Michael S. Davis, Chris S. O’Sullivan, Kim

Susser & Marjory D. Fields, Custody Evaluations When There Are Allegations of Domestic

Violence: Practices, Beliefs and Recommendations of Professional Evaluators 79 (2011), https://

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234465.pdf ......27

Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations

in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s

Guide, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV 16 (2006)..... 3, 4, 9, 10, 11

Patrizia Romito, A DEAFENING SILENCE: HIDDEN

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN,

Bristol UK: The Policy Press, 2008 .........................19

Penelope K. Trickett, Jennie G. Noll & Frank W.

Putnam, The Impact of Sexual Abuse on Female Development: Lessons from a Multigenerational, Longitudinal Research Study, 23

DEV. & PSYCH. 453 (2011) .......................................17

Peter Jaffe, Katreena Scott, Angelique Jenney,

Myrna Dawson, Anna-Lee Straatman, and

Marcie Campbell, Risk Factors for Children in

Situations of Family Violence in the Context of

Separation and Divorce, Department of Justice Canada (2015) ..................................................23

Raven Lidman & Betty Hollingsworth, The

Guardian ad Litem in Custody Cases: The

Contours of Our Legal System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 GEO. MASON L. REV. 255

(1998) ................................................... 5, 6, 10, 15, 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

Robert E. Emery, Randy K. Otto & William T.

O’Donohue, A Critical Assessment of Child

Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a

Flawed System, 6 Am. Psych. Soc. 1 (2005) ...... 10, 13

Sherry Hamby, David Finkelhor, Heather Turner,

and Richard Ormrod, Children’s Exposure to

Intimate Partner Violence and Other Family

Violence, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC

(2011) .......................................................................17

State-by-State Survey Related to Forensic Evaluators, Fordham Law School, Feerick Center

for Social Justice, March 2012 .............................. 4, 6

The Danger Assessment at http://www.danger

assessment.org/about.aspx .....................................23

Timothy M. Tippins & Jeffrey P. Wittmann, Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody

Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance, 43 FAM. CT. REV.

193 (2005) ................................................ 9, 10, 12, 26

Timothy M. Tippins, The Bar Won’t Raise Itself:

The Case for Evaluation Standards, New York

Law Journal, July 8, 2013 .........................................8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Page

TK Logan & Robert Walker, Child Custody Evaluations and Domestic Violence: Case Comparisons, 17 VIOL. & VICTIMS 719 (2002) ......................11

William G. Austin, Assessing Credibility in Allegations of Marital Violence in the High Conflict Custody Case, 38 FAM. CT. REV. 462 (2000) .......22

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE1

STATEMENT OF AMICUS BATTERED

WOMEN’S JUSTICE PROJECT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, the Battered Women’s Justice Project (“BWJP”), as amicus curiae, respectfully submits this brief in support of the

Petitioner.

The BWJP serves as a national resource center

on the civil and criminal legal responses to intimate

partner violence (“IPV”) and promotes systemic change

within these systems to create an effective and just

response to victims and perpetrators of IPV, as well

as the children exposed to this violence. BWJP provides resources and training to advocates, battered

women, legal system personnel, policymakers, and others engaged in the justice system response to intimate

partner violence (IPV). The BWJP is an affiliated member of the Domestic Violence Resource Network, a

group of national resource centers funded by the Department of Health and Human Services and other

support since 1993. The BWJP also serves as a designated technical assistance provider for the Office on

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a), all parties received appropriate notice of and consented to the filing of this

brief. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, no counsel for a party authored this

brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary

contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of

the brief. No person or entity, other than amicus, its members, or

its counsel, made a monetary contribution to the preparation or

submission of this brief.

Violence Against Women of the U.S. Department of

Justice.

------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case represents a gross infringement upon

basic due process rights of parents in family courts

across the nation: judicial reliance upon behind-thescenes investigations into the most private aspects of

family life without adequate notice or opportunity for

the parties to make or correct the record. Specifically,

family courts across the country appoint third parties

to gather information, report findings, and make recommendations to the court and then the court takes

action on those reports and recommendations without

first: (i) providing the parties with a copy of the findings and recommendations; (ii) entering the findings

into evidence; and/or (iii) providing the parties an

opportunity to question the third party investigator

about the quality or source of the information upon

which those findings and recommendations are based.

In this case, as has occurred in similarly-situated

cases all over the country, the court took extreme action based solely on the undisclosed—and unsupportable—report of a third party against a parent who

posed no direct or imminent threat to the minor child.

In doing so, the court violated the parent’s fundamental liberty interest to care for and have custody of her

child.2 To make matters worse, for fifteen months, the

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982).

court refused the parent the opportunity to challenge

the basis of the report that resulted in the court’s decision to place the child in the custody of the other parent who was, at the time, under investigation for

sexually abusing the child. This is a violation of the

parent’s due process rights that happens throughout

this country on a regular basis.

BWJP urges the Court to accept jurisdiction of this

case and require minimum due process guarantees

to be satisfied before a court can rely on a third-party

report to deprive a parent of custody of her or his child,

even on an interim basis, in the absence of a cognizable

emergency.

------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT

Family Courts Across the Country Rely on

Largely Impressionistic Evaluations Prepared by Outside Investigators, who Render Opinions on the Ultimate Issues of the

Case, Without Affording Parties Adequate

Due Process of Law.

A. Evaluations are Inconsistent, Unregulated and Highly Impressionistic.

Courts frequently rely on outside investigators to

gather information and report their findings to the court

in contested child custody cases.3 These investigators

Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with

Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide, National Council of Juvenile

go by many names, including “custody evaluators,”4

“court counselors,”5 “custody investigators,”6 “guardians ad litem,”7 “friends of the court,”8 “court-appointedspecial-advocates,”9 or—as in this case—“priority or

advisory consultants.”10 In addition to their many

different titles, these investigators come from many

different professional backgrounds, including: social

workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, lawyers, retired

judges, or simply volunteers.11 In most courtrooms

across the county, no standard education or formal

training is required of these investigators, apart from

the general continuing education demands of their professional licensing boards.12 In the few locations where

and Family Court Judges, Reno, NV 16 (2006) [hereinafter Navigating Custody].

Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation

(“Model Standards”), Association of Family & Conciliation Courts

(“AFCC”) (2006), Standard P-1 of the preamble, p. 6.

See, e.g., California Family and Juvenile Court Rule 5.210;

Local Court Rule 15, Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations

Division, Lucas County, OH; Local Court Rule 407(4), Circuit

Court, Dane County, WI.

See, e.g., Colorado Rev. Stat. §14-10-116.5(1); Alaska R.Civ.P.

90.6(a).

Cynthia Grover Hastings, Letting Down Their Guard: What

Guardians Ad Litem Should Know About Domestic Violence in

Child Custody Disputes, 24 B.C. THIRD WORLD L.J. 283 (2004).

MCL 552.505(1)(g).

CASA/GAL Association, https://casaforchildren.org/our-work/

the-casa-gal-model/ (last visited Nov. 21, 2019).

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-125.

Navigating Custody, supra note 3, at 16.

State-by-State Survey Related to Forensic Evaluators,

Fordham Law School, Feerick Center for Social Justice, March

training mandates do exist, they typically call on investigators to complete a certain number of continuing

education hours on a range of topics instead of expecting them to master a standard curriculum designed to

ensure a base level of professional competence.13

A national survey of custody evaluators found that

the vast majority learned their trade by attending conferences rather than through education:14

Ninety-five percent of the sample had received their training through seminars and

workshops. Only 13.3% received their training through internships, and 12.8% through

graduate courses. Only 4.3% had more than

300 hours of practicum experience in custody

evaluation work. As a result, we still have a

population of custody evaluators who were

largely self-trained, did not have formal course

work regarding custody evaluations, and are

male Ph.D.s.15

2012; accord James N. Bow & Paul Boxer, Assessing Allegations

of Domestic Violence in Child Custody Evaluations, 18 J. INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE 1394, 1400 (2003).

Bow & Boxer, supra note 11, at 1400; accord Raven Lidman & Betty Hollingsworth, The Guardian ad Litem in Custody

Cases: The Contours of Our Legal System Stretched Beyond Recognition, 6 GEO. MASON L. REV. 255, 276 (1998).

Marc J. Ackerman and Tracy Brey Pritzl, Child Custody

Evaluation Practices: A 20-Year Follow-Up. 49 FAM. CT. REV. 618

(2011).

Id. at 619 (emphasis added).

The same can be said of guardians ad litem, who

perform a similar function:

[m]ost courts and voluntary programs require

some type of training in order to qualify for

appointment as a guardian ad litem, but such

training could be as little as seven hours . . .

Even if the training is for up to forty hours . . .

very little time is spent on child development,

family dynamics during stress, and the other

substantive knowledge that one would expect

from an expert.16

These findings raise significant concerns “about

the adequacy and quality of the training in an extremely complex area, along with the level of competency attained by evaluators.”17

Given the diverse backgrounds and vague educational demands, professional practice in this field is

wildly inconsistent. This problem is compounded by

the fact that few standards exist to govern investigators’ work.18 Those that do are aspirational and unenforceable.19 Section 1.2 of the Model Standards,

Lidman & Hollingsworth, supra note 13, at 276.

James Bow, Review of Empirical Research on Child Custody Practice, 3 J. Child Custody 23, 46 (2006).

State-by-State Survey Related to Forensic Evaluators,

Fordham Law School, Feerick Center for Social Justice, March

2012.

E.g., American Psychological Association, Guidelines for

Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings (2010);

AFCC, Model Standards (2007); American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Child Custody Evaluation Standards (2011);

Custody and Parenting Time Investigation Manual, Michigan State

promulgated by the AFCC, is instructive. It provides

that:

AFCC believes it to be advisable that

our members conform their practices to

these Model Standards; however, AFCC

does not have an enforcement mechanism.20

Some states, like New Mexico, provide general

guidance to court-appointed investigators:

“advisory consultation” means a brief assessment about the parenting situation and a

written report summarizing the information

for the attorneys and the court, including an

assessment by the counselor of the positions,

situations and relationships of family members and suggestions regarding specific plans,

general issues or requested action;

“evaluation” means a complete assessment

that may include multiple interviews with

parents and children, psychological testing,

home visits and conferences with other appropriate professionals.21

Court Administrative Office, Friend of the Court Bureau (2018);

AFCC, Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment (2009).

AFCC Model Standards §1.2.

NMSA 1978 §40-12-3.

So, not only are there different kinds of investigations—ranging from very brief to relatively comprehensive22—but most of the actual work of investigators,

whatever the scope, is left to their own individual discretion.23 In addition, the work is often conducted in a

manner that is inconsistent with recommended practice. For example, a survey of 84 custody evaluators

from 28 states in cases involving child sexual abuse allegations found that:

Only about one-third of the respondents reported using sexual abuse or sex offender protocols during the evaluation process. Of those

who used such protocols, one-third developed

their own rather than using a well-established

sexual abuse protocol. Further, less than a

third of the respondents reported audiotaping

or videotaping the interviews with the alleged

victims. In addition, during the interviews

with alleged victims 67.5% of respondents reported using projective drawings and 47.5%

of them used play therapy as part of the

AFCC Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment §1.2 provides that brief focused assessments “differ from comprehensive

child custody evaluations in their narrower scope, more descriptive reporting of data and, consequently, more limited inference

making. Comprehensive evaluations, by contrast, are designed to

provide data on more broadly based questions about general family functioning and parenting capacity that are not appropriate to

the BFA model.”

E.g., APA Guidelines, AFCC Model Standards, and AAML

Standards; accord Timothy M. Tippins, The Bar Won’t Raise Itself: The Case for Evaluation Standards, New York Law Journal,

July 8, 2013.

diagnostic process, which is contrary to recommended practice.24

This survey confirms what those experienced in

family court know—that in the absence of standards

and protocols, many investigators just “wing it,” and

they “wing it” alone, without supervision or accountability.

Finally, notwithstanding these variations in procedures, experience and training, these court appointees all do roughly the same thing: they investigate the

parties’ situation and make a report to the court.25 In

most cases, they make a recommendation on the ultimate issue in the case,26 as the advisory consultant did

in the case below. This is done despite that fact that

“there is no evidence in the empirical literature that current interview protocols, traditional psychological tests,

or custody-specific tests are in any way able to reliably

predict child adjustment to different access plans. . . .”27

Many court observers, scholars, and experts in the

field condemn the practice of allowing non-judicial

Bow, supra note 17, at 23, 34-35 (citing Kuehnle, K.

(1996)); Assessing Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse, Sarasota,

FL: Professional Resource and Poole, D.A. & Lamb, M.E. (1998).

Navigating Custody, supra note 3, at 16.

Bow, supra note 17, at 29.

Timothy M. Tippins & Jeffrey P. Wittmann, Empirical and

Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for

Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance, 43 FAM. CT. REV. 193,

204 (2005) (citations excluded, emphasis added); see also Bow,

supra note 17.

investigators to make recommendations on the ultimate issue of the case.28

In sum, family courts across the country utilize a

variety of consultants, from a range of professional

backgrounds, with varying degrees of training, to conduct free-wheeling investigations and render opinions

on the ultimate issue of the case, with few standards

or systems of accountability in place, and with broad

protection from liability when something goes wrong.

Court-appointed investigators, therefore, are endowed

with tremendous power and discretion to determine

the fate of people’s lives. As one former family court

judge stated, “With some exceptions, I didn’t try a contested custody case without a forensic assessment. . . .

They were extremely helpful, even critical.”29

B. These Investigations and Reports Are

Fraught with Due Process Concerns.

These court appointees always conduct some sort of

assessment or investigation.30 According to the National

Tippins & Wittman, supra note 27; Lidman & Hollingsworth,

supra note 13; Robert E. Emery, Randy K. Otto & William T.

O’Donohue, A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations:

Limited Science and a Flawed System, 6 Am. Psych. Soc. 1

(2005).

Leslie Eaton, For Arbiters in Custody Battles, Wide Power

and Little Scrutiny, New York Times, May 23, 2004 (quoting

Philip C. Segal, retired Kings County family court judge, Brooklyn, NY).

Navigating Custody, supra note 3, at 16; Emery, Otto &

O’Donohue, supra note 28.

Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges, “[t]he core

function of investigators is to gather and interpret

information and report their findings to the court.”31

Thus, these investigators serve both a “fact-finding”

function and an “interpretive” function.

While some states provide guidance and direction

for court-appointed investigators,32 each investigator

typically decides individually how the investigation

will go. They determine which documents to review,

who to interview, what questions to ask, what leads to

pursue, what information to credit or disregard, what

other sources to consider, and how much time to devote

to the case.33 As is the case in New Mexico, parties

are normally required to sign a release allowing investigators to gain access to otherwise privileged information.34

Navigating Custody, supra note 3, at 16.

See, e.g., Colorado Supreme Court Chief Justice Directive

04-08, Directive Concerning Court Appointments of Child & Family Investigators to C.R.S. 14-10-116.5 (amended April 2011); Custody and Parenting Time Investigation Manual, supra note 19;

2019 California Rules of Court, Rule 5.220, Court-Ordered Child

Custody Evaluations; New Jersey Rules of Court, Rule 5:8-1, Investigation Before Award; Ohio Sup. R. 48 (2009); Utah R. 4-903

(2016); Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court, Probate

and Family Court Department, Standards for Category F Guardian ad Litem Investigators (2005).

See, e.g., TK Logan & Robert Walker, Child Custody Evaluations and Domestic Violence: Case Comparisons, 17 VIOL. &

VICTIMS 719, 726-729 (2002).

See, e.g., Family Court Services & Mediation, New Mexico

Courts, https://firstdistrictcourt.nmcourts.gov/family-court-servicesmediation.aspx (last visited Nov. 21, 2019).

Along with information-gathering authority, investigators often have the power to mandate that

parties undergo specialized assessments, such as psychological evaluations or substance abuse testing.35

Often, no court order or showing of cause is required.36

Investigators often rely on the results of such assessments—or their own interpretation of the results of

somebody else’s assessment—in rendering their opinions.37 Parties can be penalized for refusing to submit

to or fully cooperate with these mandates—if not by

outright contempt, then through the negative inferences an investigator might draw from the party’s

“noncompliance.”38

Leading experts in law and psychology have questioned these practices on both scientific and ethical

grounds:

We are in agreement . . . that there are profound definitional, assessment, reliability, and

validity problems associated with the interview protocols and psychological tests used in

custody matters that mean that . . . many erroneous inferences are likely presented to

courts on a regular basis.39

Id.

Tippins & Wittmann, supra note 27.

Id.

Id. at 198 (internal references omitted).

Many others point to the flawed science commonly

used to support such evaluations,40 including use of

some of the very psychological tests and personality inventories that the advisory consultant relied upon in

this case:

There is a large body of literature that debates the virtues of psychological testing, particularly as it applies to custody evaluations,

and nearly every jurisdiction has implemented

standards that impose substantial scrutiny of

the underlying data. Much of the controversy

centers on the fact that most standard psychological testing instruments were not specifically

created for custody evaluations. In particular,

the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI, versions 1 and 2) and the Rorschach Inkblot Technique have been widely

criticized.41

While these evaluative reports may appear to be

“scientific” and “evidence-based,” the reality is that the

“scientific foundation” upon which investigators commonly rely are highly questionable, especially where,

as here, the tests are not administered by the investigator himself.

In many cases, the parties do not know what

sources of information an investigator has considered,

relied upon, or overlooked. For this reason, certain

Emery, Otto & O’Donohue, supra note 28, at 1.

Marcia M. Boumil, Cristina F. Freitas & Debbie F. Freitas,

Legal and Ethical Issues Confronting Guardian Ad Litem Practice, 13 J.L. & FAM. STUD. 44, 60 (2011) (citations omitted).

courts have established some minimum safeguards

designed to provide the parties an opportunity to review the investigator’s report, correct any misinformation, and challenge its conclusions.42 But even

when such safeguards are in place, they are often not

followed. New Mexico has a court rule requiring the

advisory consultant to: (1) prepare a report; (2) serve

the report upon the parties; and (3) prepare and file

written recommendations with the court.43 The rule

further allows the parties to: (1) file objections to the

recommendations; (2) reply to the opposing party’s objections; (3) interview the consultant; and (4) attend a

hearing on the objections.44 None of that happened in

this case. Instead, the court acted on the advisory consultant’s report before it had been served upon the parties, before the consultant’s recommendations had been

filed with the court and entered into the record, before

the parties had any opportunity to read, or even raise

objections to, the consultant’s recommendations, and

without allowing the parties to question the consultant

about the basis for his recommendations.

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for parties to

learn about the substance and content of an investigator’s

See, e.g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3109.04(C) (“The report of

the investigation and examinations shall be made available to either parent or the parent’s counsel of record not less than five

days before trial, upon written request. The report shall be signed

by the investigator, and the investigator shall be subject to crossexamination by either parent concerning the contents of the report.”).

N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-125(E).

Id.

report and recommendations for the first time when

they arrive at court for a hearing.45 In the case below,

neither the parties nor their lawyers saw a copy of the

report until the court had issued its interim order, notwithstanding the fact that a rule was in place to prevent that very thing from happening. What makes this

case especially egregious is that neither the parties nor

the evaluator described an emergency that might, under certain circumstances, warrant relaxation of ordinary due process guarantees.

Instead, parties frequently confront a system that

permits an investigator to do things outside the courtroom that would never pass muster inside the courtroom, such as:

•

Considering “evidence” behind closed doors,

off the record, and without notice or an opportunity to challenge the source;

•

Relying on psychological test results conducted

by others that are sometimes improperly administered, misinterpreted, and misapplied

to the circumstances and not scientificallyrelevant to custody determinations—again,

without any opportunity to challenge the

source; and

•

Basing conclusions and recommendations on

unsworn, sometimes privileged, hearsay information that has not been offered or accepted into evidence.

Lidman & Hollingsworth, supra note 13, at 278.

To make matters worse, principles of qualified immunity often apply, resulting in a system in which investigators enjoy all the protections, but none of the

constitutional or procedural constraints, that govern

state actors who perform in-court functions.

This entire framework leaves parties without

due process. First, unregulated investigators conduct

secret inquisitions into the most private aspects of

their lives. Second, those investigators rely upon unsworn, ex parte, largely hearsay information that

would never withstand objection in a court of law to

draw conclusions about parenting and custody, which

are the ultimate issues in the case. And third, investigative reports—which are themselves hearsay—often

never make it into the record, nor are investigators

consistently subjected to cross-examination, before

the court acts on their reports. Parties, therefore, are

routinely left with no way to challenge or correct the

quality or completeness of the information that forms

the basis for the investigator’s opinions. In this way,

compounded procedural due process violations are institutionalized in cases involving fundamental substantive due process rights protected under the Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.46 Minimum due process guarantees—procedural

and substantive—should be satisfied before a court can

rely on an investigator’s report to deprive a parent of

custody of her or his child, even on an interim basis,

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972); Troxel v.

Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).

especially in the absence of a true emergency, which is

what occurred in the case below.

II.

These Due Process Concerns Are Exacerbated In Cases Involving Allegations of Intimate Partner Violence or Child Sexual Abuse.

Virtually every state requires family courts to

take domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual

abuse into account in determining the best interests of

the child.47 It is one of several statutory factors courts

must consider in developing parenting arrangements.48

The reason for this requirement is obvious: research

shows that domestic violence, child abuse, and child

sexual abuse (hereinafter, collectively referred to as

“abuse”) are detrimental to children.49

Domestic Violence as a Factor to be Considered in Custody/Visitation Determinations (Nov. 13, 2013), http://www.ncjfcj.

org/sites/default/files/chart-custody-dv-as-a-factor.pdf.

Id.

Sherry Hamby, David Finkelhor, Heather Turner, and Richard Ormrod, Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence

and Other Family Violence, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC (2011); accord George W. Holden, Children Exposed to Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Terminology

and Taxonomy, 6 CLINICAL CHILD & FAM. PSYCH. REV. 151, 156-158

(2003); Mary A. Kernic, Daphne J. Monary-Ernsdorff, Jennifer K.

Koepsell, & Victoria L. Holt, Children Caught in the Crossfire:

Child Custody Determinations Among Couples With a History of

Intimate Partner Violence, 11 VIOL. AGAINST WOMEN 991, 993

(2005); Penelope K. Trickett, Jennie G. Noll & Frank W. Putnam,

The Impact of Sexual Abuse on Female Development: Lessons from

Despite its significance in child custody cases,

court-appointed investigators frequently fail to consider

or properly account for abuse in evaluations, even when

such abuse is well-documented.50 In a meta-analysis of

empirical research on child custody practice, it was

observed that, “[c]hild abuse and DV were often documented in the court record but not addressed in the

evaluation report.”51 Many explanations for this troubling phenomenon were discussed in the previous section, including: poor training on the topic of abuse;52

few standardized investigation and assessment protocols;53 and lack of validated and reliable screening and

a Multigenerational, Longitudinal Research Study, 23 DEV. &

PSYCH. 453 (2011).

Bow, supra note 17, at 23; Colleen Varcoe & Lori G. Irwin,

“If I Killed You, I’d Get the Kids”: Women’s Survival and Protection Work with Child Custody and Access in the Context of Woman

Abuse, 27 Qualitative Soc. 77 (2004) (“The dynamics of violence

and the relationship and safety needs of women and children were

not taken into account in the provision of services and judgments

of parenting.”).

Bow, supra note 17, at 39.

Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D., Kathleen C. Faller, Ph.D., Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D., Child Custody Evaluators’ Beliefs About

Domestic Abuse Allegations: Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence Knowledge and Custody Visitation Recommendations, National Criminal Justice

Reference Service (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/

238891.pdf.

Bow, supra note 17, at 23, 45 (“Child custody evaluations

involving DV and/or sexual abuse allegations generally require

increased interview time, testing time, record review, and report

length. Of major concern was the lack of use of specialized assessment instruments or protocols in these evaluations.”); Jeffrey L.

Edleson, Lyungai F. Mbilinyi & Sudha Shetty, Parenting in the

assessment tools.54 However, the problem is far greater

and more complex.

Rather than elucidating for the court the full nature, context, and effects of abuse on families, consultants frequently do the opposite—they obscure the

abuse.55 This is most apparent when investigators:

(1) adopt a narrow, incident-specific focus on abuse;

(2) restrict their reporting to physical abuse alone;

(3) subjectively decide what information is important

and what is not; (4) subsume abuse under alternative

Context of Domestic Violence, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (2003) (“Assessing the impact of

violence on children and on parenting behaviors is a complex process for which few guidelines or protocols currently exist.”) p. 17.

Barbara J. Fidler, Nicholas Bala & Michael A. Saini, CHILDREN WHO RESIST POSTSEPARATION PARENTAL CONTACT 77 (Oxford

University Press 2013) (“Currently, there is a lack of reliable or

valid assessment protocols and measures for alienation . . . there

are some measures of alienation in current use that have some

utility, but none have been demonstrated in research studies

to have reliability or validity.”); Erica M. Woodin, Alina Sotskova

& K. Daniel O’Leary, Intimate Partner Violence Assessment in an

Historical Context: Divergent Approaches and Opportunities for

Progress, 69 SEX ROLES 120 (2013) (“No scale is sufficient for evaluating all aspects of IPV.”); Andrea Flynn & Kathryn Graham,

Why Did It Happen? A Review and Conceptual Framework for Research on Perpetrators’ and Victims’ Explanations for Intimate

Partner Violence, 15 AGGRESSION & VIOL. BEHAVIOR 239 (2010)

(“Lack of a comprehensive and psychometrically-sound instrument for measuring motivations of partner violence has resulted

in a body of literature characterized by inconsistencies and wide

gaps in knowledge.”).

Ellen Pence et al., Mind the Gap: Accounting for Domestic

Abuse in Child Custody Evaluations (2012); accord Patrizia Romito, A DEAFENING SILENCE: HIDDEN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

AND CHILDREN, Bristol UK: The Policy Press, 2008.

frameworks, such as “mental illness,” “parental alienation,” “restrictive gatekeeping,” and “high conflict”; and

(5) substitute their own personal assumptions, values,

and beliefs for “facts” in a case.56 These common shortcomings occur in evaluations every day, all across the

country—and, they are precisely the shortcomings

that occurred in the advisory consultation in this case.

The alarming frequency with which these problems occur demand that minimum standards of due process be

satisfied before courts act on investigators’ reports.

A. Investigators’ Focus on Isolated Incidents

Disguises Abuse and its Effects on Parties

and Children.

Investigators describe abuse in the most cursory

way, limiting their consideration to one or two incidents and yet failing to describe for the court what

happened during those incidents. Rather, the reports

often refer to “an allegation of abuse,” or “an incident

of abuse,” or they might say that “an incident occurred,” or “abuse was disclosed.” Reporting abuse as

an isolated event, without explaining what is alleged

to have happened or considering whether it is part of a

larger pattern or history of abuse, fails to identify for

the court how abuse might affect: (1) the current and

future health, safety and wellbeing of children; (2) the

parenting capacities of the parties; or (3) the ability of

the parents to successfully share parenting responsibilities.

Pence et al., supra note 55.

Without an opportunity to review the investigator’s report prior to court action, the parties have no

way of explaining or contextualizing their lived experience for the court. In many cases, courts take extreme

action based on inaccurate, incomplete, and untested

information.57 Minimum standards of due process

should ensure that things like this do not happen in a

court of law especially where no true emergency is alleged.

B. Investigators’ Concentration on Physical Violence Alone Presents an Incomplete and Inaccurate Account of the

Parties’ and Children’s Experience of

Abuse.

Not uncommonly, investigation reports focus exclusively on physical abuse, without regard to other

non-physical forms of abuse, such as coercive control,

psychological or emotional abuse, or—when it comes to

children in particular—exposure to (or actual use of a

child in the production or consumption of ) pornography.58 When investigators concentrate exclusively on

physical abuse, they often miss other critical information about the parties and their relationships. In

Claire V. Crooks, Peter G. Jaffe & Nicholas Bala, Factoring in the Effects of Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence in

Determining Appropriate Postseparation Parenting Plans, in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE & CHILD CUSTODY (Hannah & Goldstein

eds.) Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, 2010 (p. 22-1, et

seq.).

Pence et al., supra note 55.

addition, investigators tend to spend more time discussing the nature and timing of disclosures of abuse

than on the nature and context of the abuse itself.59 As

a result, investigators often gloss over abusive behaviors in ways that make a protective parent’s responses

seem unjustified or incomprehensible.

Without an opportunity to review the investigator’s report prior to court action, especially in the absence of a true emergency, the parties cannot know

whether the facts are complete and accurate. Minimum standards of due process are necessary to ensure

that court decisions are based on a reasonably reliable

record.60

C. Investigators Subjectively Select and

Weigh Information During the Evaluation Process.

A fundamental component of the investigator’s

work is deciding what information concerning alleged

abuse should be gathered and what information related to abuse “counts.” This work often disregards

research on the full range of behaviors, as well as

Id.; see also William G. Austin, Assessing Credibility in

Allegations of Marital Violence in the High Conflict Custody Case,

38 FAM. CT. REV. 462 (2000).

Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (due process requires notices and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner).

risk and lethality factors, associated with abuse.61 Inevitably, investigators must decide what information

to include in their reports and how much weight to accord conflicting information. The process by which they

perform this task, however, is often hidden from the

parties and even the court. Too often, neither the parties nor the court can tell from reading a report what

information the investigator considered, what information the investigator credited or rejected, what

weight the investigator gave to conflicting information

(and why), and what information was missing altogether.62

The Model Standards instruct evaluators to “explain how different sources and different types of information were considered and weighted in the

formulation of their opinions.”63 The Model Standards

further direct evaluators to:

. . . explain the relationship between information gathered, their data interpretations,

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Prediction of Homicide of and

by Battered Women, in Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by

Batterers and Child Abusers 92-98, 93 fig. 5.2 (Jacquelyn C.

Campbell ed., 2d ed. 2007). See also The Danger Assessment at

http://www.dangerassessment.org/about.aspx (last visited Nov.

21, 2019); Peter Jaffe, Katreena Scott, Angelique Jenney, Myrna

Dawson, Anna-Lee Straatman, and Marcie Campbell, Risk Factors for Children in Situations of Family Violence in the Context

of Separation and Divorce, Department of Justice Canada

(2015).

Pence et al., supra note 55, at 10.

AFCC Model Standards §11.4 (2006).

and opinions expressed concerning the issues

in dispute. There shall be a clear correspondence between opinions offered and the data

contained in both the forensic report and the

case file.64

In addition, the Model Standards encourage evaluators to “disclose incomplete, unreliable or missing”

information.65 However, these standards apply only to

evaluators who are AFCC members, and even then, the

standards are aspirational and unenforceable.66 The

only way to adequately guard against investigators’

tendency to make arbitrary, subjective decisions is to

extend and enforce minimum due process protections

to parties in child custody cases.

D. Investigators Often Mistakenly Consider

Abuse Through the Lens of Other Concepts.

Court-appointed investigators frequently consider

abuse through the lens of some alternative framework,

such as high conflict, mental illness, parental alienation, or restrictive gatekeeping. When this happens,

the presence of abuse can become obscured and distorted.67

Notwithstanding the paucity of evidence to support investigators’ reliance upon such alternative

Id. at §12.2.

Id. at §5.12.

Id. at §1.2

Pence et al., supra note 55, at 11-18.

frameworks like parental alienation and gatekeeping,

courts frequently find these theories not only plausible,

but persuasive. A recent national study of custody decisions found that courts discredited allegations of

child sexual abuse 82% to 98% of the time when parental alienation was alleged.68 While there are many possible explanations for this phenomenon, including the

widespread practice of discounting women’s accounts

of abuse,69 one thing is certain: minimum standards of

due process can provide an important check on judicial

over-reliance upon misused or scientifically-unsound

concepts, theories, and frameworks that obscure

abuse.

E. Investigators’ Assumptions and Untested

Observations Are Often Described and

Treated as Facts to Support Their Custody Conclusions.

Another common way that the nature and context

of abuse is masked in evaluative reports is when the

investigator’s assumptions and isolated observations

stand in for the actual facts. Investigators often treat

Joan S. Meier, Sean Dickson, Chris O’Sullivan, Leora

Rosen & Jeffrey Hayes, Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations, GWU Law School

Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-56 (2019), GWU Legal

Studies Research Paper No. 2019-56. Available at SSRN:

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3448062 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/3448062.

Deborah Epstein & Lisa A. Goodman, Discounting Credibility: Doubting the Testimony and Dismissing the Experiences of

Domestic Violence Survivors and Other Women, 167 U. PENN. L. REV.

399 (2019).

an inference, observation or opinion as a factual finding and then draw a conclusion that does not represent

what is actually going on within a family.70 Many

times, investigators form a false impression that a

“protective” parent has a serious mental health problem and then, when that parent denies the problem or

refuses to seek treatment, the investigator concludes

that the parent lacks insight into their own mental

health,71 which appears to have happened in the case

below. Current practices throughout the country’s family courts see an undue reliance on evaluative reports

that inadequately account for abuse in rendering decisions that go to the fundamental question of child

safety and wellbeing, without due process of law.

III. Notwithstanding These Common Infirmities,

Evaluations Are Highly Influential and Often

Conclusive of Custody Cases.

Despite the absence of competent evidence that

evaluations are reliable predictors of a child’s adjustment to a specific parenting arrangement,72 courts

tend to adopt evaluators’ recommendations wholesale.

A recent New York study found “no statistical difference between the evaluator’s recommendations and the

Pence et al., supra note 55, at 19-20.

Id. at 20.

Tippins & Wittmann, supra note 27; Bow, supra note 17.

court outcome with regard to the safety of the parenting plan for the victimized parent and for the child.”73

Concerns about the court’s deference to an evaluator’s recommendation increases the chance of a less

formal and more incomplete process. That the court

took extreme action on the basis of a brief and incomplete assessment, in the absence of a true emergency

and without affording the parties the most basic due

process of law, makes this case all the more disturbing.

But, again, what happened in New Mexico happens all

the time in family courts across the country. Study after study shows that evaluations have a decisive influence on court outcomes.74 They can literally make or

break a case, which is precisely what happened below.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael S. Davis, Chris S. O’Sullivan, Kim Susser & Marjory D. Fields, Custody Evaluations When There Are Allegations

of Domestic Violence: Practices, Beliefs and Recommendations of

Professional Evaluators 79 (2011), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

nij/grants/234465.pdf.

See Michael Davis, Kim Susser, Chris S. O’Sullivan, &

Marjory D. Fields, Custody Evaluations When There Are Allegations of Domestic Violence: Practices, Beliefs and Recommendations of Professional Evaluators, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/

nij/grants/234465.pdf; Lidman & Hollingsworth, supra note 13.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should accept

jurisdiction.

Respectfully submitted,

ELLIOT H. SCHERKER

BRIGID F. CECH SAMOLE

Counsel of Record

VANESSA PALACIO

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue

Suite 4100

Miami, FL 33131

305.579.0500

(F) 305.579.0717

CechSamoleB@gtlaw.com

SANDRA TIBBETTS MURPHY

GABRIELLE DAVIS

BATTERED WOMEN’S

JUSTICE PROJECT

1801 Nicollet Avenue South

Suite 102

Minneapolis, MN 55403

800.903.0111

(F) 612.824.8768

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.