In 2001, the Cityof ChicagoMayor’s Office onDomesticViolence (MODV)was selected toparticipate in theSafe Havens:SupervisedVisitation and

Safe Exchange Grant Program (Supervised VisitationProgram), as a demonstration site. The SupervisedVisitation Program allowed the City of Chicago tocontract with three existing domestic violence super-vised visitation centers: Apna Ghar, The BranchFamily Institute, and Mujeres Latinas en Acción (col-lectively referred to as the Chicago visitation cen-ters).

As a part of participating in the SupervisedVisitation Program, the Chicago demonstration site,with the assistance of technical assistance providerPraxis International (Praxis), explored how the cur-rent design, processes, and procedures of the visita-tion and exchange centers accounted for aspects ofculture. Specifically, the Chicago visitation centerschose to examine the question:

How does culture play a role in serving families using supervised visitation?

Using focus groups, interviews with parents andstaff, observations, and group readings of redactedcase files, the MODV, the Chicago visitation centers,and Praxis documented current center practices thataccount for the cultural differences of families com-ing to the centers and utilizing supervised visitationand exchange services, and, in particular, thataccount for their experiences with race and class. Inexamining this question, numerous examples of “cul-tural humility” were documented.

The concept of cultural humility was not a productof the inquiry, but rather a framework that resonatedwith the Chicago visitation centers in exploring cen-ter practices and cultural differences.1 Culturalhumility “incorporates a lifelong commitment to self-evaluation and self-critique” and “advocacy partner-

10

AccountingFor Culture in SupervisedVisitationPractices

ships with communities,” as “reflective practitioners”with “self-reflection and self-critique at the institu-tional level.”2 Cultural humility “involves the curiosi-ty and motivation to understand the web of meaningin which children and families live, and the reflectivecapacity to examine … [the practitioner’s] culturalvalues and assumptions. It requires a commitment toappreciating the similarities and differences between… [the practitioner’s] culturally shaped goals and pri-orities and those of the children and families … [thepractitioner] care[s] for. It requires as well an obliga-tion to ‘rein in’ [the practitioner’s] power and author-ity … so that the voices of children and family mem-bers can be fully valued and heard.”3

Practitioners are cultural beings, familiar with theirindividual behaviors, arts, beliefs, languages, institu-tions, and other aspects of culture. The concept ofcultural humility requires that practitioners step outof this familiarity; it requires a commitment to reflec-tion and questioning, on an institutional as well as anindividual level.4 Drawing on the experience of theChicago visitation centers and related discussions,the following are examples of ways to integrate cul-tural humility into visitation and exchange practices:

• Define a clear identity that is separatefrom the court.

For many families, civil and criminal court intervention has been characterized by disre-spect, confusion, and a lack of information aboutthe process and what is expected of them. Many immigrant families have difficulty under-standing the judicial system in their country of origin and even more so in the United States, where the language and system itself are very different.

• Structure adequate time and flexibility intointeractions with children and parents.

Time and flexibility are essential in order to buildtrust and relationships, understand what has happened in someone’s life, and explain super-vised visitation or exchange and the center’s pro-cedures in a way that makes sense to parents, particularly when the concept is entirely beyond

VAWA 2005: OTHER REAUTHORIZATION HIGHLIGHTS

ConfidentialityConfidentiality is key for victims of domestic vio-

lence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking,not only for their safety and the safety of their chil-dren, but also for their healing. VAWA 2005requires that grantees of all VAWA-funded programs

keep confidential personally identifyinginformation about persons receivingVAWA-funded services. To ensure thatthis protection is not violated, VAWA 2005provides funding for training staff of pro-

grams that serve children and youth onsafely and confidentially identifying and pro-

tecting children and families experiencing domesticviolence.

Personally Identifying InformationPersonally identifying information is defined as

information that can be used to locate or tamperwith the identity of a victim and her children. It goesbeyond name, address, and Social Security numberand also includes recognizable demographic ele-ments that, in combination with other facts, could beused to identify or locate a victim.

VAWA 2005 recognizes that disclosure of somevictim information may be compelled by statutory orcourt mandate. When such disclosure is compelled,VAWA grantees must offer adequate safety protec-tions to the victim, such as sealing court records orlimiting the release of information to specific personsonly. Information collected in the aggregate aboutvictims can be shared freely. However, individualvictim information may be collected and shared onlyin password-protected government databases uti-lized for protection order enforcement or lawenforcement.

Culturally and Linguistically Specific and Community-Based Programs

New eligible entities in many existing VAWAprograms are community-based, culturally and linguistically specific programs. Additionally, a newgrant program has been created to target directservices to culturally and linguistically specificpopulations.

information contained in a petition for a protectionorder, a temporary or final protection order, or apetition to register a protection order in anothercourt on the internet.

Underserved and Immigrant PopulationsSignificant changes to immigration law enable bat-

tered immigrants to protect their children fromthreats of deportation relating to abuse. VAWA 2005amends the Legal ServicesCorporation (LSC) provisionto allow LSC funded agen-cies to provide legal servicesto non-citizens who havebeen battered or subjected toextreme cruelty, who are vic-tims of sexual assault or trafficking, and who qualifyfor U visas. This amendment also allows LSC to pro-vide legal services to children of these listed non-citi-zens, as long as the non-citizen parent did not active-ly participate in the abuse or crimes against the chil-dren. Applicable legal services include, among oth-ers, assistance in obtaining a protection order,divorce, child custody, child and spousal support,and assistance with abuse and neglect and juvenileproceedings.

VAWA 2005 now allows individuals who are over21 years old and who were eligible to self-petitionprior to turning 21, but did not, to file a VAWA self-petition up to age 25. In order for this extension toapply, the individual must show the abuse was atleast one reason for the filing delay.

Under VAWA 2005, the self-petitioning eligibilitywas extended to non-citizen parents who are abusedby their United States citizen sons and daughters.Eligibility is dependent upon the parent showinggood moral character, that he or she is an immediaterelative, residence with the abusive citizen son ordaughter, and battery or extreme cruelty. VAWA2005 added a provision allowing non-citizens toobtain work authorization once a VAWA self-petitionis approved. This amendment provides batterednon-citizens and their children with an alternative toreliance upon the batterer for financial support.

VAWA 2005 authorizes an outreach program tosupport public information campaigns targetingunderserved and immigrant populations. VAWA2005 also creates a new grant program to provideresources to community based organizations todevelop or maintain outreach and victims services.

7NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

2Children, and Underserved Populations

Continued on page 8 Justice for Families: Envisioning Solutions for Collaborative Practice

NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

serve “adult and youth victims” of domestic violence,dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Otherchanges include:

Helping Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic and Sexual Violence

Many of the new children’s and youth programs inVAWA address witnessing of domestic violence, childsexual victimization, teen dating violence, and over-lapping child abuse and neglect. Because many juris-dictions have charged non-offending parents whoare themselves victims of domestic violence with“failure to protect” their children from exposure tothe violence, VAWA 2005 makes clear that “childabuse and neglect” does not mean “failure to leave anabusive relationship, in the absence of other actionconstituting abuse or neglect.”

VAWA 2005 also creates significant new programsto help children, including funding for children’sservices, such as shelter, direct counseling, advocacy,

mentoring, and legal assistance; funding to con-duct outreach and education programs in

schools regarding dating violence; funding for programs serving childrenand youth exposed to domestic violence,

dating violence, sexual assault, andstalking to provide support to the non-

abusing parent or child’s caretaker;funding to provide direct legal assistance

for teen victims of dating violence; and funding to encourage cross training and collabo-

ration between the domestic violence and child welfare systems.

Safe Havens for ChildrenThe Safe Havens for Children provision of VAWA

2000 was reauthorized to protect battered parentsand children during parent child visitation and visita-tion exchanges. This protection was extended to dating relationships.

Full Faith and CreditThe Full Faith and Credit provision of VAWA 1994

is now amended to clarify that child custody, visita-tion, and support provisions included in a protectionorder and issued under the state protection orderstatute must also receive full faith and credit, makingthese provisions enforceable across state lines.Additionally, VAWA 2005 prohibits the publication of

6NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

VAWA 2005: A Focus on Prevention,by Rob (Roberta) Valente, JD

Congress drafted and passed the third iteration ofthe Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2005,and President Bush signed it into law in January2006. This version of the VAWA reached into newerareas: creating prevention and intervention pro-grams for children; amending substantive laws toinclude child custody, visitation, and support provi-sions; providing new protections for battered immi-grants and their children; improving housing optionsfor battered women and their children; providingmore appropriate resources for battered Indianwomen; emphasizing the provision of culturally andlinguistically specific services to improve access forall victims; and clarifying that all VAWA programswill address four crimes: domestic violence, datingviolence, sexual assault, and stalking.

HISTORYVAWA was passed by Congress and signed into

law in 1994 by President Clinton. VAWA 1994 creat-ed substantive laws and major grant programs,including STOP (Services, Training, Officers,and Prosecutors) grants, Grants toEncourage Arrest, and grant programsaddressing domestic violence in ruralareas, which supported the resourcesand tools states and local jurisdictionsneeded to take action. The hallmark ofVAWA 1994 was the coordinated commu-nity response.

By 2000, VAWA was reauthorized, and in theprocess of developing that legislation, Congress sawthe need for more programs and substantive lawchanges to help victims. The Legal Assistance forVictims program was established. Sexual assault,dating violence, stalking, and trafficking were addedto select programs. VAWA became a comprehensivelegal and social service program, not just a criminaljustice system response.

VAWA 2005: Children and Youth Exposed toDomestic and Sexual Violence, Child Custody,Visitation, and Underserved and ImmigrantPopulations

Prior to 2005, each VAWA grant program and fed-eral law had its own definitions, which were some-times inconsistent with each other. Congress hasnow created a single set of definitions and condi-tions. After VAWA 2005, most programs will now

11NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

their experience. For example: set aside 90 min-utes for an intake appointment; or expand the customary 15-minute parental arrival and depar-ture windows to allow for bus transportation and getting children in and out of jackets and carseats.

• Invite diverse community organizations towalk through the center’s space and proce-dures and provide a critique.

Ask them to arrive at the center, complete an intake, and walk through the space as if they were a parent who would be using the center. Welcome their insights and recommendations about how to make the center and visitation a more culturally respectful experience.

• Prepare center staff to work with batteringparents.

A visitation center should not demonize fathers or structure its work around fear of batterers. Toconnect with them from a basis of respect does not mean abandoning battered mothers and theirchildren or ignoring the ways in which children might be used as a tactic of battering. The Chicago visitation centers recognize the danger that some battering parents pose; however, they attempt to avoid lumping every visitation or non-custodial parent into a single category.

• Use staff meetings, ad hoc work groups,community members, and parents to helpexamine every aspect of the center’s design andthe implied and explicit messages about who iswelcome and how they are valued.

For the Chicago visitation centers, non-threaten-ing locations (alongside health care offices, a bank building, and a community center) are important in conveying respect, along with care-ful consideration of the placement and use of security measures such as uniformed guards andmetal detectors, both of which the Chicago visitation centers ultimately chose not to use. Formality in addressing people, such as using Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms., Usted, Señor, or Señora, is also a way for centers to welcome people and

show respect. Where there is a gap between the center staff’s background and that of the parents using the center, invite community members to help review the center’s location, space, furnish-ings, magazines, art work, intake appointments, and visitation and exchange procedures. In addi-tion, invite parents to help inform an under-standing of the center’s design and impact, via focus groups, questionnaires, and other avenues.

• Prepare staff to support parents and children tolead with the language of their choice.

For example, siblings may prefer to use English when discussing their homework amongst each other, but this may require that center staff help the parent understand the conver-sation.

• Provide opportunitiesfor extended family tobe involved.

As the Chicago visita-tion centers have experienced, this can occur within the con-text of safety for battered parents and their children and any restrictions in court orders or sexual abuse issues. In consultation with and approval from the custodial parents, visiting parents have brought other family members to celebrate a birthday or join the visit. “Family” for some parents and children includes a wide circle of relatives, close friends, and godparents.

Continued on page 12

12

• Hold an all-center gathering to help bridge cultures and contribute to an atmosphere of warmth and respect for families.

Again, this occurs within the context of safety, the specifics of court orders, and availability of adequate supervision. One center, for example, has an annual dinner the week of Thanksgiving, with visiting parents, children, and other family members in one area (with several staff mem-bers) and custodial parents in another.

• Support families’ food, music, and religious traditions.

Provide space for sharing meals and moving about, including dancing and sports. Work with parents to accommodate families’ faith obser-vances, such as time for prayer, accepted foods, holidays, and rituals. This can be challenging to do, particularly in accounting for how these aspects of culture can be used as tactics for battering, or where parents differ in traditions orin interpretation of tradition.

• Build processes for expanding the center’s understanding of families’ experiences with the courts, police, social security, welfare, medical, psychology, and other intervening institutions, both individually and historically.

For example, several of the Chicago focus group participants emphasized that African-American parents walk through the door of the center bringing with them their whole lives, which includes their community’s history with institu-tional racism, as well as their day-to-day encoun-ters. A center that has been built with that cul-tural experience at its core takes care in how it appears to and works with parents. Because parents are so often under scrutiny in their everyday lives and routines, as staff members themselves have experienced, staff minimize taking notes during supervised visits. They intervene if appropriate or necessary, but complete their notes after the parents and chil-dren have left. Where centers do not have a shared culture with parents and children, they must take extra care to become aware of their individual community histories. For example, it

is easy for a person to believe that institutional racism does not exist if they have not experi-enced it.

The exploration is just beginning. Culture always plays a role; there is no visitation center or service that is culturally neutral. How can we make supervised visitation and exchange an experience with minimal barriers? How can we make supervised visitation welcoming, respectful, and aware of the lives of everyone who comes through the door? How might the idea of safe visitation and exchange look withoutthe physical space of a center? How can we facilitate families’ cultural identities, as well as accommodate them? The Chicago visitation centers will continue asking these questions of their work, recognizing that there is no single answer, no one-dimensional response.

NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

1. Melanie Tervalon & Jann Murray-García, Cultural HumilityVersus Cultural Competence: A Critical Distinction in DefiningPhysician Training Outcomes in Multicultural Education, 9(2) J. OF

HEALTH CARE FOR THE POOR & UNDERSERVED 117-125 (1998).2. Id.3. David Browning, Visiting in a Foreign Land: Cultivating CulturalHumility in Pediatric Palliative Care, BALT. SUN, Dec. 20, 2004.4. Praxis International, Inc., Chicago Mayor’s Office on DomesticViolence, Apna Ghar, The Branch Family Institute & MujeresLatinas en Acción , A Discussion of Accounting for Culture inSupervised Visitation Practices: The City of Chicago, IllinoisDemonstration Site Experience, Summary and Recommendations,at http://www.praxisinternational.org/visitationTA/docu-ments/ChicagoSHFinalDec2005.pdf (for guidance in thinkingabout how to build cultural humility into center organization andpractice).

Editor’s Note: This article was adapted andexcerpted from the executive summary for ADiscussion of Accounting for Culture in SupervisedVisitation Practices: The City of Chicago, IllinoisDemonstration Site Experience, Summary andRecommendations, funded by the Office on ViolenceAgainst Women, U.S. Department of Justice and pre-pared by Praxis International, Inc., in consultationwith Chicago Mayor’s Office on Domestic Violence,Apna Ghar, The Branch Family Institute, andMujeres Latinas en Acción. To read the full text ofthe executive summary and the accompanyingreport, please visithttp://www.praxisinternational.org/visitationTA/doc-uments/ChicagoSHFinalDec2005.pdf.

Accounting for Culture in Supervised Visitation continued from page 11

5NCJFCJ • Synergy • Volume 10 • No. 2 • Summer 2006

ing the plan, the parenting coordinator’s role is to“ensure compliance with the details of the [court]order and to test each request for variance from itsterms with an eye to protecting the custodial parent’sautonomy27 to make decisions based on the children’sbest interests and guarding against manipulation bythe abusing parent.”28

The Guidelines attempt to increase safety forabused parents and their children by requiring par-enting coordinators to:

• screen prospective cases routinely for domestic violence;

• decline domestic violence cases if they do not have the expertise and procedures in place to manage coercive tactics and the imbalance of power and control in such cases;

• be trained on domestic violence and child mal-treatment, on a continual basis;

• tailor techniques used in order to avoid giving the abuser the opportunity to continue the pattern of power, control, and coercion;

• conduct interviews and sessions with parties separately;

• adhere to all protection orders; and • take whatever measures are necessary to ensure

the safety of the parties, their children, and the parenting coordinator.29

Another approach to increasing the safety ofabused parents and their children who may elect orbe required to use parenting coordination is to pro-vide an opt-out provision. For example, in Texas par-ties are allowed to opt out of parenting coordinationon the basis of domestic violence.30 When a partyopts out based upon domestic violence, parentingcoordination can go forward only if the court findsthat the objection is not supported by the evidence.When parenting coordination goes forward, thecourt must require safety measures be taken, such asensuring that the parties not be required to haveface-to-face contact and that parties be placed in sep-arate rooms during parenting coordination.31

ConclusionA key component to making these safety-driven

approaches work is to provide implementation guid-ance for states and parenting coordinators. Forexample, more guidance is needed about screening

1. Nina Zollo & Robin Thompson, ABA Commission on DomesticViolence, Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence in the ParentingCoordination Process, QUARTERLY E-NEWSLETTER (Jan. 2006).2. John Cameron & Honey Hastings, New Hampshire BarAssociation, Parenting Coordination: Expanding ADR Law, BAR

NEWS (Feb. 17, 2006) at http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-news-issue.asp?id=2881 (last visited April 5, 2006).3. These states include: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, andVermont.4. AFCC Task Force, Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, 44(1)FAM. CT. REV. 164, 165 (2006). 5. Id. at 165.6. Id. at 171-72 (Guideline XI(B)).7. Id. at 172 (Guideline XI(E)).8. Id. at 171-72 (Guideline XI(B)).9. Peter G. Jaffe, Claire V. Crooks & Hon. Frances Q.F. Wong,Parenting Arrangements After Domestic Violence: Safety as aPriority in Judging Children’s Best Interest, 6 J. CENTER FAMILIES,CHILD. & CTS. 81, 83 (2005).

effectively for domestic violence. This is also true ofconducting interviews and sessions with parties sep-arately. Without implementation guidance, the safetyof abused parents and their children may be compro-mised.

While parenting coordination was designed forhigh-conflict cases, the prevalence of domestic vio-lence cases mislabeled as high-conflict cases meansthat parenting coordinators are often working withdomestic violence cases even if not identified as such.Making parenting coordination safe for abused par-ents and their children requires that states and par-enting coordinators make the safety of abused par-ents and their children a priority, understand the dif-ference between high-conflict and domestic violencecases, and have guidance on how to implement safe-ty-driven parenting coordination approaches.

End notes continued on page 13

Parenting Coordination ArticlesThe articles below provide information on parenting coordination

in the context of domestic violence:• American Bar Association, Quarterly E-Newsletter Vol. 2,January 2006, Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence in theParenting Coordination Process, by Nina Zollo and RobinThompson.• American Bar Association, Quarterly E-Newsletter Vol. 2,January 2006, Parent Coordination, The Vermont Model, by SusanFey and Bunny Flint.