•  
  •  
 

Abstract

After decades of punishing murder-suicide headlines, a growing body of evidence now corroborates what female domestic violence survivors have said for years: that family courts deciding child custody cases disproportionately reject mothers’ allegations of domestic violence and paternal child abuse. From prominent legal scholars to local family law attorneys (and increasingly, investigative reporters), many modern voices contend that mothers specifically face a litany of obstacles in court, including heightened judicial suspicion that they are “parental alienators,” a widespread minimization of coercive control, and state legal standards that  emphasize shared parenting over child safety.

Following the widely publicized murder of seven-year-old Kayden Mancuso by her biological father during court-sanctioned, unmonitored visitation, Congress passed the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act within the Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 2021. Also known as the federal Kayden’s Law, this legislation incentivizes state courts to reassess their handling of abuse allegations within private child custody actions, using a combination of expert evidence regulation, heightened consideration for indicators of violence such as arrests and protection orders, and increasing hours of domestic violence and child abuse education for judges and court staff. Multiple states have since adopted Kayden’s Law, notably Pennsylvania and Colorado, with legislators nationwide expressing a renewed desire to raise child safety to the forefront of custody adjudication.

This Note explores the background, genesis, and spread of Kayden’s Law, considers its potential to remedy certain problems within the existing family court system, addresses relevant criticism, and proposes that embracing this temperate reform is the right decision for Ohio and for family courts nationwide.

Download

Share

COinS