Victory for Mothers in Court Poses Risks to Children’s Lives

How can we ensure children’s safety when a mother permits her abusive partner to enter her home?

The answer, it seems, is: We don’t.

This month, a panel of four judges from the New York State Appellate Division delivered that ruling.

The court favored “Ms. W.,” a woman from Brooklyn whose ex-boyfriend violently abused her in front of her infant daughter.

A family court judge had previously issued a protective order preventing the ex from entering her home, stipulating that she would have to agree to unscheduled visits from the Administration for Children’s Services to verify her compliance.

Ms. W. filed a lawsuit, asserting that since she had committed no offense, she should not be subjected to government oversight.

The appellate court agreed with her. They ruled that unless the mother was accused of mistreating or neglecting her child, ACS could not mandate her to undergo any type of monitoring.

The judges determined that the circumstances in Ms. W.’s situation “represent exactly the kind of state intervention that the Legislature aimed to prevent” through the establishment of the Family Court system.

David Shalleck-Klein of the Family Justice Law Center, which represented Ms. W., celebrated the verdict: “This unanimous ruling brings to an end the long-standing practice statewide of imposing extensive surveillance on parents who have not committed any wrongdoing.”

This decision marks the conclusion of a prolonged effort by journalists, lawyers, and activists to ensure that mothers who are victims of domestic violence are not unfairly blamed for what occurs to their children.

A 2018 article in New Yorker highlighted the issue, characterizing it as part of a trend that criminalizes survivors of domestic violence.

In 2022, Mother Jones criticized the “classist” and “racist” aspects of the “criminal-justice system” that unjustly casts blame on mothers for circumstances beyond their control.

A 2020 article in USA Today titled “Florida blames mothers when men batter them — then takes away their children” expressed frustration over investigators’ criticism of abused mothers, pointing out that “mothers face intense scrutiny from caseworkers simply because they are often the primary caregivers.”

But what alternative solutions do they propose?

We cannot expect toddlers and infants to enforce protection orders against men who threaten their mothers. It is no surprise that there is a strong link between intimate partner violence and child abuse.

Even assuming a man who assaults his girlfriend wouldn’t harm her children, what happens to the infant if the mother is injured or worse?

The USA Today article cited a case in which a woman’s infant and toddler were placed in foster care after her ex-boyfriend beat her unconscious in their presence.

Can we agree that children witnessing their mothers being abused are undergoing trauma that should not be overlooked?

While it may not seem fair, we must hold mothers somewhat accountable for such scenarios.

If we are unwilling to prosecute her for putting her children in jeopardy and do not want to take the children away despite the risks, it appears that sending ACS representatives to monitor the situation is the minimal action we can take.

Tom Rawlings, the former head of the Georgia Division of Family & Children Services, remarked that New York’s ruling sets it apart from other states.

“Most legal literature indicates that dependency hearings should focus on the child’s needs rather than the parent’s,” Rawlings noted.

“If a child is being abused, the court holds jurisdiction,” he said, even if the custodial parent is not the one committing the violence.

The Appellate Court’s ruling suggests we will either ignore children in perilous situations or begin charging mothers with neglect for allowing abusive partners near their children in violation of protective orders.

Neither option is favorable, but the safety of the children must remain the priority.

“I’m relieved that other families won’t endure what my family faced,” Ms. W. commented following the court’s decision.

Unfortunately, this ruling may lead other families to experience far worse consequences.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.