[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8844-H8847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT CHILD SAFETY IS THE FIRST 
            PRIORITY OF CUSTODY AND VISITATION ADJUDICATIONS

  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 72) expressing the sense of 
Congress that child safety is the first priority of custody and 
visitation adjudications, and that State courts should improve 
adjudications of custody where family violence is alleged, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 72

       Whereas approximately 15 million children are exposed each 
     year to domestic violence and/or child abuse, which are often 
     linked;
       Whereas child sexual abuse is significantly under-
     documented, and under-addressed in the legal system;
       Whereas child abuse is a major public health issue in the 
     United States, with total lifetime estimated financial costs 
     associated with just one year of confirmed cases of child 
     maltreatment (including physical abuse, sexual abuse, 
     psychological abuse and neglect) amounting to approximately 
     $124 billion;
       Whereas according to the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, federally launched, funded and tracked 
     longitudinal research into ``adverse childhood experiences'' 
     (the ACEs study) has shown that ``children who experience 
     abuse and neglect are also at increased risk for adverse 
     health effects and certain chronic diseases as adults, 
     including heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, liver 
     disease, obesity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and 
     high levels of C-reactive protein'';
       Whereas research confirms that allegations of domestic 
     violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse are often 
     discounted when raised in child custody litigation;
       Whereas research shows that abusive parents are often 
     granted custody or unprotected parenting time by courts, 
     placing children at ongoing risk;
       Whereas research confirms that a child's risk of abuse 
     increases after a perpetrator of domestic violence separates 
     from a domestic partner, even when the perpetrator has not 
     previously abused the child;
       Whereas researchers have documented a minimum of 653 
     children murdered in the United States since 2008 by a parent 
     involved in a divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or 
     child support proceeding, often after access was provided by 
     family courts over the objections of a protective parent;
       Whereas scientifically unsound theories are frequently 
     applied to reject parents' and children's reports of abuse;
       Whereas in cases involving allegations of family violence 
     courts should rely on the assistance of third-party 
     professionals only when they possess the proper experience or 
     expertise for assessing family violence and trauma, and apply 
     scientifically sound and evidence-based theories;
       Whereas most States lack standards defining required 
     expertise and experience for court-affiliated or appointed 
     fee-paid professionals in custody litigation or the required 
     contents of custody-related expert reports; and
       Whereas custody litigation involving abuse allegations is 
     sometimes prohibitively expensive, resulting in parental 
     bankruptcy, as a result of court-mandated payments to 
     appointed fee-paid professionals, in addition to attorneys' 
     fees: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) child safety is the first priority of custody and 
     parenting adjudications, and courts should resolve safety 
     risks and claims of family violence first, as a fundamental 
     consideration, before assessing other best interest factors;
       (2) all evidence admitted in custody and parenting 
     adjudications should be subject to evidentiary admissibility 
     standards;
       (3) evidence from court-affiliated or appointed fee-paid 
     professionals regarding adult or child abuse allegations in 
     custody cases should be admitted only when the professional 
     possesses documented expertise and experience in the relevant 
     types of abuse, trauma, and the behaviors of victims and 
     perpetrators;
       (4) States should define required standards of expertise 
     and experience for appointed fee-paid professionals who 
     provide evidence to the court on abuse, trauma and behaviors 
     of victims and perpetrators, should specify requirements for 
     the contents of such professional reports, and should require 
     courts to find that any appointed professionals meet those 
     standards;
       (5) States should consider models under which court-
     appointed professionals are paid directly by the courts, with 
     potential reimbursement by the parties after due 
     consideration of the parties' financial circumstances; and

[[Page H8845]]

       (6) Congress should schedule hearings on family courts' 
     practices with regard to the objective, fair, and unbiased 
     adjudication of children's safety and civil rights.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Budd). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford) and the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 72, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are voting today on this resolution, 
which expresses the sense of Congress that child safety should be the 
top priority of custody and visitation adjudications, and that State 
courts should improve adjudications of custody where family violence is 
alleged.
  Custody adjudications are especially difficult cases, fraught with 
emotion and complex relationships. States must ensure that the judges 
presiding over these cases are trained to understand these dynamics and 
apply appropriate evidentiary standards to parties' evidence.
  Most importantly, States should ensure that in these disputes, 
children's safety comes first.
  We have seen tragedies happen throughout the United States where the 
courts failed the children involved in custody disputes. Over the past 
decade, the Center for Judicial Excellence has documented 653 child 
homicides across the United States by a parent involved in a conflict 
related to divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or child support.
  Last year, Ana Estevez's 5-year-old son, Piqui, was murdered by her 
ex-husband. Despite her efforts to obtain sole custody of Piqui due to 
her ex-husband's history of abuse, her plea was rejected.
  Her estranged husband picked up Piqui, as part of their joint custody 
arrangement, and took him to Disneyland. That was the last time Ms. 
Estevez saw her son.
  His body was found 2 months later, and her estranged husband 
eventually confessed to the murder, a tragedy that should never have 
happened.
  Today, we take a step in expressing to States that they must pay 
special attention to these cases. We hope States will heed this 
resolution and resolve to evaluate their family court systems and 
implement measures to put child safety first.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing this 
resolution before us. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the House concurrent resolution. I 
thank my colleague on the Judiciary Committee for his leadership.
  I want to indicate that, first and foremost, this bipartisan 
resolution expresses the sense of Congress that child safety should be 
the top priority of any custody and parenting court adjudications, and 
that courts should resolve safety risks and claims of domestic violence 
first, before taking any other interest into consideration.
  The resolution also underscores Congress' strong support for the use 
of scientific-based evidence in family court, including reliance on 
expert professionals with expertise in relevant types of abuse, trauma, 
and behaviors of victims and perpetrators by, among other things, 
establishing specific standards for the preparation of professional 
reports.
  This resolution also encourages States to consider models through 
which such professional experts can be appointed and paid directly by 
the courts as needed, and expresses the sense of Congress that we hold 
hearings examining family court practices with regard to the fair 
adjudication of children's safety and civil rights.
  I think many of us as Members of Congress who deal in family issues, 
and as the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, 
and being a student of the Family Protective Services--Child Protective 
Services, I have seen more than one case where a child is returned to a 
family and gets caught up in the unfortunate practices of that family 
situation, that home situation. Yes, they wind up losing their life, 
children as young as 1 and 2 and 3 years old, helpless, without being 
able to help themselves.
  H. Con. Res. 72 acknowledges that the Inter-American Commission on 
Human Rights has found that the United States has failed in its legal 
obligation to protect women and children from domestic violence.
  It certainly seems appropriate, as we debate this, that I ask my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and it is not too late, to 
join me in putting the Violence Against Women Act on the floor of the 
House with over 160 cosponsors that specifically address the question 
of domestic violence, domestic abuse. So many of our collaborating 
groups from all over the country, both conservative and otherwise, are 
arguing and advocating for the passage of the Violence Against Women 
Act before its expiration on September 30, 2018. It would be a 
complement to this sense of Congress.
  In recognition of the fact that the problem of domestic violence is 
among the most serious social problems in this country, the resolution 
makes a number of important findings in this regard. Child abuse, in 
and of itself, is a major public health issue. It costs billions of 
dollars annually and, unfortunately, the loss of children's lives.
  But the cost of child abuse cannot be measured in simple monetary 
terms because, as a study by the Centers for Disease Control tells us, 
children who experience adverse childhood experiences are at a greater 
risk to develop certain chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. 
The consequences for children who experience abuse and neglect are 
long-lasting, long-reaching, and cannot be measured easily.

  As this resolution finds, child sexual abuse, too, as horrific as it 
is, is a matter that goes routinely underdocumented and underaddressed. 
Time and again, research confirms that allegations of domestic 
violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse are often discounted when 
it comes to child custody litigation.
  This is with family members or guardians of a particular child. 
Tragically, abusive parents are often granted custody or unprotected 
parenting time, which places children at constant risk. The risk of 
abuse to the child increases when a perpetrator of domestic violence 
separates from a domestic partner.
  Most disturbing is the resolution's finding that documents a minimum 
of 568 murders of children in the United States in a 10-year period by 
a parent involved in divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or child 
support proceedings. In many of these instances, the family courts 
granted access to the child by the abusive parent over the objection of 
the protective parent.
  Finally, this resolution recognizes the need for courts to appoint 
well-qualified professionals, at court expense, who will apply 
scientifically sound and evidence-based theories to assist in the 
adjudication of custody litigation. Because such assistance is not 
routinely provided, parents seeking to vindicate their rights in 
custody disputes often incur overwhelming debt and may even need to 
file for bankruptcy relief as a result. In the United States, this 
should be unacceptable.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H. Con. Res. 72.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 72.
  First and foremost, this bipartisan resolution expresses the sense of 
Congress that child safety should be the top priority of any custody 
and parenting court adjudications and that courts should resolve safety 
risks and claims of domestic violence first, before taking other 
interests into consideration.
  The resolution also underscores Congress's strong support for the use 
of scientific-based evidence in family court, including reliance on 
expert professionals with expertise in relevant types of abuse, trauma, 
and behaviors of victims and perpetrators by, among other things, 
establishing specific standards for the preparation of professional 
reports.

[[Page H8846]]

  This resolution also encourages States to consider models through 
which such professional experts can be appointed and paid directly by 
the courts, as needed.
  And, it expresses the sense of Congress that we hold hearings 
examining family court practices with regards to the fair adjudication 
of children's safety and civil rights.
  House Concurrent Resolution 72 acknowledges that the Inter-American 
Commission on Human Rights has found that the United States has failed 
in its legal obligation to protect women and children from domestic 
violence.
  In recognition of the fact that the problem of domestic violence is 
among the most serious social problems in this country, the resolution 
makes a number of important findings in this regard. Child abuse, in-
and-of-itself, is a major public health issue--and it costs billions of 
dollars annually. But the ``cost'' of child abuse cannot be measured in 
simple monetary terms because, as a study by the Centers for Disease 
Control tells us, children who experience ``adverse childhood 
experiences'' are at greater risk to develop certain chronic diseases, 
like heart disease and cancer. The consequences for children who 
experience abuse and neglect are long-lasting and long-reaching and 
cannot be measured easily.
  As this resolution finds, child sexual abuse, too, as horrific as it 
is, is a matter that goes routinely under-documented and under-
addressed. But, time and again, research confirms that allegations of 
domestic violence, child abuse, and child sexual abuse are often 
discounted when it comes to child custody litigation. Tragically, 
abusive parents are often granted custody or unprotected parenting 
time, which places children at constant risk, and the risk of abuse to 
the child increases when a perpetrator of domestic violence separates 
from a domestic partner.
  Most disturbing is the resolution's finding that documents a minimum 
of 568 murders of children in the United States in a 10-year period by 
a parent involved in divorce, separation, custody, visitation, or child 
support proceedings. In many of these instances, the family courts 
granted access to the child by the abusive parent, over the objection 
of the protective parent.
  Finally, this resolution recognizes the need for courts to appoint 
well-qualified professionals, at court expense, who will apply 
scientifically sound and evidence-based theories, to assist in the 
adjudication of custody litigation. Because such assistance is not 
routinely provided, parents seeking to vindicate their rights in 
custody disputes often incur overwhelming debt and may even need to 
file for bankruptcy relief as a result. In the United States, this 
should be unacceptable.
  For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting 
House Concurrent Resolution 72.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman, who spent his career not only as a sheriff, but a duly-
elected constitutional Member in Florida, but also to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, who has served as an attorney serving 
the people of Houston, Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to make sure that as we respectfully 
address this issue, H. Con. Res. 72, which urges States to look at 
improved family court proceedings of child custody cases, ensuring that 
child safety is a top priority, it makes clear that Congress will use 
its oversight authority to engage in this issue also.
  We do not come at this issue lightly, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of 
fact, the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project has 
provided a great deal of information, not only to Members of Congress, 
but by visiting the Members, making sure that they understand that 
their work with the Center for Judicial Excellence and the Protective 
Parents Association of California have made sure that they saw these 
issues clearly and talked to Members of Congress about our ideas, not 
only as we fund Federal programs, but as we understand in our 
discussions with States that we prioritize and help them look at what 
is, seemingly, a national crisis.
  This national crisis is about how our children are dealt with in the 
court system and looked at. Specifically, this is a concurrent 
resolution that urges States to develop family court procedures to 
resolve claims of abuse and family violence before making any other 
determination in the case, allowing courts to focus on these 
allegations affecting child safety independently.

                              {time}  2000

  What did I just say? Well, what I just said is many times in court 
proceedings where there is a family violence circumstance, where there 
is stress in a family, there are examples that either side might talk 
about what is in the best interest of the child.
  And courts across this country, whether at their local court, whether 
a state court, we are asking them to understand that this national 
crisis deals with children that are being placed in a circumstance that 
might not be in their best interest, and it calls on States to prohibit 
the use of discredited or unscientific theories in their family courts. 
In other words, there are many times provisions in a court or a bias of 
a court to take one side or the other.
  Finally, it highlights the problems that some litigants--these are 
people back in their own home States--face regarding mandatory fees, 
and Congress is asking the States to look at these.
  Many times, as the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston talked 
about, there are fee structures which keep families from fully 
participating to protect their children because of the cost. This is an 
important issue.
  Tragically, millions of children are impacted in the United States of 
America. They call it domestic violence or child abuse, but the bottom 
line is that the resulting harm is lasting to our children. Physical, 
sexual, or emotional abuse, this trauma stays with our children for 
some period of time and many times it lasts for a lifetime.
  It also imposes billions of dollars on society where these children 
need to be handled, dealt with, and worked through a system for them to 
understand what happened in their childhood would create some 
difficulties later in their life.
  Simply put, we believe that family courts need better expertise. 
Better expertise not only in terms of the legal counsel that is 
involved, but perhaps outside professionals who would address these 
issues.
  In my home State of Texas, we have had to reevaluate the 
circumstances, not just of divorce, but of domestic violence where a 
child is involved, trying to focus more directly on the needs of the 
child and then having that family, two sides for sure, who would come 
together to see what is in the best interest of that child.
  Family courts need to address abuse, and once again, many times it is 
not uncommon for them to have to address these through the frailties of 
a system, frailties of people who give testimony, and perhaps theories 
that are not always in the best interest of the child that might be 
proposed in court.
  So one story in particular has it of a young girl named Kyra who 
tragically lost her life at the age of 2 in 2016 while her family was 
going through the court system. The focus became the battle, not the 
child, and the child fell in between the processes and, unfortunately, 
the tragedy occurred because of this huge disagreement between the 
family to where her father brutally murdered her before setting the 
house on fire and killing himself.
  The tragedy involved, rather than highlighting the differences 
between these two, of the safety of the child. And the safety of the 
child and of the mother is vitally important.
  At least 653 child murders by a parent involved in a divorce, 
separation, custody, or visitation, child support have been documented 
in the United States over the last 10 years. That is a tragedy. That is 
a nightmare that is happening directly before us.
  This is why we believe that listening to outside groups, such as the 
Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project and the 
Judicial Excellence Coalition have come to Congress to say, we would 
like for you to see what is happening back in your States, back in your 
communities, back where you are from, Members of Congress, and see if 
you can shine a spotlight on showing how important children and women 
are, not just in our society, but in the court system.
  So what I would say is I would like to thank my colleagues, the 
gentleman who started this, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
Congressman Pat Meehan, for his dedication to this issue, as well as my 
dear friend from New York, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney,

[[Page H8847]]

for her leadership as she has joined me on so many issues where we deal 
with women's health and women's safety, children's health, children's 
safety, including disabled children and people who cannot protect 
themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, whether you live in Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, or 
wherever you might be in this country, it is important for us to 
understand that the focus on children's safety in court matters is 
essential to the Nation's health and support for the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman and the 
chairman of the committee, Chairman Goodlatte, for allowing this to 
come forth at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to 
close.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me certainly thank Mr. Sessions, my 
colleague out of Texas, for his very important words and moving 
commentary. I thank Congressman Rutherford for his service and 
commitment, and the other cosponsors of this legislation, because it 
really has more impact.
  Let me conclude my remarks by acknowledging a tragedy in my district. 
As a hardworking mother was separating from her spouse, it had not yet 
gotten to the court, but it is evidence of what can happen. The remarks 
of the dad were, ``Bring them over for me to see them one more time.''
  And even though the relationship between mom and dad was hostile, mom 
wanted to be cooperative, and brought them over and left them for a 
moment as she went to her small business.

  The next call she got was the shrill of police and neighbors 
screaming, and his call to her, the parent's call, the father's call, 
and he said, ``Now come over and see your two dead children, because I 
have killed them.''
  So this is constant throughout the Nation, and we need intervention 
and we need recognition of the tragedies that can happen.
  So as I previously stated, I strongly support passage of H. Con. Res 
72. It is a sober acknowledgement of how family courts in the United 
States are failing to protect the very children they are sworn to 
protect in cases involving domestic violence, and obviously these cases 
have histories of domestic violence. But also as a legislative body, we 
have far more effective ways to deal with these problems. They can 
complement H. Con. Res. 72.
  So I would like to, again, reinforce the bill that was introduced 
last July--this July, that I introduced, over 150 cosponsors, I 
believe. I introduced a robust bill to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act.
  This VAWA reauthorization seeks to address the problem of domestic 
violence from a holistic perspective by attacking the problem from many 
different angles with resources, recognizing all the different 
components that are now before us. We need to reauthorize VAWA, not in 
any watered down fashion, and we need to do it in complement to H. Con. 
Res. 72. And if we hope to make any dent in this very serious problem 
and to protect women and children and men who are abused and victimized 
day in and day out, this is how we need to do it, pass bills like the 
concurrent resolution and also VAWA.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and join 
me in this bipartisan effort as well to pass VAWA.
  As I previously stated, I strongly support passage of House 
Concurrent Resolution 72. It is a sober acknowledgement of how family 
courts in the United States are failing to protect the very children 
they are sworn to protect, in cases involving domestic violence.
  But, as a legislative body, we have far more effective ways to deal 
with these problems than merely passing concurrent resolutions. Last 
July, I introduced a robust bill to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act. This VAWA reauthorization seeks to address the problem of 
domestic violence from a holistic perspective, by attacking the problem 
from many different angles. We need to reauthorize VAWA--not in any 
watered-down fashion--if we hope to make any dent into this very 
serious problem and to protect women, children and men who are abused 
and victimized day in and day out.
  I urge my colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 72.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman 
for her comments and for her hard work on this resolution. I also want 
to thank Chairman Sessions for bringing this forward today.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues here to vote in the 
affirmative for H. Con. Res. 72.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 72, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________