Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
of
Judicial Practices
regarding Florida’s
Supervised Visitation Programs
regarding Florida’s
Supervised Visitation Programs
Conducted by the
Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation
Institute for Family Violence Studies
Florida State University
for the
Task Force for Children’s Justice
Florida Department of Children & Families
October 2003
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2
Executive Summary 3
Background 6
The Survey 8
Results 9
Description of Respondents 9
Training 12
Formal Agreements & Follow Up 14
Visits to Supervised Visitation Programs 16
Familiarity with Policies and Procedures 17
Utilization of Supervised Visitation Programs 19
Point of Referral During Dissolution Cases 20
Duration of Orders 21
Case Information 22
Security Measures at Programs 23
Alternatives to Using Supervised Visitation 25
Respondents’ Impressions of Current Supervised 26
Visitation Issues and Practices
Recommendations 28
Appendix A: Task Force for Children’s Justice 33
Appendix B: Florida’s Supervised Visitation Programs 37
Appendix C: Survey on Judicial Practices 44
2
Executive Summary
During the last decade, there has been rapid growth in the
number and use of supervised visitation programs in Florida.
Whereas there were fewer than 10 such programs in the mid-1990s,
there are now 42 supervised visitation programs that supervised
more than 40,000 visits in 2002 between a noncustodial parent and
one or more children. Due to increasing reliance on supervised
visitation programs, the Task Force for Children’s Justice asked for
data on the practices of Florida’s judges in terms of their utilization of
the programs. This report gives the results of a survey of judicial
practices concerning supervised visitation programs throughout the
state.
The 339 judges that heard matters during early 2003 related to
dissolutions/modifications, domestic violence, dependency, child
support and delinquency were selected for the sample. A survey
was developed by an attorney and professors specializing in family
and domestic violence issues. The draft instrument was reviewed by
three judges who provided feedback to the survey developers. The
Clearinghouse appreciates the efforts of Circuit Court Judges Karen
Cole, David Dugan and George Reynolds for their assistance in
reviewing drafts of the survey and providing feedback.
The survey and two reminders were mailed over the course of
the summer and by August, 2003, 82 judges had responded to the
survey. The majority of respondents (51 of 82) were Circuit Judges;
16 were General Masters; 9 were County Judges; and 6 were
Hearing Officers. They represented all of Florida’s judicial circuits.
3
dynamics in child sexual abuse, but the majority indicated they
wanted more training on all topics. A large percentage (88%) of the
respondents indicated that they wanted more training on research on
the incidence of child victimization at supervised visitation programs,
family and systems responses to juvenile sexual offenders, and
research on the characteristics and prevalence of juvenile sex
offenders.
4
should be provided--visits should be recorded on video in child
sexual abuse cases (50%) and video cameras should be used inside
the building in dependency cases (50%).
5
Background
6
Grant since 1997 (see Appendix A). The Task Force is comprised of
professionals with knowledge of and experience within the criminal
justice system and the child protection system. Their areas of
expertise include child physical abuse, child neglect, child sexual
abuse and exploitation and child maltreatment related to fatalities.
Members represent most major geographic areas of Florida as well
as both private providers and government entities.
7
The Survey
The first mailing of the survey was done on May 30, 2003. A
cover letter from the Chair of the Task Force for Children’s Justice
was included that explained the purpose of the survey. The Office of
the State Courts Administrator provided the names of judges who
heard matters related to dissolutions/modifications, domestic
violence, dependency, child support and delinquency, and were
listed in the 2003 Judicial Assignments Worksheets Annual Reports.
These judges composed the sample (N=339) for the survey.
Reminder cards were sent to the judges on June 21, 2003, and
a facsimile reminder was sent on July 8, 2003. Surveys were
analyzed that had been received by August 8, 2003.
8
Results
Description of Respondents
60 51
50
40
30
20 16
9
10 6
0
Number
Circuit Judge General Master County Judge Hearing Officer
9
All of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits were represented by the 78
respondents that indicated the circuit in which they heard cases
(Table 2).
10
The respondent judges had served on the bench, on average,
8.7 years (Range=<1-31 years; S.D.=7.35 years) (Table 3). Slightly
more than half had been admitted to the Bar in the 1980s or 1990s
(Table 4).
40 38
35
30
25 23 22 Less than 5
20 17 5 to 9
15 10 to 14
10 15 or more
5
0
Percent
50 45
39
40
30 1962-1969
1970-1979
20 1980-1989
10 8 8 1990-1994
0
Percent
11
Training
30 27
25 22
20
15
10
6 5 4 3
5
0
Average No. of Hours
12
Table 6. Topics Covered in Respondents’ Training
13
Formal Agreements and Follow Up
80 73
70
60
50
40
30
16
20 11
10
0
Percent
14
There was no clear pattern in terms of formal mechanisms to
follow up on cases referred to local supervised visitation programs.
Twenty-nine percent (29%) indicated there were no agreements and
one-fourth (25%) said follow up was done if the parties filed motions.
Other mechanisms were used less frequently (Table 8).
30 29
25
25
21
19
20
15
10
10
0
Percent
15
Visits to Supervised Visitation Programs
60
52
50
40
30
20 16
14
12
10 6
0
Percent
never last 6 mos 6-12 mos 1-2 yrs ago 2+ yrs ago
16
Familiarity with Policies and Procedures
80 68
60
40
20 13 13
6
0
Percent
17
Slightly more than one-third of the respondents (36%) had not
read and 15% were unsure if they had read their supervised
visitation programs’ policies and procedures. Slightly less than a
majority (49%) had read the policies and procedures within the past
year or two (Table 11). Note again that 23 persons did not answer
this question and it is therefore likely that the number of respondents
that had not read program policies and procedures was higher.
40 36
35
30 27
25 22
20 15
15
10
5
0
Percent
18
Utilization of Programs
19
They were also asked if they had ordered supervised visitation
for the following types of alleged or founded dependency and
dissolution cases:
94 94
94
93
92
91
90
89 88
88
87
86
85
Percent [multiple answers allowed]
45
45 40
40
35
30
25
20
15
10 5
5
0
Percent
21
Case Information
50 45 48
40 38
30 27 28
23 22
20 16
10
0
Percent [multiple answers allowed]
court order only
DCF file, summary, speak to caseworker
law enforcement reports
criminal background check
medical/mental health records
court records
Injunction for Protection
should conduct risk assessment
22
Table 17. Security Measures at Supervised Visitation Programs by
Type of Case (N=53)
23
I don’t know I believe all
My program if my programs
Other Family Law Cases currently program should
provides provides provide
% checked % checked % checked
Law enforcement present for all visits 29 55 31
Staff observing visits required to have 30 55 36
documented training in child sexual abuse
Metal detectors in use 34 50 32
Video cameras used inside building 32 52 41
Video cameras used outside building 24 64 36
All visits recorded on video 18 64 35
Only paid staff (not volunteers) monitor 27 68 22
cases
One monitor per family 21 69 31
No gifts or other items brought to visits 9 84 17
Visiting parent not permitted to take 24 66 29
child(ren) to restroom
Visiting parent not allowed to whisper to 29 57 36
child
Alcohol screening done prior to visit 24 60 38
I don’t know I believe all
My program if my programs
Other Dependency Cases currently program should
provides provides provide
% checked % checked % checked
Law enforcement present for all visits 29 54 31
Staff observing visits required to have 27 56 44
documented training in child sexual abuse
Metal detectors in use 28 54 33
Video cameras used inside building 35 45 50
Video cameras used outside building 22 62 41
All visits recorded on video 14 63 44
Only paid staff (not volunteers) monitor 27 68 29
cases
One monitor per family 17 63 44
No gifts or other items brought to visits 10 79 21
Visiting parent not permitted to take 26 66 29
child(ren) to restroom
Visiting parent not allowed to whisper to 32 56 37
child
Alcohol screening done prior to visit 18 61 39
24
Alternatives to Supervised Visitation
97
100
78
80
60 53 51
40
20
0
Percent
25
Table 19. Respondents’ Impressions of Current Supervised
Visitation Issues and Practices (N=65)
Strongly No Strongly
Issue or Practice Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree
% % % % %
Monitoring visits involving child 5 5 6 42 42
sexual abuse requires special
training and expertise
No on-site law enforcement 26 41 11 20 2
presence is necessary for
monitoring cases involving
domestic violence
Only licensed mental health 6 44 14 22 14
professionals should monitor
child sexual abuse cases
Supervised visitation services 6 12 12 53 17
can reduce the need for future
judicial hearings
Children are rarely revictimized 1 27 35 32 5
at supervised visitation
programs by their visiting
parent
Community volunteers can 17 40 21 19 3
adequately monitor any cases
referred to a supervised
visitation center
Supervised visitation staff can 16 53 8 20 3
be asked by the referring court
to make recommendations
regarding custody
Supervised visitation programs 3 11 23 43 20
should be certified and
monitored by DCF or OSCA
Supervised visitation programs 5 6 60 29
should maintain their ability to
decline cases due to lack of
training or lack of security
Child sexual abuse victims 1 5 6 48 40
should be allowed to terminate
contact during a scheduled
visit if they experience
discomfort
Only a child’s therapist should 5 30 13 41 11
recommend when a child
should have contact with their
abuser in a supervised
visitation setting
26
Strongly No Strongly
Issue or Practice Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree
% % % % %
Supervised visitation programs 8 17 42 26 7
should be used for final
goodbyes between parent(s)
and child(ren) following
termination of parental rights
If a supervised visitation 36 55 2 6 1
program terminates a case for
non-compliance I am likely to
order unsupervised visitation
Program directors of 8 54 14 18 6
supervised visitation programs
should not have the right to
decline court referrals for
supervised visitation
All pertinent court and DCF 6 17 19 41 17
records must be made
available to supervised
visitation staff prior to the
scheduling of visits
Staff monitoring visits should 13 50 20 11 6
have master degrees or
equivalent experience and
training
27
Recommendations
28
of child victimization at supervised visitation programs (88%);
co-occurrence of child sexual abuse and domestic violence
(75%).
29
c. Communication between the court and the local
programs should be improved: 88% of judges
responding indicated that they agree or strongly agree
that “child sexual abuse victims should be allowed to
terminate contact during a scheduled visit if they
experience discomfort.” Yet this is not always the
protocol followed by staff of supervised visitation
programs, who often feel they risk judicial disapproval if
they allow children to terminate contact. This
recommendation can be implemented by individual
judges who actively familiarize themselves with their local
programs. It can also be implemented by strengthened
minimum standards.
d. Judges should order relevant records to be released
to supervised visitation programs at the time of case
referral, within the limitations of state law. Fifty-eight
percent (58%) of judges responding to the survey
indicated that they either agree or strongly agree that “all
pertinent court and DCF records must be made available
to supervised visitation staff prior to the scheduling of
visits.” However, program staff report that this frequently
does not happen. The result is often that supervised
visitation staff lack crucial information which would help
prevent revictimization of a victim parent or child.
e. Formal agreements between the chief judges of the
circuits and each supervised visitation program
within that circuit should address problematic
issues. These may include issues involving expertise of
staff/volunteers, credentialing of staff supervising cases
involving certain issues (e.g. child sexual abuse),
ensuring that court and DCF records are made available
in a timely fashion, and determining how cases will return
to court if a critical incident occurs (judicial review).
30
recommendation and only 14% did not (23% had no opinion or
did not answer). Currently supervised visitation programs in
Florida lie outside of the responsibility of either the court or
DCF, even though they provide services to court-ordered
cases or cases involved with the Department. These programs
may be free-standing nonprofits, volunteer, or part of the court,
or they may have a parent agency, such as a domestic
violence center. Whatever their organizational status,
however, they lack oversight by a designated state agency and
are the only program providing services to such at-risk,
vulnerable families that lack these.
31
reflected in the Minimum Standards or in practice; not all
programs in Florida have on-site law enforcement
available for cases involving domestic violence.
However, critical incident reports collected by the
Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation indicate frequent
examples of threats, intimidation of staff, violations of no-
contact provisions, stalking, and other risks perpetrated
by domestic violence perpetrators or alleged perpetrators
during scheduled services at supervised visitation
programs.
Submitted by
The Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation
Institute for Family Violence Studies
School of Social Work
Florida State University
C-3405 University Center
Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570
Phone: 850-644-6303 (ext. 1)
Email: fsuvisit@aol.com
32
Appendix A
33
Guardian ad Litem Representative and Experience Working with
Children with Disabilities
Ms. Marcia Hilty-Reinshuttle, Circuit Director, Guardian ad Litem
Program, Second Judicial Circuit
Related Experience: Director of Guardian ad Litem Program serving six
counties; Experience as therapist and administrator for mental and
behavioral health agencies serving children and adolescents, with
responsibilities including the development of behavioral health policies
and procedures
Child Advocate
Ms. Julie Hurst, Executive Director, Emerald Coast Children’s
Advocacy Center, Inc.
Related Experience: Former victim/witness counselor and administrator
in Office of the State Attorney
Defense Attorney
Vacant pending appointment
34
Parent Group Representative
Ms. Carol McNally, Executive Director, Healthy Families Florida
Related Experience: Extensive experience with programs serving children
and families, with expertise in employment and training and the prevention
of child abuse and neglect; Instrumental in establishing Team Florida, a
state level workgroup of agencies collaborating to ensure coordination and
avoid duplication of services
Department Attorney
Ms. Kelly McKibben, Managing Attorney, Department of Children &
Families
Related Experience: Oversight of four Child Welfare Legal Services
offices; Former member of Operations Board of Children’s Advocacy
Center of Brevard and current member of Friends of the Children’s
Advocacy Center of Brevard; Provider of legal training on various child
abuse and neglect issues and domestic violence
Prosecuting Attorney
Mr. Mike Sinacore, Assistant State Attorney, Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit
Related Experience: Service in Sex Offender Division for over six years,
serving as Division Chief for the past two and a half years; Former Public
Defender, including four years as Felony Division Chief and one year in
special litigation defending sexual battery cases
Health Professionals
Dr. Jay Whitworth, Executive Medical Director, Children’s Crisis
Center, Inc.
Related Experience: Professor Pediatrics at the University of Florida
Health Science Center in Jacksonville; Primary consultant to Florida’s
Child Protection Team program; Consultant to medical child evaluators
nationwide; Author of numerous articles and training manuals that have
strengthened the practice of medical and non-medical professionals in the
area of child abuse diagnosis and evaluation; Co-author of national
guidelines for evaluation of child physical and sexual abuse for the
American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics;
Participated in numerous state and national task forces focused on mult-
system efforts to strengthen the protection of children
35
Law Enforcement Representative
Lieutenant K. Andy Ray, Polk County Sheriff’s Office
Related Experience: Service with Polk County Sheriff’s Office for almost
sixteen years with current assignment to the Bureau of Criminal
Investigation, Special Victims Section, which includes investigation of child
physical and sexual abuse; Prior assignments to Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) unit, School Resource unit, patrol units and crime
prevention.
36
Appendix B
Judicial Circuit
1st
Tammy Connors, Director
Fran L. Frick Family Visitation Center
875 Royce Street
Pensacola, FL 32503
(850) 494-5985 Fax:(850)494-5989
Tammy.Connors@chsfl.org
3rd
Pam Pearce, Program Director
Family Visitation Center of the Suwannee Valley
1560 W. Baya Avenue
Lake City, FL 32025
(386)758-5760 Fax:(386) 758-5765
Pam.pearce@chsfl.org
4th
Joseph Nullet, Executive Director
The Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc.
1221 King St.
Jacksonville, FL 32204
(904)389-4244 Fax:(904) 389-4255
joe@FncFlorida.org
37
Sherry Bruner, Director
Kids’ Bridge
238 San Marco Dr.
St. Augustine, FL
Fax: 904-823-3181
sherry.bruner@chsfl.org
5th
Nancy Castillo, Program Supervisor
Family Visitation Center of Ocala
216 NE Sanchez Avenue
Ocala, FL 34470
(352)622-9408 Fax:(352)622-2035
nairza@hotmail.com
38
Children’s Home Society Family Visitation Center
2731 13th Ave. N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33713
(727)552-1487 (ext.1)
Kirsten.Maynard@chsfl.org
7th
Dori Gluz, Director
The Family Tree House Visitation Center
525 S. Ridgewood Ave
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
(386)323-2550 Fax(386)304-7619
dorigluz@bellsouth.net
39
Room #330, 3rd FL
Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 836-0427
ctfcaf2@ocnjcc.org
40
equality@bellsouth.net
Nadine Pierre-Louis
9245 SW 157 St. Ste. 206
Miami, FL 33157
Phone ; 786-242-3909
Fax:786-242-5199
pierrelouisnpl@aol.com
12th
Carol Rosenbaum, Director
Family Resources, Inc.
361 Sixth Avenue West
Bradenton, FL 34205
(941)708-5893
Fax: (941)741-3578
CRosenbaum@family-resources.org
14th
Cindy Lee, Community Resource Director
Tri-County Community Counsel
302 N. Oklahoma Street
Bonifay, FL 32425
41
(850)547-3688
Fax: (850) 547-1010
tricounty.able@digitalexp.com
Hallie Pasternack
Children’s Place
159 NW 3rd Street
Boca Raton, FL 33432
(561) 393-7495 Fax:(561)393-5063
hpasternack@tcphs.org
16th
Jessica Yatsuk, Director
The Family Access Center of the
Domestic Abuse Shelter Inc.
#3 Key Lime Square
Key West, FL 33040
(305)294-4532 Fax:(305)294-1574
Jessie7677@msn.com
17th
Carolyn Pittelli
Our House
408 NE 4th Street
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
(954)765-4159 Fax:(954)765-4075
cpittelli@broward.org
18th
42
Cocoa, FL 32923
(321)631-2766 ext 18
Fax:(321)631-1794
cindy_flachmeier@uss.salvationarmy.org
43
Appendix C
44
SURVEY ON JUDICIAL PRACTICES
!
in Utilization of Supervised Visitation Programs
The following survey has been developed by the Institute for Family Violence Studies within The Florida State University’s
School of Social Work under a contract with the State of Florida’s Department of Children & Families. The Task Force for
Children’s Justice is interested in collecting data on the practices of Florida’s judges who utilize or may utilize any of Florida’s
supervised visitation programs.
The findings of this study will be presented to the Department of Children & Families’ staff and to members of The Task Force
for Children’s Justice. It is hoped that the results of this research will lead to a better understanding of how these services are
used and how the State may enhance these programs’ abilities to provide supervised visitation services. Neither names nor any
other identifying characteristics of judges responding to this survey will be used in the report produced from the survey
results. All answers to survey questions will be aggregated and no individual responses will be reported. Further, all returned
surveys will be kept in a secure office with access limited to project staff and will be destroyed following the end of the project.
Anonymity of survey respondents will be assured. Should you have any questions regarding the survey or desire a copy of any
findings generated from this study, please contact The Institute for Family Violence Studies, School of Social Work, Florida
State University, Tallahassee, FL, 32306, phone 850.644.6303.
Once completed, please return the survey in the enclosed, business return envelope.
Thank you for participating in this study.
Circuit Judge
County Judge
General Master
Hearing Officer
5. What was the year you were admitted to the Florida Bar?
7. Does your circuit have a formal agreement* between the chief judge of your circuit and any supervised
visitation program in your circuit that accepts court-referred cases?
Yes No Uncertain
* Formal agreement is defined as a written agreement between the chief judge of each circuit and local visitation
programs willing to comply with the Supreme Court of Florida Minimum Standards for Supervised Visitation
Program Agreements, as described in an Administrative Order by Chief Justice Major B. Harding on
November 18, 1999.
8.Have you visited your supervised visitation program(s):
Have never visited
Within the last six months
Six months to a year ago
One year to two years ago
Over two years ago
9. When you order a case for supervised visitation, what is the duration of the supervised visitation order?
(check all that apply)
There is no time limit for cases referred from the court to the supervised visitation program(s);
A family can be refered for six months initially and then can reapply to the court for an extension;
A family can be referred for a nine month period;
A family can be referred for a twelve month period;
Varies depending upon specific case needs.
Other
10. Do you have formal mechanisms* in place to follow up on cases you refer/order to your local supervised
visitation program? (check all that apply)
*Formal mechanisms are written procedures for providing reports to the courts – including observation reports, incident
reports and summary reports – which are enumerated in the court’s agreement with the supervised visitation program.
Yes. The court requires monthly/bi-monthly reports back to the court.
No.
Only at the end of the time period for supervised visitation ordered.
Parties must file motion for court to hear of problems in the order for visitation.
Court reviews program reports and sets hearings sua sponte when problems arise in the supervised visitation
Other
11. When did you read the policies and procedures of your local supervised visitation program?
I read them in the past year.
I read them within the last two years.
I have not read the policies and procedures.
I don’t know for certain.
12. Which of the following statements best describes your reactions to the Supreme Court’s Recommended
Minimum Standards & Guidelines for Florida’s Supervised Visitation programs: (check all that apply)
I am not familiar with these Recommended Minimum Standards and Guidelines
The Standards & Guidelines should be mandated not just recommended;
Either OSCA or DCF should assume responsibility for ensuring that these Minimum Standards &
Guidelines are being implemented by supervised visitation providers.
Other (please discuss)
13. How much background information about cases you refer do you think supervised visitation program staff
should have prior to monitoring a case you refer: (check all that apply)
Staff needs only a court-order for supervised visitation prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should have reviewed the DCF case file, or received a case summary from the caseworker about the
allegations, or have spoken directly to the caseworker about the allegations prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should review law enforcement reports about the parties prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should conduct criminal background check on the parents prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should review medical and/or mental health records on the child(ren) prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should review court records on the parties prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should review the Injunction for Protection prior to monitoring visits.
Staff should conduct a risk assessment on parties prior to monitoring visits.
18. In dissolution cases have you ordered supervised visitation at any of the following points:
A. At hearings for temporary relief: Yes No
B. At final hearings: Yes No
C. As part of the parties’ mediation agreement which is subsequently ordered by the court: Yes No
19. When a supervised visitation program is not available to accept your referral, what alternatives do you order?
(check all that apply)
I have temporarily suspended visitation altogether.
I have ordered visitation to be supervised by a relative or friend of the parties.
I have ordered exchanges to take place at a police station or other public place.
I have ordered visitation to take place at the office of a mental health professional.
Other
Type of security measure My I don’t I believe all Type of security measure My I don’t I believe all
program know if my programs program know if my programs
currently program should currently program should
provides currently provide provides currently provide
provides Child Sexual Abuse Cases provides
DomesticViolence
Law enforcement present for all visits Law enforcement present for all visits
Staff observing visits required to have Staff observing visits required to have
documented training in child sexual abuse documented training in child sexual abuse
Metal detectors in use Metal detectors in use
Video cameras used inside building Video cameras used inside building
where visits will occur where visits will occur
Video cameras used outside building Video cameras used outside building
All visits recorded by video-camera All visits recorded by video-camera
Only paid staff (not volunteers) Only paid staff (not volunteers)
monitor cases monitor cases
One monitor per family One monitor per family
No gifts or other items brought to visits No gifts or other items brought to visits
Visiting parent not permitted to take Visiting parent not permitted to take
child(ren) to restroom child(ren) to restroom
Visiting parent not allowed to Visiting parent not allowed to
whisper to child whisper to child
Alcohol screening done prior to visit Alcohol screening done prior to visit
Type of security measure My I don’t I believe all Type of security measure My I don’t I believe all
program know if my programs program know if my programs
currently program should currently program should
provides currently provide provides currently provide
Other Family Law Cases provides Other Dependency Cases provides
Law enforcement present for all visits Law enforcement present for all visits
Staff observing visits required to have Staff observing visits required to have
documented training in child sexual abuse documented training in child sexual abuse
Metal detectors in use Metal detectors in use
Video cameras used inside building Video cameras used inside building
where visits will occur where visits will occur
Video cameras used outside building Video cameras used outside building
All visits recorded by video-camera All visits recorded by video-camera
Only paid staff (not volunteers) Only paid staff (not volunteers)
monitor cases monitor cases
One monitor per family One monitor per family
No gifts or other items brought to visits No gifts or other items brought to visits
Visiting parent not permitted to take Visiting parent not permitted to take
child(ren) to restroom child(ren) to restroom
Visiting parent not allowed to Visiting parent not allowed to
whisper to child whisper to child
Alcohol screening done prior to visit Alcohol screening done prior to visit
JUDICIAL TRAINING ON SUPERVISED VISITATION
21. How many hours of training have you received in the past three years have you received on the following topics:
Domestic Violence: #Number of hours
Child Sexual Abuse: #Number of hours
Other Types of Child Maltreatment: #Number of Hours
Dynamics of Divorce: #Number of Hours
Child Development: #Number of Hours
Supervised Visitation: #Number of Hours
22. Please indicate which of the following topics were covered by your training. Also indicate which of these topics
you would like to receive more training on.
Covered Want more training
Signs and symptoms of child sexual abuse
Family dynamics in child sexual abuse
Characteristics & responses of non-offending
parents in child sexual abuse cases
Research findings on incest perpetrators
Impact of disclosure on child, the non-offending
parent and offending parent
The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome
Triggering events for children experiencing child sexual abuse
Therapeutic goals for child sexual abuse perpetrators
Therapeutic goals for sexually abused children
Therapeutic goals for the non-offending parent in
child sexual abuse cases
Myths about child sexual abuse
Progression pattern in intra-familial child sexual abuse
Characteristics & prevalence research on juvenile sexual offenders
Family & systems responses to juvenile sexual offenders
Community resources appropriate for child sexual abuse cases
Identification of child sexual abuse resources and experts
Research on the incidence of child revictimization at
supervised visitation programs
Co-occurence of child sexual abuse and domestic violence
Other (please list other topics):
Once completed, please return the survey in the enclosed, business return envelope.
Again, thank you for participating in this study.
If you do not have a copy of the Supreme Court’s Minimum Standards for Supervised Visitation Program Agreements or the Administrative Order
relating to Supervised Visitation signed by Chief Justice Harding on Nov. 18, 1999, please contact our office at 850/644-6303.