Avaa tiedosto - TamPub - Tampereen yliopisto

English Summary
Domestic Violence and Child Custody Disputes
The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of how in Finland
violence occurring in families in its different forms is handled in child custody dispute
cases during litigation. In the study, custody and visitation practices are seen as part of
family and gender policies. Also domestic violence policy is implemented in custody
and visitation practices; court decisions over child custody, children’s living arrangements
and parents’ visitation rights have a concrete impact on the lives of both victims
and perpetrators of violence.
The theoretical and societal background of the study
In Finland, custody and visitation practices are defined by two main principles, which
are also followed in many other western countries. The first is the aim to bring about an
agreement between parents on child custody, living arrangements and visitation rights.
Second, both parents are encouraged to continue being parents to their children through
joint custody arrangements and visitation rights also after divorce.
Both researchers on violence and help professionals working in the field have paid
attention to the problems that emerge when violence occurring in families and custody
and visitation practices intersect. One cause for criticism and concern is the ideal of
joint custody. Joint custody is not regarded as suitable in situations in which intimate
partner violence has been part of family life. It requires of both parents an ability to cooperate,
which is called into question if violence has occurred in the family. Joint custody
also allows for continuous harassment, control and threats. Unsupervised visits in
turn have been seen to jeopardize the physical and psychological safety of both children
and the residential parent. Sole custody and limiting visitation rights is for these reasons
considered to be recommendable in cases in which violence has occurred. Also aiming
for reconciliation has been criticized, because the settling process can increase the risk
of violence, and the threat of violence may have an impact on the content of the settlement.
260