By Judi Atwood
Amidst an urgent global need to address Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), it becomes crucial to scrutinize the role of psychologists in the legal system. While these professionals command substantial fees, in Colorado, they operate under quasi-immunity, raising questions about accountability for the emotional toll on children exposed to ongoing violence. This issue is particularly pronounced in Colorado, where psychologists enjoy a level of protection that raises concerns about accountability.
Recent legislative efforts, like the CFI/PRE Cover Page for HB23-1178 Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Training Affidavit, aim to address system inadequacies. These guidelines mandate comprehensive training for professionals, covering crucial aspects like domestic violence, child abuse, coercive control, and biases related to parties with disabilities. However, the efficacy of such measures is questioned when untrained or biased professionals impact cases, as seen in the struggles of survivors.
One glaring concern is the financial burden placed on survivors fighting to protect 
their children. A comparison of national savings averages reveals a significant discrepancy, with the average American having $17,135 in savings, while in Colorado, the figure is $12,490 according to Slickdeals consumer surveys. This disparity becomes even more pronounced when considering legal fees, where hiring an attorney can consume a staggering 80.06% of the average American’s savings in Colorado.
The financial impact prompts crucial inquiries into the judiciary’s comprehension of economics. When a significant chunk of a couple’s savings is earmarked for legal fees, how do Judges and Magistrates ascertain the justification for the remaining funds required for divorce-related expenses, such as Court-Appointed Psychologists (with costs ranging from 10K to 20K)? This economic strain places Coloradans at risk of potential debt merely to navigate divorce proceedings, particularly when Courts mandate Parental Responsibility Evaluations (PRE), a common occurrence in most Colorado Family Court Cases involving Intimate Partner Violence. In my specific case, four PREs were mandated, a move that failed to address the well-documented economic abuse evident in my situation.
The economic disparities extend beyond legal fees, enveloping exorbitant expenses in family law proceedings. Individuals grappling with Intimate Partner Violence often confront opposing counsels earning significantly more than the average American’s savings. Family Law Attorneys can manage 20 cases, potentially securing retainers of up to $200,000. This stark incongruity in attorney incomes compared to the average American savings underscores a fundamental lack of comprehension and education within the Court system.
The disregard for a child’s well-being in prolonged court battles, depleting their college funds, blatantly contradicts the principles outlined in the United States Constitution. Children should not bear the brunt of financial hardships resulting from proceedings they did not initiate, and Judges should not be compelled to make such judgments affecting a child or a survivor of domestic violence. These are conditions reminiscent of wartime; Family Court should not be a personal battleground but should focus on our children’s future and their ability to thrive post-parental separation due to domestic violence.
Given these financial disparities, it becomes imperative to champion a system that not only addresses the emotional toll of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) but also ensures accountability for the economic burdens it places on survivors. The discrepancies in financial comprehension within the legal system necessitate a thorough examination, prompting a reevaluation of our reliance on Family Law Firms concerning matters that intersect with the financial concerns of the average American. The call for change resonates not only in raising awareness about the economic impact of IPV but also in holding those accountable who contribute to perpetuating these financial injustices. Survivors should not endure economic ruin merely for safeguarding their children from a cycle of violence, a concept well-defined in American Psychology as harmful and enduring.
Essentially, no Judge should possess the authority to negatively impact a child’s life without facing consequences. If we had the ability to initiate legal actions against our Municipal Family Court Judges and Magistrates, including repercussions affecting their own children’s college funds, it would likely result in more positive outcomes within the Family Court system. It is crucial not to overlook arrogance and judicial temperament in this context. Holding judges accountable becomes imperative for the well-being of children enduring the distressing ordeals of prolonged litigation, parental loss, living with an abusive parent, and navigating the challenges of poverty.
Unfortunately, my children don’t have any funds set aside for college and only have the basic necessities. They’ve been forced to live with one parent, enduring significant hardship. Surprisingly, according to my opposing counsel, Rebecca Pepin, and my Judge, Thomas Mulvahill, these circumstances are considered acceptable in Boulder County. This perspective arises from their insufficient understanding of the relevant issues, a lack of appropriate demeanor for family law matters, and inadequate training in Domestic Violence. This deficiency in knowledge and training has resulted in an unwarranted entitlement to negatively impact the lives of survivors and their children.
Judi Atwood is Activist/Public Policy Advocate/Civil Engagement Promoter
Contact Information: https://amplifycolorado.colabnews.co/journalists/judi-atwood/
