Effects of Trauma on Family Court Cases:
What is Trauma and Why We Must Address It?
By Linda FieldstoneSupervisor Family Court Services 11th Jud. Cir. ~Although prevalence estimates vary, there is consensus that high percentages of justice-involved women and men have experienced serious trauma throughout their lifetime. The reverberating effect of trauma experiences can challenge a person’s capacity for recovery and pose significant barriers to maintaining healthy relationships, adjusting to life transitions and accessing services, often resulting in an increased risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system and affecting their family court cases. Cindy A. Schwartz, MS, MBA, Consultant to SAMSHA’s National Center for Trauma Informed Care, will offer insights into how to interact with people in ways that help to engage them in services, keep them out of the criminal justice system, ease processing through the system, and avoid re-traumatizing. Justin Volpe, Certified Peer Specialist Consultant, will demonstrate how the application of effective practices can divert a trauma victim from self-destructive behavior to actions that can promote more productive responses when involved in family court actions.
at Lawson E. Thomas Courthouse.
Post by End Parental Alienation. |
Family Court Services and their presenters from SAMSHA failed to address how Family Court can cause a person severe emotional distress that LEADS to the Trauma (Physical and Psychological Injury). They did discuss how trauma leads to mental and physical illness. The big question of the afternoon: “Which came first the chicken or the egg?
The first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause
of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was
Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial
parent brought suit for damages alleging that:
“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and
outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on
the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it
impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place
between the (plaintiff and child).”