History confirms that the custody trial judge enjoys immeasurable discretion to determine what is best for children. The judge’s immense authority begins at the trial court level and permeates the appellate process. This expansive authority appears to be based in part on the significance of custody determinations, what is seen as the trial judge’s special expertise in domestic relations law, and the misguided notion that the trial judge has a superior ability to assess issues of credibility unique to family law cases. As a result, our system’s interpretation of the trial judge’s level of discretion in custody matters appears to be synonymous with the ultimate power and authority to decide the matter beyond regulation.

There is little question that custody is an important legal matter calling for specialized treatment by our courts. Custody determinations are among the most difficult and important decisions judges make in the lives of parents and children. Not only must judges balance the rights, interests, and wishes of parents but, above all, they must ensure the safety and well-being of children. Out of all the custody cases the trial judge faces, those involving domestic violence present some of the greatest challenges to both parental rights and child protection.

Interestingly, the safety and well-being of the child is directly related to the well-being of the parents. In the area of domestic violence the issue of parent safety and stability is particularly significant. The welfare of a child exposed to intimate partner violence is linked to the health, emotional stability, and safety of the abused parent.

Custody cases involving intimate partner violence require special analysis, given the risks associated with domestic violence. Thus, our concept of judicial discretion in custody cases involving domestic violence must be altered. Although the trial judge’s authority may be expansive in nature, it must not be seen as beyond control. Unregulated authority is not only flawed in cases involving violence against women, it is dangerous.

Although research suggests prison visitation can be advantageous to parent-child bonding essential to the healthy development of children, it appears that the nature of the bond is a significant factor to consider when assessing the appropriateness of continued contact. This matter is further complicated by the trauma associated with childhood exposure to extreme acts of violence against a parent and how that exposure shapes bonding.

This article suggests that courts have a unique opportunity to stop the intergenerational transmission of violence in extreme cases through proper assessment and limitations on visitation. Denying visitation to incarcerated batterers, however, is a quick fix to a problem which will eventually resurface once the parent is released from incarceration. Thus, the writer argues that courts have a responsibility to be creative in fashioning relief that takes into account the needs of children suffering from trauma and the treatment of batterers.