Comptency #8: Compare Karlis' policies with those of a similar organization

Similarities and differences between the Karlis Center and Heritage House (St. Louis)

Heritage House has the same primary purpose as Karlis: to “ensure the safety of children who are the focus of high-conflict child custody by providing a caring environment in which supervised access and custody exchanges occur” (p. 210). Both programs also place much focus on providing a safe place for parents who have been victims of domestic violence. Karlis, for instance, strives to have a domestic violence advocate on hand. “The safe surroundings at Heritage House” are intended in part to “help women regain self-confidence” (p. 217). Consequently, “the revictimization often experienced by the victim is lessened when they meet face-to-face with the batterer in the courtroom [and] when required to tell their story of abuse, the lowered levels of anxiety result in more coherent testimony, and, thereby, help to ensure justice is served” (p. 217).

The organizations have some different policies in place to achieve these purposes. Karlis prevents ex-partners from coming into contact with one another by staggering their visits: the visiting partner must arrive at the center 15 minutes before their ex-partner and leaves 15 minutes after. Heritage House adds extra security precautions. For example, “[e]ntry into the center is monitored by two off-duty police officers that are present during all hours of operation” (p. 210). Moreover, only authorized persons may enter the building and only after they’ve been “scanned with a handheld metal detector” (p. 210).

Heritage differs from Karlis in another important way. Whereas Karlis offers both safety-based and therapeutic supervised parenting time, Heritage exclusively offers the latter. Thus, all visits there are supervised by “professional clinicians who possess a range of therapeutic, conflict management, psychoeducational and advocacy skills” (p. 210). Consequently, staff members intervene, not just to ensure that the children are physically and emotionally safe, but to teach parenting skills (p. 210).

Like Karlis, Heritage tries to be flexible to better serve as many clients as possible. Both programs remain open during evenings and weekends (p. 211), although only Heritage is open during major holidays (p. 217). Having such “nontraditional” prevents “removing children from school and parents from work so that the noncustodial parent and child can maintain frequent and consistent contact” (p. 217). Another similarity is that, although both programs charge for their services, they accommodate low-income clients by charging on a sliding scale (p. 211).

* * * * *

Flory, B.E., & Berg-Weger, M. (2003). “Children of high-conflict custody disputes: Striving for social justice in adult-focused litigation.” Social Thought: Journal of Religion in the social Services, 22(2-3), 205-219.