Competency #1: Research "neutrality" as it pertains to supervised visitation

Stern and Oehme (2005) reason that, since supervised visitation centers derive their “authority and character from the judicial instructions under which [they] operate,” they should “adhere to the same mandate of neutrality” (p. 49). Judges, the authors note, are required to avoid all appearance of bias. For this reason, judges are expected to recuse themselves from cases that could benefit them financially, and they are also expected to refrain from giving any indication that they have “a pronounced animosity toward, or affinity with” any relevant individual or group (p. 47). Although judges, like all people, cannot “wholly escape” their own biases and preconceptions, they are nonetheless expected to “base their decisions on evidence, arguments, and law” (p. 49).

Similarly, Stern and Oehme (2005) write, supervised visitation workers should avoid any appearance of bias: for example, they should have no “pecuniary or business relationship with either parent” (p. 59) and they should not supervise any family members or personal friends (p. 60). The Supervised Visitation Network shares this view, affirming on its website that supervised visitation centers should maintain “an unbiased, objective, and balanced environment” and that staff members should not “[take] a position between the parents” (Standards for supervised visitation practice, n.d.).

Neutrality, Stern and Oehme caution, does not require staff members to “presume that the parents are on equal footing” when “violence or an allegation of violence occurs” (p. 60). For example:

If police, hospitals, or court records have documentation of violence, then the program must make the victim's safety needs a high priority during supervised visits. Moreover, if allegations of violence exist, visitation programs must err on the side of caution and take precautions on behalf of the alleged victim and the children. (p. 60)

Similarly, the Supervised Visitation Network holds that “[b]eing neutral does not mean providers disregard behaviors such as abuse or violence of any kind” (Standards for supervised visitation practice, n.d.).

Stern and Oehme (2005) write that practicing neutrality is the best way to help those parents whom staff members might be tempted to advocate for. Visitation programs that appear to advocate for certain parents “may gradually lose court referrals and as a result eventually lose their funding” (p. 55). This in turn might “deprive some children of the only setting in the community that can reasonably assure their safe contact with a noncustodial parent” (p. 56). Additionally, if “a parent who has committed domestic violence sees that a supervised visitation program is advocating on behalf of his partner, he may press the court for unsupervised visitation or pursue protracted litigation over the order for supervised visitation” (p. 56).

* * * * *

Standards for supervised visitation practice. (n.d.) Retrieved January 3, 2015, from http://www.svnetwork.net/standards-definitions.asp

Stern, N., & Oehme, K. (2005). Defending neutrality in supervised visitation to preserve a crucial family service. Southwestern University Law Review, 35, 37-60