“Keeping Children Safe From Family Violence Act” or “Kayden’s Law” is a section of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022. It is intended to protect children from domestic violence. Unfortunately, the law has serious flaws & implications for the safety of children. There is now an attempt to pass this law in all states.
On this webpage, you will find:
- 1. Our Position: Kayden’s Law is Unsafe for Children
- 2. Key Issues
- 3. Proposed Solutions
- 3.1. Amend the “Law” Section
- 3.2. Amend the “Uniformed Required Standard” Section
- 3.3. Amend the “Training and Education Program” Section
- 4. How Can You Help
- 4.1. Contact Your Legislators
- 4.2. Contact the Media
- 4.3. Raise Public Awareness
- 4.4. Endorse Our Position
- 5. The Status of Kayden’s Law
- 6. Background
- 6.1. Who is Kayden of Kayden’s Law?
- 6.2. What’s the Story behind Kayden’s Law
- 7. The Language of the Law
- 8. A Discussion about the Language of the Law
1. Our Position: Kayden’s Law is Unsafe for Children
You can download this flyer in pdf format here.
This information sheet was created by a consortium of experts representing a network of international organizations, representing thousands of families. Some of the organizations are:
US Organizations
- Alliance of Parent Alienation and Family Reunification Practitioners (APAFR)
- Chicago United Parents
- Colorado Coalition for Boys and Men
- Family Access-Fighting for Children’s Rights
- Family Advocate Network Political Action Committee (FAN-PAC)
- Fathers Against Discrimination asbl (FAD)
- International Council on Shared
- Parenting (ICSP)
- Kids Hugs
- Kids Need Both, Inc.
- Mothers Against Child Abuse
- National Parents Organization (NPO)
- Parental Alienation Study Group (PASG)
- Parental Alienation Virtual Institute
- PAS Intervention
- Servicemembers and Veterans For Children’s Rights
- The Hero’s Circle
- Together 4 Changes
- Victim To Hero Institute
International Organizations
- Associação Portuguesa para a Igualdade Parental e Direitos dos Filhos
- Boys Mentoring Advocacy Network
- Colibri Italia
- Društvo očetov Slovenije
- Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation (EMMM)
- Figlipersempre Nazionale
- Global Initiative for Boys & Men (GIBM.us)
- Good Egg Safety CIC
- Happy Parenting — Malta
- Parental Alienation Awareness International Network {PAAIN}
- Parental Alienation UK
- Recover Our Kids
- Split the Difference
- Vardnad Boende Umgange (VBU)
2. Key Issues
2.1. A Flawed Foundation
- The law was created based on unreliable research with serious methodologic & statistical flaws;
2.2. Law language that is unsafe for children
- The Legislative Branch is attempting to interfere with the Judiciary Branch’s ability to make informed decisions;
- Victims are prevented from bringing probative, material, and relevant experts according to evidence law; The law excludes experts that could be critical in protecting children such as experts in family dynamics, personality disorders, suggestibility of children, child development, forensic science,…
- The law encourages false allegations;
- The law fails to recognize psychological abuse, negative bonding, and pathological attachments. As such, the law keeps children with abusers;
- The law restricts judges, magistrates, and relevant court personnel to narrowly scoped and inadequate training;
- The law prevents victims, especially children, from receiving empirically valid, best practice or evidence-based treatment.
- The law prevents the development of scientifically valid reunification treatments for children and families.
2.3. Law was written to direct ALL funding to domestic violence groups
- The law mandates that all the training for judges, magistrates, and court officers is provided ONLY by professionals from domestic violence groups. Not only this is narrowly scoped and inadequate, it shows a conflict of interests and perhaps the reason why domestic violence groups are pushing so hard for this flawed piece of registration to pass, not only at the federal level but in all states.
2.4. Kayden’s Law was passed without due process
VAWA was already previously in the law and so the reauthorization was passed in an expedited manner instead of the normal legislative process. However, the language for the Kayden’s law, which is the Title 15 portion of HR2471 is a new language and should have gone through both the Judiciary Committees of the House and the Senate and also should have been given time for debate and consideration. By sneaking into the reauthorization of VAWA, Kayden’s law was passed without due process.
2.5. Specific Issues with Kayden’s Law in California
In California, Kayden’s Law is in SB616. Bill Text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB616
Section 2 is the justification for the law. Item 6 and 7 refer to Professor Joan Meier’s studies.
In 2019, Professor Joan Meier and colleagues published a paper at her home institution (George Washington University, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3448062). The editors of this publication confirmed that the paper had never been reviewed. This “study” was therefore not peer-reviewed by anyone, least of all by any scientists.
Later, a peer-reviewed paper that was published in a scientific journal by the American Psychological Association (https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2020-96321-001.pdf) identified over 30 methodological and statistical flaws in the study by Professor Meier. This publication and others have also proven that the real data shows drastically different findings than what is shown in Professor Meir’s work.
The outcome of Professor Meier’s study was shown to be invalid but it made its way into the language of the law.
Section 3 is the actual law language that will impact children and families:
Item 3033(a)(1) does not include psychological abuse. That means this law will prevent the court from removing a child from a psychologically abusive parent.
Item 3033(a)(2) the law does not consider negative bonding and pathogenic attachment. That means this law will prevent the court from removing a child from a toxic environment where the attachment style is not a healthy attachment style, for example, attachment style due to brainwashing and programming like parental alienation.
Item 3033(b) the law only allows experts who work with victims of domestic violence and prevents all other types of experts. Many types of important experts will be prevented from being able to testify in court because of this, for example, researchers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, without clinical experience with victims of domestic violence. Those prevented from being testified may have expertise in personality disorder, child development, attachment style, suggestibility in children, those in education or those with a background in law enforcement, and so on. This means victims will not be able to defend themselves and the court will not be able to make informed decisions.
Item 3033(c) moves the standard from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent” while does not consider the possibility (the prevalence) of false allegations. In fact, this law will encourage false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse because there is no accountability and remedies for false allegations here.
Item 3033(d)(1) sets the standard of reunification therapy to be “scientifically valid”, which is not only not realistic, but it will also prevent the development of scientifically valid therapy in the future. The standard here should be “empirically valid” or “best practice”.
Item 3033(d)(2) is attempting to fix a parent-child problem by directing blame and responsibility to one parent and ignoring the nature of a family system dynamics. This shows a gross lack of understanding of family psychology. If a child has been manipulated to reject one parent, it’s not possible to fix the relationship by expecting the rejected parent to fix it. The child needs both parents, it’s for the well-being of the child, and it’s the responsibility of both parents to take action in the child’s best interests.
Item 3033(e) mandates a narrow scope of training for judges, court officers, and expert witnesses. If they are only trained about domestic violence and not on many other aspects of child development, personality disorder, and family dynamics, then their judgment will be skewed.
Item 3033(e)(3)(B) dictates that the ONLY people who can provide training to judges, court officers, and expert witnesses are those who work with victims of domestic violence. This is a serious lack of substance because those who work with victims of domestic violence do not have all the expertise in many other aspects of child development, family dynamics, human psychology, law enforcement, forensic psychology… Judges, court officers, and expert witnesses need well-rounded knowledge. It seems that this particular item is attempting to direct all funding for training to domestic violence groups, which raises the question about the motive of domestic violence groups in pushing this flawed law.
3. Proposed Solutions
3.1. Amend the “Law” section
- to allow all experts according to evidence law: probative, material, and relevant;
- to recognize that false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse do exist and false allegations must be taken into consideration;
- to allow the court the ability to remove or restrict the child from a parent or a litigating party who is psychologically abusive or with whom the child is pathologically bonded or attached;
- to allow the court to order reunification treatments that are empirically valid;
3.2. Amend the “Uniformed Required Standard” Section
- to allow professionals with demonstrated expertise that is probative, material, and relevant;
3.3. Amend the “Training and Education Program” Section
- to allow training to be provided by professionals with demonstrated experience or expertise, including, for example, researchers from credited educational and research institutions, psychologists, psychiatrists, and law enforcement.
4. How can you help?
4.1. Contact Your Legislators
You can contact your legislators to let them know your opinion and concern about this law. Please feel free to share the flyer above or any information on this webpage.
- To find your Representative in the Congress, you can use this government link here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
- To find your Federal Senators, you can use this government link here: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
- To find your State legislators, please go to your State government website.
If you need help with this, please feel free to contact us. It is best to contact us through messaging on our Facebook page: http://facebook.com/VictimToHero.
4.2. Contact the Media
You can also reach out to your local media outlets and express your opinion and share the flyer above. If you go to any media outlet website, there is usually an email address, phone number, or a web contact form for “News Tips”, or “Story Suggestion” or the like. You can contact the media that way to let them know.
4.3. Raise Public Awareness
You can help raise awareness by sharing this webpage or the flyer above through social media or through other communication channels.
4.4. Endorse Our Position
If you belong to a professional or advocacy organization, please convince the organization to join the list of endorsing organizations on the flyer above. We’ll be happy to update the flyer to include more organizations.
When legislators and the media receive emails and phone calls about the same issue from many people, they will likely take the issue seriously.
5. The Status of Kayden’s Law
At the federal level, the language of Kayden’s law was passed by Congress and enacted into law by President Biden within H.R.2471 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 in the 117the Congress Legislative Session.
There are also 2 pending bills for this law: H.R.1620 – Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2021 by Democratic Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) which passed the House and is now with the Senate, and S.3623 – Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 which was introduced by Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (California) in the Senate. There 2 pending bills will not move any further because the language has already passed into law HR2471.
There is now an attempt to pass this law in all states:
In Pennsylvania, Senate Bill SB78 introduced by Senator Lisa Baker in the current 2022 PA Legislative Session has passed the Senate and is now with the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Rob W. Kauffman.
In Illinois, House Bill HB5310 was introduced by Representative Joyce Mayson in the current 102nd Illinois Legislative Session. The bill is currently with the House Rules Committee, chaired by Representative Gregory Harris.
In New York, Bill A5398 was introduced by Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi. This bill is currently with the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Assemblyman Charles Lavine.
In California, Bill SB616 was introduced by Senator Rubio. This bill passed the Senate and is now with the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
6. Background
6.1. Who is Kayden of Kayden’s Law?
Kayden Mancuso was a seven-year-old girl in Philadelphia who was murdered by her biological father, Jeffrey Mancuso, in a murder-suicide in August 2018. She died after being hit in the head with a weight. Her father also suffocated her and left a plastic bag tied around her neck. Her father then killed himself.
6.2. What is the story behind Kayden’s Law?
Kayden’s father and mother, Kathryn Sherlock, had been in a lengthy and bitter child custody dispute in court. The 45 years old father has a history of abuse and violent behavior.
Kayden’s mother and father were not married. Kayden lived with her mother and her stepfather, Brian Sherlock, and her two half brothers.
During one of these unsupervised weekend visits, the seven-year-old Kayden Mancuso was killed. When Kayden was not returned on Sunday night after the scheduled visit, the family became concerned and called the police, but nothing was done. The next day, Kayden’s stepfather, Brian Sherlock, found her body in the living room of her biological father’s home. The father’s body was found in an upstairs bedroom.
7. The language of Kayden’s Law
TITLE XV--KEEPING CHILDREN SAFE FROM FAMILY VIOLENCE
SEC. 1501. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Keeping Children Safe From Family
Violence Act'' or ``Kayden's Law''.
SEC. 1502. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Approximately 1 in 15 children is exposed to domestic
violence each year.
(2) Most child abuse is perpetrated in the family and by a
parent. Intimate partner violence and child abuse overlap in the
same families at rates between 30 and 60 percent. A child's risk of
abuse increases after a perpetrator of intimate partner violence
separates from a domestic partner, even when the perpetrator has
not previously directly abused the child. Children who have
witnessed intimate partner violence are approximately 4 times more
likely to experience direct child maltreatment than children who
have not witnessed intimate partner violence.
(3) More than 75 percent of child sexual abuse is perpetrated
by a family member or a person known to the child. Data of the
Department of Justice shows that family members are 49 percent, or
almost half, of the perpetrators of crimes against child sex
assault victims younger than 6 years of age.
(4) Research suggests a child's exposure to a batterer is among
the strongest indicators of risk of incest victimization. One study
found that female children with fathers who are batterers of their
mothers were 6.5 times more likely to experience father-daughter
incest than female children who do not have abusive fathers.
(5) Child abuse is a major public health issue in the United
States. Total lifetime financial costs associated with just 1 year
of confirmed cases of child maltreatment, including child physical
abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect, result in
$124,000,000,000 in annual costs to the economy of the United
States, or approximately 1 percent of the gross domestic product of
the United States.
(6) Empirical research indicates that courts regularly discount
allegations of child physical and sexual abuse when those
allegations are raised in child custody cases. Courts believed less
than \1/4\ of claims that a father has committed child physical or
sexual abuse. With respect to cases in which an allegedly abusive
parent claimed the mother ``alienated'' the child, courts believed
only 1 out of 51 claims of sexual molestation by a father.
Independent research indicates that child sexual abuse allegations
are credible between 50 and 70 percent of the time.
(7) Empirical research shows that alleged or known abusive
parents are often granted custody or unprotected parenting time by
courts. Approximately \1/3\ of parents alleged to have committed
child abuse took primary custody from the protective parent
reporting the abuse, placing children at ongoing risk.
(8) Researchers have documented nearly 800 child murders in the
United States since 2008 committed by a divorcing or separating
parent. More than 100 of these child murders are known to have
occurred after a court ordered the child to have contact with the
dangerous parent over the objection of a safe parent or caregiver.
(9) Scientifically unsound theories that treat abuse
allegations of mothers as likely false attempts to undermine
fathers are frequently applied in family court to minimize or deny
reports of abuse of parents and children. Many experts who testify
against abuse allegations lack expertise in the relevant type of
alleged abuse, relying instead on unsound and unproven theories.
(10) Judges presiding over custody cases involving allegations
of child abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence are
rarely required to receive training on these subjects, and most
States have not established standards for such training.
SEC. 1503. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this title are to--
(1) increase the priority given to child safety in any State
court divorce, separation, visitation, paternity, child support,
civil protection order, or family custody court proceeding
affecting the custody and care of children, excluding child
protective, abuse, or neglect proceedings and juvenile justice
proceedings;
(2) strengthen the abilities of courts to--
(A) recognize and adjudicate domestic violence and child
abuse allegations based on valid, admissible evidence; and
(B) enter orders that protect and minimize the risk of harm
to children; and
(3) ensure that professional personnel involved in cases
containing domestic violence or child abuse allegations receive
trauma-informed and culturally appropriate training on the
dynamics, signs, and impact of domestic violence and child abuse,
including child sexual abuse.
SEC. 1504. INCREASED FUNDING FOR STOP GRANTS.
Section 2007 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10446) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(k) Grant Increases for States With Certain Child Custody
Proceeding Laws and Standards.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Child custody proceeding.--The term `child custody
proceeding'--
``(i) means a private family court proceeding in State
or local court that, with respect to a child, involves the
care or custody of the child in a private divorce,
separation, visitation, paternity, child support, legal or
physical custody, or civil protection order proceeding
between the parents of the child; and
``(ii) does not include--
``(I) any child protective, abuse, or neglect
proceeding;
``(II) a juvenile justice proceeding; or
``(III) any child placement proceeding in which a
State, local, or Tribal government, a designee of such
a government, or any contracted child welfare agency or
child protective services agency of such a government
is a party to the proceeding.
``(B) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a
State that--
``(i) receives a grant under subsection (a); and
``(ii) has in effect--
``(I) each law described in paragraph (3);
``(II) the standards described in paragraph (4);
and
``(III) the training program described in paragraph
(5).
``(C) Reunification treatment.--The term `reunification
treatment' means a treatment or therapy aimed at reuniting or
reestablishing a relationship between a child and an estranged
or rejected parent or other family member of the child.
``(2) Increase.--
``(A) In general.--The Attorney General shall increase the
amount of a grant awarded under subsection (a) to an eligible
State that submits an application under paragraph (6) by an
amount that is not more than 10 percent of the average of the
total amount of funding provided to the State under subsection
(a) under the 3 most recent awards to the State.
``(B) Term of increase.--An increase of a grant under
subparagraph (A) shall be for 1 fiscal year.
``(C) Renewal.--An eligible State that receives an increase
under subparagraph (A) may submit an application for renewal of
the increase at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
``(D) Limit.--An eligible State may not receive an increase
under subparagraph (A) for more than 4 fiscal years.
``(3) Laws.--The laws described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) A law that ensures that, with respect to a child
custody proceeding in which a parent has been alleged to have
committed domestic violence or child abuse, including child
sexual abuse--
``(i) expert evidence from a court-appointed or outside
professional relating to the alleged abuse may be admitted
only if the professional possesses demonstrated expertise
and clinical experience in working with victims of domestic
violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse, that
is not solely of a forensic nature; and
``(ii) in making a finding regarding any allegation of
domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual
abuse, in addition to any other relevant admissible
evidence, evidence of past sexual or physical abuse
committed by the accused parent shall be considered,
including--
``(I) any past or current protection or restraining
orders against the accused parent;
``(II) sexual violence abuse protection orders
against the accused parent;
``(III) arrests of the accused parent for domestic
violence, sexual violence, or child abuse; or
``(IV) convictions of the accused parent for
domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse.
``(B) A law that ensures that, during a child custody
proceeding--
``(i) a court may not, solely in order to improve a
deficient relationship with the other parent of a child,
remove the child from a parent or litigating party--
``(I) who is competent, protective, and not
physically or sexually abusive; and
``(II) with whom the child is bonded or to whom the
child is attached;
``(ii) a court may not, solely in order to improve a
deficient relationship with the other parent of a child,
restrict contact between the child and a parent or
litigating party--
``(I) who is competent, protective, and not
physically or sexually abusive; and
``(II) with whom the child is bonded or to whom the
child is attached;
``(iii) a court may not order a reunification
treatment, unless there is generally accepted and
scientifically valid proof of the safety, effectiveness,
and therapeutic value of the reunification treatment;
``(iv) a court may not order a reunification treatment
that is predicated on cutting off a child from a parent
with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is
attached; and
``(v) any order to remediate the resistance of a child
to have contact with a violent or abusive parent primarily
addresses the behavior of that parent or the contributions
of that parent to the resistance of the child before
ordering the other parent of the child to take steps to
potentially improve the relationship of the child with the
parent with whom the child resists contact.
``(C) A law that requires judges and magistrates who hear
child custody proceedings and other relevant court personnel
involved in child custody proceedings, including guardians ad
litem, best interest attorneys, counsel for children, custody
evaluators, masters, and mediators to complete, with respect to
the training program described in paragraph (5)--
``(i) not less than 20 hours of initial training; and
``(ii) not less than 15 hours of ongoing training every
5 years.
``(4) Uniform required standards.--The standards described in
this paragraph are uniform required standards that--
``(A) apply to any neutral professional appointed by a
court during a child custody proceeding to express an opinion
relating to abuse, trauma, or the behaviors of victims and
perpetrators of abuse and trauma; and
``(B) require that a professional described in subparagraph
(A) possess demonstrated expertise and clinical experience in
working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse,
including child sexual abuse, that is not solely of a forensic
nature.
``(5) Training and education program.--The training program
described in this paragraph is an ongoing training and education
program that--
``(A) focuses solely on domestic and sexual violence and
child abuse, including--
``(i) child sexual abuse;
``(ii) physical abuse;
``(iii) emotional abuse;
``(iv) coercive control;
``(v) implicit and explicit bias, including biases
relating to parents with disabilities;
``(vi) trauma;
``(vii) long- and short-term impacts of domestic
violence and child abuse on children; and
``(viii) victim and perpetrator behavior patterns and
relationship dynamics within the cycle of violence;
``(B) is provided by--
``(i) a professional with substantial experience in
assisting survivors of domestic violence or child abuse,
including a victim service provider (as defined in section
40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12291)); and
``(ii) if possible, a survivor of domestic violence or
child physical or sexual abuse;
``(C) relies on evidence-based and peer-reviewed research
by recognized experts in the types of abuse described in
subparagraph (A);
``(D) does not include theories, concepts, or belief
systems unsupported by the research described in subparagraph
(C); and
``(E) is designed to improve the ability of courts to--
``(i) recognize and respond to child physical abuse,
child sexual abuse, domestic violence, and trauma in all
family victims, particularly children; and
``(ii) make appropriate custody decisions that--
``(I) prioritize child safety and well-being; and
``(II) are culturally sensitive and appropriate for
diverse communities.
``(6) Application.--
``(A) In general.--An eligible State desiring a grant
increase under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require.
``(B) Contents.--An application submitted by an eligible
State under subparagraph (A) shall include information relating
to--
``(i) the laws described paragraph (3);
``(ii) the standards described in paragraph (4); and
``(iii) the training program described in paragraph
(5).
``(7) Use of funds.--An eligible State that receives a grant
increase under paragraph (2)(A) shall use the total amount of the
increase for the purposes described in subparagraph (C) or (D) of
subsection (c)(4).
``(8) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be interpreted as discouraging States from adopting additional
provisions to increase safe outcomes for children. Additional
protective provisions are encouraged.
``(9) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2023 through 2027.''.