I actually came up with this on Monday, but the week has been so hectic, I haven't had the chance to sit down and write.

We begin with a bit of a definition of terms for those of you non-attorneys out there. (And for those of you who are attorneys, the terms won't hurt you a bit.)

Let's start with a very simple thing. When a judge makes a decision, no matter whether it's after a hearing while he or she is still on the bench or made in chambers, the court speaks through its findings, set down in a judgment entry.

Let me explain what I mean. (I've discussed this before, actually, in this entry.)

Let's say you are in court on a divorce case, and the judge, after hearing the testimony, says, "From what I've heard, I'm going to order that you be paid $200 in spousal support."

Great! The judge has ordered it. But, how do you prove it? Well, going back to the transcript is a possibility, but that's not how we consider it officially recorded. We require the judge to sign a piece of paper setting forth his or her decision and setting forth the reasons for it, referred to as a "judgment entry." The court officially speaks through its judgment entry, and without it, there is no proof you are entitled to remedies you seek. (There are big honking flaws with this sometimes in domestic relations court, but we aren't going there.)

OK, so, we're clear on the judgment entry thing. Now, in that judgment entry, sometimes courts are mandated to make findings. In criminal sentencng, there are "factors" the court must show it considered (i.e. severity of the offense, the likelihood the defendant will reoffend, impact to the victim, the community, et cetera.) A mandated finding is just what it sounds like -- a court must take a position that something either happened, or didn't happen.

Finally, we need to talk briefly about presumptions. Presumptions could almost be considered an "assumption." Think about the presumption of innocence. When a criminal defendant is charged with a crime, he is presumed innocent. The amount of evidence required to overcome a presumption changes depending on the circumstances. In a criminal case, to overcome the presumption of innocence, the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point, we stop assuming the defendant is innocent and indicate that he is guilty. Presumptions are basically the law saying "In most cases, when x applies, we will do y, unless you can show us z."

So now, we get to my idea.

One of the problems with domestic violence is it's messy, dirty, dingy and difficult to talk about. We don't want to acknowledge it's out there. Sometimes, it's easier to look at things others call domestic violence and just sweep them under the rug.

That needs to stop.

To me, and a number of other people, it seems ludicrous to award custody of children to parents who engage in domestic violence, whether against the child or against the child's other parent. Now, I'm sure there are times when maybe it's necessary to do so, although I'm hard pressed to come up with one. But, can we at least acknowledge that when we see domestic violence, we ought to take a really hard look at whether giving someone who harms the people they are closest to custody of their kids is really in their kids' best interest (which is what, after all, we're supposed to be wondering about?)

So, the first part of my reform is this: Let's MAKE judges evaluate and take a stand on whether or not domestic violence has occurred. Let's mandate them to evaluate it in their judgment entry.

Now, the problem is that sometimes, domestic violence can be a loaded -- or, more accurately, unloaded -- term. People often want to assume that because there isn't "blood on the floor," no domestic violence has occurred. Unfortunately, domestic abusers are becoming more sophisticated than that, and not engaging in physical violence, but instead in a range of psychological terrors that is just as bad, if not worse. (That old thing your mom told you about sticks and stones but names? I think it was a crock.)

So, here's a good starting step for recognizing domestic violence in family courts:

In cases where child custody is contested, we should mandate that judges must make a finding as to whether either parent has engaged in a pattern of behavior exerted over either the other parent or the children as a means of control through physical violence, coercion, threats, isolation, and emotional, sexual or economic abuse. If such a finding is made, then the presumption is that person does not get custody.

So, in other words, if you are a judge, and you are told one in four comments made by a parent are abusive, you don't put up with that.

You don't put up with testimony that someone will pay for his daughter's college education only if she puts up with emotional extortion.

You understand that keeping a spouse and children short of money is a means of abuse and control.

And you say so.

If you don't understand it, we figure it out because what was testified to was all in the record and you still said it didn't happen. That allows the victim to appeal your ruling and for the transcript to be reviewed.

(Of course, often, by this point, the victim has run out of money and can't appeal, but this might help the situation be a little less desperate.)

Most rational thinking people agree that we need to think domestic abusers have no business having custody of their children. Taking this step would simply make sure that judges follow that logic.

Because right now, there is evidence that they aren't.