First, the parenting evaluation interviews should be temporarily suspended to address
immediate safety issues and not resumed until the evaluator in consultation determines that it is safe to do so.
The response of evaluator to imminent danger varies depending upon on several factors: 1. The nature of the risk:
• Aggression/violence toward another (violence by dv perpetrator, adult victim or child toward another)
• and /or aggression toward self (suicide potential of DV perpetrator, adult victim, or child)
2. Whether person in danger is a child or adult (dv victim, dv perpetrator, or third party) 3. Who is being interviewed at the time the imminent danger is identified
• DV adult victim, • DV perpetrator, • Child
Imminent Risk to a Child: If the case involves DV with indications of possible child abuse and/or neglect, or if the child is in danger of imminent harm from the domestic violence, then the evaluator follows the appropriate procedures for mandatory reporting for possible child maltreatment. Reports to child welfare should be done in ways that maximizes safety of both the adult victim and child, preferably by involving the DV adult victim in the mandatory reporting process. 56
Note: If there is an indication of imminent danger to a child from the DV, then typically the adult victim is in danger as well. And when there is escalating danger to the adult victim, children should also be considered in danger, even if not previously targeted. Children, especially young children who are present (e.g. infants, toddlers) or intervening children (4years old to adolescents) can be un -intentionally harmed by the perpetrator during the attack on the adult victim. Or previously un- targeted children may become targeted by the perpetrator as a way to regain control over the adult victim. Therefore, the evaluator’s
response to imminent danger should always address the safety issues of both the adult and the child.
Imminent Risk to Adult: If the imminent risk is violence against an adult (either the adult victim or perpetrator or others), it may be a situation of making a report of danger to self or others by reason of mental illness, and/ or it may be a duty to protect situation. 57 Parenting evaluators would follow standard procedures to intervene and to make the appropriate reports to potential victims, law enforcement, and community mental health specialists. Sometimes the others being targeted may be lawyers, judicial officers, or other evaluators working on the case.
The evaluator’s response to imminent danger requires that they also respond directly with the person being interviewed at the time.
• For the adult victim: immediate safety planning for self and children58 as well as referral out to DV specialist for continuing safety planning.
• For DV perpetrator: crisis interventions to decease danger to others through responsibility planning and referral to DV specialist
56 It is beyond scope of this practice guide to provide detailed guidance on how to do this. If the evaluator is unfamiliar
procedures for such CPS reporting, then the evaluator should obtain additional training and seek consultation from a domestic violence specialist on how to do this in the context of a domestic violence case.
57 A. Benjamin, review edit comment: RCW 71.05.120 mandates mental health professional to communicate “an actual threat
of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. The duty to warn or to take reasonable precautions to provide protection from violentbehavior is discharged if reasonable efforts aremade tocommunicate the threat to victim or victims and to law enforcement personnel.” Mental healthprofessionalsshouldseek additional clarification on procedures for doing this based on their setting. In cases with need to notify law enforcement, adult victims should be told this is the procedure so they can take safety precautions for self and children.”
• For suicide interventions of DV perpetrator, adult victim, or child, follow standard mental health protocols.
Note: if the DV perpetrator is suicidal, then the emergency response has to address the co- occurring issues of homicide threat to the adult victim and/or to the child as well as the suicide threat. 59 A significant portion of DV homicides (against adult victims, children, or others) involved the suicide or suicide attempt of the DV perpetrator. In the Washington State Fatality Review Reports found that in these DV suicide/homicide cases, the
perpetrator’s suicidality was often known and responded to by professionals, but no attempt had been made to assess and address the DV perpetrator’s concurrent
dangerousness to others. See assessment of lethality, DV perpetrators being suicidal is high risk factor for dangerousness to adult victim, children and others.
Documenting assessment of imminent danger during evaluation interviews:
Document the information about imminent danger (or lack of it) as well as the evaluator’s response to imminent danger in both the file and in the DV section of the parenting evaluation report. Note both the descriptions of DV conduct reported in this inquiry as well any risks to child and parenting identified at this stage of the interviews. If others were in danger note who and the evaluator’s response. If imminent danger is not present, note that the initial safety assessment was conducted and the negative results, and proceed to the full specialized assessment. See Section 6 for report format.
59 Washington State Fatality Review Reports for discussion of increased danger when Domestic Violence Perpetrator is