When the Center Doesn't Exist

Crafting Safe Parenting Plans Without a Visitation Center

In many communities, the safest option simply doesn't exist. This reflection explores what happens when courts must make high-stakes decisions in the absence of formal visitation infrastructure.

What the Research Says

When domestic violence or severe structural breakdown forces a family into family court, structuring custody and visitation is one of the highest-stakes decisions a judge will make. Separation is statistically the most dangerous period for a victim; abusers frequently exploit child visitation exchanges to continue patterns of stalking, physical assault, or psychological harassment.

While professional supervised visitation and exchange centers offer a secure solution by utilizing trained staff to monitor interactions, many communities completely lack these centers or suffer from severe capacity deficits. When a center is unavailable, the research emphasizes that judges must resort to alternative, highly structured, and rigid solutions to mitigate risk:

Zero Ambiguity

Orders must dictate exact times, precise locations, boundaries on behavior, emergency backup protocols, and clearly defined permitted or forbidden activities based entirely on the unique history of that specific family.

Vetted Informal Supervisors

If a family member or friend is chosen to supervise a visit, the court must interview them directly to ensure they understand the severe nature of the assignment and comprehend how to report non-compliance or safety violations to the court.

Verifiable Compliance Conditions

Build objective verification requirements directly into the order (e.g., mandating that each parent purchase a low-cost item at a public commercial hub at the exchange time and retain the time-stamped receipt to prove compliance).

Proactive Default Planning

Legal orders must detail the obligations and steps for both parents if a child actively resists or refuses a scheduled visit, preventing an abuser from claiming technical violations.

Environmental Safety Strategy: Avoid police station parking lots. Though frequently used as a default, police parking lots can be deeply terrifying for young children and are rarely actively monitored by officers, creating a highly dangerous, false sense of security for the victim parent. Instead, research points to public, highly populated commercial areas with continuous, time-stamped security camera coverage where the footage is actively recorded and legally retrievable.

What We Noticed

The thing that struck me most reading this research is how terrifyingly invisible the gaps are. When a policy paper says "visitation centers suffer from severe capacity deficits," what that actually means on a Tuesday afternoon is a panicked mom sitting in a grocery store parking lot, watching her rearview mirror, completely unprotected.

The phrase "in the best interest of the child" appears constantly throughout family court proceedings. Yet forcing a child to complete a handoff in front of a police precinct—where they associate the environment with handcuffs and emergencies—can reflect a failure of imagination rather than a lack of concern. It tells the child, whether anyone intends it to or not: this situation is dangerous, and you aren't safe.

Research papers describe these as "service gaps." Families experience them as fear.

Families experience them as trying to sound calm while buckling a child into a car seat. They experience them as wondering whether anyone understands what happens after the judge leaves the bench.

What surprised me most, though, was the suggestion of using a time-stamped receipt from a local business to prove compliance. It’s a brilliant, gritty, real-world hack, but it highlights a sad reality: our formal court systems are so clunky that survivors have to rely on a McDonald's cash register receipt to prove they aren't violating a court order.

Bridging the Gap

We don't just want to hand judges a list of problems; we want to explore the practical tools needed to navigate the empty spaces when systemic resources fall short.

• The "No-Center" Parenting Plan Template: One practical response could include modular, airtight parenting plan templates specifically designed for jurisdictions lacking physical visitation infrastructure. These templates leave zero "wiggle room" for an abuser to exploit, mapping out exact timing, parking parameters, and strict communication boundaries.

• Informal Supervisor Vetting Protocols: Courts can train staff and family advocates on how to quickly but rigorously interview non-professional supervisors (like grandparents or family friends), ensuring they are truly neutral, emotionally equipped, and understand their legal mandate to report safety violations.

• Micro-Surveillance Mapping: We envision a model where advocates work with local businesses in rural areas to identify well-lit, highly trafficked, camera-monitored commercial locations that are willing to serve as recognized, safe exchange coordinates for local families.

Questions Worth Asking

• What happens to families when the services a court assumes exist simply don't?

• How often do judges have to improvise because infrastructure is missing?

• What would change if communities built the supports they expected families to use?

The absence of a visitation center should never force families to choose between safety and connection. Yet every day, courts across the country ask parents to navigate exactly that reality. Until communities build the infrastructure families need, judges, advocates, and caregivers will continue filling the empty spaces with creativity, grit, and imperfect solutions. The question is not whether these gaps exist. The question is what we are willing to do about them.

Keep Exploring

The Evidence

• The National Judicial Guide to Domestic Violence and Child Custody Placements (PDF) — Full original framework on managing high-conflict family transitions.

The Conversation

• Stability Before Accountability — Why safety infrastructure must exist before we can expect families to thrive.

• The Human Cost of Family Separation — A deep dive into the psychological toll of high-conflict custody transitions on early childhood development.

About This Series

Research & Reflections explores the evidence, experiences, and ideas shaping the work of Mending Our Mistakes. The views expressed represent MOM's interpretations of published research and lived experience. Referenced organizations do not endorse Mending Our Mistakes unless explicitly stated. Because meaningful change begins with asking better questions about the systems families depend on most.