Revitalizing the Adversary System in Family Law

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 Q4 LAW University of Cincinnati Law Review Pub Date : 2009-03-28 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1376782
Jane C. Murphy
{"title":"Revitalizing the Adversary System in Family Law","authors":"Jane C. Murphy","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1376782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The way in which families resolve disputes has undergone dramatic change over the last decade. Scholars have focused much attention on a number of substantive law changes that have contributed to this transformation. These include the changing definitions of marriage, parenthood, and families. But less attention has been paid to the enormous changes that have taken place in the processes surrounding family dispute resolution. These changes have been even more comprehensive and have fundamentally altered the way in which disputing families interact with the legal system. Both the methods and goals of legal intervention for families in conflict have changed, altering the roles of judges and lawyers and moving much of dispute resolution out of the courtroom. These developments have profound implications for the family justice system. They also reflect a broader jurisprudential shift away from the traditional values of the adversary system in both the civil and, to a lesser extent, the criminal justice system. The impact of this shift in this context has not been fully explored, particularly the direct and harmful impact of such changes on low income litigants. Part One of this Article describes the changes that have contributed to this paradigm shift. Part Two explores the fundamental ways in which the shift alters the traditional adversary system and the risks presented by these shifts. Finally, the Article offers proposals to assist in weighing the relative benefits of the therapeutic and adversarial approaches. Countering the trend in recent reform efforts, the Article argues for a reinvestment in the adversary system to design a justice system that serves all families.","PeriodicalId":45537,"journal":{"name":"University of Cincinnati Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Cincinnati Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1376782","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The way in which families resolve disputes has undergone dramatic change over the last decade. Scholars have focused much attention on a number of substantive law changes that have contributed to this transformation. These include the changing definitions of marriage, parenthood, and families. But less attention has been paid to the enormous changes that have taken place in the processes surrounding family dispute resolution. These changes have been even more comprehensive and have fundamentally altered the way in which disputing families interact with the legal system. Both the methods and goals of legal intervention for families in conflict have changed, altering the roles of judges and lawyers and moving much of dispute resolution out of the courtroom. These developments have profound implications for the family justice system. They also reflect a broader jurisprudential shift away from the traditional values of the adversary system in both the civil and, to a lesser extent, the criminal justice system. The impact of this shift in this context has not been fully explored, particularly the direct and harmful impact of such changes on low income litigants. Part One of this Article describes the changes that have contributed to this paradigm shift. Part Two explores the fundamental ways in which the shift alters the traditional adversary system and the risks presented by these shifts. Finally, the Article offers proposals to assist in weighing the relative benefits of the therapeutic and adversarial approaches. Countering the trend in recent reform efforts, the Article argues for a reinvestment in the adversary system to design a justice system that serves all families.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重振家庭法中的对抗制度
过去十年来,家庭解决纠纷的方式发生了巨大变化。学者们将注意力集中在促成这种转变的一些实体法变化上。其中包括对婚姻、为人父母和家庭定义的改变。但是,人们很少注意到在解决家庭纠纷的过程中发生的巨大变化。这些变化甚至更为全面,并从根本上改变了争执家庭与法律制度相互作用的方式。对冲突家庭进行法律干预的方法和目标都发生了变化,改变了法官和律师的角色,并将许多争议解决移出了法庭。这些事态发展对家庭司法制度具有深远的影响。它们还反映了在民事司法制度和在较小程度上的刑事司法制度中,从对抗制度的传统价值的更广泛的法理学转变。在这种情况下,这种转变的影响尚未得到充分探讨,特别是这种变化对低收入诉讼当事人的直接和有害影响。本文的第一部分描述了促成这种范式转变的变化。第二部分探讨了这种转变改变传统对手制度的基本方式,以及这些转变带来的风险。最后,文章提出了一些建议,以帮助权衡治疗和对抗方法的相对利益。与最近改革努力的趋势相反,文章主张对对抗制度进行再投资,以设计一个为所有家庭服务的司法制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The University of Cincinnati Law Review is a quarterly publication produced by second and third-year law students. The Review, along with its counterparts at all other accredited law schools, makes a significant contribution to scholarly legal literature. In addition, the Review represents the College of Law to the outside community. Each year, approximately 30 students are invited to join the Law Review as Associate Members. All Associate Members are chosen on the basis of first year grade point average combined with a writing competition score. The competition begins immediately after completion of first year studies.
期刊最新文献
The Need for a Lenient Admissibility Standard for Defense Forensic Evidence Law’s Enterprise: Argumentation Schemes & Legal Analogy State Civil Rights Remedies for Gender Violence: a Tool for Accountability Political Discrimination by Private Employers Benefit Corporation Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1