Family Court Review最新文献

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children and adolescents has increased over the past decade. Consequently, the courts and experts are more likely to be exposed to these children whose needs are highly heterogeneous. The present study aims to document judicial decision-making about children with autism spectrum as well as the parenting recommendations made by experts involved in these cases. There were 104 court decisions reviewed in Quebec over the past ten years. The results show that 85.6% of the decisions included a child custody assessment and that judges are more likely to order primary care to mother (56%). However, shared parenting (27%) and primary care to the father (17%) were also ordered in disputes involving an autistic child. Bivariate analyses revealed that challenges with parental monitoring and supervision were associated with court-ordered parenting arrangements. The present study revealed that a child custody assessment as well as father custody are more often observed than in the general population. This study highlights the need for further research to shed light on the best interests of children with ASD following the separation of their parents.

The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) is an agreement between all 50 states and the District of Columbia governing the process of placing a foster child out of state. Notorious for its long wait times and system backlog, the ICPC presents a host of problems for children attempting to move mere minutes across state lines to be with a relative or kin placement instead of state foster care. In an effort to make this process smoother, 18 different “border agreements” have been adopted by several neighboring states across the U.S. Such border agreements give temporary placement licenses to relatives and kin while the ICPC process is ongoing. While this is a good start towards a solution, the ICPC could be further streamlined if border agreements were used more widely, especially in regional contexts. This article considers the possibility of such a regional agreement between the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Northern Virginia (known as the “DMV”). By comparing and contrasting two existing border agreements in these three jurisdictions, a regional DMV border agreement can be created implementing the best terms of both agreements.

Psychologists and other professionals are often appointed by the courts to assist families in resolving post-separation disputes and to assist judges in making orders on behalf of the best interests of the child(ren). Although these evaluations provide valuable information to the court, they require assessing areas of human behavior that are imprecisely defined or lacking professional consensus. As parents separate, their disputes may become more challenging, and they may act in uncharacteristic and unpredictable ways. Families that cannot solve their own challenges outside of court often show high levels of conflict and/or have issues that are extremely complex, including domestic violence allegations, resist-refuse family dynamics, and relocation requests. Evaluators and judges, being human, tend to oversimplify complex issues due to the limitations of the human brain. Evaluators are subject to cognitive biases that result from the use of mental heuristics, leading to shortcuts and errors in their reasoning and judgment. Other biases, such as implicit and explicit cultural biases, often influence evaluators' reasoning and conclusions. This article explores various biases that affect and potentially diminish the quality of an evaluator's work. We conclude by addressing “de-biasing” strategies that can reduce, but not negate, the risks associated with such biases.

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are often seen as a necessity by the legal system when caregivers cannot find a resolution to their child custody disputes. In many instances, these evaluations are quite costly for the litigants and cost can act as a barrier to equal access to justice. Affluent families are better able to access private evaluators while families with lesser means may encounter delays in receiving services or be unable to afford an evaluation at all. This can, in turn, prolong resolution of league disputes, increasing the emotional toll on families, and hamper courts in making decisions in the best interests of the children involved. This article examines models of providing CCEs outside of an isolated individual provider private practice format. It examines the benefits and considerations for lower-cost evaluations, while discussing how to maintain high quality services that adequately assess family systems. Broader issues that impact the courts and overall access to justice through offering cost effective evaluations are also discussed.

Courts frequently rely on parenting capacity assessments to make decisions about visitation and case progress in child protection court. Although these evaluations can provide valuable information to courts, they often involve assessing areas of human behavior that are not clearly defined in the literature. For example, mental health professionals are often tasked with identifying risk and protective factors for child maltreatment while identifying factors that can impede progress towards reunification. Although some of these factors may be easy to identify and assess (e.g., symptoms of mental illness or substance abuse), others may be more challenging. For example, factors such as denial and minimization about risk factors and maltreatment, a parent(s)’ ability to protect their child(ren) from future incidents of maltreatment, the parent(s)’ potential for change, and the consideration of what is in the best interest of the child are hard to assess. This article will provide a summary of the research in these areas, provide tips for managing these areas, and highlight directions for future investigation that will help inform parenting capacity assessments in child protection court.

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.

For all of the time, effort, and money invested in child custody evaluation (CCE) and for all of evaluators' emphases on collecting empirically sound data, CCE is not itself an empirically robust process. The reliability, validity, efficacy, and efficiency of CCE has never yet been adequately demonstrated. The science has yet even to define and measure the variables that constitute a healthy family, much less how one is to measure and recommend changes for conflicted systems in the midst of tectonic transitions. This article proposes five ways in which family law professionals and the culture at large should work to better serve the needs of our children: (1) the establishment of proactive parenting and co-parenting education intended to diminish the frequency and magnitude of family conflict and improve the quality of child and family functioning; (2) the introduction of organized incentives that motivate healthy parenting and co-parenting practices as opposed to negative consequences that do too-little, too-late; (3) a greater emphasis on social equity, cultural humility, and universal professional training; (4) the creation of ethical guidelines that disconnect continuing conflict from professional income; and (5) outcome research that feeds back into the evolution of these and related processes.