Family Court Review最新文献

This research aimed to determine the systemic factors that contribute to custody disputes becoming high conflict domestic disputes (HCDs). In contrast to the large number of studies identifying interpersonal and intrapersonal factors related to the couple, few studies have identified how systemic factors could specifically contribute to HCDs. Systemic factors are those that are not caused by either party but exist due to the circumstances of the situation in which the couple finds themselves. These systemic factors can cause the relationship to fragment and can escalate any existing conflict that may exist. The purposes of this study were, therefore, to (1) explore perceptions about systemic factors and interventions that can cause conflicts to progress to HCDs in couples with children and (2) develop a conceptual framework and theory to explain how systemic factors can create barriers to conflict resolution and describe a process for how decreasing the impact of these systemic factor can decrease the potential for the development or continuation of HCDs in couples with children. Based on the responses of the participants, three concepts were specified: the adversarial nature of the court system, economic considerations, and socio-cultural influences.

In Norway, court-based mediation involves judges, lawyers, and psychologists working as a mediation team to bring settlement and avoid litigation. This article reports from a qualitative study with twenty-two judges, psychologists, and lawyers from four district courts. The purpose was to identify the characteristics of custody mediation from their perspectives. Findings show that the professionals were concerned with four areas: (1) discovery, (2) structure, (3) expertise, and (4) authority. Findings are presented and then discussed in the context of literature on collaborative learning, legitimacy, and procedural justice. In this article, we integrate study results, Raz's theory of legitimacy, and Engström's activity systems framework to argue that legitimacy is realized through a co-configurative process that facilitates negotiating robust parenting agreements.

Compulsory adoption of children is an extreme solution for caring for at-risk children or those who are neglected within their own family. Such proceedings are initiated by welfare authorities who file a claim for the Family Court to decide to terminate parental rights and declare the child eligible for adoption. The parents are judged and measured by the accepted cultural and gender standards, even though some of them are strangers to the society they live in. Those who criticize the adversarial legal system point to the blurring of particular dimensions in the lives of those whose cases are discussed in court. The purpose of this article is to present four principles of alternative justice, which are common to alternative law movements, as a theoretical basis for discussion in the decision-making process that may promote healing, balance power gaps, and improve relationships, and all in accordance with the unique aspects of each case. Each of the four principles will be demonstrated through a review of court rulings that dealt with compulsory adoptions of children in Israel, and which reflected the ideas inherent in those principles. The picture that emerges is that judges who act in the spirit of these principles, albeit unconsciously, improve the well-being of the parties and promote therapeutic solutions. Since these principles are universal, they can be applied elsewhere.

Neurodiversity encompasses the natural wiring of the mind, shaping how individuals think, behave, communicate, and perceive the world. While society largely caters to the neurotypical majority, neurodivergent individuals, who represent a minority, experience the world differently and face unique challenges. Stigma persists surrounding neurodivergent people, and they are consistently marginalized. Family law professionals often work with neurodivergent individuals but need improved awareness and knowledge of neurodivergent traits and client presentation. Recognizing neurodivergence and providing inclusive support and access to services is crucial. This article defines relevant concepts and definitions and provides scenarios and examples that illustrate how neurodivergence may show up in day-to-day family law practice. Tips are provided for increasing awareness for professionals, along with practical suggestions for working with neurodivergent individuals.

Ethnic-racial identity formation can be an important consideration in parenting plan evaluations, particularly for multi-racial/ethnic families and transracial families. This article discusses the literature regarding the relationship between positive ethnic-racial identity formation, positive psychosocial outcomes for children of color, and parental ethnic-racial socialization practices. Additionally, since ethnic-racial identity formation is a crucial developmental task relevant to the best interests of the child, this article also discusses how parenting plan evaluators can explore parental ability to promote a child's racial and ethnic identity development.

This research paper explores active efforts as a transformative measure in the child welfare system. It argues how the currently used reasonable effort standard has not served the children or families in its care adequately. When a child comes to the attention of child protective services, measures to maintain family unity could see significant improvements in the child welfare system. Additionally, the current standard has shown to be particularly detrimental to the integrity of Black families and children. Through a critical examination of these failures as well the benefits of using an active efforts approach, this paper advocates for the adoption of this standard as a necessary step in the shift toward fostering stronger, more resilient family structures.

This article explores our national reactive child protection model which has focused on removing poor people from poor families and has resulted in conflating poverty with neglect. Significant issues of class and race are implicated given dramatic systemic racial and ethnic disparities and questions must be asked whether current practices have done more harm than good. In reviewing this landscape this article is descriptive and prescriptive and calls for adopting proactive public health-oriented policies which support children and families in their homes and a culture of due process and fairness in juvenile and family court hearings involving children and their families. Dependency or abuse and neglect cases involve state intervention. These are not disputes between private parties where the sole focus is the best interest of the child regarding which guardian to be placed with. Cheating the Evidence warns against diluting the constitutional requirement of proving the lack of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence by making comparative judgments about placement which are based on often subjective assessments on best interests of the child which are resource based. Given that high percentage of cases involving allegations of neglect versus inflicted abuse these concerns are of paramount importance. There is a need for more rigor in fact-finding and adherence to constitutionally required burdens of proof. Due process and fairness are best-served by supporting client-directed advocacy and greater transparency, including presumptively opening up the doors to closed juvenile and family court hearings as recommended by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in 2005. Opening the doors is not a binary or either or proposition- we can preclude dissemination of records of youth, and protect confidentiality as a growing number of states have done. Transparency includes more than raising the level of practice of lawyers and judges- it includes encouraging systemic accountability from child serving agencies and educating the public about the complexities which are related to the birth or cradle to prison pipeline.

The web of law, regulation and policy which forms the modern day “child welfare” system is organized around one central unifying principle: the notion that these laws, regulations and policies are necessary to protect and save children. Yet an ever-growing and overwhelming chorus of “lived experts” – individuals who have been impacted as a parent and/or child by what is more aptly called the family policing system – as well as by advocates and scholars, are drawing attention to the degree of harm the system causes to the families it purports to help. Even though the harms the family policing system causes are well known, the family policing system continues to justify these harms as warranted in the name of protecting children. More concerning, even well-meaning advocates and scholars who acknowledge the harms, implicitly and explicitly continue to perpetuate the big lie that the family policing system's intention is benevolent and caring. The impetus for any law is a story; law identifies a problem and seeks to resolve it. But what happens when the story is false? The stories we tell about the need for family policing perpetuate harm and replicate systemic racism. Most importantly, the impact of these false narratives can be felt through generations of families leaving devastated communities. The stories, perspectives and opinions of those most impacted by the system historically have been, and continue to be, intentionally left out of the making of law and policy, and even in the teaching of the law. Unless the actual perspectives of families are present to challenge the stories that are woven into the law, these narratives will continue to create significant obstacles to critical thought about the law, prevent meaningful legal change, and ultimately cause continued harm to families and communities. In this essay, in the tradition of participatory law scholarship (Note: Rachel Lopez, Participatory Law Scholarship, 123 Colum. L. Rev. 1795 (2023) [“Participatory Law Scholarship or (PLS)… is an emerging genre of legal scholarship written in collaboration with authors… who have no formal training in the law but rather expertise in its function and dysfunction through lived experience.”]), the authors, a parent and professional advocate, and a clinical law professor and attorney, seek to unpack the myths which are built into the laws of family policing. In reckoning with these myths, the paper seeks to propose a critical framework to both acknowledge the intentional trauma and harm caused by the family policing system, and to disrupt and dismantle the fictions that are the underpinnings of the laws and regulations that continue to perpetuate these harms. Ultimately, this paper argues that by centering the lived expertise of families' voices and perspectives in legal advocacy, we can form a cogent vision for true safety for families and communities.

This article reviews the changing Black family and households. The core theme is to understand the uniqueness of those single and living alone in the Black middle class—the “Love Jones Cohort”—and how their intersecting identities of race, class, gender, and singleness inform their lifestyle, shape how they manage life decisions, and their relationship to policy as well as family law and family court. This essay moves beyond the popularized and omnipresent inquiry: “Why are Black women not getting married?” or “Why are there so many single professional Black women?” This line of questioning throws the spotlight squarely on Black women's individual dating practices, while often ignoring structural factors that undergird those decision-making processes. It implies that because of the individual actions of the Love Jones Cohort, specifically Black women, they are somehow at a deficiency if they are not married and child-free, rendering them invisible as a family. This article discusses the legal implications of the presence of the Love Jones Cohort.