Family Court Review最新文献

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health issue across the globe due to its associations with health and wellbeing, especially among mothers and children. These associations are often more pronounced following separation or divorce, which can compromise safety given that women and children are at heightened risk during these transitions. Thus, it is critical to understand the implications of coparenting in the context of IPV. In this paper, we first discuss the literature on IPV broadly. In particular, we discuss the differences between two types of violence: coercive controlling violence (i.e., violence that occurs in the context of systematic control) and situational couple violence (i.e., violence that occurs without a pattern of control). We then link it to parenting and coparenting processes as they relate to separation and divorce. In this section, we focus heavily on the ways in which the legal system affects family dynamics as divorces make their way through the courts. Special attention is paid to the ways in which IPV affects child custody decisions and the safety of those decisions given empirical evidence suggesting that raising allegations of IPV often does not help achieve favorable court outcomes. We conclude with recommendations to guide family court practitioners based upon this substantial literature. Such recommendations center on the development and implementation of empirically-derived assessment tools as well as systematic training of legal professionals.

Intervention with fathers who commit family violence is an essential but often overlooked part of effective family court proceedings. This article provides an overview of how evidence-informed engagement with fathers around family violence can complement family court efforts to achieve safe and healthy outcomes for children. The focus on fathers is not based on bias against fathers, men, or masculinity, but rather it is consistent with the fact that fathers comprise a substantial proportion of those who use family violence. These men need more effective engagement and interventions. Fathers in these circumstances need to be engaged in services that can assess, monitor, and manage ongoing family violence and risk as well as develop skills to form more positive, healthy relationships with their children and children's mothers. Courts, in turn, need to consider evidence of accountability and change. Application and continued development of the strategies recommended herein would enhance the safety of mothers who experience violence, their children, and the well-being of fathers who have used family violence. Collaboration with community partners serving families must become cornerstones in promoting the safety for and with all family members.

The pandemic accelerated the adoption of remote access to courts through e-filing and virtual hearings. Concurrently, courts experienced an increase in intimate partner violence cases due in part to heightened stress during the pandemic. Virtual technology became crucial for individuals seeking relief from harm when traditional support systems were limited. However, remote proceedings lack the personal connection found in-person, making it challenging to handle complex cases involving parenting and intimate partner violence. Courts must strike a balance between protecting parents and children from abuse and ensuring due process and appropriate parenting time for the accused party. Some courts have considered the user experience in intimate partner violence and parenting cases, but as remote justice become the norm, it is essential for all courts to evaluate and refine the tools, policies, and procedures put in place during the emergency response to the pandemic to be more proactive in supporting court users. State courts in Kansas, North Carolina, and Arizona are cited as examples for efforts to enhance remote justice efficiency and quality in these cases involving intimate partner violence and parenting. Further research is recommended to explore the challenges and possibilities of using virtual technology in these situations.

Stealthing, or non-consensual condom removal, has become a dark reality for many people, posing risks such as unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and negative mental health effects. Although stealthing has received prior media coverage, it continues to fly under the legal radar in all but one U.S. jurisdiction. With blogs listing their top 10 tips on stealthing, and memes making light of the issue, it is imperative that the U.S. take action to criminalize stealthing. While the rest of the world amends their laws to include stealthing, the U.S. remains one step behind.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of separation and/or divorce. IPV may not stop after separation, as parents who use IPV can continue intruding in the lives of parents who experience IPV due to unsafe parenting arrangements that allow continued frequent contact and thus risk further abuse. Therefore, it is critical that separating/divorcing parents be assessed for IPV and ongoing safety concerns. Parenting arrangements (e.g., physical and legal custody, parenting time) may not include the appropriate protections if IPV has not been uncovered and/or considered. Unfortunately, many existing IPV screens for family court processes have limitations. The Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns-Short (MASIC-S) was designed to address these limitations. Results from the MASIC-S may be used to inform and create parenting arrangements in the best interest of the child. We provide recommendations on how MASIC-S results can guide family court practitioners in parenting arrangement disputes. These recommendations are based on the existing literature and guidelines regarding the relationship between parenting arrangements and child-wellbeing following separation/divorce in the context of IPV. We also discuss areas in which additional research is needed to help determine parenting arrangements most suitable for separating/divorcing parents with a history of IPV.

This qualitative study explores the experiences of young people with professionals as they traverse the family court in Aotearoa-New Zealand. A hermeneutic phenomenological lens, based on the writings of Heidegger, Gadamer, van Manen and Buber, explored this phenomenon, which was embedded in the notion that young people need to have agency, the ability to act, to speak and to share their thoughts in matters that affect them. Six young people aged 8–16 years, four lawyers for the children, four specialist report writers (psychologists) and one parent were interviewed. Each interview was crafted into a story, which were then interpreted into “themes”, to allow the young person's experiences to be better understood and presented. This article focuses on one aspect of the young person's experiences as reported by them. The key insight was that the professional who engages in extra-ordinary listening about the young person's experience of what matters to them, can build a space of trust, the “between”, the gap between two people where mutual authenticity can exist, where discussion can occur, and where the professional can hear, respect and represent the young person's views at the decision-making phase of Court proceedings.

Standards of practice for parenting plan evaluations continue to evolve, informed by advances in research and the development of innovative, evidence-based approaches to assessment and intervention. Parenting plan evaluators are asked to inform the court, parents, and other professionals on how to address the complex needs of increasingly diverse families amid reorganization, high conflict, and crisis. How can we attract and properly train new mental health professionals to do important work in an increasingly strained adversarial system? How can evaluators keep up with these advances over the course of their careers? How can they deepen and refine their skills to work with a diverse array of individuals, family constellations and an enormous range of family circumstances? And how can evaluators care for their own well-being and their colleagues? In this article, the authors describe a multi-dimensional approach to training both new and experienced custody evaluators that includes imparting baseline knowledge on how to conduct quality parenting plan evaluations as a starting point. We discuss a variety of modalities and approaches that can enable evaluators to deepen and expand their skills over the years, contribute to the diverse community of family law professionals, and manage the exceptional demands of working in this field.

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.