Family Court Review最新文献

New York's Child–Parent Security Act (CPSA) legalized compensated gestational surrogacy and created a simpler way for parents to establish their parental rights when utilizing assisted reproductive technology (ART). While this was a substantial step forward from past antiquated law, the CPSA continues to heavily regulate compensated genetic, otherwise known as traditional, surrogacy making it challenging to use. The CPSA infringes upon the right to procreate by limiting the ART methods available to those wanting to start a family. This Note proposes an amendment to the current CPSA, including the legalization of compensated traditional surrogacy in New York.

This article examines the multiple inter-connected and interacting catalysts for past, current and future family court reform. We then, with deep humility and quiet ambition, contemplate the next 50 years and hypothesize about future court reform which we predict will focus on technology. We observe how what was once a fanciful idea for family courts (such as electronic filing and online court events) is realistic today. We contend that, in a similar vein, the technological reforms postulated in this article (such as judgment writing assisted by artificial intelligence) may become the reality of the future.¹

Globalization has fueled the rise of international family disputes, which raise difficult legal issues that cannot be addressed by any court or jurisdiction working alone. These challenges require a considered and coherent response on the international front, supported by the willingness of individual family judges to communicate and cooperate to identify and implement practical solutions. To meet these new challenges, this paper proposes a vision of international family justice as collaborative justice. There are three aspects or phases to the proposed endeavor: (a) the articulation of common aspirations and values; (b) continuing cooperation and communication between family courts and institutions; and (c) convergence in the substantive norms and practice of international family law.

The COVID-19 pandemic forced courts to virtualize proceedings almost overnight, resulting in both an array of new technological tools as well as important questions about their long-term effects. This article studies the impact of the shift from in-person to remote child custody and visitation mediation in San Mateo County, California. Through surveys with parents, interviews with mediators and parents, and participation and outcome data, it captures the early experiences and results associated with remote mediation. The findings suggest that while remote mediation can offer benefits such as accessibility, comfort, and safety, other challenges persist. The study seeks to enable courts to better understand the obstacles and opportunities that arise from online platforms and inform future policy-making on the use of technology in their practices.

On May 30, 2023, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) co-sponsored an international symposium to explore the subject of family court reform. Twenty-eight judges representing eight countries and including numerous North American states and provinces met in Los Angeles, California, to identify the most pressing challenges facing family courts and to document promising approaches to improve practice and outcomes in family court cases. They focused on domestic relations cases, as opposed to child welfare and juvenile justice matters. Prior to the symposium, participants responded to a survey about family court reform efforts in each participant's jurisdiction. Judicial officers attending the symposium represented diverse legal systems with some common and many different practices and challenges. After a day filled with small and large group discussions, participants identified key takeaways and made recommendations emanating from the day's discussions.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) individuals likely experience more intimate partner violence (IPV) than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. Though the research on IPV among LGBTQ+ individuals is lacking in quantity, available evidence suggests LGBTQ+ individuals have unique risk factors for IPV victimization and perpetration, express identity-specific reasons for underreporting IPV, and experience types of IPV specific to their sexual orientation and/or gender identities. Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at significantly higher risk of IPV victimization compared to their peers. A search of the Family Court Review archives suggests that IPV affecting bisexual parents has never been directly addressed in the publication, nor has IPV affecting transgender or gender-nonconforming parents, and the last article on the topic of IPV in gay and lesbian relationships (Bunker Rohrbaugh, 2006) was published more than 15 years ago when marriage and adoption rights were unavailable to most LGBTQ+ individuals. The current article provides an updated and comprehensive discussion of IPV within the broader LGBTQ+ community, reviews the limitations of the extant literature and the need for more research, and demonstrates that LGBTQ+ IPV is a complex issue with which all family court practitioners should be familiar.

The research linking pet abuse with domestic violence is overwhelming. Pet abuse is a significant indicator that a human family member is suffering too. Further, victims are likely to become abusers themselves, perpetuating the intertwined cycles of pet abuse and domestic violence. Most women in domestic violence shelters report that their pet was also victimized. However, since few domestic violence shelters in the U.S. accommodate pets, victims must decide between leaving their pet to endure further abuse, or delaying their own escape. Current federal grants do not meet the demand for funding. This Note proposes an Amendment to the PAWS Act, requiring the federal government to match state contributions to projects that expand access to pet-friendly shelters.

There is a long history of dissension among legal and mental health professionals about the value of child custody evaluations. Despite frequent use by the courts, the lack of adequate empirical research impedes the ability to validate the efficacy of child custody evaluations. This study investigated the overall value of court-ordered child custody evaluations by surveying a diverse, national sample of judges to gather data regarding the usefulness, and validity of child custody evaluations. Two hundred and sixty-eight judges from 42 states completed an anonymous survey. The results indicated that judges find information voiced by the child in question, data obtained from the parent–child observations, and collateral data obtained about the litigants as most useful. Survey findings suggested judges perceived there to be a shortage of trained evaluators and also consider child custody evaluations too expensive and too time-consuming. Overall, judges find child custody evaluations useful and clearly desire experts to include recommendations on legal custody and parenting time schedules in their reports.