Family Court Review最新文献

Youth coerced into trafficking experience multiple forms of abuse, and are deprived of basic human rights associated with liberty and self-determination, all of which can adversely affect mental and psychological well-being (Ottisova et al., Behavioral Medicine, 44(3), 234-241.). This study uses a qualitative approach to exploring how judges use trauma-related information to make decisions about how to adjudicate cases involving minors who have been sexually trafficked. Additionally, the study identifies barriers to receiving data, the court resources needed to effectively respond, and potential remedies to address gaps in effective case management. The study uses data from 82 juvenile and family court judges from around the USA 27-item structured interview was used to determine the availability and utility of trauma services, needed resources, and solutions to overcome gaps in effective case adjudication. Themes emerged related to lack of access to and timing issues that limited the utility of reports, lack of congruency between recommendations and available resources and child and family resistance to disclosures. Solutions to overcome barriers are related to increased cross-disciplinary collaboration, awareness and responsiveness. Legal remedies such as Safe Harbor laws can only be realized if the systemic context is aligned and appropriately resourced toward responsiveness.

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.

Parenting plan Assessments, also known as child custody evaluations, are forensic psychological investigations into the needs of children, the parenting capacities of their caregivers, and the resulting fit between the children's needs and caregiver capacities. Typically, they result in recommendations that are, in the opinion of the assessor, formulated to meet the best interests of children regarding a parenting plan, child sharing, parental responsibilities and ancillary services that are likely to support the children's optimal functioning as well as the functioning of the now reconfigured family. Such assessments are part of a pathway to untangling conflicts between the parents regarding the most appropriate parenting plan for the reconfigured family. Paradoxically, the assessment process can exacerbate the conflict, entrench parental polarization, and create lingering feelings of helplessness, frustration, and disempowerment in the parents. This article provides a rationale for the use of a hybrid process that incorporates alternative dispute resolution as an integrated part of the parenting plan assessment and provides an illustrative model of such a hybrid process.

Child actors have consistently been treated as typical minority laborers, with all of their earnings legally belonging to their parents. After many child actors were left with scraps at the end of their minority, Coogan's law was enacted in California to require parents of child actors to withhold some of their earnings in a trust. However, almost a century after Coogan's law was passed, there are still many child actors left with nothing. This Note proposes to both enact further union regulations to protect child actors in every state, and also to raise the required amount withheld from fifteen percent (15%) to fifty percent (50%).

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.