Family Court Review最新文献

This article argues that in order to intervene effectively and ethically with children who are manifesting Parent–child contact problems (PCCPs) after parental separation, we begin by being mindful of what is normal about divorce transitions and use developmentally appropriate and culturally sensitive analysis to rule out children's common transitory reactions. It is then important to concurrently assess for both family violence (FV) and severe parental alienating behavior (PAB) on the part of both parents, which can co-occur in some cases. The article asserts that it is also important to consider common problematic parenting responses that may potentiate the PCCP but not necessarily rise to the level of abuse. FV is defined as a child's direct experience of physical, sexual, or psychological maltreatment and indirect exposure to sibling abuse and/or to intimate partner violence (IPV). PAB is defined as an ongoing pattern of unwarranted negative messages on the part of one parent that conveys that the child's other parent is disinterested, irrelevant, dangerous, and not to be trusted. Any one or all of these factors may contribute to a child's strident negativity and sustained rejection of one parent, these being defining features of a PCCP. This article proposes ethical principles and priorities for decision-making in these cases, considering the growing social science controversy about assessment and intervention for PCCPs. It concludes with an analysis of recent, contrasting policy approaches to PCCPs (e.g., Kayden's Law and the Joint Statement of the AFCC and NCJFCJ) and their potential impact on family justice system professionals and the families they serve.

Domestic violence is a danger faced by women across the United States. When a woman suffering from battered woman syndrome (BWS) harms their abuser, they are often left with no defense to criminal liability. At trial, they may rely on expert testimony about BWS, but outdated judicial standards could prevent its admission to the jury. To protect these victims from facing life sentences as punishment for saving themselves, New York enacted the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, which has been proven effective and should be adopted nationwide along with new evidentiary practices.

Conflict between parents is stressful for children living in the midst of parental separation or divorce. Although some level of post-separation/divorce conflict is understandable in an emotionally-charged separation/divorce, it undermines the extent to which parents can protect their children from short- and long-term problems. In this article, we weave together a synthesized perspective informed by our respective training and experience in prevention science and family law on the role of parent education programs for high-conflict separating/divorcing parents. To do so, we first describe the research on the effects of interparental conflict on children's outcomes and then discuss current approaches and challenges to reducing these negative effects by offering parent education programs for high-conflict separating/divorcing parents. Then, we propose and describe a new model for early, effective, and scalable parent education programs with the ultimate goal of protecting children after separation/divorce.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is often considered an adult problem despite profound consequences for the children who are exposed toviolent relational patterns. About a third of children and adolescents report past exposure to parental IPV, and a majority were first exposed as infants. Exposure to IPV during pregnancy through the first 5 years of a child's life has consequences ranging from adverse birth outcomes to diagnosable emotional problems and lasting physiological dysregulation. This article reviews risks and consequences of IPV in pregnancy and early childhood and discusses a relational psychotherapeutic treatment approach (Child–Parent Psychotherapy) applied to both developmental stages to mitigate the adverse consequences of family violence on parents and their children. Research evidence for the effectiveness of Child–Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) among IPV-exposed families is reviewed as are specific treatment components which seek to restore relational safety following familial violence. Additionally, clinical considerations unique to families with histories of or ongoing exposure to IPV are discussed. Finally, recommendations are presented to improve the integration between medical and early childhood behavioral health systems for families at highest risk for chronic IPV.

Family violence is a multifaceted issue encompassing various harmful behaviors within familial relationships. This paper explores the definitional problems presented in this special issue on family violence and its impact on parenting and coparenting. By examining the shifts and expansions of concepts related to family violence over time, we highlight the transformative turns in this special issue that have helped us to clarify our understanding of family violence. We explore the transformative expansions of family violence by situating this exploration within a “concept creep” analysis. We make a note of the underlying assumptions associated with these concepts. Through an analysis of concept creep, we elucidate how the expansions and redefinition of violence-related terms have influenced our understanding of family violence. By differentiating family violence, intimate partner violence, and maltreatment, we emphasize the necessity of unpacking these terms to avoid oversimplification or overlooking certain forms of violence that may go unnoticed under narrow definitions. The authors further highlight the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the complexities of family violence and its impact on parenting and coparenting. By acknowledging and responding to expansions of concepts in family violence, we can strive to protect and support children in these challenging circumstances, ultimately promoting their well-being and creating safer family environments.

Approximately 35%–45% of young married adults engage in intimate partner violence (IPV), and it is possible to reliably distinguish between general IPV and clinically significant IPV in a manner accepted both by DSM-V & ICD-11. IPV and alcohol misuse have been associated in many research designs, and experts now argue that alcohol misuse causes IPV. While less research exists on other substances like marijuana, there is clearly a moderate association between marijuana use and IPV, and that association appears to be dose-dependent. Both IPV and substance use disorders (SUD), especially alcohol misuse, have been associated with a host of both internalizing and externalizing problems of children and adolescents. Research on the co-morbid effects of IPV and substance misuse is relatively new but there are documented cumulative effects of IPV, problematic alcohol use, problematic drug use, and depressive symptoms on aggressive and neglectful parental disciplinary practices. Fortunately, research on the effects of both alcohol misuse and IPV shows that while both can have deleterious effects on children, the majority of children exposed to either IPV or alcohol misuse do not grow up to have diagnoses of emotional or behavioral problems. Support from one parent, a teacher, or extended family members, as well as the ability to maintain family rituals, serve as protective factors for children. Recommendations are made regarding reviews of assessment of IPV and substance misuse as well as a guide for conceptualizing and completing forensic evaluations involving IPV and substance misuse.

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.