Family Court Review最新文献

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.

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%).