Search

The article discusses the role of a mental health consultant in child custody disputes. A consultant is engaged by lawyers because mental health evaluation is part of a pending divorce or separation case that involves rights to custody. Noted is the focus of the paper on the role of mental health consultant in the forensic mental health evaluation process. It is said that forensic mental health evaluation is carried out to determine the best interests of the child in a custody case.

This article was written by the Honorable Linda S. Fidnick and Kelly. A. Koch, Esq. Judge Fidnick is an Associate Justice with the Hampshire Probate and Family Court. Prior to her appointment to the bench in 2008, Judge Fidnick was a partner in the Amherst law firm of Burres, Fidnick & Booth LLP, where she concentrated her practice in all areas of family law. Judge Fidnick is a graduate of Smith College and the University of Connecticut Law School, and she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar for over thirty years. Judge Fidnick is past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and currently serves on the national board of directors of AFCC. Judge Fidnick and Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. are the co‐chairs of the AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists. Attorney Koch is a graduate of Brandeis University and WesternNew England College School of Law. She served as a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court and is presently an associate attorney with the Springfield, Massachusetts firm of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas. Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in California who has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on interventions in high conflict divorce, Parenting Coordination and child alienation in family law cases. He currently serves on the Board of Directors at AFCC. Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. is a family forensic psychologist practicing in Los Angeles, California. She serves as the reporter for the AFCC Court‐Involved Therapist Task Force and Co‐Chairs the Family Forensic Special Interest Group of Div. 43. She Co‐Chaired the APA‐ABA Working Group on Representation and Advocacy for Children. The AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists was given the charge of defining guidelines for the professional practice of therapists working with court‐involved families. A draft of the Guidelines was presented for Comments in March 2010 and all comments were submitted to the Task Force Reporter, Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. on May 1, 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the current issues faced by LGBTQ+ clients in family court cases. The paper proceeds in three parts. It first focuses on the specific issues that relate to LGBTQ+ people in the family court system and why they remain relevant despite the many advancements for LGBTQ+ people in recent years. The paper addresses what is unique about the legal system and how it can seem more accepting than it is. Finally, the paper addresses specific ways lawyers, judges, and forensic evaluators can support LGBTQ+ people in the family court system from the first moment people enter their office or courtroom. Overall, the goal of the article is to provide context for why it is important for family court professionals to be LGBTQ+ affirming and to provide specific ways to do so. Key Points for the Family Court Community: LGBTQ+ people historically and currently face outright discrimination or misunderstanding about who they are and how that impacts them in the family court system.Living and working in an area that feels more affirming is not necessarily more protective for LGBTQ+ people in the family court system.Family court professionals can take specific steps and actions to be more affirming for LGBTQ+ people.There are more general steps to take and more specific steps, all of which are outlined in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientation and gender minority (LGBTQ+) youth and families have been under a social and legislative attack in the United States in recent years, marked by a stark increase in gender‐affirming care bans and religious rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. LGBTQ+ graduate students in mental health fields—particularly those who seek to work in family court settings—have specific needs that are often unmet in their educational and clinical training environments. Furthermore, the over‐representation of LGBTQ+ youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems necessitates specialized knowledge and skills that many clinicians and educators are currently lacking. This paper discusses the unique challenges facing LGBTQ+ graduate students and provides research‐based suggestions for professors, administrators, and supervising clinicians who seek to provide a holistic and humanizing educational experience that produces clinicians who can respond to the evolving needs of LGBTQ+ individuals in family court settings and beyond. Key points for the family court community: LGBTQ+ individuals experience unique stressors stemming from identity‐related stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, which can negatively affect their health and success in educational and work settings.Familiarity with this minority stress may motivate LGBTQ+ individuals to pursue careers in mental health, particularly in family court settings.LGBTQ+ graduate students often lack professors and clinical supervisors who are knowledgeable about working with LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to inadequate training and experiences that negatively impact their functioning across domains.Research highlights the need for more culturally responsive and affirming classroom and field training environments to support LGBTQ+ graduate mental health students who seek to make a difference in the legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people have historically been subjected to maltreatment across multiple environments and systems – including their homes, schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, healthcare facilities, and more. The criminal justice and child welfare systems were built on the foundations of cisnormativity and heteronormativity, making LGBTQ+ youth susceptible to systemic oppression and discrimination when compared to their youth counterparts. As such, this paper examines the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in the juvenile and child welfare systems by discussing the systemic inequities and unique challenges that exist for this population – beginning with the risk factors that make them susceptible to exposure to both systems in general. Furthermore, we provide practical recommendations for legal and clinical professionals to better serve their LGBTQ+ youth clients – ranging from changes in policies and legislation, increased staff training, and strategies to create safe and inclusive environments for all youth. Key Points for the Family Court Community: LGBTQ+ youth face higher risk factors (e.g., violence and discrimination at home) that make them more susceptible to both the child welfare and criminal justice systems when compared to cisgender/heterosexual youth.Systemic issues (e.g., mistreatment and biased targeting by police personnel) contribute to the overrepresentation of LGBTQ+ youth in both systems.To effectively serve LGBTQ+ youth, law professionals are encouraged to engage in LGBTQ+‐affirming practices like comprehending the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ youth who identify with multiple marginalized identities and educating themselves on current issues impacting this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that children in guardianship proceedings—specifically cases with allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependency; and cases that are contested—should be appointed a GAL. Many children in guardianship cases in probate court face issues similar to those that children in juvenile court face, and yet, they are denied the right to an advocate as well as many other important due process protections that are available in juvenile court. Critics of probate court have suggested a variety of solutions, including outright abolition of guardianship cases in probate court.7 Because wholesale reform such as abolition may not be financially or politically feasible, this paper suggest a smaller, more concrete solution—namely, the appointment of a GAL for children in guardianship proceedings when allegations of abuse, neglect, or dependency are present, or when the guardianship is contested. Key Points for the Family Court Community: The vast majority of the children in both probate court and juvenile court have experienced trauma. However, CAPTA only requires a GAL for children in juvenile court proceedings.There is a clear risk of "erroneous deprivation" of the children's private interests through the current procedures used in guardianship proceedings.Mandating that each child in probate court has representation can ensure that children receive the best possible outcome based on their unique circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which discusses several articles in the issue on topics including how custody evaluators, investigators and the courts should understand and respond to cases where children are resisting contact with a parent; and female victims of domestic violence.

Juvenile and family law uniquely require interdisciplinary education and experience to balance children's and families' legal rights with their best interests. Clinical legal education provides third‐year law students with advanced and applied experience in a specific area of law to prepare them for legal practice. Recent developments in clinical legal education advance this experience by integrating interdisciplinary experts and reflective practice into clinics. The Children's Justice Clinic is one such clinic that integrates classroom teaching, clinical legal practice, multidisciplinary expert consultation, and reflective practice to train practice‐ready Guardians ad Litem. Evaluation results from the first 5 years of the Children's Justice Clinic demonstrates that the Clinic is making progress toward its goals to provide third‐year law students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective Guardians Ad Litem, increase interest in child welfare and juvenile law practice among law students, and increase access to high‐quality legal representation for children. This paper presents the results from the evaluation and shares lessons learned during clinic development and implementation. Key points for the family court community: The Children's Justice Clinic is one such clinic that integrates classroom teaching, clinical legal practice, multidisciplinary expert consultation, and reflective practice to train practice‐ready Guardians ad Litem.Evaluation results from the first 5 years demonstrates that the Clinic is making progress toward its goals to provide third‐year law students with the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective Guardians ad Litem, increase interest in child welfare and juvenile law practice among law students, and increase access to high‐quality legal representation for children.Community and law college buy‐in are essential to creating a successful law school clinic to develop the curriculum and have a supportive community of legal professionals willing to work with and teach the students.Collaborations across the university system provide access to multidisciplinary experts for case consultation, reflective practice, and seminar lectures.To build you own clinic, consider increasing access to multidisciplinary case consultants, visit other similar clinics across the country, and integrate the clinic director into law school teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Key points for the family court community: International family disputes raise difficult issues which cannot be addressed by any court or jurisdiction working alone. Such disputes call for cross‐border collaboration between judges, family lawyers, and a team of allied family justice professionals.Such collaboration should be directed toward three goals: (a) articulating common aspirations and values for family justice; (b) deepening cooperation and communication between family courts and other family justice institutions; and (c) promoting convergence in the substantive norms and practice of international family law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family courts have been criticized for failing their core mission of rehabilitating families. Structural inequalities embedded in the family court system, combined with the role of adversarial judges and resource constraints, have contributed to the creation of a problematic environment for parents and families. In this paper, we examine the strategies that legal teams (attorneys, legal social workers and parent advocates) employ to serve child welfare‐involved parents in navigating this complex system. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants employed by public defender organizations in a large Northeastern city. We called on thematic analysis to identify three distinct themes: (1) Keeping the Lines of Communication Open (the importance of regular communication between parents and attorneys); (2) Strategic Use of Parent Voice (the intentionality behind when and how parents should speak directly to the judge); and (3) Parents as Chameleons (the grooming of parents to meet certain judicial ideals of parenthood). We identified several strategies to empower child welfare involved parents as they pursue legal permanency for their children: (a) ameliorating communication barriers between parents and their legal team members; (b) preparing parents to amplify their voices in the courtroom; and (c) using more general language to co‐manage parental appearance and presentation. Key points for the family court community: The challenges of the family court system have been widely documented but less is known about how attorneys, social workers, and parent advocates operate in the family court setting and how they seek to work cooperatively with their clients.This study features the voices of these professionals as they articulate the challenges of operating within the family court system and the strategies that they have adopted to guide their clients through it.Qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 participants employed by public defender organizations in a large Northeastern city: 14 attorneys, 11 social workers and 7 parent advocates.Thematic analysis was used to identify three distinct themes: (1) Keeping the Lines of Communication Open (the importance of regular communication between parents and attorneys); (2) Strategic Use of Parent Voice (the intentionality behind when and how parents should speak directly to the judge); and (3) Parents as Chameleons (the grooming of parents to meet certain judicial ideals of parenthood).Theme‐specific strategies are offered to support legal professionals in the empowerment of their clients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 20 years, a number of evidence‐based and evidence‐informed mental health treatment models, interventions, and best practices have emerged for use with a wide range of client populations, with many different mental health conditions and diagnoses. Unfortunately, many family court‐involved children and families do not have access to mental health programs and services that have been identified as evidence‐based or evidence‐informed. The reasons for this disparity are complex and multi‐layered. The primary aim of this paper is to identify the challenges and possibilities of adopting evidence‐based or evidence‐informed practices when working in the family court arena. To achieve this, the authors will describe a potential decision‐making model to help practitioners determine what is evidence‐based and evidence‐informed and what model or interventions may fit the context. This model has been referred to as a "levels‐of‐evidence" approach for evaluating family‐focused mental treatment interventions and programs and making informed clinical decisions to better serve children and families. As an example, the authors illustrate how a levels‐of‐evidence approach could be used to identify how evidence‐based practices such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT), designed for use in the juvenile justice setting, could be adapted for use in child custody cases. The authors hope this paper serves as a catalyst to further build a bridge between the family law and evidence‐based mental health research communities. Key Points for the Family Court Community: There are few evidence‐based or evidence‐informed, family‐focused mental health treatment models for working specifically with children and families involved in child custody cases. Using evidence‐based practices (EBPs) requires adopting the "levels of evidence" approach to identify the best available treatments to bear on current problems or cases.To achieve better outcomes, evidence‐based and evidence‐informed, family‐focused interventions and treatments must be more widely accepted and integrated into the practices of mental health professionals (MHPs) who work with children and families involved in family court.There are a number of existing evidence‐based, family‐focused mental health treatment models that can be adapted to work in family court settings that are client‐centered and accountable.FFT and other evidence‐based and evidence‐informed family‐focused mental health treatment and intervention models could be viable resources upon which stakeholders in family court could rely on to improve their work with children and families involved in child custody cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reunification therapy is specialized family therapy to address parent–child relational disruption (i.e. child resistance to or refusal of parent contact), typically during or following a high‐conflict divorce or custody dispute. The literature discussing reunification therapy interventions with families involving racial diversity, SES, religiosity, and other socio‐cultural aspects is limited to non‐existent. In the move towards being culturally sensitive to the ever‐present multitude of identities that exist within family systems, professionals are challenged to develop a balanced approach between providing competent practice that is culturally sound and considering empirical evidence. This paper offers suggestions for enhancing evidence‐informed interventions to address parent–child contact problems within diverse populations by incorporating culturally specific interventions to increase parenting skills, reduce parent and child distress, and repair attachments through therapeutic experiences. Practitioner's Keypoints: Reunification therapy is specialized family therapy to address parent–child relational disruption (i.e. child resistance to or refusal of parent contact), typically during or following a high‐conflict divorce or custody dispute.Some of the Evidence Based Treatments (EBTs) for family therapy have been translated into practical Evidence‐Informed Interventions (EIIs) for use with high‐conflict, court‐involved families; however, the research is significantly limited as it pertains to the challenges of treating and assisting such families from diverse cultural backgrounds.This paper offers suggestions for enhancing EIIs to address parent–child contact problems within diverse populations by incorporating culturally specific interventions to increase parenting skills, reduce parent and child distress, and repair attachments through therapeutic experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary notes that the White Paper of the Honoring Families Initiative failed to address how including the child's voice in best interests of the child determinations fits or does not fit into their proposal. To the extent appropriate and possible, the child's preferences and voice should be heard. In addition, the White Paper's emphasis on avoiding the adversarial nature of litigation distracts it from a necessary emphasis that conflict is the enemy of children and that conflict can emanate from one or more of numerous sources, some connected to the court processes and some independent of court. This commentary ends by noting that courts are needed for enforcement of orders and protection, yet they also have much more to do despite the inconvenient truth of dwindling resources. As the figurative and literal head of each community's interdisciplinary team, courts must continue to serve as conflict managers protecting children in high-conflict families. Key Points for the Family Court Community To the extent appropriate and possible, the child's preferences and voice should be included in best interests determinations., Effective system reform must reduce conflict or protect children from the harmful effects of conflict., Courts must play an indispensable role in coordinating and facilitating efforts to help children and families in conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a formative evaluation study of the parenting coordination pilot program launched in Israel in 2016 at the initiative of the Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs (At the time the program was launched, the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services) and JDC‐Ashalim. Data was collected on 131 participating families (262 parents) through self‐administered questionnaires filled out by the parents prior to the parenting coordination process (N = 204), telephone interviews with the parents following the process (N = 142), and reports by the parenting coordinators (PCs), submitted online at the conclusion of the process with each participating family (N = 131). Based on the logic model developed as a blueprint for the pilot program, the characteristics and needs of parents in high conflict were identified and desired outcome indicators were accordingly specified; quantitative and qualitative research tools were developed for the study, and the efficacy and outcomes of the parenting coordination pilot program were evaluated. Overall, the findings indicate a significant improvement in the desired outcome indicators. The implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed in the conclusion. Key points for the family court community: Based on a large sample of families in high conflict who participated in the parenting coordination pilot program and matched PCs, this pioneering study offers fresh insights on the efficacy and outcomes of parenting coordination—so far addressed by rather limited research.Overall, parents in high conflict experienced a significant improvement in the desired outcome indicators following participation in the parenting coordination pilot program although most of them withdrew from the program ahead of schedule.Higher success rates were found among parents who refrained from reverting to litigation over their children in the course of the parenting coordination process.Lower intensity levels of the parental conflict prior to parenting coordination (along a continuum of high‐intensity parental conflict: from moderate/high through intense to extreme), longer parenting coordination time ranges, including more sessions, up to the specified limit, and completion of the process as scheduled, without suspension due to reapplication to the court, were found to be successful outcome predictors.A significant reduction in both inter‐parental and child‐directed violence was found in this study, indicating the efficacy of the approach adopted and the intervention tools used in the pilot program in maintaining and safeguarding the well‐being of the children entangled in the parental conflict.An improvement was also found in the various aspects of parents' ability to shield their children from the parental conflict, which was the overarching goal of the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Key points for the family court community: Conceptualizing intimate partner violence (IPV) as discrete incidents of physical violence without considering context (e.g., coercive control vs. situational conflict) and chronicity underestimates the risks and harms associated with the insidious, daily nature of coercive control.When rigorously distinguished by a context of coercive control, different types of IPV are found to relate to different dynamics and outcomes. For example, coercive controlling violence (CCV) is predominantly perpetrated by men versus women and tends to be more frequent, severe, and injurious whereas situational couple violence (SCV) tends to be more gender symmetric (i.e., perpetrated by both men and women).Separation and divorce do not always end IPV, especially when children are involved, and separation from an abusive partner is often a lengthy, nonlinear process (e.g., multiple separations) that can vary by IPV type.Bringing allegations of IPV into divorce cases does not always result in greater protection, especially as it relates to parenting agreements.Children provide abusers with an ongoing link to their former partners, a link that is often reinforced when judges, parenting plan evaluators, and other family court professionals prioritize joint parenting arrangements. This coparental link leaves mothers and children vulnerable to ongoing intrusion and raises concerns about how to ensure safety if children are to maintain relationships with both parents.Translating empirical evidence about different types of IPV (e.g., that SCV is more common in the general public and tends to be less severe) to conclude that most IPV in family courts is SCV and therefore not of concern for parenting decisions is an inappropriate and potentially dangerous misuse of research findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Key points for the family court community: Family violence is a hypernym for various forms of violence and abuse that can impact intimate relationships.Concept creep provides a framework for understanding family violence concepts' horizontal and vertical expansions over time and its impact on parenting and coparenting.Due to the complexity of family violence, a systematic approach must thoroughly screen, assess and intervene to ensure the safety and well‐being of all family members.An ecological approach to family violence emphasizes the various interrelated levels that impact and influence the consequences of violence within families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prison nurseries are contentious both ethically and legally in the U.S. because of the tension between supporting the child's best interest and putting an innocent child in prison with their incarcerated parent. The majority of the research advocating for prison nurseries focuses primarily on justifying such programs through a utilitarian perspective of maximizing well‐being for society. Research has not focused on justifying prison nurseries as ethical from the perspective of the child. This research expands the purview of the Eighth amendment and argues that separating a child from his or her incarcerated parents represents a cruel and unusual punishment because of the multitude of adverse effects on the child. This paper builds off of the existing utilitarian narrative, while also advancing the argument that prison nurseries are ethical because of children's inherent and fundamental rights to have a relationship with his or her parent, prison nurseries limitation of the negative effects of parental incarceration and child because of society's duty to protect the best interest of the child. This paper argues that separating children from their incarcerated parents is unethical and that prison nurseries are just based on a mixture of a utilitarian framework and the inherent and fundamental rights of the child. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Children's RightsPrison EthicsLegal EthicsBest interest of the childPrison Nurseries [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Equality Principle (EP) is a novel idea to motivate parents litigating in custody disputes to negotiate. The EP is designed for a special but common case in which both parents are individually fit, there are no decisive differences between the two households that the parents live in, but the conflict between the parents is so infected that the children's well‐being is threatened and shared custody must be ruled out. The present paper empirically tested the Equality Principle in its higher bidder version. In this version, both parents are first told that the conditions for the EP are met. Then, both parents are asked how much visitation they would allow the other parent, assuming that they would win sole custody and living. The most generous parent is awarded custody and living, along with a dictum to facilitate the promised amount of visitation. In the present model (PM), the offered amount of visitation has no functional effect on the custody dispute because the judges and jurors award custody as well as the amount of visitation. A within‐subjects vignette experiment measured 52 participants' levels of visitation generosity in the EP and the PM. Participants showed significantly higher visitation generosity in the EP compared to the PM. The results are discussed in terms of representation of the present model, an equal amount of visitation offered, ecological validity, child perspective, and appellant's rights. In conclusion, the present paper showed that the EP is a promising strategy to resolve seemingly unresolvable custody disputes. Practitioner's Key Points:The longer the custody dispute, the more children suffer. The Equality Principle encourages swift resolution which helps children.The Equality Principle is designed to resolve custody litigations where both parents are fit by making them compete in visitation generosity.The Equality Principle has at least two versions; randomization and highest bidder of visitation time wins. Highest bidder is probably more plausible for the general public.Empirical evidence shows that the Equality Principle in the highest bidder wins variant is a promising strategy to quickly resolve high conflict custody disputes with fit parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Domestic Violence (DV) is a social issue concerning all women, but not all women are oppressed or impacted in the same way. This paper draws on an analysis of fifteen closed Family Law case files of racialized immigrant women in Ontario who experienced DV to examine gaps in services and suggest interventions to fill these gaps. The findings reveal that these women and their children experience multiple and intersecting oppressions. Significantly, few existing services recognize the multiple intersecting vulnerabilities, systemic barriers in the host country, or other socio‐political, economic, and cultural realities these women face. Our research reveals a lack of coordination between different institutions providing services to these women. To respond to these gaps, the authors recommend developing interdisciplinary, holistic and culturally‐informed services offered at a single location to support racialized immigrant women and their children as they navigate the complicated path out of the traumatic entrapment of DV. Key points: Gaps between the needs and services existing for racialized immigrant women and children navigating various systems and surviving domestic violence.Importance of holistic, interdisciplinary, accessible and culturally informed services in helping racialized immigrant women navigate various systems and survive DV.Coordinated response of justice and social services systems for DV survivors.Understanding DV as patterns of coercive behaviorImpact of DV on all members of the family unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this viewpoint and critique is to provide theoretical considerations as to why virtual court may exacerbate the existing disadvantages of intimate partner violence victims in child removal cases. As a backdrop, this paper uses a report of an unnamed but actual victim of intimate partner abuse and her experience in a child removal case in Florida. Key points for the family court community: There are numerous barriers for victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Child Protective Services (CPS) systemVirtual court may be another psychological barrier for female IPV victims in CPS cases [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the article is presented in which the editor discusses various articles published within the issue, including one on how court services for parents can remain essential in a time of budget cuts and increasing caseloads, another on shared parenting and another one on the White Paper of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System's Honoring Families Initiative on the court and separating and divorcing families.

An array of dispute resolution alternatives should be available to families who elect to use them. We suggest a system where parties maintain unhindered access to traditional courts but are able to knowingly and voluntarily opt into dispute resolution processes that are delivered in a fair, affordable, and accountable manner. We support provision of community-based and private-sector services to the extent that court funding and access is not diminished. Key Points for the Family Court Community Choices about participation in dispute resolution processes should be party driven., Parties should receive complete and accurate information about available dispute resolution processes and have access to confidential legal advice., Dispute resolution processes should be fair, affordable, competently provided, and accountable., Parties should have open access to traditional court processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allegations of child maltreatment and neglect, including child sexual abuse, in the context of child custody disputes pose particular challenges for child protection services, family law professionals and the courts to identify children at risk of harm, as well as children impacted and exposed to other risk factors. Accurately identifying child maltreatment requires assessing the background, the history and the context of the allegations in order to differentiate confirmed, unfounded, and fabricated allegations. The paper provides a review of the history and current understanding of allegations within the context of child custody disputes by considering the connections of fabricated allegations to the theory of alienation and the role of gatekeeping. The paper then examines the social science literature regarding allegations within child protection investigations (the prevalence, types of maltreatment, reporter of allegations, and case outcomes) and explores the factors that have contributed to the challenges faced by child protection services to investigate and make determinations regarding allegations within the context of child custody disputes. We argue for early assessment protocols for child protection services to screen child custody cases, to differentiate allegations of alienation from other types of harm, to enhance role clarity in these volatile situations, to refrain from "taking sides" and to work collaboratively with the family law community. Lastly, we offer legal implications to improve collaboration between child protection services and the family law field to better respond to these complex cases. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Allegations of child abuse in the context of child custody disputes pose significant challenges in determining the validity of maltreatment allegations.Fabricated allegations of child sexual are a particular concern within the context of high conflict child custody disputes.Fabricated allegations have been considered to be a weapon used by a separating parent, to effectively end the child's relationship with the other parent.The rates of malicious allegations are nowhere near the reported rates originally presented with the theory of alienation by Gardner and others in the last century.There is no reported research that specifically addresses allegations of child abuse within the context of allegations of alienationAllegations of physical or sexual abuse of a child arise in only a relatively small portion of cases where there are issues of child resistance and/or rejection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper identifies and discusses the legislative provisions which protect confidentiality in family law proceedings in Australia. The purpose of discussing these protections is two‐fold: firstly, to identify the scope and operation of these protections for Australian legal practitioners; secondly, to allow comparison of Australian protections to those offered in other jurisdictions. This paper will consider duties of confidentiality and evidential privileges in the context of settlement negotiation, mediation, arbitration, lawyer‐client relationships and medical, counselling and other therapeutic relationships. The rationale for the protection of confidentiality in some of these relationships and circumstances, but not in others, will also be considered in an attempt to understand why it is so. Key Points for the Family Court Community: This article deals with the operation and scope of confidentiality obligations in family law proceedings, including:○ The nuanced differences between confidentiality obligations and evidentiary privilege; and○ The application of duties of confidentiality and evidential privilege in certain situations and relationships including:▪ Settlement negotiations▪ Mediation▪ Arbitration▪ Lawyer‐client relationships▪ Medical, counselling and other therapeutic relationshipsIn particular, this article explores the absence of privilege protecting medical and therapeutic relationships in Australia and the various calls for reform to the laws surrounding the disclosure of medical, counselling and therapeutic relationship evidence in family law proceedings.This article considers how the rationales that underpin confidentiality obligations in medical, counselling and other therapeutic relationships are complimentary to the public policy considerations of ensuring the proper administration of justice in family law proceedings, and why such obligations should be safeguarded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID‐19 exacerbated the crisis in access to legal services especially for victims of domestic violence for whom the pandemic made their situations even more precarious. In this article, the author shares his experience of building and implementing an automated solution to help pro‐se litigants petition the court for emergency protection orders remotely and without the need to visit the courthouse. The article describes the lessons learned in developing a state court online portal dedicated to educating abuse victims and providing them with an automated way to petition the court for protection orders remotely without the need to visit a courthouse. The article concludes that implementing replicable models in other jurisdictions could create various efficient web‐based solutions for helping self‐represented litigants access the legal services that they need. Key points for practitioners: COVID‐19 required innovation to expand access to legal services by survivors seeking orders of protection from abuse.Online portals can provide education and an automated process for applying for protective orders that is superior to paper or even online forms.Open‐access low‐cost tools are available for building and implementing automated solutions for access to justice.Building online solutions for access to justice requires an investment in convening stakeholders to discover opportunities and barriers and a phased implementation with testing and feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center (CJFJC), like many advocacy programs for survivors of intimate partner violence, transformed its structure and operating procedures amid the COVID‐19 pandemic. The first confirmed case of COVID‐19 in the United States was in Washington State, where CJFJC is located, and Governor Jay Inslee acted quickly with a strict stay‐at‐home order. This paper describes the pre‐pandemic, in‐person service model used at CJFJC and then the transition to a fully online service model utilizing phone, email and online procedures and platforms. The rapid transition posed many opportunities to learn how to provide services during public pandemics, and how to provide services virtually. We conclude with detailed lessons learned from the experiences of filing domestic violence protection orders online, Zoom court hearings, innovation surrounding community partnerships, and information technology development. Key points for the family court community: During the COVID‐19 pandemic, one Family Justice Center quickly pivoted from in‐person service delivery to virtual service delivery. Challenges included quickly obtaining laptop computers, necessary software, training staff to provide services virtually, and coordinating with the courts and community partners. These challenges were met through close cooperation with the courts and community partners.The experience taught the Crystal Judson Family Justice Center staff that there are advantages to virtual advocacy service delivery: advocates now have the knowledge/hardware/software necessary to work from home when needed; survivors who live in rural areas, who do not have transportation, childcare and/or other limitations to attending in‐person service delivery can learn of available advocacy services, obtain orders of protection, and attend court hearings virtually.However, there are also disadvantages to virtual advocacy service delivery: some survivors do not have the knowledge necessary to access the Internet, social media, do not have private computers or cell phones to access advocacy or court services. Survivors may need access and assistance to learn to use these electronic platforms.Particularly during the pandemic, financial support is essential including providing cell phones and data plans, as these can assist survivors' access to virtual advocacy services and court hearings. Providing service information in grocery stores and other public places can assist survivors in learning of services in their communities.In‐person contact for this Family Justice Center remains necessary for those survivors who cannot access virtual services and who need emergency household goods, food, etc. Advocates can also provide in‐person, trauma‐informed care in assisting survivors in completing paperwork for same day orders of protection, developing safety plans, and providing community outreach and emotional support by attending court hearings with survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has profoundly affected families and children involved in Ontario's family justice system as well as family justice professionals in the province. In a span of two years, Ontario's family justice system has been fundamentally transformed, from a paper‐based, in‐person system to a paperless system in which many services, including judicial proceedings, continue to be largely delivered remotely. We report on the findings of two studies on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on Ontario family justice: (1) an analysis of early pandemic court decisions; and (2) a survey of family justice professionals about their experiences during the early pandemic. We describe how the pandemic has exacerbated access to justice issues for certain groups, including families experiencing high conflict, victims of intimate partner violence, families involved in child welfare proceedings, and self‐represented litigants, while improving access to justice for others by improving efficiency and reducing legal costs. As Ontario moves past the pandemic, the family justice system will need to ensure that technological advances improve access to justice for all court‐involved families. Key Points for Practitioners: The pandemic disproportionately affected families experiencing high conflict, victims of intimate partner violence, self‐represented litigants, and families in the child welfare systemVirtual courts and electronic document filings improve efficiency and reduce costs for those with lawyers, but increase barriers in access to family justice for those without representationClosure of court‐based legal information services and summary advice from Legal Aid lawyers significantly impact access to justice for self‐represented litigantsAccess to technology may improve access to justice but more must be done for the self‐represented litigants who may need face‐to‐face support [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020, residents in the state of Victoria, Australia endured months of government restrictions aimed at curbing multiple outbreaks of COVID‐19. Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) services continued to assist separating couples to sort out their parenting and property matters, necessitating a rapid and wholesale shift to remote delivery via telephone and video conferencing. This paper reports on interviews during and subsequent to 'lockdown' with clients of FDR services offered by a large, community‐sector provider. The data collected provide insights into the ways in which the pandemic affected the immediate needs and concerns of families as they navigated separation and shared parenting during the pandemic. Of importance to service development, the data include client responses to different methods of FDR service delivery and their reflections on how well these evolving methods were suited to their needs. Practitioner views were also sought on service delivery methods to provide a comprehensive picture of the advantages and challenges of remote delivery, and the ways in which it helped or hindered in catering to the needs of clients with safety concerns. Collectively the results of these analyses indicate that COVID has produced new risks and opportunities for the provision of FDR services, in both COVID and post‐COVID worlds. The evolving FDR service model will likely continue to feature multiple delivery options, regardless of the trajectory of the pandemic. Key points for the family court community: In 2020, during COVID restrictions, Family Dispute Resolution services in Victoria, Australia, underwent a rapid shift to remote delivery via telephone and video conferencing.Client interviews were conducted in order to assess how well these methods of delivery were suited to their needs and concerns during the pandemic. Interviews with practitioners were also undertaken to provide a comprehensive understanding of the advantages and challenges associated with remote delivery.Significant benefits were identified, including enhanced accessibility, enhanced physical safety and greater convenience for clients. Reduced emotional intensity and anxiety meant that some clients felt more confident in negotiating agreements.Practitioners found it could be more difficult to engage clients fully in the FDR process, and that more work was required to assess client safety and wellbeing. In general, adaptations were successfully made.The evolving FDR service model will likely continue to feature multiple delivery options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the logical, yet seemingly unanticipated, effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic has been the exodus of parents, primarily mothers, from the workplace. An October 2020 Pew study indicates that as many as 30% of parents reduced work hours or left the workforce all together, with a pronounced burden falling on working mothers. This paper examines one possible consequence of voluntary under‐ or unemployment by these parents: imputed income for the purposes of calculating child support. Forecasters predict that remote learning is now an option schools will likely turn to again to address all sorts of possible problems from environmental disasters to flu outbreaks. Family law practitioners should be prepared to deal with this likelihood, and should be ready to address the possible effects on child support with their clients. Key Points for Practitioners: Many caretakers voluntarily left the workforce to care for children during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Existing caselaw and statutes in many states impute income for child support purposes for parents who voluntarily leave the workforce or reduce their work hours to care for their children during a pandemic or other crisis.Courts should refrain from imputing income to a custodial parent who leaves the workforce or reduces his or her work hours to facilitate the children's remote learning during an exigency; in this type of situation, courts should either use their discretion to deviate from child support guidelines and statutes or, if applicable, not impute income to such a parent pursuant to a "good faith‐best interests standard."State legislatures or judicial committees should revise or add rules or statutes adopting the "good faith best interests" standard for guidance to courts considering whether to impute income when a parent voluntarily leaves the workforce or reduces his or her work hours; application of the standard would require imputing income to the custodial parent only if the parent's decision to leave the workforce or reduce work hours was made in bad faith or is not in the children's best interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the State of South Carolina agreed to waive their requirements of religious non‐discrimination by state‐funded, licensed child placement agencies. The state had discovered that its largest provider, Miracle Hill, approved the applications of only those who shared its Evangelical Protestant faith. After Miracle Hill refused on religious grounds to assess a Unitarian couple's fitness, the couple filed suit against various federal and state defendants, alleging that the waivers constituted an establishment of religion. This paper explores South Carolina's argument that Miracle Hill's asserted free exercise rights render irrelevant constraints that the Establishment Clause might place on this religious accommodation. I conclude that the state's reliance on Fulton is misplaced. Here, the state should be deemed constitutionally responsible for the religion‐based exclusion of prospective foster parents. More controversially, I contend that the state should also be held constitutionally responsible for the religious indoctrination of children placed with families approved by Miracle Hill. Such responsibility has long been and should remain a central concern of the Establishment Clause and overcomes any countervailing free exercise interests of Miracle Hill or other faith‐based providers. This focus on responsibility offers significant depth and nuance to conventional but vague Establishment Clause concepts about state support of religion. Key points for the family court community: Explore a critical question left open by the Supreme Court's decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia: how should the broadening Free Exercise Clause affect interpretation of the Establishment Clause?Consider the potential difference between government grantees' religious discrimination and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the journal is presented in which the editor discusses various reports published within the issue, including a white paper about the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System's (IAALS) Honoring Families Initiative, a report on the 2010 National Leadership Summit on School Justice-Partnerships, and an article on the duty of noncustodial parents to support disabled children.

Since the "Divorce Challenge" in the Netherlands, a lot of initiatives have been taken on a political level, from the judiciary and in practice, to improve the situation for children of separation. Experimental legislation is on its way to enable the development of new court procedures. One of its ideas is to introduce a so‐called family's representative. This new professional, a lawyer or mediator, can represent both parents in court or coordinate the entire divorce process, both before and after the court procedure. Key Points for the Family Court Community: A parenting plan is mandatory in The Netherlands since 2009.Evaluation of legislation and reports of the Netherlands' Ombudsman for Children led to new political initiatives to improve the situation for children after divorce, especially in high conflict divorce.A "Divorce Challenge" led to a variety of ideas and a group that set up an Agenda for Action.The judiciary came up with a paper presenting their viewpoint on divorces of parents with children.Experimental legislation will now lead to implementation of best practices and introduction of the family's representative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every day in family law courts and mediation rooms across the world, complex decisions are made about postseparation parenting that affect the developmental outcomes of countless children. Attorneys, judges, parents, and even mental health professionals are often poorly equipped to accurately apply developmental knowledge to these decisions, including knowledge from the vast field of attachment theory. A mounting body of research from developmental psychology and neuroscience confirms attachment relationships to be a central axis of the child's developmental pathway, in every family, in every culture throughout the world. The health of a child's attachments can influence multiple and far‐reaching outcomes. As such, attachment theory and knowledge deserve a place in the family court's deliberations and planning for children, but to date, that place remains ill defined. Inconsistencies and misunderstandings, conundrums and complexities of applying attachment knowledge to divorce and separation matters are evident throughout the field. This Special Issue went in search of a shared praxis of meaning about attachment. The resulting collection of papers and interviews documents the views of multiple, eminent attachment experts, who discuss advances in the theory and consider guidelines for legal and mental health practitioners in applying attachment concepts to post‐separation decision making. This opening paper charts the course of this project and summarizes the major points of convergence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although many separating Australian couples make their own arrangements for property division, evidence suggests over 40% nominate either Family Dispute Resolution (FDR), lawyers or courts as their main pathway to settlement. Whereas it is compulsory to attempt FDR in parenting matters, this is not so for property matters. This paper examines client perspectives on property dispute resolution methods using interviews with 112 prospective FDR clients. Some proceeded to joint FDR and some did not, or proceeded for parenting matters only. Thematic analysis highlights the perceived benefits and disadvantages of FDR, compared to using lawyers or going to court, for property matters. We explore issues relating to the cost and character of each process, including implications for post‐separation relationships. Often the initial motivation for choosing FDR was that of avoiding the legal alternatives, which were considered costlier, stressful and/or more acrimonious. After the fact, FDR participants could also identify advantages of the mediation process itself. We conclude that affordability and conflict mitigation are important to clients when choosing and evaluating pathways to property settlement. Those opting to use lawyers instead often wanted more guidance with regard to outcomes, or considered legal pathways more authoritative. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Few Australians use Family Dispute Resolution (FDR, or mediation) to resolve their post‐separation property matters—in stark contrast to the widespread use of FDR for parenting matters.In this context, it is important to understand why separating couples may choose FDR for property matters and why many do not.Interview data highlights the perceived benefits and disadvantages of FDR, compared to using lawyers or going to court, for property matters.Affordability and conflict mitigation are important to clients when choosing and evaluating pathways to property settlement; and were identified as advantages of FDR.Those opting to use lawyers instead often wanted more guidance with regard to outcomes, or considered legal pathways more authoritative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amendments to the Canadian Divorce Act have required that family violence, specifically coercive controlling behaviour, be considered when making best interest determinations for children. This paper (1) outlines how this concealed, patterned, and harmful behaviour presents in family law disputes and (2) sets out considerations for parenting arrangements. It identifies the perils of subjective impressions as well as where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse. Children in families where coercive control is occurring are at risk of harm. The lack of intentional analysis of coercive control does not serve the best interests of the child. Practitioner's Key Points: Coercive Controlling violence is generally the most serious type of violence in family law.Children are directly impacted by coercive control even after separation.The subjective perceptions made by Family law and mental health professionals about family violence impacts the identification of this harmful conduct.Family Law and allied professionals need to identify and understand how the subtle and often concealed patterns of coercive controlling behaviour can present in their files.Family Law and allied professionals need to understand where the legal system and its interventions may be vulnerable to misuse by a perpetrator of coercive control.Best Interest Determinations require an intentional analysis of the presence of coercive controlling behaviours on the part of a parent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors examine how the observed increase in mental health problems among teenagers has affected divorced and divorcing families as well as for professionals working in family law in the U.S. Topics include the important role played by mental health in family law, results of the data from the 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and an introduction to related articles discussed within the issue.