Search

Custody cases characterized by conflict may involve allegations of abuse or parental alienation, necessitating a thorough examination of the situation for the child's wellbeing. This case series describes stereotypes and biases faced by three racialized fathers, resulting in problems in the processes and outcomes of the family court system. Occurring at the intersection of race, culture, religion, and gender, social myths about these fathers of South Asian and MENA (Middle Eastern, North African, Arab) descent led to inequities in parental rights and harm to their children. Biases experienced by fathers included racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, which manifested as presumptions that such fathers espoused outdated gender roles, exerted excessive authority in the home, and were unwilling to adapt to mainstream culture—which can bias the decision-making of custody evaluators, child advocates, lawyers, and judges. This paper presents the relevant facts of each case, critical errors made by the court—such as ignoring the voices of the fathers, delayed verdict delivery, inadequate assessment of abuse, and failure to prioritize the children's welfare. This article discusses stigma, abuse, interracial dynamic, and the mental health toll of this process on fathers, despite having respected professions and financial resources. Also addressed is the challenge of differentiating parental alienation from estrangement due to child abuse when children reject a parent. It is hoped that by recognizing and addressing these biases outcomes in parental disputes can be greatly improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ‘good’ post-separation child is an ‘incomplete citizen’ targeted by family court associated interventions to guide their decisions. This article revisits this hypothesis through a High Court case law analysis of three private and public proceedings involving six court-determined ‘alienated’ children. Court instructed experts and Judges sought to redirect the children into normative values. The so-called ‘alienation’ expert has become a dangerous family court element. Their control over ‘alienation’ assessments and children’s social liberties and rights, through so-called ‘reunification treatments’, and often without external oversight or regulation, caused harm to all six children. The article shows how the ‘Alienation and (Residential) Reunification’ industry has become a legal disciplinary and punishing system to ‘deal with’, ‘coerce’ or ‘break’ so-called ‘alienated’ children to re-engage with even court determined violent fathers. When these ‘interventions’ failed, the court went as far as to interfere with criminal investigations and justice to maintain the so-called ‘treatment’ plan. The children found themselves legally entrapped where their voices were withheld from influencing the proceedings (despite deemed Gillick competent). The rebellious ‘alienated child’s’ wishes and feelings were perceived as a threat to the patriarchal family order. The child was therefore punished and regulated back into normative social family boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many youth age out of foster care without achieving permanency. This article describes a process undertaken to determine priorities for creating curricular content to train court personnel on how to authentically engage youth in permanency planning. Utilizing the Delphi method with adults with foster care lived expertise, a list of competencies was prioritized for inclusion through a comprehensive literature review and a series of individual interviews conducted with a broad range of stakeholders (youth with lived experience, state and tribal direct service workers, supervisors, administrators, judges, and child attorneys). Highly rated competencies were included in the subsequent training developed after completion of the Delphi process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The transfer of residence (aka child removal) when domestic abuse is a factor appears to have increased as a practice to resolve challenging child arrangements in public and private law proceedings. Minimal data exists regarding the transfer of residence in public law and the number of private law orders made each year is less clear. Serious concerns about the safety of the family courts continue to be raised, including expert reports recommending the transfer of residency. Following, often harrowing, removals mothers report how they are left to manage complex needs while still being expected to ‘fight’ for their child’s return. In 2022, Project Lighthouse was founded in response to the growing population of mothers who have endured domestic abuse and child removal The charity is beginning to understand the impact and lifelong trauma caused by child removal and, often, is a mechanism of coercive control hidden in plain sight of the family court. Focusing mainly on doctoral and peer research, this paper discusses how mothers’ lived experiences suggest that child removal in private law proceedings is increasing. The paper concludes by calling for urgent research focusing on the impact of child removal, which will help increase much needed awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014 the Children Act 1989 was amended to include a presuption that involvement of a parent in a child’s life will further the child’s welfare unless there is evidence of the risk of harm. Kaganas published two seminal articles which concluded that the government’s ideological rationale for introducting the presumption of parental involvement not only failed to materialise but had some unintended, possibly detrimental, consequences for mothers. This article examines the operation and effects of the presumption of parental involvement in recent years based on an analysis of private law family court judgments between July 2020 and December 2023. Drawing on Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems, it examines the possibilities for and limitations on using law to drive social change beyond the operations of the legal system itself. It concludes that the statutory presumption has failed to serve its stated purpose and has even had the unintended consequence of generating legal communications about the risks of parental involvement. From a feminist perspective, it concludes that positive changes observed in the family court response to domestic and child abuse are an achievement, in light of the limits on steering society, at least until something changes in the unknowable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractThe UK housing crisis is having a detrimental impact on the lives of families. However, in England the links between housing and Children’s Social Care remain poorly understood. This paper draws upon 24 months of embedded research within Torbay Council, a Local Authority with comparatively high rates of children in care and acute housing challenges. It includes qualitative data from interviews/focus groups with parents (n = 66); Children’s Services professionals (n = 7), the housing department (n = 2); housing association (n = 2); and staff/volunteers from voluntary and community Sector organisations (n = 28). This study shows that housing circumstances can both trigger crisis situations leading to the involvement of Children’s Services and form a critical element of the complex needs many families in contact with Children’s Services confront. Parents described difficulties demonstrating their parenting abilities to Children’s Services and the Family Courts when living in inadequate housing, or indeed when homeless. This paper recommends better alignment of Housing and Children’s Social Care responses to ensure more effective support for families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution to the special issue considers Felicity Kaganas as a feminist socio-legal scholar who persistently ‘asked the woman question’ in family law. It focuses on one of her important articles, ‘When it comes to contact disputes, what are family courts for?’ . After summarising her argument concerning the evolution of the family courts’ approach to contact disputes, it examines her critique of a problem-solving approach, in light of the recent introduction of the Pathfinder pilot courts, following the recommendations of the Ministry ofJustice report, Assessing risk of harm to children and parents inprivate law children cases (2020). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the multiple critiques that have been addressed to the concept of ‘parental alienation’ , evidence suggests an increased popularity in recent years. Abused women who seek protection can be labelled as ‘alienating’ mothers. This article investigates the impacts of ‘parental alienation’ allegations on women and children who have experienced domestic violence, focusing on the impacts on mother-child relationships. It draws upon findings from a study that involved multiple case studies conducted with women who had experienced domestic violence and who had been seen as ‘engaging in parental alienation’. For these women, the allegations of ‘parental alienation’ had had negative and sometimes dramatic impacts on the relationships with their children. First, the allegations had resulted in limited or no contact between women and their children. Second, the allegations had limited mother-child communication and had made it more complicated. Third, the allegations had limited women’s ability to protect their children. Fourth, some women reported changes in their children’s behaviours, as some children had expressed feelings of frustration and anger as a result of this situation. The fifth theme emerging from the data was a collection of strategies women used to protect and support their children despite these allegations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professor Clare Huntington's scholarship advances a theoretical "Reparative Model" of family law that seeks to deemphasize adversarial decision-making and decrease litigation. Building off that scholarship, this Article considers the family law attorney's role and argues that the current Model Rules of Professional Conduct already support--and should be understood to require--a "reparative" advisory role for the family law attorney. Put simply, the harsh realities of the adversarial court system demand that family law attorneys presumptively provide information on litigation's harmful impacts on families and children and encourage the possibility of pursuing goals via means less detrimental than litigation. To encourage a reparative practice norm-shift, comments to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include language addressing family law attorneys' contextualized role. Although far from a panacea for the family court system's shortcomings, a presumptive reparative advisory role, if widely adopted, would curb much of family law attorneys' gratuitous contributions to the harmful dynamics facing clients and families in the court system, thereby protecting society and the legal profession, and fostering the possibility of a more satisfying legal practice for family law attorneys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, there has been more attention paid to trauma related to adoption. This article addresses the unacknowledged trauma which may exist with children adopted in infancy, before they had any retrievable recollection of their first families. Because this trauma has not been recognized, there has been inadequate attention paid to the adoptee's grief at the loss of the first family. This article suggests that all sealed records laws which prevent adoptees from having access to records otherwise available to non‐adoptees be repealed, that all adoptions be presumed to be open, with the possibility for ongoing contact with first family members, and that more trauma‐informed and adoption‐competent therapeutic resources be made available to adoptees. Key points for the family court community: Persons adopted in infancy may suffer trauma related to a "primal wound" or their later understanding of their loss of connection with their families of origin.A presumption in favor of open adoption, with adoptees having ongoing access to their first families may mitigate their sense of loss and grief.Trauma‐informed and adoption‐competent counselors should be made available to all adoptees.There are legal barriers to adoptees having access to their own history, legal, and medical records which must be eliminated.All adoptees should have the same access to their own records as non‐adoptees have to theirs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the role of preventive legal advocacy in promoting justice for families and redefining child welfare to focus on family and community‐based systems which prioritize community‐based support and to forego government oversight, regulation and punishment? Given the timeline for systemic reforms and the necessity of providing access to justice for families presently struggling to protect their family autonomy, preventive legal advocacy is a critical piece of reform efforts and scholarly attention. This article advocates for the expansion of existing preventive legal advocacy models and legislation codifying early access to counsel with the goal of disrupting the traditional pathways into the child welfare and family regulation system, enforcing the rights of parents and children to their family autonomy and meaningfully supporting families to thrive. Key points for the family court community: Preventive legal advocacy can interrupt the traditional path of a child neglect or maltreatment report and investigation by identifying legal issues and providing civil legal support.Programs such as medical‐legal partnerships and early family defense provide a model for addressing the unmet legal needs and underlying issues which traditionally bring families into contact with the child welfare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Youth and families impacted by legal systems now resoundingly attest to the systems' lasting harm, echoed by interdisciplinary research. Lawyering thus requires a vastly renewed outlook, boldness, and honest inquiry about the limits of what the law and public systems can (and should) attempt as purported problem‐solving amidst broader socioeconomic forces and injustice. This report synthesizes recommendations from a groundswell of diverse, dedicated voices following an October 2023 convening hosted by the American Bar Association Commission on Youth at Risk, the ABA Center on Children and the Law, and Hofstra University's Maurice A. Deane School of Law. Entitled "Renewal and Revolution: Recommitting the Legal Profession to Serving Children and Youth, Their Families, and Communities," the convening engaged various professionals—many with firsthand experience in foster and justice systems— and other advocates. Since the 2006 ABA Youth At Risk Initiative Planning Conference, the ABA Commission on Youth At Risk has elevated the representation and voice of youth through ethical practice standards, expanded access, and national initiatives. This report recounts findings of the 2023 convening's four working groups which met for two‐days of (often tense) discussions to chart a path for the legal profession, law, and policy for the next decade and beyond. Priorities include: transcending conceptions of youth "at risk" towards recognition of harms done, a strengths‐based lens, and lived experience leadership and expertise; cultivating next generation attorneys; prioritizing early family defense and diversion; divesting from systems and re‐investing directly with youth and families; and further eliminating racial disparities. Key points for the family court community: Attorneys and advocates representing youth and families require a bold paradigm shift towards legal strategies that minimize harm and trauma, divert from courts and facilities, and empower those directly impacted by systems.Lived experience expertise on the part of youth and families should be better compensated and leveraged, towards the advocacy goals of improved legal representation and divestment from public systems which cause harm.Constitutional and civil rights protections for youth and parents in family courts, and other systems like the immigration system, need to be strengthened and formalized.Judges, attorneys and advocates require more extensive training on eliminating racial and ethnic disparities. Jurisdictions should prioritize this as a matter of professional ethics (and/or continue doing so). Additional measures are often needed to counter inevitable resistance to change, and retrenchment of biases.While the next generation of attorneys representing youth and families may benefit from being further mentored and supported, it is also an honor and an asset for the legal profession to have and mentor emerging attorneys with firsthand experience in youth‐serving systems themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marriage provides a key insight to American life. Marriage is a significant factor when analyzing our society and our current structure – a widening gap among social classes. The decline in marriages among middle and lower class reflects issues with education attainment and financial stability. Unfortunately, there has been no initiative to address the declining marriage rate. This Note proposes a two‐alternative approach to implementing family‐friendly policies and a nationwide network of Family Centers that will aid the current and next generation. Society will obtain a more educated, cooperative workforce, with a more stable family structure across all classes. Key points for the family court community: Marriage is becoming a class privilege.The family structure has changed among the middle and lower class.Stable marriages are essential for society's economic benefit and child well‐being.The U.S. ranks among the lowest within middle‐ and high‐income countries for family‐friendly policies.Government promotion is needed to incentivize marriage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Divorces are an emotional battlefield requiring both parties to go to war over their fair share. With the addition of New York's 'no‐fault' divorce, the process was supposed to alleviate spousal disputes and help those who did not want to relive the trauma that got them there. Nevertheless, one group left behind through that reform is domestic violence victims. This Note explores the ramifications of courts not being required to consider a finding of domestic abuse during equitable distribution and proposes to amend the current pathways to clear the way for financial relief for victims looking to divorce their abusers. Key points for the family court community: 1 in 3 women have been physically abused by an intimate partner.1 in 5 instances of physical abuse of a woman in an intimate relationship is classified as severe.Nearly a quarter of divorces—24% in total—cite domestic abuse as a cause of divorce.Between 50% and 75% of domestic violence homicides happen at the point of separation or after the victim has already left their abuser.The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $8.3 billion per year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article illuminates the legal regulation of the economic rights of non‐marital partners at separation or death. Current approaches have typically fallen into two categories: one advocating for the separation of legal regimes based on formal status, treating cohabitant partners as strangers, and the other taking a functional approach, treating cohabitation and marriage as substantively identical. However, both approaches fail to offer a coherent alternative for regulating cohabitation. This article proposes a novel third option – the institutional, autonomy‐based, pluralist model. The pluralist model acknowledges the legal commitment between cohabitants while carefully distinguishing the legal regulation of cohabitation from that of marriage. Unlike prevailing models that offer a "package deal," the pluralist model selectively applies only suitable components of marriage law to non‐marital relationships, considering thoughtful criteria for their applicability and ensuring a nuanced approach. The pluralist model offers a middle ground between treating cohabitants as strangers and treating them as married for purposes of regulating marital property, spousal support, and inheritance. Ultimately, it provides a framework that considers the complexities of non‐married relationships while maintaining a desirable level of legal clarity. Key points for the family court community: The pluralist model offers a middle ground between treating cohabitants as strangers and treating them as married for purposes of regulating marital property, spousal support, and inheritance.Marriage laws should strengthen the communal aspects of the relationship while cohabitation laws should place greater emphasis on the spouses' individual autonomy.Cohabitation law should be less rigid than marriage law in terms of distinctions among different types of cohabitants and opt‐out options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Litigation abuse is a pattern of conduct that misuses the Family Court process in a way that could reasonably be expected to cause emotional or financial harm to the other party or their children which is greater than would occur with the proper use of the family justice process. Litigation abuse may be motivated by a perpetrator's desire to gain an unfair advantage in the litigation or to control a former partner, or may be the result of anger, vengeance, or mental health issues. Litigation abuse is a particular concern in cases of coercive controlling violence that may victimize women and their children, or in cases that involve parental alienation. Previous empirical research has mainly involved studies of women who report that they have been victims of litigation abuse, with one study focusing exclusively on male victims. No previous study has considered both men and women as possible victims (or perpetrators) of litigation abuse, or the perspectives of neutral professionals like judges for assessing whether there has been litigation abuse. This empirical research project is based on an analysis of Ontario Family Court decisions over a three‐year period dealing with litigation costs, which under provincial law may be awarded at a higher level against a party whom the judge considers acted unreasonably, vexatiously or in bad faith during litigation (n = 222). Men were somewhat more likely to have engaged in litigation abuse than women (53% vs 47%). Self‐represented litigants were roughly twice as likely to engage in litigation abuse, though most cases of litigation abuse involved parties with lawyers. Women were more likely be victims of litigation abuse in economic cases, while men were more likely to be victims of litigation abuse in cases focused on parenting. Key points for the family court community: Family justice professionals often fail to recognize litigation abuse, which is a pattern of conduct that misuses the Family Court process in a way that could reasonably be expected to cause emotional or financial harm to the other party or their children which is greater than would occur with the proper use of the family justice process.Litigation abuse often causes victims of intimate partner violence to give up claims or agree to outcomes that impoverish them or expose them and their children to risk.Although men are somewhat more likely to engage in litigation abuse than women, especially to gain economic advantages, women also engage in litigation abuse.While self‐represented litigants are more likely to engage in litigation abuse than those with lawyers, there are many cases where litigants with lawyers engage in litigation abuse, raising ethical issues for lawyers.Judges should recognize cases of litigation abuse, and respond with single judge case management, orders for payment of legal costs, and take account of this form of abuse in making orders regarding parents and economic issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The evaluation of parental competencies within child welfare social services is critical in assessing potential instances of neglect concerning children and adolescents. It is also of significant relevance for forensic psychologists operating within family courts, where they provide expert reports concerning custody arrangements in parental disputes. Moreover, these assessments play a pivotal role in the selection processes of adoptive and foster families. This review describes the main instruments that have been published in the Spanish language in the last 20 years. It emphasizes tools that are particularly pertinent in contexts characterized by social risk, given the intricacies associated with evaluating parental figures in such circumstances and the relevant role of the assessment process. These assessments often determine the decision of whether a child remains within the family unit or faces separation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-resident fathers are rarely researched from a critical perspective. Becoming a non-resident father often results in major dislocation, presenting challenges and hindrances to a meaningful relationship with children. Dislocation is increased by the involvement of the family court, legal issues, false abuse allegations, and ex-partners. Changing family configurations may marginalize non-resident fathers, with their own perspectives, voices, and lack of power remaining largely unmapped. This paper identifies what hinders non-resident fathers' relationships with their children from a critical and Australian perspective. In-depth interviews using open-ended questions with 19 non-resident fathers were used to collect data, followed by a five-step critical thematic analysis to focus on the locus of power. Non-resident fathers' perceptions included a lack of agency and decision-making power; the mother, legal obstacles, and agencies hindered their desired relationships with children. Hindrances were magnified by descriptions of false allegations and IPV from the ex-partner and/or her agents, resulting in a sense of marginalization, silencing, and disempowerment. Australian non-resident fathers in this study identified that desired relationships with their children were hindered by the roles of legal and welfare services, policing, and their ex-partners. The highlighting of these issues points to ways that non-resident fathers with similar experiences of a lack of agency and decision-making power might be better supported by more streamlined and balanced legal processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) is an ongoing scourge upon society. There is minimal understanding of the experiences of mothers and children in private law family court proceedings (PLP), when CSA is reported. A qualitative study was conducted and a feminist-informed Foucauldian Discourse Analysis was applied to understand ten life-stories from within a larger sample of 45. Five themes are presented. CSA was overwhelmingly reported as being minimised, with harmful outcomes for children and mothers reported. Pro-father and 'parental alienation' narratives were a facilitator of severe harm and continued male violence to victim-survivor mothers and children. Further research into the scale and prevalence of CSA within PLP is urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much has been researched, written about, and subjected to public enquiry with respect to the content of Australian family law arrangements. This study adds to current understanding by the examination of the records of all successful appeals of parenting orders under the recently adopted regime of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Division 1 Appellate Jurisdiction. Drawing on transcripts from this Court to the date of writing, 35% of applications to appeal parenting orders were successful in being granted a rehearing or variation by the Appellate Jurisdiction. It is these cases which form the basis for this analysis. Employing an inductive thematic analysis, it has been possible to identify the pattern of circumstances most likely to lead to the compromise of the delivery of the declared principles of clear, predictable, and accessible law. Learning from the record of successful appeals, it becomes evident that the Appeals Court plays a relatively unappreciated critical role in identifying the context and nature of risks in the delivery of these core principles and what should be a central focus for attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The payment of child support is one of the main challenges regarding gender equity and economic justice. Recent figures show that 84% of child support payments decreed by the family courts are not paid, and in nine out of ten cases the plaintiffs are women. This article explores the experiences of nonpayment of child support from a gender perspective. For this purpose, 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted with women in the cities of Antofagasta, Santiago de Chile, and Temuco, as part of a study on women’s economic autonomy in Chile. The findings show that non-payment of child support is closely linked to the persistence of the feminization of reproduction and the absence of co-responsibility in child-rearing and childcare. It is also related to a reluctance to request the payment of child support as a strategy to avoid economic dependence, vulnerability to violence, and institutional revictimization. This evidence suggests that nonpayment of child support constitutes a form of economic violence and that cultural norms and social dynamics with respect to gender are at the root of tensions over co-responsibility in the reproductive sphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific article, the author conducted a scientific study of the peculiarities of parents' fulfillment of the obligation to raise a child in accordance with German family law, the grounds for the emergence and termination of this family obligation, the elements of rights and obligations that make up the content of parental care. On the basis of the conducted research, the author came to the conclusion that the concept of «parental custody» is used in German family law. as an obligation and at the same time - the rights of parents to take care of their minor child. Parental custody includes such powers of the child's parents as: representation of the child's interests in legal relations in which he is the subject, the duty and right of the parents to take care of the child, raise him and supervise him, as well as determine his place of residence, not to apply punishments that encroach on the dignity of the child, the duty and right of parents to help the child in obtaining an education and a profession, taking into account his abilities and inclinations, the right of parents to demand the handover of a child from another person who illegally deprives his parents or one of his parents of the opportunity exercise parental care, certain rights related to medical intervention. For the obligation to raise a child to arise, German family law establishes several legal facts: the presence of the child's parents in marriage, when the presumption of paternity applies to the person who is the husband of the child's mother; an application to take care of the child submitted to both parents who are not married; adoption of a decision by the family court to establish parental custody over the child to its parents who are not married, with determination of the limits of such custody for each parent. The fulfillment of the obligation to raise a child in accordance with German family law is carried out with the mutual consent of both parents in the interests of the child; if the parents cannot agree on the exercise of parental custody, their dispute is resolved by the family court, which may grant the right to one of the parents to make an appropriate decision related to the exercise of parental custody. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gender discrimination of women is often emphasized in work contexts, whereas less focus is on how men are discriminated against in social relationships. Gender discrimination in decisions of family relations, is essential to study as the contact between parent and child is commonly viewed as the most important relationship in people's life, as well as being the most important aspect of our life. Following separations, decisions on custody disputes are made by social workers. The purpose of this paper is to study gender discrimination in such decisions. Method: Participants were instructed to give a recommendation of shared parenting based on a custody case vinjett, where we manipulate the gender of the risk parent. Results: The participants' recommendation of living was mainly dependent on the risk parent's gender, where the mother was considerably more likely to receive shared custody than the father. Conclusions: Professional social workers show selective gender discrimination against fathers in terms of living recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article in the Stanford Law Review reflects on the life and legacy of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, highlighting her dedication to public service, her approach to life and law, and her commitment to decency and the public good. Through personal anecdotes and reflections, the author shares valuable lessons learned from Justice O'Connor, emphasizing the importance of living life to the fullest, overcoming obstacles, taking each case as it comes, contributing to solving big problems, and valuing everyone with kindness and respect. The article provides a nuanced and insightful perspective on Justice O'Connor's impact and teachings, offering a tribute to her remarkable legacy. [Extracted from the article]

The aim of this scoping review was to synthesise the literature to identify what the psychological impacts of family court processes were on mothers who had experienced DFV. Twenty-five articles met inclusion criteria with four themes capturing the findings: Perpetrators using the system as a mode of coercive control; Secondary victimisation as a result of interacting with the system; Required to relive their abuse; and, Long-term psychological consequences of having engaged with the system. Key findings were that perpetrators manipulated the system to perpetrate further abuse and continue/reassert their control. Secondary re-victimisation was common, with poor knowledge of DFV and limited understanding of coercive control tactics and how these were employed by perpetrators by legal professionals identified as contributing factors. This review suggests that mothers who engage with the family court system experience a range of short- and long-term psychological impacts and court processes facilitate ongoing abuse by the perpetrator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction of evidence relating to the now-discredited behavioural-science syndrome known as 'child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome' in R v Ellis demonstrates the danger of syndrome reasoning in judicial fact finding. Comparable syndrome evidence is still used in the Family Court in the form of 'parental alienation syndrome'. Ellis should sound the death knell for all forensic applications of unreliable syndrome reasoning in the courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Until the end of the imperial period, the Volga-Ural Muslim communities in the Russian empire practiced several methods of intergenerational property transfer, such as waṣiyyat (bequest), hiba (gift), ṣulḥ/takhāruj (peaceful settlement) and the “science of the shares” (ʿilm al-farāʾiḍ). The Volga-Ural Muslims considered them all as legitimate ways of property division according to Islamic law (sharīʿa). However, a significant shift occurred in the early 1820s when the Russian imperial state confirmed the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly as the court of appeal for family and inheritance matters. Subsequently, Volga-Ural Muslims began to petition the oa, seeking a reconsideration of their inheritance divisions, specifically requesting a division “according to sharīʿa”. By the end of the nineteenth century, most of these petitions resulted in divisions based on the science of the shares. I argue that the oa served as an extra-communal venue where Muslims could challenge intra-familial or communal methods of inheritance division, and request divisions based on the science of the shares. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been considerable public discourse around courts allegedly “dismissing” mother's allegations of domestic violence and child abuse when a father alleges that he is being alienated from his children by their mother. The purpose of this project is to test whether this discourse is based on an illusory correlation. Published court decisions from 200 family court cases in Canada were sequentially selected if parental alienation was alleged to have happened to the father and abuse was alleged to have been perpetrated by the father. Independent coders recorded the investigative outcomes of the court cases regarding alienation and abuse, and whether the mother lost child custody. Results indicate that there is an illusory correlation between family court cases involving both allegations of abuse and parental alienation, and that mothers are generally not losing custody to abusive fathers in such rarely occurring cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on a quantitative analysis of a novel dataset comprising 10,093 publicly available judgments of adjudicated child custody disputes from the China Judgments Online website, this article identifies potential gender bias in Chinese family courts under certain conditions. Key findings include: 1. Mothers are generally more proactive in seeking custody and are awarded custody in the majority of cases compared to fathers. 2. Specifically, mothers have a significant advantage in cases involving daughters, while their advantage in cases involving sons is less pronounced. 3. In rural courts, the results are notably different: mothers are disadvantaged overall, fathers are particularly assertive in seeking custody of sons compared to daughters, and mothers are less likely than fathers to be awarded custody of sons. Building on existing literature, this study highlights potential judicial biases rooted in societal gender norms prevalent in rural areas. This raises questions about whether courts have achieved substantive gender equality and whether the legal principle of 'the best interests of the child' is consistently upheld in every court decision. This study enhances the understanding of gender bias within China's family court system by providing valuable insights for those interested in addressing gender inequality. It not only highlights specific challenges women face in custody cases but also calls for broader societal and policy changes to support women and combat gender discrimination in all its forms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces a book titled "Bach's Art of Fugue and Musical Offering" by Matthew Dirst, published by the American Bach Society. The book aims to make Bach's music accessible to readers without extensive musical training, while still discussing the technical aspects of the music. It explores the complexity and richness of Bach's works, with a focus on the Art of Fugue and the Musical Offering. The book also includes discussions on the reception of these works by composers and visual artists, reflecting new approaches in Bach literature. It is recommended as a starting point for students and anyone interested in exploring these works further, suitable for both non-technical readers and those with a deeper interest. The author, David Ledbetter, is from Manchester, United Kingdom. [Extracted from the article]

Family court systems sort, explore, and resolve many youth, couple, family, and community concerns and issues. Recognizing the vast diversity of all people, and thus the vast diversity of the concept of family, this article defines and discusses many of the ideas central to diversity, identity, and family. This resource can assist family court professionals in interpreting and applying LGBTQ+ family court research, helping to create a more robust awareness and ability to empower those who utilize family court and family support systems. Key points for the family court community: Inclusion of gender and orientation diverse families begins with education of these communities, fostering allyship, and includes social, legal, and systemic recognition, access, and equity.Family court systems play a pivotal role in the strengthening and empowerment of gender and orientation diverse families and communities.An intersectional lens in examining the complex needs, narratives, and experiences of oppression is largely beneficial to gender and orientation diverse families who seek and depend on family law services and guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Divorce education programs seek to provide parents with information about various aspects of the divorce process, its consequences, and strategies for successful adjustment. Within those broad content areas, however, there are myriad of potential promotive‐, protective‐, and risk‐factors that programs could address. Thus, divorce education programs could benefit from further guidance about the content areas divorcing parents may find the most helpful. In the present study we aimed to describe what divorced parents felt had helped their families throughout the divorce process. We did so to promote further alignment between divorce education program content and what parents have found helpful. Specifically, we identified a typology of helpful post‐divorce family assets. Our findings suggest that though a plurality of divorcing parents benefit from a wide range of legal/professional, former spouse, and personal assets, the majority rely predominately upon their own parenting skills and resources, or perceive few beneficial assets to draw on. We contend divorce educators should consider incorporating further information on developing personal parenting skills or resources, and skillfully navigating legal or therapeutic systems, to further complement existing curricula. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Divorce education programs could benefit from further understanding of what divorced parents find helpful as they navigate family transitions.We identified three patterns of helpful assets: (1) Everything Helps (37.6% of sample); (2) Nothing Helps (34.2%); and (3) I Help Myself (28.2%).Across groups, the assets most likely to be seen as helpful were within parents' own control (e.g., their own parenting skills). Divorce education programs should consider expanding their focus on these individually controlled assets and skillfully navigating the legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of research on the impact of divorce on parents, children, and families focuses on what occurs after the divorce has been finalized. However, data derived from divorce education programs present opportunities for research on the experience of parents during the divorce process. Guided by the divorce‐stress‐adjustment model, this study sought to understand how the divorce process impacts parental well‐being by examining some of the most pressing child‐related concerns divorcing parents have while going through a divorce. Specifically, we looked at how the approach parents took to resolve child‐related issues (i.e., internally, through outside intervention, or unresolved) was related to the perceived fairness of child custody arrangements, parental concerns regarding how divorce impacts children, financial concerns, and their overall well‐being. Perceived fairness of the child custody arrangement, concerns regarding how divorce impacts children, and financial concerns were associated with parental well‐being, and also served as an indirect path through which approaches to resolve child‐related issues impacted parental well‐being. Understanding what parents think and feel during the divorce process, and how those thoughts and feelings are related to the actual steps to getting a divorce, could help inform divorce education typically administered as part of divorce proceedings. Key Points for the Family Court Community: The approach taken to resolve child‐related issues during divorce significantly impacted parental well‐being.Perceived fairness of child custody arrangements was also associated with parental well‐being.Data collected from divorce education participants may provide insight to family court professionals regarding the divorce process for families.Divorce education may need to include more content that targets the well‐being of parentsModels of divorce education that administer differing curricula targeted for specific needs should be considered [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]

In this commentary, we revisit the current state of research on parenting education programs for divorcing and separating parents and reflect on what scholars have recommended as priorities for future research. We then explore how the collection of articles in this special issue advance those priorities in meaningful ways. Topics addressed include recommendations for parenting education program content, parenting education to better meet families' needs, and measurement of program effectiveness. Implications for practitioners, family court professionals, and researchers are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parent education in family courts can significantly impact children's well‐being after divorce if programs are (1) widely accessible, (2) acceptable to parents, (3) feasible to implement by courts, and (4) have evidence of effectiveness in improving key outcomes for children. In light of recently raised concerns about whether court‐ordered/court‐mandated parent education is justified, to it is critical to identify effective parent education programs. Online parent education programs have the potential to be widely accessible, acceptable to parents and courts, and effectively promote children's well‐being. However, few effective online parent education programs are being widely adopted by family courts. There is some controversy about whether online parent education meets the needs of family courts in being cost‐effective programs that offer ways to hold parents accountable for their participation. We articulate the wide array of goals for parent education programs and present a framework to identify and select programs that meet specific goals. We discuss access, cost, evidence of effectiveness, acceptability, credibility, and compliance tracking. We highlight two online parent education programs to illustrate differences in contexts and goals and to show that online programs have great potential to be effective in accomplishing goals valued by the courts. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Online parent education programs have considerable promise to accomplish multiple goals of parent education programs delivered through courts.Courts need to consider how online parent education programs align with their jurisdiction's specific goals, including statutory requirements.Ideally, online parent education programs will be designed to accomplish the goals of all stakeholders, including family court personnel (judges, administrators, and service providers), family law professionals (attorneys, mediators, mental health providers), and participating parents.The family law community needs a systematic way to evaluate and communicate to stakeholders the evidence that online programs accomplish their stated goals.Online programs that claim to be evidence‐based should specify the outcomes that have been evaluated and the corresponding level of evidence of effectiveness to impact those outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In Family Law Court decisions in Australia, following divorce, the female party is frequently disadvantaged financially in the long term. This paper provides a critical assessment of valuation evidence as a data source in research and discusses valuation accuracy, valuation variation and valuation bias, as well as the Australian family court system and the role of valuers as expert witnesses. In particular, valuation in family law, as it relates to gender inequality, is discussed. The study aims to determine whether the current system of valuation in the Family Law Courts disadvantages women. This paper was important to reveal information that stakeholders in family law cases use on a day-to-day basis. Design/methodology/approach: A database of 658 cases was developed and analysed to examine the influence of valuations of the matrimonial home provided by both the male and female parties on the final decision of the court. Findings: Findings showed that valuations from the female party had marginally more influence on the outcome. However, financial disadvantages for the female party persist despite this. This raises several questions for future research, regarding reasons for this persistent disadvantage. Research limitations/implications: Research limitations included a time-consuming process. Practical implications: Further researchers can use the findings from this paper to further research. Social implications: Social implications include the ability of the research to impact on society. In this regard, it was the matrimonial home in relation to divorce proceedings. Originality/value: The originality of this paper stems from the analysis of a database that was created from a large number of cases from Austlii database family law cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Between 70 million and 100 million Americans have a record of interaction with the criminal legal system, a group facing stigma and discrimination in civic participation, housing, employment, and education. Justice-impacted people face collateral consequences in the community, making reentry programs essential to success at reintegration. Focus of Study: Project Impact (PI) at the Borough of Manhattan Community College/City University of New York (BMCC/CUNY) supports students impacted by the criminal legal system. PI provides direct services to justice-impacted students through an extensive peer mentoring program and a high school equivalency program, and by offering college credit–bearing courses to students presently incarcerated in partnership with John Jay College's Prison-to-College Pipeline. PI defines "justice impacted" expansively as students who have been formerly incarcerated, have family who have been incarcerated or arrested, have had issues in family court, or in any other way have been significantly affected by the criminal legal system. Research Design/Conclusions: This evaluation provides unequivocal evidence of the strong, positive impact that PI is making, serving as a rare campus-based reentry program within a community college in New York City. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This ethnographic study examines how Chilean family courts adjudicate domestic violence (DV) cases, highlighting a paradoxical shift away from their intended flexibility towards rigid bureaucratic procedure by examining the undue influence of psychological reports, which are expensive and difficult‐to‐obtain documents, on case outcomes. This research explores the role of these reports as 'legal technicalities', serving as both products and catalysts of specific social relations and tensions, and reveals an earnest yet unsuccessful effort to establish judicial authority amid poorly conceived DV reform. The article contributes to an empirical, bottom‐up analysis of authority construction techniques used in recent widespread judicial reforms in Chile, providing fresh insights into the complexities of institutional changes within these contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the recent proliferation of gendered narratives underpinning and shaping counter‐terrorism laws, policies, and practices. Looking specifically at the United Kingdom, there has been shift in the place of women and gender within international and national security discourses and practices, from historic absence to contemporary presence and influence. The article identifies and critiques some of the gendered and racialized tropes through which Muslim women involved in or associated with Islamist terrorism have been represented since the advent of the 'War on Terror'. Gendered narratives that oscillate between infantilizing and demonizing Muslim women underline, and are manifested in, two particularly important shifts in the global counter‐terrorism landscape: the familialization of (Islamist) terrorism and the securitization of the (Muslim) family. These changes – which foreground the importance of the private realm in understanding and countering terrorism, and have turned the attention of the security state to the relationship between private intimacies and public threats – rest on gendered assumptions and have gendered implications. Their power is most clearly seen in the rhetoric of the family judiciary in cases that have recently emerged in the English family courts dealing with the radicalization of children and their construction of three discursive figures: the radicalized girl, the radicalized woman/wife, and the radicalized mother. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Kaiārahi, or Family Court Navigator, is a newly established role within the Ministry of Justice in New Zealand. The role of the Kaiārahi is to provide guidance and information about the resolution and support options available to parents, caregivers, and families who are considering applying to the Family Court. This research sought to understand how the introduction of the Kaiārahi role may be improving experiences of Family Court users. A qualitative methodology guided the research process and in 2022, four Kaiārahi engaged in semi-structured interviews. The findings suggested that the Kaiārahi role is contributing to an improved experience for people engaged in the Family Court in New Zealand. The level of impact is, however, affected by the strength of collaboration with community services such as social work organisations, and several implementation factors, including a lack of strategic direction, difficulty sourcing clientele, and variable support from the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary. Addressing these issues would further strengthen the effectiveness of the Kaiārahi role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Family courts and child protective services ("CPS") agencies surveil, regulate, and separate hundreds of thousands of families for neglect annually. These families are overwhelmingly poor, and the history of this legal system reveals an expectation, if not an intention, to intervene in poor families. This raises the question whether family courts and CPS agencies are "confusing poverty and neglect" or if they intervene for more than "just poverty," as a raging debate in the field is framed. The law fails to help resolve this debate. Instead of distinguishing poverty from neglect, or providing nuanced examinations of what social science has long shown to be a complex relationship between poverty and neglect, the law assumes away the problem. The law asserts that neglect and poverty are distinct, so the legal system's decision to label parental behavior as neglectful frames the case as about some parental fault or pathology and not about poverty. Consistent with that frame, the law has separated anti-poverty financial supports from interventions available in neglect cases, so neglect interventions largely avoid providing such supports, even though much empirical evidence shows they can reduce family court and CPS system involvement. Moreover, family court and CPS agency intervention can trigger a variety of steps which make poor parents poorer, undermining their ability to reunify with their children. This Article identifies a range of changes which would improve the legal system's ability to distinguish poverty from neglect, by both eradicating longstanding legal rules which confuse poverty and neglect, and establishing more radical rules that would reverse the historical division between neglect cases and anti-poverty financial supports. These proposals recognize how deeply intertwined poverty and neglect are currently, and the absence of any easy test to determine which families could stay safely together if they were not poor and which could not. Absent such a test, the best solution is to provide families the income or the supports that would replicate the experience of families who are not poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many mothers with intellectual disabilities lose their parental rights due to child welfare (CW) concerns. Despite the growing interdisciplinary scholarship on parenting with intellectual disabilities, there is scant research that has explored the discursive practices embedded within CW or family courts involving mothers with intellectual disabilities. The aim of this study is to explore portrayals of mothering with intellectual disability in CW court reports filed in Québec, Canada. A three-level critical discourse analysis was performed, focusing on 10 reports that were retrieved from a publicly available legal database, and their larger discursive societal context. Analysis highlighted unequal power relations as discursive practice underpinned by the following discursive patterns: (1) The ideal caregiver vs the unfit mother (2) Devalued voices of mothers with intellectual disability (3) Professionals as holding authoritative knowledge and (4) Decision-making based on the best interest of the child. Revealing the hidden ideological assumptions embedded in discourse can help to challenge and confront injustice faced by mothers with intellectual disability within the CW system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The article focuses on the significance of the periodical as a vital publication representing the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) for over 60 years. Topics discussed include the historical evolution of periodical from its community-building origins to its role in advancing critical issues in family law, such as divorce mediation, parental alienation, and domestic violence typologies.

New York Domestic Relations Law Section 110, which outlines who can adopt, precludes married petitioners from adopting without their spouse joining in the adoption petition, even when all parties involved support the adoption, and it is in the child's best interests. Some judges have prioritized the child's best interests and granted adoptions in such cases, while others have rigidly construed the statute and denied them. Amending the statute so that anyone can adopt, regardless of marital status, if it is in the child's best interests would ensure the child's best interests are the judicial system's primary consideration in approving adoptions. Key points for the family court community: New York Domestic Relations Law Section 110 provides: "An adult unmarried person, an adult married couple together, or any two unmarried adult intimate partners together may adopt another person."Although under New York law a married person cannot adopt without his or her spouse joining in the adoption petition unless the couple has a written separation agreement or judgment of separation, or has been living apart for three or more years, some married petitioners in intact marriages have been granted adoptions without their spouses joining in the petitions.Legally formalizing existing parent–child relationships was emotionally and pragmatically important for these families.Some states, such as California, Nevada, and New Jersey, expressly allow married petitioners to adopt without their spouses as co‐petitioners when the spouses provide written consent.Other states, such as Arizona and Vermont, allow married petitioners to adopt without their spouses as co‐petitioners but only require written consent when the adoptee is an adult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]