AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SUPERVISED ACCESS AND CUSTODY EXCHANGE SERVICES

An exploratory outcome study to investigate the ability of a supervised access and custody exchange center to function as a safe visitation enforcement mechanism of the court was accomplished as part of a larger study investigating child well-being. During a 6-month period of program participation, frequency and consistency of noncustodial parents' access to children dramatically increased and interparental conflict significantly decreased, demonstrating that supervised visitation and custody exchange centers that function in partnership with family court during interim court processes can address the unmet needs of family court and high-conflict domestic disputant as well.     

Drug courts for DWI offenders? The effectiveness of two hybrid drug courts on DWI offenders

The effectiveness of drug courts for illegal drug-involved offenders has been well documented (Belenko, 1998, 2001; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006), however, few studies had examined whether they work for repeat “driving while intoxicated” (DWI) or “driving under the influence” (DUI) offenders. The current study examined sixty-six offenders who had completed one of two hybrid DUI/drug courts (compared to eighty-six similar parolees) operating in two small cities in a single midwestern state. Results suggested that among non-DUI offenders, completion of the drug court program reduced recidivism, as might be expected; however, among the subsample of chronic DUI offenders no significant recidivism reduction was noted. These results add to the small, but growing literature suggesting that DUI courts (as they are currently being implemented) may not be an effective way to reduce the occurrence of repeat DUI offenses. Suggestions for DUI court implementation and future research are presented.     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON COURT-CONNECTED CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION

This article presents the initial findings of a research project in five judicial settings where there is the provision of child custody mediation within the court. A sample of judges, members of the Bar, and court mediators completed the Professional Study Questionnaire, which examined opinions regarding the efficacy of child custody mediation and requested suggestions for judicial policy and procedure in cases of custody conflicts.     

Evidence on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Court Sanctions

Purpose

The past decade has been witness to a proliferation of calls for evidence-based juvenile court sanctions—including various programs, interventions, services, and strategies or approaches—that reduce recidivism and improve mental health, drug dependency, and education outcomes. At the same time, an emerging body of work has identified “proven,” “evidence-based,” “best practice,” or, more generally, “effective” efforts to achieve these outcomes. Even so, grounds for concern exist regarding the evidence-base for these and other sanctions.

Methods

This paper describes the heterogeneity of sanctioning within juvenile justice and argues that, despite substantial advances in research, the heterogeneity severely delimits the generalizability of evaluations to date. It also raises questions about how much is in fact known about the effectiveness of many juvenile justice sanctions.

Conclusion

Extant research offers grounds for optimism. Even so, explicit articulation of the limitations of this research and the need for studies that examine external validity is important for developing evidence about “what works” in juvenile justice. Implications for research and policy are discussed.     

The “process” of patenting: Why should we care about a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Doll?

In Bilski v. Doll, the U.S. Supreme Court is called to define one of the categories of patent-eligible subject matter, “process” patents. In 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the category has a narrow meaning, and that to be eligible for a process patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must involve a machine or apparatus or involve a transformation to a different state or thing, ultimately rejecting the patent application as unpatentable subject matter. The patent applicants have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to determine two issues: first, the meaning of “process” in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the lower court properly relied on a “machine-or-transformation” test, and second, the test's potential conflict with 35 U.S.C. § 273, which provides protection for “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” The Court's decision could change the way that research and business are done, and patent protection for such investments. Parts 1 and 2 of this article address Bilski directly and what is and is not in dispute. Part 3 addresses the “machine-or-transformation” test, while Parts 4 and 5 address reasons not to adopt such a test.     

Abused Mothers’ Safety Concerns and Court Mediators’ Custody Recommendations

This study adds to research on family court’s response to custody in the context of intimate partner abuse (IPA). Mediation is often used to assist family court with custody negotiation; however, debate exists in the field regarding its use when IPA exists. The following study examines experiences with court mediation among a sample of victimized mothers who divorced abusive husbands. Mixed-method data were collected from 19 women. Findings demonstrate that abuse is rarely considered in custody recommendations, as most court mediators prefer joint custody. Implications for the ongoing debate, as well as future directions for research, are discussed.     

Sexual assault,irresistible impulses,and forensic psychiatry in Sweden

After forensic psychiatry was firmly established in Sweden in the 1930s, many rapists and individuals charged with assaulting children underwent a forensic psychiatric examination. The physicians found that most of them had not been “in control” of their senses or not “in complete control” of their senses at the time of the crime. If the court ordered a forensic psychiatric examination, the defendant had a very good chance of either being discharged or having his sentence reduced considerably. By the 1950s psychological perspectives began to dominate in forensic psychiatry. In the forensic records of the 1950s we can notice a shift from a biomedical to a socio-psychological perspective, and crime was increasingly related to conditions that were not seen as mental derangement from a legal point of view. As a result, it became less and less common, from the 1950s onwards, for sentences to be commuted or defendants discharged.     

Actions taken in response to mental health screening at reception into prison

Screening for mental health problems on reception into custody has been criticised. However, there have been few studies on care pathways through custody as a result of screening identification. We aimed to identify what actions were taken as a result of screening positive for suicidal ideation and mental health problems. Case records for 2166 prisoners newly received into five prisons in England and documented contact with health care professionals in the following month were examined by hand over a four-month period. Altogether, 3% of prisoners were screened as having current suicidal ideas, of whom 30% had no contact with mental health services or risk assessment documentation. Another 21% of new receptions received psychotropic medication, for whom over 60% received no primary mental health assessment, and only 36% received psychotropic medication in prison. Care pathways need to be defined, and screening needs to be delivered as originally intended by initial screen for life-threatening matters, followed by a later, comprehensive assessment of health needs.     

General systems theory and criminal justice

Criminal justice agencies are organized sequentially — “output” from one agency is “input” to the next — but most scholars argue that criminal justice is not a system in a theoretical sense. In this article, it is argued that general systems theory (GST) reveals important insights into criminal justice structures and functions. Specifically, it is argued that the criminal justice system processes “cases” rather than people, and that the common goal of criminal justice processing is to “close cases so that they stay closed.” It also is argued that processing capacity progressively declines, in that at each system point the subsequent agency cannot input as many cases as the previous agency can output. Each agency therefore experiences “backward pressure” to close cases in order to reduce input to the next agency. Overall, this article highlights that criminal justice agents and agencies are best understood as operating in the context of the larger whole, thus it is concluded that criminal justice is a system in the sense of general systems theory.     

RELYING ON THE UNRELIABLE: HOW A COURT RULE COULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE NEUTRAL MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROCESS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Many states lack standards as to who should be conducting neutral mental health evaluations in child custody proceedings and what these evaluations should be comprised of. This will occasionally result in an unqualified evaluator giving a recommendation to the court as to which parent should receive custody of their child[ren]. This Note advocates for courts to adopt a court rule which specifically enumerates the qualifications of neutral mental health evaluators in the hopes of regularizing the evaluation process. The first part of the proposal addresses who should conduct evaluations by establishing the required credentials of the evaluator and minimizing the amount of evaluator bias by screening the process. The second part of the proposal focuses on the training needed before an evaluator may conduct an examination, as well as the amount of experience required.     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

“Opt in” and “opt out” mechanisms in the internet era – towards a common theory

In order to provide for adequate legal protection mainly in mass-transactions on the internet, both the legislature and private parties increasingly, resort to so-called “opt in” and “opt out” mechanisms. Whether or not an “opt in” or an “opt out” mechanism is used is often decided on a case-by-case basis. The same is true regarding the circumstances under which private parties are or should be allowed to resort to “opt out” mechanisms, and if so, what restrictions should safeguard the free will of the addressees of such mechanisms. This paper argues that the existing “opt in” and “opt out” schemes should not be regarded and discussed as isolated phenomena. Rather, they should be analyzed from the viewpoint of a common underlying legal theory which builds on the common character of the underlying regulatory structure of all “opt in” and “opt out” schemes. This requires a complex matrix which comprises not only the opposites of “in” and “out”, but also of “active” and “inactive”, of “preference” and “non-preference” for the respective default rules, as well as of “ex ante” and “ex post” enforcement of the law. It also involves normative, economic, psychological and, last but not least, technical issues.     

Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases

Although a substantial number of researchers have studied charge reductions taking place within the context of guilty plea negotiations, few have focused on estimating the determinants of charge reductions taking place at the initial screening decision. The prosecutor's decision to reduce original felony charges to a misdemeanor has serious social, legal, and economic consequences for the suspect. This paper presents a model of the variables affecting the likelihood of such a reduction in burglary and robbery offenses. Drawing from Littrell's principled charging perspective and earlier research on labeling, the analysis involves estimating logistic regression equations specifying both main and interaction effects of the suspect's gender and race and variables related to suspect character, case seriousness, and legal seriousness. Partial support is found for Littrell's perspective.     

Canada’s First Integrated Domestic Violence Court: Examining Family and Criminal Court Outcomes at the Toronto I.D.V.C.

This is the first quantitative study to examine Canada’s only Integrated Domestic Violence Court. The methodology used a quasi-experimental design with parallel groups with baseline equivalence. Results demonstrate that when support services are provided to victims of domestic violence during family separation, children benefit from greater involvement with both parents. There was more compliance with child support in the integrated court than the comparison group and compliance in custody and access were two variables that predicted the type of final custody orders. There were fewer judges involved in the IDVC court than comparison group; however, there were no differences in the number of court appearances between groups. The IDVC demonstrates a promising intervention to address domestic violence that involves both criminal and family law courts. Future research is needed to explore the views of children, victims and offenders about their experiences with the IDVC.     

THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators.     

The future of consumer data protection in the E.U. Re-thinking the “notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics

The new E.U. proposal for a general data protection regulation has been introduced to give an answer to the challenges of the evolving digital environment. In some cases, these expectations could be disappointed, since the proposal is still based on the traditional main pillars of the last generation of data protection laws. In the field of consumer data protection, these pillars are the purpose specification principle, the use limitation principle and the “notice and consent” model. Nevertheless, the complexity of data processing, the power of modern analytics and the “transformative” use of personal information drastically limit the awareness of consumers, their capability to evaluate the various consequences of their choices and to give a free and informed consent.     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Judicial and legal changes in divorce rules and precedents over the last two decades have led to increasing involvement by mental health professionals in child custody disputes. This involvement usually entails an evaluation of the child and parents, along with a recommendation to the court regarding custody. To date, there is little empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of methods typically used by professionals in making recommendations to the court. This article presents a review of assessment methods currently used in resolving child custody disputes. It also reviews the limited number of outcome studies on child custody evaluation and methods used in litigation and mediation.     

POSTDECREE LITIGATION Is Joint Custody to Blame?

The Joint Custody Symposium Project examined almost 600 court files in five judicial districts to investigate the common perception that joint custody contributes significantly to relitigation rates. Data indicated that joint custody as a factor accounted for only 10.8% of court returns. Financial concerns accounted for the majority of actions. Disputes over child custody appeared to be related to finances as well. Unfortunately, returns to court do not necessarily resolve the financial needs of divorced parents. The findings suggest that children may be used as pawns in court battles over money that are disguised as parenting concerns, as evidenced by the close relationship found between visitation or custody disputes and child support modification filings.     

The Place for Custody Evaluations in Family Peacemaking

Custody evaluations can serve the dual purpose of providing neutral, objective information to the court while also contributing to the possibility of earlier settlement, which coincides with the therapeutic jurisprudence goal of more positive outcomes for children and families. Research suggests that most cases settle after custody evaluations. However, most of the literature is focused on the use of custody evaluations for litigation. Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health consultants can influence parents to focus more on children's needs and less on their conflict as they go through the evaluation process. This article urges family courts to develop processes and require professionals to learn skills needed for an interdisciplinary process to utilize evaluations in peacemaking.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• All custody evaluation processes should aim to reduce and/or shorten children's exposure to parental conflict.
• Evaluators, attorneys, and mental health professional consultants should use the evaluation process to influence parents to be more aware of their children's needs and less invested in their adversarial positions.
• Evaluators should learn to write and orally present information and state opinions with consideration of the parents themselves as consumers of the custody evaluation as well as the court.
• Attorneys and mental health professional consultants should help clients review the report, process their emotional reactions, and consider their options for settlement versus litigation in terms of emotional and financial costs to the family.
• Court processes should be developed to contain the time and cost of custody evaluations and provide dispute resolution after custody evaluations.