THE SELF‐REPRESENTED LITIGANT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BENCH AND BAR

It is widely accepted that the number of self‐represented litigants has skyrocketed nationwide, especially in family law cases. Although nationwide comprehensive data on the number of self‐represented litigants do not exist, anecdotal evidence supports the belief that self‐representation is increasing. The challenge for courts and the entire legal profession is how to respond. Most observers in Indiana would agree that the traditional model of family law litigation—both spouses represented by lawyers settling their disputes before a judge—is no longer the norm in family law cases. Judges face a dilemma: assisting a self‐represented litigant to level the playing field against a represented party is seen by many as violating impartiality, even if the assistance is rendered to create a just result. In an effort to address the situation, the Indiana Supreme Court created the Pro Se Advisory Committee in April 2001. This article explores the long‐range implications of the issue of self‐represented litigants on Indiana's court system in hope that it will provide some insight for other jurisdictions. The first part of the article addresses the numbers of self‐represented litigants by tracking growth or declines in self‐represented cases and assessing whether there are any pockets of self‐represented litigants geographically or in certain case types. The second part of the article puts Indiana into context with the rest of the nation and reviews national trends. The third section reviews Indiana's response to self‐represented litigants over the last decade. The fourth section reviews current and ongoing projects in Indiana. The article concludes that the issue of self‐represented litigants will not fade away and that the challenge that guides the legal profession is how we provide equal access to justice for all who enter our courthouses.     

REPRESENTATION DISPARITIES AND IMPARTIALITY: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF PARTY PERCEPTION OF FEAR,PREPARATION, AND SATISFACTION IN DIVORCE MEDIATION WHEN ONLY ONE PARTY HAS COUNSEL

While other authors have regarded both the presence and the absence of attorneys in family law mediation as cause for concern, little attention has been given to the questions raised when one party is represented and the other is pro se. This article presents data on mediating parties' premediation concerns, fears, and feelings of preparedness, as well as their postmediation satisfaction with the mediation process. The mediating parties are grouped based on each couple's representation status, for example, both represented by attorneys, both pro se, or one attorney‐represented party and one pro se party (mixed representation cases). The data show that mixed representation cases are the most likely to report concern, fear, and unpreparedness. Mixed‐representation cases also reported the lowest levels of satisfaction after the mediation. Some implications for mediation practice are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.     

A STUDY OF CLIENT SATISFACTION WITH FAMILY COURT COUNSELLING IN CASES INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The Family Court of Australia provides conciliation counselling to couples who are involved in disputes regarding their children following separation. In situations where domestic violence has occurred, the appropriateness of providing counselling to such couples has been seriously questioned This study examines the experience of clients attending counselling at the family court. Two groups of clients are studied—one group who reports domestic violence as a significant issue and a comparison group who does not report domestic violence. The results indicate that the two groups do not differ in their expressed level of satisfaction with the counselling they have received and that both groups consider counselling to have been helpful in resolving their issues. The preliminary results of this study have implications for the provision of postseparation counselling/mediation to couples when domestic violence has occurred.     

PRO SE DIVORCE LITIGANTS

With the increased number of divorce litigants appearing pro se in the past century, trial court judges and court personnel are forced to deal with their conflicting obligations with more frequency. It is virtually impossible for a trial court judge to ensure all litigants have a fair and meaningful trial without compromising their neutrality. Likewise, court personnel are allowed to give out legal information but not legal advice, with the definition of legal information and advice not neatly packaged into two separate and distinct categories. Consequently, changes must be made. This note suggests various solutions that can be imposed to either reevaluate the role of trial court judges and court personnel so that they no longer have conflicting obligations and are able to accommodate the needs of the pro se litigants or implement services that can provide pro se litigants with other avenues of obtaining information and assistance.     

THE PRO SE LITIGANT'S STRUGGLE FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Just as the growth of pro se litigation is a challenge for the courts, so, too, is the bench and bar's resistance to pro se assistance programs and policies a challenge to court reformers seeking to improve access to justice. Even where progressive courts have been able to implement court-annexed pro se assistance programs, judicial and bar resistance to pro se assistance in the courtroom remains. This paper explores the reasons for such resistance, and argues that pro se litigants have a right to receive—and judges have an obligation to provide—reasonable judicial assistance, particularly in cases involving a represented and an unrepresented party. A set of recommendations is offered which will result in pro se litigants being given more basic legal information than previously provided, better preparation of pro se cases, and a more active judge to ensure that all parties have equal access to justice.     

DIVORCE AND THE FAMILY COURT: WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Approximately 50% of couples who have separated report being victims of violence and/or emotional abuse by their former intimate partners. Family courts can make an important contribution toward reducing the number of intimate partners who report being victims of domestic violence and abuse during and following their participation in divorce proceedings in three ways. First, increase opportunities for participation in nonadversarial procedures. Second, implement mandatory assessment/screening for domestic violence using field‐tested instruments that link subscores on sets of items (e.g., control motivated violence, conflict instigated violence/abuse, substance abuse associated violence/abuse) with appropriate community‐based treatments and/or resources. Third, educate family court judges, lawyers, mediators, and other court personnel in the dynamics of domestic violence generally, as well as the dynamics associated with separation/divorce.     

THE MEDIATOR'S ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY ISSUES AND CONCERNS (MASIC): A SCREENING INTERVIEW FOR INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE AND ABUSE AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Screening for intimate partner violence and/or abuse (IPV/A) in family mediation is important, perhaps particularly among cases without attorney representation. While most mediators agree that it is ideal to consider IPV/A in case planning, there is less agreement regarding the need to universally and systematically screen for IPV/A among all cases. Such attitudes are of concern, given research in other fields (e.g., medicine, couples therapy) and our own research in a family mediation clinic, which documents that the lack of consistent and formal IPV/A assessment results in underdetection of IPV/A. While a variety of IPV/A screening measures exist, each has shortcomings. Thus, our research and clinical experience led us to develop a new IPV/A screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC). We discuss features of the MASIC and provide the full measure in the Appendix. The MASIC is a behaviorally specific IPV/A screen that assesses various types of abuse (e.g., coercive control, stalking, physical violence) over the course of the relationship and in the past year. It is administered as an interview to build rapport and assesses lethality indicators and offers optional recommendations for procedural changes in mediation based on IPV/A. Although we have begun relevant research, it is important to note that the MASIC has not yet been validated. Nonetheless, we recommend the use of systematic IPV/A screens in family mediation and suggest that such measures may prove especially important in providing unrepresented parties a safe and appropriate environment for mediation.     

A Measure of Court Response to Requests for Protection

Are male victims of domestic violence provided the same protections as female victims? With increasing entanglement of custody and domestic violence law, the answer to this question is critical for fathers embroiled in disputes where allegations are sometimes made to secure custody of children. All non-impounded requests for Abuse Prevention Orders initiated in Massachusetts’ Gardner District Court, in the year 1997, involving opposite gender litigants were analyzed to determine if court response to the associated allegations is affected by the gender of those litigants. These orders were previously examined and male and female defendants were found similarly abusive. By studying the characteristics of each case, and overall court response at court hearings, a determination is made concerning any evident gender trends in the aggregate court response to requests for protection. Despite gender-neutral language of abuse prevention law (M.G.L. c. 209A), application of that law favors female plaintiffs.     

Understanding Pathways to Family Dispute Resolution and Justice Reforms: Ontario Court File Analysis & Survey of Professionals

This article reports on two related studies about varying pathways to the resolution of family disputes and the effects of family justice reforms in Ontario: a survey of family court professionals (n = 118) and an analysis of 1,000 closed court files of family cases involving children. Both studies reveal that the vast majority of cases are resolved without a trial, often by negotiation. While professionals generally support family justice reform initiatives, there remain significant gaps in the implementation of these strategies. For example, many litigants do not attend information programs despite the requirement for mandatory attendance; there is limited use of mediation; the views of children are being sought in only a small number of cases; and there is a large proportion of self‐represented family litigants. Despite the increase in shared care and joint decision‐making arrangements, a majority of cases in the court file study were sole custody arrangements to the mother, whether the case was settled or resolved by trial. Mediation was associated with greater time of contact with the non–primary residential parent (usually the father).     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

Adversarial Mythologies: Policy Assumptions and Research Evidence in Family Law

This article contrasts policy advocacy of alternative dispute resolution, and demonization of lawyers and court proceedings in family law, with research evidence that calls those policy positions into question. The research demonstrates, broadly, that restrictions on the availability of publicly funded legal representation do not necessarily lead parties to choose alternative resolution processes, that lawyers are much less adversarial than self–representing litigants, and that lawyer representation and litigation may produce more satisfactory and appropriate outcomes than mediation in some kinds of family disputes. The article argues that legal aid policies should respond to these realities rather than clinging to adversarial mythologies.     

HOW COURTS HELP YOU HELP YOURSELF

This note is the result of an in-depth analysis of existing state judiciary websites and how they have and will continue to affect self-represented divorce litigants in the United States. It surveys all existing state court websites and examines what resources they provide to pro se litigantsd. It also touches on private divorce-related websites and offers some comments about their utility to pro se litigants as an alternative and a supplement to court-based websites. This note calls for courts to adopt programs and policies that facilitate the process of getting a divorce for those who choose to represent themselves, and make those programs and policies available to the pro se litigant via the Internet.     

FACTORS AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND PATERNITY MEDIATIONS

Divorce mediation, an alternative to litigation when resolving disputes raised by the dissolution of a marriage or the separation of unmarried parents, has gained popularity over the past few decades. Yet, research is needed to better understand what processes make family mediation successful and for whom family mediation is successful. To study predictors of reaching agreement in family mediation, we gathered data from divorce and paternity cases at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law Viola J. Taliaferro Family and Children Mediation Clinic. Numerous factors, including history of intimate partner violence, father's reported concerns about participating in mediation, higher levels of father's income, number of mediation sessions, and attorney representation, were associated with lower rates of agreement. Associations between significant predictors are presented, as well as the combined impact of attorney representation and a history of relationship violence, which together significantly predicted lower agreement rates. The implications of these findings for understanding family mediation processes are considered.     

Mediation,financial remedies,information provision and legal advice: the post-LASPO conundrum*

The near-total collapse in numbers of solicitors providing legal advice and assistance to publicly-funded clients attempting to settle private family law issues through mediation since the legal aid reforms implemented in 2013 raises important questions about how, if at all, clients in mediation can receive legal information and advice other than from lawyers in financial cases following divorce. This article explores, in a preliminary way, this aspect of mediation practice, drawing on small-scale qualitative data from a study conducted shortly prior to the legal aid reforms concerning the settlement of such cases. It explores how mediators then approached their (permissible) function of providing clients with legal information and how they dealt with cases where they felt that the proposed outcome was particularly unfair to one party or unlikely to be endorsed by a court, and asks how mediation practice – and legal practice – may come under pressure to change in this brave new world.     

EMPOWERMENT,INNOVATION, AND SERVICE: LAW SCHOOL PROGRAMS PROVIDE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND INSTILL A COMMITMENT TO SERVE

Law schools around the country seek to fill the legal needs of their communities in ways that are both innovative and mutually beneficial to clients and students. This article describes five pro bono and clinical programs, at the University of Richmond School of Law, The Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University, Catholic University Columbus School of Law, the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and Vermont Law School, where law students, under the supervision of law professors or community professionals, provide assistance or legal representation to underserved and often marginalized populations needing help with family law problems, including parents accused of abuse and neglect, youth aging out of foster care, homeless families, survivors of domestic violence, homeless veterans with addiction problems, and female prisoners. To develop their programs, the five law schools from the outset collaborated with partners in the community, and they continue to do so as their programs expand and evolve. In addition to helping and empowering clients, these law schools are providing experiential learning opportunities that are transformative for their students. The authors hope that these programs will be instructive for law schools, other academic institutions, the legal community, and community organizations in developing creative collaborations to ensure better access to justice.     

ASSESSING AND MANAGING ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

This article examines the procedures involved in the assessment and management of allegations of child sexual abuse in courts exercising custody and access jurisdictions. The author discusses the various options available to the court when confronted with such allegations, noting that, in the contex: of access disputes, the issue for the court is not whether a parent has sexually abused a child but whether, in all the circumstances of the case, access should take place or custody should change. In all matters involving access between parents and children, the overriding principle is the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. It is also argued that supervised access, although an increasingly popular alternative for the court when faced with allegations of abuse, is problematic and may not be in the best interests of the child. The author suggests that the emphasis must be on children's rights find parental responsibilities.     

Specialist domestic violence courts for child arrangement cases:safer courtrooms and safer outcomes?

ABSTRACT

Child arrangement cases in England and Wales are dealt with in the ordinary family courts. Whilst a special practice direction is applicable to child arrangement proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse, there is no specialist domestic violence court in the family justice setting. However, court specialisation is a feature of the criminal justice system and has been demonstrated to have success in domestic violence cases. Some of the potential benefits of specialisation, such as the provision of safer courtrooms, might be transferable to the family justice setting. Given the well documented problems of ordinary courts dealing with child arrangements in domestic violence cases, this article considers whether court specialisation could provide victims with safer courtrooms and safer outcomes in child arrangement cases.     

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS IN CUSTODY AND ACCESS DISPUTES IN THE FAMILY COURT

Child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes are serious matters and present family courts worldwide with major problems. This article reports a large research study just completed that investigated the way the Family Court of Australia managed child abuse cases. The study showed that such cases had become a substantial part of the court's current workload, their "core business" in fact. The families involved had many difficulties, including a history of family violence, and the present system was not appropriate for their particular problems. Thus, as new specialized court lead model of intervention was devised, based on principles relevant to family violence and incorporating the most effective strategies identified in the research.