Family Law and Social Change: Judicial Views of Joint Custody, 1998–2011

Rapid changes in family life over the last forty years have led to substantial alterations in family law policy; specifically, most states now endorse joint custody arrangements for divorcing families. However, we know little about how lower court judges have embraced or resisted this change. We conducted in‐depth interviews with judges in twenty‐five Indiana jurisdictions in 1998 and 2011. Our findings suggest that judges' views of joint custody dramatically changed. Judges in Wave II indicated a strong preference for joint custody—a theme that was relatively absent in Wave I. The observed change in judicial preferences did not seem to be related to judicial replacement, gender, age, or political party affiliation. Although our conclusions are exploratory, we speculate that shifts in judicial views may be related to changing public mores of parenthood and, relatedly, Indiana's adoption of Parenting Time Guidelines in 2001.     

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.     

High‐End Demand: The Legal Profession as a Source of Judicial Selection Reform in Urban China

Most studies of comparative judicial politics suggest that judicial autonomy emerges from democratic competition, but despite its authoritarian political system, China has introduced reforms that increase merit‐based competition, transparency, and modest professional autonomy in local courts. Variations in judicial selection procedures across urban China reflect differences in local markets for professional legal services: when mid‐ranking judges can easily find lucrative local employment as lawyers, court leaders strategically reform appointment and promotion mechanisms to retain these young, but experienced, judges. These findings are based on nearly fifteen months of in‐country fieldwork, conducted between 2012 and 2014, including forty‐nine interviews with judges across three different cities: Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Chengdu. Employing the subnational comparative method, this article not only builds theory regarding the legal profession's role in authoritarian states, but also offers new empirical detail regarding the selection, performance evaluation, and behavior of judges in urban China.     

Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges' Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine

With dramatic changes in family life over the last several decades, child custody law has shifted from a maternal preference to a more egalitarian standard, the best interests of the child. Despite this change in the law, scholars have debated whether gender continues to play a role in the resolution of custody disputes. Drawing on feminist legal scholarship and sociolegal research on judges, I assess the current debates over gender and custody by examining the accounts of judges who frequently adjudicate custody cases. I conduct in-depth, face-to-face interviews with twenty-five trial court judges in Indiana and investigate judges' accounts about whether they continue to use the tender years doctrine in custody disputes, even though the custody statute is explicitly gender-neutral. Then, I assess several competing explanations of the variation across judges' accounts, including the judges' gender role attitudes, gender, age, and political party affiliation. In exploratory analyses, I also examine the contested custody rulings of a subset of nine judges to assess whether judges' accounts are congruent with their actual custody decisions. I discuss the implications of these findings in light of feminist legal scholarship as well as empirical research on child custody adjudication.     

A COMMENT. The road to court improvement in child protection cases

Judges are the key to court reform in child protection proceedings but legislative mandates cannot guarantee the requisite level of judicial commitment. Lack of full implementation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 demonstrates that rather than rely on statutory language, court reformers ought to increase judicial understanding of the provisions of federal law through initiatives such as cross-training. From December 1996 to June 1998, Kentucky's Court Improvement Project delivered 11 regional cross-training sessions to more than 550 judges, attorneys, social service personnel and other child advocates. Based on a statewide survey, cross-training increased significantly awareness of federal child protection objectives among the state's judges. Awareness of a policy among those expected to implement it is the first step toward implementation.     

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).     

Enforcer, manager or leader? The judicial role in family violence courts

Judicial supervision of offenders is an important component of many family violence courts. Skepticism concerning the ability of offenders to reform and a desire to protect victims has led to some judges to use supervision as a form of deterrence. Supervision is also used to hold offenders accountable for following court orders. Some family violence courts apply processes used in drug courts, such as rewards and sanctions, to promote offender rehabilitation. This article suggests that while protection and support of victims should be the prime concern of family violence courts, a form of judging that engages offenders in the development and implementation of solutions for their problems and supports their implementation is more likely to promote their positive behavioral change than other approaches to judicial supervision. The approach to judging proposed in this article draws from therapeutic jurisprudence, feminist theory, transformational leadership and solution-focused brief therapy principles.     

COMMENTARY ON "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:"

Whether or not custody evaluators, testifying as expert witnesses, continue to make specific custody recommendations, custody decision making will continue to be based upon inadequate and untested evidence unless and until we reform the family court system in American courtrooms. Judges and lawyers must have specialized knowledge and training about such things as the developmental needs of children, the effects of divorce on children, domestic violence, and child safety issues; lawyers must develop litigation as well as mediation and negotiation skills; specialized family courts utilizing individual calendars and case management techniques must be established; and the complexities and intellectual challenges of family law cases needs to be recognized.     

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 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.     

Knowledgeable Judges Make a Difference: Judicial Beliefs Affect Juvenile Court Transfer Decisions

This study examined how judicial knowledge and attitudes about transfer affects transfer decisions by juvenile court judges. Participants included 232 juvenile court judges from around the country who completed a vignette survey that presented a prototypical case involving a serious juvenile offender. Participants were asked to decide whether the juvenile should be transferred and to rate his rehabilitative potential. Judges who believed in the deterrent effects of transfer were more likely to recommend that the juvenile be transferred and to rate him as having lower rehabilitative potential. More experienced judges saw greater rehabilitative potential in the juvenile and were less likely to transfer him to the criminal court. Overall, judges tended to think that transfer lacked general and specific deterrent effects, endorsed rehabilitative over punitive goals in sentencing, and felt positively about the juvenile justice system's effectiveness in handling serious offenders. Yet, a sizable minority of judges felt otherwise. The implications of the findings for judicial education and legal advocacy are discussed.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

WHO SHALL HAVE CUSTODY?: A Case for the Equal Consideration of Fathers

Current statutes and case decisions formally declare that fathers and mothers should be treated equally in child custody dispute awards. Outcomes of actual court awards, however, favor mothers, presumably because this is viewed by judges as being in the best interests of the child. A review of research derived from child and animal studies suggests there is no basis for favoring mothers over fathers in awarding child custody.     

SUPERVISED VISITATION A Profile of Providers

Surveys with 94 administrators of supervised visitation programs, 51 family court judges, and 40 administrators of child protective services agencies provide a national picture of supervised visitation services, their utility, and areas of unmet need. Although the programs are perceived to fill an important need, they struggle to survive financially, particularly those that handle family court cases. In addition, because many programs operate without adequate access to the assessment and treatment services that some families need, judges frequently want visitation supervisors to assist them in determining suitable custody and visitation arrangements, a role that supervised visitation programs do not feel is appropriate. Many different types of entities provide effective supervised visitation services; many different service formats work. Architects of new programs should fashion services that use local resources to maximum advantage.     

Court Orders and County Correctional Expenditures: Power of the Purse?*

Despite much speculation that court orders against correctional facilities have adversely impacted government finances, little empirical investigation has been conducted. Counties, already experiencing severe fiscal crisis, may increasingly allocate more of their budget toward local jails to comply with court-ordered improvements. This hypothesis was tested by examining time series data, case histories, and interviews with government, corrections, and justice officials in three counties. In addition, cross-sectional data from two constructed samples of matched counties compared expenditures in counties under and not under court order. Results suggested that judges were sometimes persistent in seeking reform, even ordering direct expenditures on jails. However, statistical investigation revealed that the effects of judicial intervention were relatively strong in some cases, but weak in others. The effects of court orders on correctional policy are heterogeneous, and the judicial “power of the purse” is limited by various legal and pragmatic constraints.     

High Conflict Divorce,Violence, and Abuse: Implications for Custody and Visitation Decisions

Today, judges are faced with the daunting task of determining the best interests of the child and making appropriate custody awards to that end. The best interests of children becomes a critical question when domestic violence is involved; yet, determining what constitutes domestic violence is often debated. Research is often divided on what constitutes domestic violence. One body of research focuses on conflict, another focuses on domestic violence. What the first group identifies as intense emotional distress and disagreement, the other identifies as abuse. Judges making custody determinations in such cases are faced with the difficult challenge of distinguishing between a divorce with “high conflict” and a domestic violence case with ongoing abuse. This article will summarize the legal, philosophical, and historical understandings of the “high conflict” family and its potential impact on children. It will also provide practical judicial guidelines for making the important distinction between high conflict and domestic violence and subsequently crafting appropriate and safe child custody awards.     

Decision Making and Justice

This article considers how judges can improve decision making, especially in cases that involve children in the family court. It looks specifically at improvements that are being implemented in England and Wales following a major review of family justice in 2011. All judges need to be well‐trained and well‐informed if they are to make the best‐quality decisions they can. Three principles underpin the approach to improving judicial decision making, which must be systematic, evidence based, and tested, and the evidence that informs judicial decisions must be robust. Collaboration among professionals in the development of good practice, its dissemination, and its application should be the acknowledged goal, and it should involve the views and perceptions of the young people and families involved.     

Can a leopard change its spots? Strategic behavior versus professional role conception during Ukraine's 2014 court chair elections

Do judges respond to institutional and strategic incentives or do they strictly follow dominant professional role conceptions? This article weighs in by exploring whether an ideational shift toward judicial empowerment and independence can germinate from institutional reforms. Ukraine's 2014 Euromaidan revolution and the comprehensive judicial reform adopted in its wake provide a test of the competing theoretical accounts. A judicial lustration law sacked all incumbent court chairs, who had been appointed by the executive, and gave Ukrainian judges the right to elect new chairs via secret ballot. I analyze this radical step toward judicial self-government using an original data set with individual- and court-level data. The key finding is that less than a fifth of Ukrainian judges embraced their newly granted agency and elected a new chair for their court, whereas the overwhelming majority followed dominant professional norms of deference and reelected the sacked court chairs. This finding holds for all rungs of the judicial hierarchy and for all regions of Ukraine. Even protégés of ousted president Yanukovych won the secret ballot vote by their peers more often than they lost it. Beyond Ukraine, these results suggest that empowering individual judges in the highly hierarchical structure of a civil law judiciary is unlikely to lead to a judicial behavior shift, at least in the short run.     

管辖选择权：行政案件管辖制度改革之一剂良方——基于行政诉讼中“官官相护”滋生“告状难”现象的分析

从行政诉讼原被告及法官三方力量博弈的角度看,受制于现行行政案件管辖制度,"当地法院管辖"、"法院裁定管辖"使得强势的行政权与次强势的司法权强强联合成为现实,进而导致弱势的原告"告状难"。司法权行使去当地化,阻断行政权对司法权的不当干扰;司法权行使去裁定化,杜绝司法权不当行使;赋予原告充分的案件管辖选择权,提升其对抗行政权、司法权的能力,促成三方力量平衡,是解决民告官"告状难"的一剂良方。