The Parenting Coordinator as Peacemaker and Peacebuilder

Parenting coordinators serve as case managers in high‐conflict families with the goal of protecting the children from parental conflict. Parenting coordinators are peacemakers and peacebuilders who identify and help set up structures in the family to support peace between the parents. The family court should promote and develop equipoise in litigants and professionals. Because parents who continue in conflict postdecree often have difficulty empathizing with their co‐parents and with their children, they might benefit from meditation training to increase mindfulness, empathy, and compassion. Self‐compassion training could also increase well‐being and more effective co‐parenting and aid in building peace in the family.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parenting coordination is a child‐focused intervention with high‐conflict parents that can help protect children from their parents' conflict.
• Parenting coordinators are peacemakers who resolve disputes between the parents and facilitate negotiation and communication between them and help them make decisions.
• Parenting coordinators are also peacebuilders who help identify and build structures and processes in the family system to strengthen interparental peace.
• Equipoise can be developed in litigants and professionals through mindfulness and compassion training.
• Family court judges can work with parenting coordinators in a team approach, in a manner similar to what occurs in problem‐solving courts, to benefit the families and the judicial system.

     

What the #@!* are they Fighting About?!?: Reflections on Fairness,Identity, Social Capital,and Peacemaking in Family Conflicts

Peacemaking is particularly challenging in family conflicts. Deeply held feelings about identity, fair treatment, moral issues, and protecting social capital often cause people in conflict to make self‐defeating decisions. There are, however, techniques that enable mediators, Collaborative Practice professionals, and other peacemakers to overcome the settlement barriers created by these strongly held views. These techniques include those pioneered by psychotherapists using the Internal Family Systems model, which enables parties to see that their strongly held views comprise only part of the constellation of feelings that they have about the conflict.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parents who feel that their role as father or mother is in danger often find it difficult to focus on the children's best interests.
• The “rule of reciprocity” causes people who feel wronged to exact even harsher punishment on those who harmed them.
• The concept of “social capital” explains why people care so passionately about whether they are treated fairly and about their reputation for fairness.
• The Internal Family Systems model helps peacemakers to understand how to work with the parties’ ambivalence about settlement versus courtroom vindication.

     

Unbundled Services to Enhance Peacemaking for Divorcing Families

Unbundling, also known as limited‐scope representation, has been adopted by judges, the organized legal profession, and divorcing parties. Unbundling is a legal access approach to better and more affordably serve unrepresented divorce litigants as well as to assist overburdened and underfunded courts. This article will focus on another critical benefit of unbundling: the ability of divorcing professionals to provide information and support to divorcing families to help reduce family conflicts. This article shall discuss four unbundled peacemaking roles that lawyers can play: (1) Collaborative Lawyer; (2) Lawyer Coach for Self‐Represented Litigants; (3) Lawyer for Mediation Participants; and (4) Preventive Legal Health Care Provider.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Overview of limited‐scope lawyering roles
• Impact of unbundled representation on peacemaking
• Best practices of noncourt lawyering

     

Do Not Make their Trauma Your Trauma: Coping with Burnout as a Family Law Attorney

In the field of family law, attorneys frequently expose themselves to highly emotional and traumatized clients. Litigation is by nature a high‐stress occupation, demanding a high level of intellectual and emotional engagement from the contesting lawyers. Adding the burden of inherently distressing content to litigation can impair a lawyer's functioning. The effects are often referred to as “secondary trauma.” This Note proposes that state bar associations should take a more active role in providing mental health support to prevent burnout in family law attorneys by (1) offering voluntary classes to educate attorneys about the dangers of, and ways to cope with, the burnout that comes with working with traumatized clients in family law and (2) organizing support groups among local family law communities.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Claims against family law practitioners account for the third highest percentage of all malpractice claims against lawyers.
• Burnout is a serious problem for family law attorneys.
• Programs sponsored by state bar associations are available and need to be expanded.
• The American Bar Association's Model Rules require that a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client.
• The unique nature of family law, centered on relationships and emotions, puts family law attorneys at a higher risk for experiencing the effects of secondary trauma than other areas of law.
• Lawyers at risk for secondary trauma can avoid its effects by educating themselves about such effects.

     

Redesigning the Family Law System to Promote Healthy Families

Family law professionals should be proactive in seeking and implementing constructive reforms. We identify some successful cutting‐edge reforms: (1) family resource centers, where all kinds of needs can be met; (2) informal family law trials, which streamline clogged calendars and provide an empowering and efficient forum; (3) licensed legal technicians, who increase public access to legal services; and (4) unbundled family law services. Second, we outline a protocol for implementation of reform developed by the Oregon Task Force on Family Law which is effective and replicable. Thoughtful reform of dispute resolution processes will serve family health and promote peace.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Evolving family constellations, private ordering through pre‐ and postmarital agreements, an increase in self‐represented litigants, and shrinking judicial resources are changing family law dramatically.
• Thoughtful, practical process reforms are needed in order to accommodate these changes.
• Practitioners should be proactive about seeking out and implementing such reforms.
• Some reforms already finding success include family relationship resource centers, informal domestic relations trials, licensed legal technicians, and unbundled legal services.
• We outline a protocol with a proven track record of success for implementing cutting‐edge family law reform.

     

CYBER‐ABUSE—A NEW WORLDWIDE THREAT TO CHILDREN'S RIGHTS

Cyberspace is a new frontier for both international and domestic family law. On the one hand, it presents great opportunities for society and, on the other, great dangers particularly for children. This paper explores a number of issues from a domestic and international family law perspective. These issues include:

• ? What is cyberspace, how has it emerged, and where is it likely to go?
• ? What are the potential dangers for children that arise from children's engagement with cyberspace?
• ? What is the nature and extent of domestic and international family laws that protect children from the dangers of cyberspace?
• ? What are some of the present and emerging policy issues that impact on these matters?

Cyber‐abuse is a term that encompasses a wide range of aggressive online activities.     

Does Level of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Predict the Content of Family Mediation Agreements?

This study investigated whether reported levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or abuse (IPV/A) victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues. Whether or not parties reached agreement was analyzed for 105 cases at a law school mediation clinic. Agreement content was coded for the 71 cases that reached agreement. Levels of IPV and IPV/A were determined separately for males and females, using a standardized measure. Regression models were utilized to examine reports of IPV or IPV/A as predictors. Results indicated that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns; levels of partner violence/abuse predicted numerous issues in mediation agreements, including arrangements regarding legal custody, parenting time, holidays, child exchanges, interparental communication, safety restrictions, counseling referrals, child support, financial arrangements, and other miscellaneous topics (e.g., relocation). However, some findings were consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A; for example, increasing levels of male‐perpetrated IPV/A predicted increased likelihood of making an agreement to share legal custody. Further research is needed to resolve the longstanding debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• This study adds to the debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.
• It examines whether reported levels of IPV and IPV/A victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues.
• Results provide some evidence that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns.
• However, some findings are consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A.
• Findings have implications for the practice of family mediation with parties reporting a history of IPV or IPV/A.

     

Some Themes Arising from the Last Edition of Family Court Review

In the last edition of the FRC, there are a number of articles which highlight ever‐present themes in the many dispute resolution industries. These themes are: The cyclical nature of family law and DR reform to and fro “faster, cheaper, less formal and more accessible”; Access barriers for the poor and middle class; Access barriers due to geography, distance, and cultural differences; Blossoming of a range of “abbreviated” (short and inexpensive) DR services; The essential, yet neglected, task of systematic diagnosis of possible causes of conflict, and of a possible range of helpful interventions: DR practitioners should aim to “at least do no harm”; If a DR practitioner exhibits care, and core communication skills, how much do different processes matter? The Hawthorne effect—all pilot projects tend to succeed?; There is a constant flow of stories, systematic and statistical knowledge in DR industries. Who is listening and translating this flow of information between the various DR silos and to the public?

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• The repetitive and predictable cycles of family law reform.
• Access to DR services restricted by finances, geography and cultural differences.
• The old saying “at least do no harm” should find a prominent place in all family DR services and training.
• The Hawthorne effect—all pilot and new projects seem to “succeed” for awhile. What follows?
• In the many family DR silos, there are “truths” embodied in stories, systems and statistics. Who can translate helpfully from one silo to another?

     

A Systematic Approach to Domestic Abuse–Informed Child Custody Decision Making in Family Law Cases

This article introduces an approach to domestic violence–informed decision making developed under the auspices of the National Child Custody Differentiation Project, a cooperative undertaking among the Battered Women's Justice Project, the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges, Praxis International, and the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. This approach has four essential elements: (1) identifying domestic abuse; (2) understanding the nature and context of domestic abuse; (3) determining the implications of abuse; and (4) accounting for the nature, context, and implications of abuse in all custody‐related recommendations and decisions.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Applying a systematic approach to domestic violence can help practitioners identify, understand, and account for abuse in family law cases.
• The approach recommended here is suitable for use by anyone who is involved in a contested child custody case at any stage of the proceeding.
• The specific application of the recommended approach will vary depending upon the practitioner's role and function in the case, relationship to the parties, and access to information, as well as the nature of the proceeding and the issues to be decided.

     

《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》的实施机制

《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》实施机制的基础是条约义务。从国际层面上讲 ,实施机制的目的是监督《公约》在缔约国的执行 ;从国内层面上讲 ,缔约国应采取立法、司法等措施履行《公约》。这就要求缔约国在“条约必须信守”的原则之下 ,解决条约与国内法的关系问题 ,即在宪法中给条约以适当地位 ,以便于条约 (包括《公约》)在国内的适用 ,而不论是直接或是间接适用。这样才能达到国际社会制定《公约》而国家批准或加入《公约》的目的 ,也才可能改变《公约》实施机制软弱乏力的局面。     

Cognitive‐Behavioral Methods in High‐Conflict Divorce: Systematic Desensitization Adapted to Parent–Child Reunification Interventions

Children who are triangulated into their parents' conflicts can become polarized, aligning with one parent and rejecting the other. In response, courts often order families to engage mental health professionals to provide reunification interventions. This article adapts empirically established systematic desensitization and flooding procedures most commonly used to treat phobic children as possible components of a larger family systems invention designed to help the polarized child develop a healthy relationship with both parents. Strengths and weaknesses of these procedures are discussed and illustrated with case material.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Family law and psychology agree that children should have the opportunity to enjoy a healthy relationship with both parents
• Adult conflict can polarize a child's relationships, including rejection of one parent
• Existing clinical and forensic “reunification” strategies often prove inadequate
• Reliable and valid cognitive behavioral methods can be adopted to facilitate this process
• A cognitive‐behavioral “exposure‐based” reunification protocol is discussed

     

Ethical Advocacy for Immigrant Survivors of Family Crisis

The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues. Informed and effective advocacy on these issues in family court can make life‐changing, and even life‐saving, differences for immigrants. More specifically, immigration issues are germane to family court because certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings. After describing these forms of relief, and the family court's role in immigrants’ access to them, this essay analyzes how ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings.

Key Points for Family Court Community:
• The involvement of family courts in the lives of youth and families creates significant opportunities for advocates to assist their clients with immigration‐related issues
• Certain vital avenues of immigration relief available to survivors of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and other forms of family crisis explicitly depend on findings, orders, and certifications that are issued in the context of family court proceedings
• The substance of immigration‐related findings in family court, and their ultimate affect on family stability, are consistent with the core family court goal of supporting safety, well‐being, and permanency for children and families
• Ethical mandates related to client counseling, representational goals, and competence affirmatively require family court practitioners to provide advice and advocacy related to these collateral benefits to family court proceedings

     

Family Peacemaking with an Interdisciplinary Team: A Therapist's Perspective

Interdisciplinary teams provide an unparalleled opportunity for peacemaking in families within the consensual dispute resolution continuum. This interdisciplinary environment was born out of the integration of Collaborative Law, in which lawyers limit the scope of their services to settlement by way of a signed agreement, and Collaborative Divorce, a team approach to divorce services that includes a lawyer for each party along with a Collaborative Divorce Coach for each party, a neutral financial specialist, and a neutral child specialist. Taken together, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Practice supports the resolution of legal issues out of court as well as addressing any emotional, relational, or behavioral problems that create obstacles to the successful resolution of the separation process.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Collaborative Practice creates legal representation in a consensual environment limiting services to settlement negotiations by way of a written agreement.
• The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals includes 5,000 members in twenty‐five countries.
• Legal representation in a consensual environment together with interdisciplinary teams create endless possibilities for dispute resolution processes.
• Collaborative Lawyers, Collaborative Divorce Coaches, child specialists, and financial specialists can create custom‐fit interdisciplinary teams that work together out of court to support families through marital transition.
• Interdisciplinary teams are family centric, bridging appropriate disciplines and resources to the needs of the family to address the vast majority of divorce‐related problems.
• Divorcing families are moving targets, learning and evolving through the process.
• Therapeutic teams support families with more complex relational, emotional, and mental health problems to find resolutions out of court.
• Divorce is a mainstream event in Western culture; we need supportive processes to encourage the best possible outcomes for all family members, especially the children.

     

‘Til Death Do Us Part: Affidavits of Support and Obligations to Immigrant Spouses

This article analyzes the use of a federal affidavit of support, a required document that forms part of all family immigration petitions to overcome public charge grounds of inadmissibility. The federal statute mandating affidavits of support was altered in 1996 in an attempt to make them contractually binding, even after the dissolution of marriage. Further, affidavits of support implicate not only obligations between spouses, but also deeming analysis for public benefit eligibility. Case law interpreting these affidavits of support is scarce and varied, but trends, patterns, and contested issues are emerging. Yet courts have not settled on any theory and practice for incorporating these affidavits into their decisions related to family dissolution. This article provides an introduction to affidavits of support and an initial effort to frame the most critical issues related to them that arise in family litigation. This article also highlights some of the key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• An introduction to affidavits of support and the immigration law context in which it exists
• A review of trends, patterns, and contested issues emerging in available judicial decisions in state and federal courts
• Key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties on the use of affidavits of support

     

Airport Noise and the Right to Family Life: A Legitimate Application of Article 8 of the European Convention?

The central question in this piece is the scope of Article8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in particular its extension to the protection of environmental rights.Whilst environmental rights have been recognised as fundamental human rights in international and regional contexts, the extension of the positive obligations of the state in relation to Article 8, which focuses on the private sphere, is problematic where there is an onus on the individual state to balance the inevitable conflicts between the protection of individual rights and national economic interests which include the freedom of individuals and groups to enjoy the benefits of competitive business. Equally important is the question ofeffective remedies where a violation of the Convention has been found. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.

     

国际法中的特别法优先原则

国际法规则的冲突是国际法不成体系的重要表现,特别法优先原则强调适用更特殊、更具体的特别法规则,是解决这种冲突的重要方法。冲突确实存在与规则属于同一事项构成了该原则适用的基本条件,而调整事项和规则所涉及的缔约方则构成确定一般法和特别法的参考因素。     

Helping Families by Maintaining a Strong Well‐Funded Family Court that Encourages Consensual Peacemaking: A Judicial Perspective

This article explores alternatives for the court process that promote a child‐centered approach to resolution of family law issues including a summary of procedures used in Los Angeles County to assist families. The article also explores alternatives to the traditional custody litigation model.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Evaluations and trials are not the only tools available in family law.
• Structured court ordered counseling can provide a meaningful intervention and reduce family conflict.
• Alternative forms of mediation can help families address the “need to be heard” and retain personal autonomy in decision making.
• The court system should help educate families about how to resolve conflict in a safe, effective, and meaningful way.

     

Out on a Limb: Appointing a Parenting Coordinator with Decision‐Making Authority in the Absence of a Statute or Rule

This Article addresses the issue of whether a court may appoint a Parenting Coordinator (PC) with decision‐making authority in the absence of a statute or court rule. The Article identifies possible sources of authority for the appointment of a PC with decision‐making authority in a state with no authorizing statute or court rule. It also provides a paradigm for constructing an appointment that allows for the benefits of Parenting Coordination but does not delegate decision‐making authority to an extent that it would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial authority.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court may find some authority allowing the appointment in (1) its equitable authority over child custody and visitation, (2) its authority to enforce its own orders, or (3) its authority to appoint other extrajudicial assistants such as a special master or mediator.
• Where a court seeks to appoint a PC with decision‐making authority in the absence of an authorizing statute or court rule, the court must craft an appointment that delegates enough decision‐making authority to the PC for parenting coordination to be effective yet, at the same time, not so much decision‐making authority as to render the appointment an impermissible delegation of a judicial function, specifically:
  • The PC's role should be limited to assisting the parties in implementing custody and visitation terms already decreed by the trial court.
  • A PC should be appointed only if the parties to the divorce consent to the appointment or if the trial court makes a finding that the case is a high‐conflict case.
  • The parties must have the opportunity for the trial court to meaningfully review any decision of the PC so that the trial court retains ultimate decision‐making authority.