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

     

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on A Collaborative and Child‐Focused Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is a teaching model for providing interdisciplinary services to separating and divorcing families. The model was developed by the Honoring Families Initiative at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. Services are provided by graduate and law students at the University of Denver, working side‐by‐side with a supervising licensed attorney, psychologist, and social worker. The experiential and interdisciplinary model of teaching and providing direct client services is the first of its kind in the United States. RCSDF students and staff seek to empower parents to make positive decisions about their family's future in a supportive and educational environment.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• The current system of preparing graduate and law students for careers in family law is in need of improvement. This article provides information for educators and the family law community about the impact of interdisciplinary and experiential learning for students.
• Parents going through the transition of separation or divorce experience psychological and financial stressors that can create serious behavioral and adjustment issues for their children. The RCSDF works in a holistic manner with parents and children to minimize the levels of stress and anxiety during the transition.

     

TO BUNDLE OR UNBUNDLE? THAT IS THE QUESTION

A substantial number of parties either represent themselves or are partially represented in family law matters because they are unable to afford traditional full service representation. As this number continues to climb courts are taking a proactive approach in servicing self-represented litigants through self help centers. The following is a judge's perspective on how unbundled legal services assist the self represented and the courts as well as answers to ethical concerns should they arise.     

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?

     

From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of Australia's Family Relationship Centres

As a centrepiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms, the community‐based Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) represented a major development in the Government's commitment to incorporate family relationship services into its family law system. This paper sees FRCs as a logical development of the original conceptualising the Family Court of Australia as a “helping court”. The paper suggests that the aspiration to create a helping court was partially achieved in 1976 via the creation of an in‐house family court counselling service, which was primarily focused not on law and legal principles, but on supporting the ways in which family members were managing the task of redefining relationships. While generally valued by judges and others, this service nonetheless found itself in tension with the Family Court's continued primary commitment to legally informed and adversarially driven negotiation and decision‐making processes. Since 2006, the creation of FRCs has spearheaded a family law system that provides relationship‐focused interventions away from the courts as the default option for most parenting disputes. Consistent with this aim, there is evidence of a diminished percentage of cases now requiring judicial intervention. The 2006 legislation also provides for courts to conduct “less adversarial trials.” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours. The legal challenge in dealing with these cases is for courts to provide child focused, fair and non‐destructive internal processes. In addition, however, it is increasingly clear that to support and help facilitate their decisions, courts also need good working relationships with FRCs and other community based services. FRCs and the 2006 reforms offer the possibility of moving beyond the ideal of a “helping court” to the broader concept of helping family law system.     

Forgotten Children of Immigration and Family Law: How The Absence of Legal Aid Affects Children in the United States

The absence of government‐appointed legal counsel in immigration proceedings adversely affects large numbers of children in the United States. Children born in the United States to parents without citizenship status (U.S.‐born children of noncitizen parents or UCNP) are harmed by a parent's detention and removal. Unaccompanied alien children (UAC) who have entered the country without legal status are adversely affected by their own detention and removal. The possibility of obtaining relief from removal is drastically diminished by the lack of legal representation. Currently UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to court‐appointed attorneys. Any meaningful change in immigration law, such as a federal statutory amendment to provide UAC and immigrant parents with government‐appointed counsel is unlikely due to the present political dissension in Congress regarding this issue. Because UAC and immigrant parents are not entitled to government‐funded legal representation, a pro bono legal service system has developed, but is unable to meet the present need adequately. For immigrant parents, this Note proposes the adoption of a statute to allow the appointment of court liaisons in family court proceedings. The court liaison is a nonattorney who is familiar with the processes of the family court and ensures that immigrant parents are fully informed regarding all pertinent family court proceedings. For UAC, this Note proposes an amendment to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act to mandate the appointment of a child advocate to all UAC. The child advocate is not a lawyer, but works with the UAC's attorney to provide the child with legal representation and advocacy.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• UCNP confront the loss of parents to detention and removal. Children are condemned to limbo, torn between absent biological parents and placement in foster care.
• The recent surge in the number of UAC who enter the United States by crossing the border from Mexico has been described as a humanitarian crisis. These children often remain alone without legal protection, vulnerable to detention and removal.
• Ideally, UAC and the immigrant parents would be provided with government‐funded legal representation in immigration proceedings. In the absence of the federal statutory reform necessary to make that a reality, state statutory reform to allow for the provision of court liaison programs for immigrant parents and federal statutory reform to allow the appointment of child advocates for UAC can begin to offer children and families needed legal support and advocacy.

     

SKEPTICISM BORDERING ON DISTRUST: FAMILY LAW IN THE HOLLYWOOD CINEMA

This article critiques Hollywood films from the last last 20–30 years that relate to family law. More specifically, this article considers films involving marriage, divorce, child custody, and adoption and focuses on the portrayal of law in those films. While the films are not tightly connected to one another and surely do not share a unified theme, the films do share a surprising skepticism bordering on distrust regarding law, legal procedures, and legal institutions. Hollywood appears to have picked up a general sentiment that family should be a private, intimate sanctuary and is better off without state intrusion through law. The films incorporate this sentiment and also reinforce it by teaching viewers to be leery of law in family matters. Key Points for the Family Court Community:

• 1 Recent Hollywood films include not only abundant portrayals of family life but also numerous examples of family law.
• 2 As a result, these Hollywood films have the potential to educate viewers about family law and to prompt certain normative attitudes about family law.
• 3 In general, Hollywood films invite viewers to be skeptical and even disdainful of family law.

     

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.

     

LEGAL CONSUMERS AS COPRODUCERS

Although the extent of unbundling among private legal practitioners in the changing Australian marketplace remains uncertain, there is a shift in thinking about the appropriate role of consumers in accessing everyday legal services. This is evident in the delivery of legal services other than those provided by private practitioners, where the consumer's role in legal service delivery arrangements is gradually being transformed. Among those institutions that are responding positively, if not inevitably, to the rising tide of legal self-helpers is the Family Court of Australia. The court's activities in attempting to meet the needs of its pro se consumers is simultaneously creating opportunities for unbundled legal service delivery, at least for those lawyers willing to seize these opportunities. It would appear that family law disputes, together with the large numbers of voluntary and involuntary legal self-helpers that these disputes generate, is fertile terrain for the development of alternative forms of legal service delivery.     

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.

     

Learning to be A Peacemaking Lawyer: Law Student Perspectives on Building Peacemaking into Law School Curricula,Building Paths to Practice for New Lawyers,and Interdisciplinary Training

From our perspectives as students, we reflect on the teachings of Lawyer as Peacemaker, a Winter 2015 course taught at UCLA School of Law — the school's course devoted to peacemaking lawyering. Utilizing our newfound peacemaking worldview, we share our collective reactions to the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the ten articles in the Family Court Review Special Issue on Peacemaking for Divorcing Families. We then advocate for integrating peacemaking into law school curricula and experiential learning offerings and make recommendations on how law schools today can prepare students to practice peace.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article is a collaborative work product of three students who come from an array of work experience, backgrounds and interests and from their newly founded peacemaking worldview, the three students collaboratively analyzed ideas presented in the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the articles from this issue.
• The peacemaking mediation allows the parties more control over their legal disputes and allows the control of the costs that come with litigation.
• Peacemaking involves a holistic and collaborative method, involving mental health professionals to financial advisors as well as legal professionals.
• However, peacemaking skill courses are not readily available to many law students while studying in law school.
• This valuable asset should be made available more extensively to law students interested in family law.

     

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.

     

Parenting Plans for Special Needs Children: Applying a Risk‐Assessment Model

Family courts are seeing an increasing number of separating or divorced families who have a special needs child. These cases present complex challenges for family law professionals charged with crafting parenting plans based on best interests standards. For many of these children, the typical developmentally based custodial arrangements may not be suitable, given the child's specific symptoms and treatment needs. We present a model for understanding how the general and specific needs of these children, as well as the demands on parents, can be assessed and understood in the context of divorce. This includes an analysis of risk and protective factors that inform timeshare and custodial recommendations and determinations. The risk assessment model is then applied to three of the most commonly occurring childhood neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders likely to be encountered in family court, namely, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, and autistic spectrum disorders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• There has been a dramatic rise in the population of children with neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and medical syndromes whose parents are disputing custody in the family courts.
• Family law professionals of all disciplines should develop a fundamental knowledge base about the most commonly seen special needs children in family court, such as those with neurodevelopmental conditions like autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and severe depressive disorders (especially with teenagers), which may involve suicidal or self‐harming behaviors.
• Commonly recommended parenting plans may be inappropriate for many special needs children, as some function significantly below their chronological age and pose extreme behavioral challenges.
• A systematic analysis of risk and protective factors should inform timeshare arrangements and determinations with this varied population, including the safety of the child and severity of the disorder, parental commitment and availability to pursue medical, educational, and therapeutic services, the parental attunement and insightful about the problem, and the differential parenting skills of each parent.

     

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.

     

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.

     

UNBUNDLING THE ETHICAL ISSUES OF PRO BONO ADVOCACY: ARTICULATING THE GOALS OF LIMITED‐SCOPE PRO BONO ADVOCACY FOR LIMITED LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAMS

This article seeks to articulate the practical goal of unbundled legal services for the pro bono family law sector as it applies to limited legal services programs (also known as brief advice clinics), through the use of a goal spectrum, derived from the theoretical goal of access to justice. This article briefly discusses the status of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, as they pertain to the ethics of unbundling. This article then focuses extensively on some practical considerations within the ethical issues of both the scope of representation and attorney competence in order to articulate an appropriate goal for unbundled legal services. Finally, the article concludes that service providers in limited legal services programs should explicitly identify and then perform an essential, discrete service that the client needs to have performed in order to help the client meet his or her ultimate objectives. The service provider and the client could then gauge the success of the limited scope representation based on whether and how well the specific service has been provided.     

Unintended and Unavoidable: The Failure to Protect Rule and Its Consequences for Undocumented Parents and Their Children

Parents without immigration status in the United States regularly face the threat of deportation and separation from their children. When an undocumented parent is brought to the attention of law enforcement through the child welfare system, they also face the potential of the loss of legal custodial rights to their children. The child welfare system and immigration enforcement mechanisms operate independent of one another with little regard for how actions in one can impact a parent's legal rights in the other, often permanently separating children from their parents. This article examines the particular issue of undocumented parents who are charged with the failure to protect their children from witnessing or otherwise experiencing abuse committed by a third party. It explores how such a charge, whether founded or unfounded, can result in loss of eligibility for immigration relief to which the undocumented parent would otherwise be entitled, as well as deportation of the parent and permanent separation of parent and child. These issues are situated within the larger context of the normative guideposts of both family and immigration law, namely, the best interests of the child and family unity. It identifies issues for further academic inquiry as well as tips for practitioners who may represent undocumented parents in either the family or immigration systems.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Learn about the potential consequences under family law and immigration law when an undocumented parent's child is abused by a third party
• Gain strategies for planning with undocumented parents to avoid the loss of the custody of their children in the event of a sudden deportation
• Be able to identify and address particular concerns for clients who are undocumented victims of domestic violence

     

Evaluating the work of Australia's Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first 5 years

Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) have been described as a centerpiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms. This paper places these centres in the larger context of the reforms and their commitment to providing community‐based family services in the family law area. The paper also examines the empirical evidence regarding FRCs' use and effectiveness. It notes that while the objectives and intentions of FRCs place considerable emphasis on strengthening family relationships and assisting families to stay together, the centres themselves have only a modest level of direct involvement with intact families. FRCs tend to have strong links with other community‐based family services, many of whom are more engaged with intact families; but it is difficult to gauge their effectiveness in this area. Most FRCs' direct services are aimed at separating families and most of that work involves family dispute resolution (family mediation) and associated services such as screening and assessment and the provision of relevant information. A substantial majority of clients who attend FDR at an FRC reach agreement about their parenting arrangements either at FDR or subsequent to attending FDR. These agreements also tend to hold up in the medium term. A majority of parents believe that at FDR, the child(ren)'s needs were taken into account; the parenting agreement worked for the child(ren); and the parenting agreement worked for them. A substantial proportion of FRC clients come from families that have experienced family violence or other dysfunctional behaviours, and such behaviours reduce the chances of resolving parenting disputes. The paper concludes by suggesting that having been created mainly as a default alternative to legal interventions and court processes, it is likely that a major future strength of FRCs will lie in their emerging capacity to work constructively not only with other relationship services and networks, but with family lawyers and the courts.     

Does the Controversy Matter? Comparing the Causal Determinants of the Adoption of Controversial and Noncontroversial Rape Law Reforms

Do the causal determinants of legal change differ for controversial and noncontroversial laws? Using rape law reforms as an example of legal change, I answer this question via a longitudinal examination of the intrastate characteristics and interstate processes that affect the adoption of both controversial and noncontroversial rape law reforms. The results show that the adoption of partial reforms significantly decreases a state's likelihood of passing a stronger version of the reform only for controversial rape law reforms. Other factors, such as women's economic power and the interstate process of diffusion similarly affect both controversial and noncontroversial reforms. Thus, contrary to the idea that the process of diffusion operates differently for controversial reforms, the results indicate that spatial proximity negatively affects the adoption of both controversial and noncontroversial rape law reforms. These findings have important implications for theoretical explanations of legal change, research on rape law reforms, and social movement research and activism.     

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