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.

     

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.

     

PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN FAMILY COURTS: BALANCING AUTONOMY AND STATE INTERVENTION

This work considers how court‐connected parent education programs can assist parents to access dispute resolution processes that best suit their families’ needs, in a manner involving appropriately curtailed levels of state interference with parental autonomy. After reviewing traditionally accepted limits on state interference with family functioning, the increased concern for children's emotional well‐being, and data relating to one parent education program, the author concludes that providing mandatory “basic level” informational programs to all separating parents seeking access to the family law regime is a warranted level of state intervention. “Skills‐building” programs aimed at achieving demonstrably changed parental practices should be available on a voluntary attendance basis.     

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?

     

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.

     

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.     

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.

     

HOFSTRA'S FAMILY LAW WITH SKILLS COURSE: IMPLEMENTING FLER (THE FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT)

The Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) Final Report documented that the current doctrinally oriented family law curriculum at most law schools does not adequately prepare students for modern family law practice. FLER recommended that law school courses move from the study of cases to the study of the legal system's effect on families, and integrate the study of alternative dispute resolution and interdisciplinary knowledge. In response, Hofstra Law School has made a comprehensive attempt to implement FLER's curricular recommendations. This article discusses one major innovation – the Family Law with Skills course. Family Law with Skills is the basic course in Hofstra's revised curriculum and is designed to integrate doctrinal teaching with professional skills development. In addition to studying legal doctrine, students are required to engage in structured field observation of family court proceedings; interviewing, counseling, negotiation, and mediation representation exercises in a divorce dispute; direct and cross examination of a social worker in a child protection dispute; and drafting of a surrogacy agreement. The article describes each exercise and discusses its rationale, student reaction to the course, and lessons learned.     

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.

     

Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community
• Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes
• Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation

     

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

     

The Place for Custody Evaluations in Family Peacemaking

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

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

     

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.

     

WORKING TOGETHER

Family Court of Australia has employed four Aboriginal Family Consultants within the Family Court Mediation Service in Darwin and Alice Springs. The consultants were selected from local indigenous people and assist indigenous families who are often in heated dispute over children following family breakdown and separation. The program ultimately seeks to promote access to justice for Aboriginal and Torres Stvait Islander people in the jurisdiction of family law. The program seeks to achieve this by assisting indigenous people to access and utilize the dispute resolution services provided by the Family Court. Family consultants work closely with court mediators in responding to the needs and issues of indigenous families in dispute. The article describes the model of intervention adopted and highlights the benefits of the program with reference to case studies.     

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.     

The Role of Western Religious Values in Peacemaking for Divorcing Families

Peace (wholeness and integrity) is to be sought as the highest goal in the divorce process, affecting not only the divorcing couple but their family and community as well. The value of “community” found in the three major Western religious traditions suggests that more than just the immediate family should be involved in crafting divorce settlements and that the involvement of clergy may aid in the divorce process, especially in providing rich religious metaphors and exempla to promote peaceful negotiations. Other religious values such as “humanity in the divine image,” “love,” and “the fullness of time” can be useful in working with the divorcing couple to allow their stories to be told, provide time to sort out their complex emotions, and help reduce the impulse to see the other solely as an enemy to be eliminated in battle. “Sin and atonement” can serve an important role in restorative justice, while “the delayed arrival of the divine kingdom” provides a reasonable way to assess what determines success, both for the divorcing couple and for divorce professionals.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Religious values found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam can be consciously utilized to help divorcing couples separate more peacefully.
• Providing opportunities for each spouse to be fully heard and seen is a crucial component in helping to bring more peace into the divorce process.

     

AFCC Think Tanks: Promoting Dialogue on Difficult Issues in Family Law*

This article examines three think tanks sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which convened representatives of different disciplines, often with differing perspectives, to address policy and practice dilemmas in family law and dispute resolution. This essay was initially commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation, London, UK, as an Insight Article for its Family Justice Observatory, which aims to improve the use of data and research evidence in the family justice system in England and Wales. The think tank process is described and analyzed, identifying factors that created challenges and those that led to success.     

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

In recent years, there has been much discussion within international fora about the need for a greater consensus on how to approach relocation cases. Empirical research on the lived experience of parents and children who have been through relocation disputes has an important role to play in providing an evidence base for decisions on policy. In this article, we summarize the findings of a 5‐year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia and make recommendations in the light of this and other research evidence concerning a new approach to relocation law. We argue that there should be no presumptions. Nonetheless there is an appropriate place for legislative or appellate guidance on how to approach these disputes. “Good faith” should be irrelevant to decision making, and children should not be placed in the center of the conflict. The adjudication of relocation disputes should be on the basis of asking three questions: First, how close is the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child and how important is that relationship developmentally to the child? Second, if the relocation is to be permitted, how viable are the proposals for contact with the nonresident parent? Third, if the relationship between the child and the nonresident parent is developmentally important to the child and is likely to be diminished if the move is allowed, then (a) what are the viable alternatives to the parents living a long distance apart? and (b) is a move with the primary caregiver the least detrimental alternative?

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Describes the findings of empirical research on relocation disputes in Australia on the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes.
• Reviews various features of relocation law and proposals for reform in the light of this research evidence.
• Proposes an approach to deciding relocation cases based upon three essential questions.

     

Law and Family Formation Among LGBQ‐Parent Families

This article addresses how the law affects family formation among families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) parents in the United States. Our discussion draws on a socio‐legal approach to law that focuses not only on the law on the books (what we refer to as “legal barriers”) but also on issues like how the law is practiced, how people experience the law in everyday life, and how the law serves as an interpretive framework through which people understand themselves and their families (what we refer to as “social barriers”). In our review, we highlight how attorneys can play a role in valuing and advancing rights for LGBQ‐parent families and LGBTQ prospective parents.