Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment: AFCC Task Force on Brief Focused Assessments.

The Association of Family and Conciliations Courts (AFCC) Task on Brief Focused Assessment was convened in 2007 to study the issues inherent in the use of brief focused assessment models in family courts. The resultant “Guidelines for Brief Focused Assessment” were approved by the AFCC Board of Directors in 2009 and are presented here to prompt discussion and further dialogue about this clearly needed practice.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Issue‐specific assessments are increasingly requested by family court judges
• Practice guidelines for clinicians conducting brief focused assessments (BFAs)
• Types of issues/questions appropriate for BFAs
• Advantages and pitfalls of BFAs
• Comparison of BFAs and comprehensive child custody evaluations

     

The State of the Art of Child Hearings in Germany. Results of a Nationwide Representative Study in German Courts

According to German family law, in family court proceedings that deal with custody or access rights, family judges are obligated to personally hear the child if the feelings, ties, or will of the child are significant for the decision. In a research study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice, a nationwide representative survey of all judges compiled their personal information and their attitudes and expectations as well as various parameters regarding the concrete practice of hearing children. Also, with a very complex methodological design, over 50 children and their parents were studied one week in advance of the hearing, directly before and after the hearing, and four weeks following the hearing. The results of the study are presented, particularly those pertaining to the burden and relief for the children and the expectations of judges. The practical experiences of family judges in personally hearing children are included as well.     

The Child's Attorney and the Alienated Child: Approaches to Resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity

Increasingly lawyers for children follow a model of “client centered” (as opposed to “best interests”) representation in child custody disputes in which the child client defines the objectives of the representation. The client‐centered model, while appropriate in most cases to give voice to the child's preferences in a process that deeply impacts him or her, can create an ethical dilemma for the child's lawyer in cases where a child is truly alienated from the other parent by the actions of the alienating parent. Alienated children strongly and unreasonably express a preference for objectives of representation that might further damage the alienated parent's relationship with the child. The alienated child's objectives may be the result of a campaign of denigration and “brainwashing” by the alienating parent. This Note suggests that when a child is truly alienated from a parent, as diagnosed by a mental health expert, the child may have “diminished capacity” and therefore, the client‐directed model of representation is not adequate. This Note proposes that the Child's Attorney must determine whether the child is of diminished capacity under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and, if so, must treat the client accordingly under Rule 1.14. Specifically, the attorney may, if all other remedial measures are inadequate, override the child's wishes and advocate a position that the child would take, but for the brainwashing of the child used to alienate him or her from a parent.     

We're Still Taking X‐Rays but the Patient is Dying: What Keeps us from Intervening More Quickly in Resist‐Refuse Cases?

Professionals frequently lament the fact that the dynamics of resist‐refuse cases are often entrenched before the family receives effective intervention. Dysfunctional behavior patterns can become entrenched, with severe impairment of children's ability to function. Assessment is a critical component in the process of assisting families, but can come to so dominate the process that the situation is unrecoverable once the assessment is completed and meaningful interventions begin. The authors will describe commonly encountered obstacles to early intervention in resist‐refuse cases, ranging from systemic stressors to the persistence of inaccurate beliefs and information and practices that undermine accountability. Practical strategies, including a broader conceptual model, integrating assessment into intervention, encouraging lawyers and courts to take earlier action, and suggestions for future professional development will be addressed.     

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

     

Entrenched Postseparation Parenting Disputes: The Role of Interparental Hatred?

There is an emerging view that the term “high conflict” oversimplifies the nature of destructive family dynamics, especially with respect to the small but resource‐intensive group of separated parents who remain deeply enmeshed in legal battles and parental acrimony. In this Article we propose that interparental hatred may be a key relationship dynamic driving the behavior of some in this group. We suggest a distinction between two types of interparental hatred: one that arises from responses to separation‐related stresses (reactive hatred) and the other (entrenched hatred) that is indicative of more embedded, dysfunctional interpersonal dynamics and/or personality structures. While reactive hatred is typically time limited and amenable to professional intervention, entrenched hatred tends to overwhelm rationally informed attempts to mediate, negotiate, or even adhere to orders regarding suitable parenting arrangements. We contend that while effective intervention in these cases requires all the generic skills and responses necessary for dealing with highly conflicted disputes, it is also important to name and appropriately challenge interparental hatred when it is detected.