THE SELF‐REPRESENTED LITIGANT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BENCH AND BAR

It is widely accepted that the number of self‐represented litigants has skyrocketed nationwide, especially in family law cases. Although nationwide comprehensive data on the number of self‐represented litigants do not exist, anecdotal evidence supports the belief that self‐representation is increasing. The challenge for courts and the entire legal profession is how to respond. Most observers in Indiana would agree that the traditional model of family law litigation—both spouses represented by lawyers settling their disputes before a judge—is no longer the norm in family law cases. Judges face a dilemma: assisting a self‐represented litigant to level the playing field against a represented party is seen by many as violating impartiality, even if the assistance is rendered to create a just result. In an effort to address the situation, the Indiana Supreme Court created the Pro Se Advisory Committee in April 2001. This article explores the long‐range implications of the issue of self‐represented litigants on Indiana's court system in hope that it will provide some insight for other jurisdictions. The first part of the article addresses the numbers of self‐represented litigants by tracking growth or declines in self‐represented cases and assessing whether there are any pockets of self‐represented litigants geographically or in certain case types. The second part of the article puts Indiana into context with the rest of the nation and reviews national trends. The third section reviews Indiana's response to self‐represented litigants over the last decade. The fourth section reviews current and ongoing projects in Indiana. The article concludes that the issue of self‐represented litigants will not fade away and that the challenge that guides the legal profession is how we provide equal access to justice for all who enter our courthouses.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

1‐800‐Skype‐Me

It is increasingly common that children of divorce are geographically separated from one of their parents. This article considers the challenges that arise from that reality by exploring this problem from a variety of perspectives and by providing practical tips to minimize the impact of the distance. A review of the Ontario caselaw and Arizona Guidelines reveal that certain factors are important in the resolution of these disputes, including: the age of the child, mode of transportation between homes, distance, prior contact, and feasibility of virtual access. Court‐ordered access may include remedies that, absent the distance issue, may be considered extreme, including moving to overnight/extended access periods for young children, permitting children to travel unaccompanied, favoring the nonresident parent for holidays and vacation time, allowing children to decrease contact with the nonresident parent, and decreasing or terminating child support. Where distance dictates the in‐person and virtual access schedules, creative solutions are critical to the successful resolution of these cases. Forward thinking family law professionals can meaningfully help parents to achieve better outcomes for children.     

CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX PARENTS DESERVE THE SECURITY BLANKET OF THE PARENTAGE PRESUMPTION*

This article considers what rights are important to children of same‐sex couples, and concludes that these children must be protected by the presumption of parentage. In reaching this conclusion, the article first analyzes the limited protections currently provided to children of same‐sex couples. It then concludes that there is no persuasive reason to treat these children differently from children of “traditional” heterosexual marriage. As such, the parentage presumption should apply equally to children born of a same‐sex marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union, as well as to children who live with a same‐sex partner in a parent‐child relationship. Only with such broad protection can these children receive the economic and psychological support that they deserve.     

Accommodating Intersexuality in European Union Anti‐Discrimination Law

This article considers the relationship between EU anti‐discrimination law and intersexuality. Recent changes in German legislation that recognise intersexuality have prompted consideration of sex and gender throughout Europe. This article considers some of the disadvantages in the way the German legislation has been adopted and attempts to remedy them through the existent Recast Directive. The article rejects the current binary approach to sex and gender and recommends a broader interpretation that understands sex as a spectrum or continuum. It concludes that anti‐discrimination law may be a more suitable realm for questions of intersex to be raised than mandatory state documentation. Anti‐discrimination law is preferable, it is submitted, because it offers individuals an opt‐in model, which does not require any medical ‘proof’. Similarly, anti‐discrimination law offers activists a fluid site of resistance that is not based on medicine or the potential fixity of the birth certificate.     

FATHERHOOD IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM: AN INNOVATIVE PROBLEM‐SOLVING APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM1

The article is a summary of the development of the District of Columbia Superior Court's Fathering Court Initiative. The Fathering Court Initiative is a problem‐solving court that has developed an innovative approach to child support cases that involves noncustodial parents returning from a period of incarceration. The program is designed to operate as a court based partnership between government and private sector organizations that match resources with family needs to promote responsible co‐parenting.     

DISRUPTING THE PATHWAY FROM FOSTER CARE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM—A FORMER PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVES ON REFORM

Nearly half a million children are victims of abuse and neglect and part of our foster care system. Over time, many of these youth cross into our juvenile and then adult justice systems; some will end up as federal offenders, immersed in a process where mandated penalties provide little room for flexibility or consideration of the characteristics and needs of the individual. This article will offer the perspectives of a former prosecutor and child welfare advocate on: (i) the current conditions and challenges within our foster care system—the feeder for many youth into gangs and criminal activity; (ii) the misaligned priorities and disheartening patterns we currently see in our justice system; and (iii) the ill‐advised practices, that set our nation apart from the rest of the world, allowing juvenile offenders to receive life without parole sentences. The article will then discuss a series of recommendations in all of these areas that would enable us to turn the corner and chart an improved and more hopeful path for our nation's vulnerable and at‐risk children and youth.     

SETTLEMENT‐FOCUSED PARENTING PLAN CONSULTATIONS: AN EVALUATIVE MEDIATION ALTERNATIVE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

The divorce mediation field has recently seen the development of several “hybrid” alternative dispute resolution approaches to child custody disputes. The “settlement‐focused parenting plan consultation” (SFPPC) is a form of evaluative mediation, conducted by a “parenting plan consultant” (PPC), who possesses the combined expertise of a mediator and child custody evaluator. This hybrid model is a more expedient and considerably less expensive approach than a child custody evaluation, but preserves the hallmark mediation principle of self‐determination. The article describes the theory underlying the SFPPC, delineates the role requirements, procedures, and techniques of the parenting plan consultant, and addresses legal and ethical issues.     

FUTURE CHILD'S RIGHTS IN NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY:THINKING OUTSIDE THE TUBE AND MAINTAINING THE CONNECTIONS

This article considers whether children born through assisted human reproduction are entitled to information about their biological origins. It examines the issue both from a clinical perspective, citing social science research and the personal narratives of donor‐conceived children, and from a legal perspective, outlining the extent of a child's “right to know” in different jurisdictions. The article suggests that a uniform legal approach is needed that will recognize the right of all children to access details about their identity and conception, for the sake of their psychological well‐being. The article includes a fact scenario that considers the situation of a donor‐conceived child who has become the subject of a custody dispute, and who has not been told the circumstances of his conception.     

PARENTING AND CRIME: AN EVIDENCE‐BASED REVIEW WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW ZEALAND FAMILY AND YOUTH COURT

This article explores the effect parenting can have on child development. It considers child attachment theory, various parenting styles, and specific child and family factors that contribute to a child's social and emotional development. The article concludes that good parenting and good outcomes for children do not happen by chance. The foundation must be planned and made secure.     

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.     

MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL: A LAW AND ECONOMICS DEFENSE OF SAME‐SEX FOSTER CARE ADOPTIONS

This article explores the methods by which homosexual partners can adopt children from foster care, primarily via the stepparent adoption method because most jurisdictions do not recognize same‐sex marriage or civil unions. In establishing that the children in foster care constitute a market not in equilibrium, I explore the significant barriers to entry that homosexual partners must overcome in order to adopt a child, including the biased rules of intestate succession, the inability of homosexuals to secure health insurance or other governmental subsidies for their nonbiological, adopted children, and the apparent misconception that homosexual parenting negatively affects the well‐being of the child. By deconstructing the barriers to entry in the foster care market for children, children will be afforded the opportunity to maximize their utility through permanency, and homosexual parents and the general public can maximize their utility through the reallocation of assets away from the foster care market, given that more children are likely to be adopted once homosexuals are granted unfettered adoption rights. The reallocation of assets away from the foster care market increases social efficiency, which is desired by all.     

HIGH‐CONFLICT CONTACT DISPUTES: EVIDENCE OF THE EXTREME UNRELIABILITY OF SOME CHILDREN'S ASCERTAINABLE WISHES AND FEELINGS

This article challenges an increasing orthodoxy regarding the weight which courts might place upon the expressed views of children in a specific situation—high‐conflict contact disputes. I am a child psychiatrist who acts as an expert witness within the family courts of England & Wales. I have conducted a statistical analysis of cases in which I have conducted assessments of children caught in such disputes between their separated parents. Fifty‐eight children met the criteria for inclusion in the study—the child's consistent opposition to contact with the non resident parent (NRP), despite the court having determined that there was no good reason to constrain contact. My assessment routinely included attempted observation of the child at a visit with the NRP. Despite their stated views most children had a positive experience in those visits that took place, and despite the fact that most had not seen the NRP for a long time. Overall there was a statistical association between increased resistance to contact and the greater age of the child and the longer the time during which no contact had occurred. However, the responses of children and young people were unpredictable and it was impossible to conclude that apparent maturity or intelligence was a guide to the reliability of their expressed resistance. The possible reasons for this unreliability are discussed. I emphasize that my sample of children is unusual as many of the cases had involved serious, though unfounded, allegations of abuse. In addition most of the children showed indications of having become “alienated” from the NRP. I conclude that courts might exercise caution when evaluating the views of children and young people in this situation, and emphasises that assessors should consider including at least one observation of the child at a prolonged visit to the NRP. Because of the new orthodoxy some parents may be tempted to misuse their child's right to a “voice” in court in order to achieve their own ends. Practitioners who advise courts may need to be more aware of these difficulties.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

The Biggest “Have” of Them All: Wal‐Mart and Its Litigation Outcomes in Slip‐and‐Fall Cases

Scholars have theorized that resource‐rich litigants known as the “haves” tend to succeed disproportionately in litigation when the adverse party is a “have‐not.” The traditional theory suggests that haves are able to use their wealth to secure better attorney representation and can use their frequent experience in litigation to tip the scales of justice in their favor, particularly when faced with “one‐shotters” whose involvement in litigation is infrequent. A remaining question, however, is whether some haves fare better than other similarly situated haves. Specifically, this article posits that the litigation strategy used by the defendant may also play a role in litigation outcomes. Companies that tenaciously fight claims that, in the short term, would be cheaper to settle might discourage otherwise valid claims in the future from being filed out of fear that the litigation will be a protracted battle. This article examines Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal‐Mart)—the largest revenue‐generating company in the United States—to explore whether it fares better than other resource‐rich defendants. Wal‐Mart in particular has a reputation against settling cases and thus is an excellent vehicle to investigate this hypothesis. Appellate cases in an eleven‐year period involving slip‐and‐fall litigation were compiled, and the results show that Wal‐Mart did win at a higher rate than other defendants. Although more research is needed to explore fully the effect of litigation strategy on win–loss rates, this sample of cases demonstrates that Wal‐Mart is a more effective and victorious litigant.     

The Transition to Group Decision Making in Child Protection Cases: Obtaining Better Results for Children and Families

It was only a few years ago that in most jurisdictions across the United States, decisions at each stage of a child welfare case were made by individual professionals (law enforcement, child protection workers, social workers, and judges) who were all a part of the community's response to child abuse and neglect crises. In the last decade, the development and continuing evolution of best practices have brought about many changes in how professionals approach the resolution of these issues, how they convene interested persons in the decision‐making process, and how families and children participate in decisions. This article will examine some of these changes, with a particular focus on the expanding use of groups and the inclusion of families in these groups to make better decisions in child protection cases.     

IRC § 71 MAY IMPOVERISH CHILDREN,ENDANGER EX‐WIVES,AND DISRUPT FEDERALISM1

The Internal Revenue Code provides that alimony will be deductible to the payor and taxable to the payee. Although this treatment may seem contrary to the payee's interest, compared to making the payments non‐deductible and nontaxable, it can increase the payee's after‐tax income. The payor's deduction will allow larger payments at no after‐tax cost increase; if the payee is in a lower tax bracket, then even after paying taxes the payee will have more resources. Because this favorable treatment of alimony does not apply to child support, children of divorce are poorer. Nor does the favorable treatment apply to lump‐sum payments, making this option less generous, even though many states have phased down the grant of alimony. Because the definition of alimony requires that it end with the payee's death—to protect the treatment provided for lump sums—the tax system is on the wrong side of the issue of violence against ex‐spouses (typically the ex‐wife). The article proposes extending to other similar payments the favorable tax treatment now provided for alimony.     

Presumptions,Burdens, and Best Interests in Relocation Law

The pure “best interests” approach to relocation law is a failure. It is unpredictable and expensive, increasing conflict and discouraging settlement. The “fundamental questions” proposed by Parkinson and Cashmore in their article will not reform the law. Real reform will require the use of presumptions or burdens to guide best interests. “Presumptions” are not “rules,” but only starting points. No simple presumption “for” or “against” all relocations can be justified, but there are large categories of cases that do warrant presumptions: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers. The first three involve presumptions against relocation, while the last—the largest category—warrants a presumption that relocation is in the best interests of the child, unless the contrary is proved. There will remain a small minority of in‐between cases where none of these presumptions will operate, recognizing the limits of our general knowledge. It is time to move the relocation reform debate beyond pure “best interests,” to the next stage, to a serious discussion of which cases warrant presumptions, and of what strength.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Pure best interests approach to relocation law is a failure
• Presumptions or burdens needed to reform the law, but not just “for” or “against”
• Presumptions are identified for four categories of relocation cases: interim moves, unilateral relocations, shared care, and predominant primary caregivers

     

‘I Just Wanted Him to Hear Me’: Sexual Violence and the Possibilities of Restorative Justice

The use of restorative justice in cases of sexual violence is highly contentious. Some argue that it may trivialize violence against women, revictimize the vulnerable, and endanger the safety of victim‐survivors. On the other hand, from the perspective of victim‐survivors, it may enable us to hear their stories more holistically, offering greater control and validation, and reduce victim‐blaming. It may also provide an additional opportunity to secure some form of justice. Debate over the validity of these competing claims has largely taken place in an empirical vacuum. This article considers the results of an exploratory study of a restorative justice conference involving an adult survivor of child rape and other sexual abuse. The results, while necessarily tentative, provide good ground to consider afresh the possibilities of restorative justice in cases of sexual violence. We suggest that for those victim‐survivors who wish to pursue this option, restorative justice may offer the potential to secure some measure of justice.     

THE ELUSIVE PURSUIT OF SOLOMON: FALTERING STEPS TOWARD THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

This article provides a brief critique of presumptions about parenting and children seen through the lens of family law. It argues that, historically, decisions largely followed gender‐based and/or moral presumptions of the day and that sometimes these were in tension with each other. Sometimes, too, as in the biblical story of Solomon's judgment, biological parenthood was contested and/or gender did not provide a ready answer. The article argues that, as children's rights and the best interests of the child increasingly came to dominate the decision‐making rhetoric, a Solomon‐like belief has nonetheless persisted, that judicial ingenuity and sophisticated investigative resources can determine the underlying truth of a dispute and lead to the correct outcome. The evidence, however, points in the direction of significant predictive limitations to the legal, social, and psychological knowledge bases supporting most postseparation parenting decisions. It is argued that what is needed is a formal shift in emphasis from a somewhat idealized commitment to discovering the truth in most contested cases to a focus on good decision‐making processes. It is suggested that most transitional families are best served by an emphasis on good, respectful processes associated with good‐enough decisions that formally acknowledge the limitations of our capacity to predict. Good processes and good‐enough decisions are in turn best supported by a clear emphasis on children as individual agents, who, though dependent on adults, are entitled to the full panoply of human rights.