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

     

欠缺行为能力成年人保护制度的观念更新与重构

法国、德国、日本民法典的相继修改,均体现出“平常化”和“对自我决定的尊重”的新理念,发展了欠缺行为能力成年人保护制度。我国现行的以精神病人监护为内容的保护制度存在着明显的缺陷,应当立足于被保护人的意愿,扩大保护对象范围、增加保护方法、明确保护人的职责和权利、完善制约机制。     

Comment on Parkinson and Cashmore's (2015) Research and Proposal for Reforming Child Custody Relocation Law: Child Custody Evaluator and Psychological Perspecitve

Parkinson and Cashmore ( 2015 ) described their innovative, qualitative, and longitudinal research program on the experience of Australian families involved in relocation family law litigation. This constructive comment discusses the value and limitations of their main findings. Parkinson and Cashmore's approach is contrasted with the excellent quantitative research on the effects of residential mobility on children of divorce. The author disagrees with Parkinson and Cashmore's position of opposing the use of relocation factors in statute and/or case law so as to not hinder the exercise of judicial discretion any further, but agrees with their integration of the least detrimental alternative concept into a relocation analysis.     

Understanding Pathways to Family Dispute Resolution and Justice Reforms: Ontario Court File Analysis & Survey of Professionals

This article reports on two related studies about varying pathways to the resolution of family disputes and the effects of family justice reforms in Ontario: a survey of family court professionals (n = 118) and an analysis of 1,000 closed court files of family cases involving children. Both studies reveal that the vast majority of cases are resolved without a trial, often by negotiation. While professionals generally support family justice reform initiatives, there remain significant gaps in the implementation of these strategies. For example, many litigants do not attend information programs despite the requirement for mandatory attendance; there is limited use of mediation; the views of children are being sought in only a small number of cases; and there is a large proportion of self‐represented family litigants. Despite the increase in shared care and joint decision‐making arrangements, a majority of cases in the court file study were sole custody arrangements to the mother, whether the case was settled or resolved by trial. Mediation was associated with greater time of contact with the non–primary residential parent (usually the father).     

Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

It is not uncommon for children to fall victim to the stress and tension of a contentious custody dispute. If a party seeks a mental health evaluation and the opposing party challenges the results, the child then endures a series of evaluations until a valid report is produced. The court will often remedy this situation by appointing a neutral forensic psychologist to perform the evaluation independent from a previous party‐hired forensic psychologist. 1 This Note proposes that the court instead appoint the forensic psychologist first to conduct an evaluation and draft a report. Only at the judge's discretion may the parties hire a private forensic psychologist to challenge the report. Additionally, states should codify court rules that enumerate standards for forensic psychologists in child custody evaluations. These rules should set forth criteria that shall be required and highlighted throughout each mental health evaluator's report, allowing judges to compare and contrast each evaluation more effectively. This legislation will not only reduce the child's exposure to excessive testing, but will also provide a more efficient way of arriving at a just result.     

A SURVEY OF UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

The American Bar Association Coordinating Council on Unified Family Courts, with the assistance of Hofstra University's Center for Childre. Family and the Courts, recently conducted a survey of various courts and jurisdictions that either implemented or experimented with a unified family court structure. The purpose of the project was to get a sense of the state of unified family courts with the goal of building more support for the unified family court concept based on demonstrated effectiveness. The findings of the survey have been summarized in this article. The survey, survey data, and list of survey respondents can be found in the article's appendices.     

Crossover Cases of High‐Conflict Families Involving Child Protection Services: Ontario Research Findings and Suggestions for Good Practices

Child protection services (CPS) are increasingly becoming involved in high‐conflict separations and the related custody and access proceedings. CPS involvement is often necessary to respond to abuse or neglect allegations or protect children from emotional harm. However, these crossover cases are very challenging for family justice professionals. This article reports on research on crossover cases in Ontario, including an analysis of reported court decisions, a survey of CPS staff, and interviews with family justice professionals. We suggest clearer CPS policies; improved understanding of respective professional roles; CPS summary reports for family courts; increased interagency coordination, communication, and training; and use of judicial case management.     

The Past and Future State of De Facto Parents in New York

Over the past two decades, the definition of “family” has expanded drastically. To address these changing family dynamics, many states have adopted de facto parent laws, which recognize a nonbiological or adoptive parent's right to petition for custody or visitation in strict circumstances. These laws differ drastically from state to state, leaving no common understanding of the requirements to be a de facto parent. Until recently, New York law refused to recognize de facto parents within the Domestic Relations Law, leaving New York as one of the only states without this important distinction. However, this year the Court of Appeals crafted a narrow exception to the rule and allowed for a de facto parent to petition for custody or visitation in extremely limited circumstances. This article proposes that the Court of Appeals’ decision was too restrictive and that New York should adopt a legal framework that reflects this new type of parent, while still recognizing public policy concerns.     

Blood Will Not Justify My Relation: Same‐Sex Couples and their Battle for Standing as De Facto Parents

A parent's right to maintain a relationship with his/her child lies within the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; however, this right does not apply to every type of parent. Although the U.S. Supreme Court granted same‐sex couples the right to marry, they still face parental rights issues when their child(ren) are nonbiological or nonadoptive because they lack standing for custody and/or visitation as de facto parents. Moreover, the rise of nontraditional same‐sex‐couple families has been placing states in a predicament, and the lack of uniform rights for de facto parents creates great inconsistency across the United States. The creation of a uniform statute with specific elements distinguishing de facto parents from mere caretakers will grant same‐sex nonbiological parents standing and create uniformity across the United States.     

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