Toward Better Outcomes for Families Through Innovative Dispute Resolution Programs in England

This article explores and shares the learning from two of Cafcass’ innovative dispute resolution pilot programs. The programs aim to improve outcomes for families against the backdrop of rising private law demand in England, while keeping the child at the center. The Positive co‐Parenting Programme pilot provides a structured intervention to reduce conflict and promote timely resolution for children and families in complex cases. The Support with Making Child Arrangements pilot explores whether the provision of a package of support to parents ahead of the first court hearing can help them come to safe agreements about their children without the need for court intervention.     

Predictors of Initial Court Agreement and 1‐Year Relitigation in Title IV‐D Contested Paternity Cases

We examined potential predictors of initial court agreement and 1‐year relitigation in a sample of contested paternity cases involving unmarried parents coming to court to establish paternity, child support, and other issues. Cases participated in an RCT of a parent program and of a waiting period between establishment of paternity and court hearing. We controlled for RCT study factors and used baseline assessment data to predict likelihood of reaching full agreement in the initial court hearing and relitigation in the following year. Findings suggest that cases in which parents get along better outside of court are more likely to reach agreement and less likely to return to court. Additionally, particular parent demographics predict lower likelihood of reaching initial agreement (e.g., parents are non‐White, father earns below $10,000 yearly), more relitigation (e.g., parents are non‐White, mother earns above $10,000 yearly, father has children with others), and less relitigation (e.g., father earns above $10,000 yearly). Child demographics and most parent relationship characteristics did not predict outcomes. We discuss findings and offer suggestions for court interventions.     

韩国宪法法院变形判决制度的形成与发展

宪法法院成立之后,韩国宪法审查制度才真正获取了生命力。这一方面归功于韩国宪政建设环境的改善,另一方面则应归功于宪法法院积极主动履行职责。变形判决制度即是韩国宪法法院汲取德国经验而作的创造性变革。变形判决是相对于原形判决而言的概念。韩国《宪法法院法》规定的“违宪”或“合宪”的判决形式可称之为原形判决;宪法法院在宪法审判实践中逐渐形成的“宪法不合致”判决、“限定合宪”和“限定违宪”判决可称为变形判决。变形判决是针对复杂多样的宪法审判对象而发展出来判决形式,适应了宪法审判的实效需求,展示了一条法律问题技术化的路径。     

新加坡少年司法制度刍议

经过60多年的发展,新加坡已建立起以儿童福利为导向的少年司法制度。在借鉴普通法系国家少年司法立法与实践的基础上,新加坡少年司法逐步形成了具有本土特色的体系与结构,并在未成年人保护与未成年人犯罪矫正上发挥着愈来愈重要的作用。其某些做法可为我国时下的少年司法改革提供一些难得的域外借鉴素材。     

重塑比例过失原则：《最高人民法院关于审理船舶碰撞纠纷案件若干问题的规定》评述

就《最高人民法院关于审理船舶碰撞纠纷案件若干问题的规定》所涉及的一些问题进行评述,包括船舶碰撞纠纷案件适用的准据法、比例过失原则、责任主体等,指出该规定重塑了比例过失原则,发展了中国船舶碰撞法,澄清了审判实践中的一些长期未决的问题。     

“90后”青少年民族团结教育问题元探析

部分“90后”青少年在民族团结方面存在着认知闲置、责任消极、理念错位、行为易变等问题,加强“90后”青少年民族团结教育的基本策略在于：注重实践体验、突出时代特征、注重阶段时效、注重合力整合。     

未成年人刑事案件法庭教育之界定

科学界定法庭教育的概念和属性,全面揭示法庭教育制度的属性和功能定位,是解决当前有关法庭教育制度诸多争议的基本前提和重要途径。法庭教育是衔接公安机关、检察机关和刑罚执行机关教育、矫正环节的重要“桥梁”,是贯穿于审判全过程的教育,是突出被告人主体性的价值教育,是强制性和干预性的特殊社会教育,是与审前社会调查、心理辅导、亲情感化、合适成年人参与、营造适当教育情境等程序保护措施相辅相成的司法活动。     

司法之所以为司法的组织结构依据——论中国法院改革的核心问题之所在

司法之所以为司法,在于其功能不同于立法和行政,更在于它有一种不同于立法和行政的组织结构来保障。组织结构决定了组织中人的行为的基本指向及其沟通和互动方式。中国法院以等级结构为主的组织结构,造成了所有进入法院的人的行为表现为以以垂直指向、纵向沟通和服从型互动为主;在审理阶段所有参与人的交流不积极,也不深入;判决权可能在法院内部被处于各等级结构的法官分享,也可能在法院以外被瓜分;还表现为"审"与"判"分离,判决书缺乏说理性,审判缺乏公开性、公正性和权威性等方面。中国法院改革的核心问题,就是将这种以等级结构为主的组织结构变为以同等结构为主,将法院内可与审判分离的等级结构因素从法院中分离出来,进行更加集中化、行政化和等级化的管理。     

无正本提单交付货物的中英法律解读

无正本提单交付货物一直是困扰国际海上货物运输的主要问题之一。应该说,自从提单这一运输单证诞生并开始肩负作为交付货物凭证的功能时起,无单放货就伴随其产生了。从承运人的角度来说,最关心的莫过于如何认定无单放货的形式和性质以及因承担无单放货而产生的责任;从正本提单持有人的角度来说,在承运人无单放货的情况下如何行使索赔权则是其关注的核心。为了解决中国海事司法审判实践中出现的有关无正本提单交付货物纠纷的法律适用方面的问题,最高人民法院在2009年3月5日出台了《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》,由于在起草过程中大量借鉴了国外海事审判经验,而英国又是海事审判最先进的国家之一,积累了大量有关无单放货的判例,因此有必要通过这些案例来对该规定的主要内容进行解读,以便对相关内容进行更好的理解和把握。     

From ‘Doctor Knows Best’ to Dignity: Placing Adults Who Lack Capacity at the Centre of Decisions About Their Medical Treatment

In 1989, the House of Lords first derived a ‘best interests’ test for the medical treatment of adults who lack capacity from the doctrine of necessity and, now codified, the test continues to apply today. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out a non‐exhaustive checklist of relevant considerations, but it gives no particular priority to the patient's wishes. There is also no formal expectation that the patient will participate directly in any court proceedings in which her best interests are to be determined. This article will consider the advantages and disadvantages of providing additional guidance to decision‐makers in order to help them navigate both taking seriously the wishes of people who lack capacity and, at the same time, not abandoning patients who need help and support. More specifically, this article advocates formalising current best practice in the Court of Protection through the introduction of a series of rebuttable presumptions, or starting points.