积极深挖犯罪 努力开辟“第二战场”

在看守所最大限度地发掘线索,能更好地为打击犯罪、侦查破案服务。从羁押对象身上深挖线索,努力开辟”第二战 场”,具体做法是:政策攻心,促进转化;亲情教育,融化坚冰;把握时机,深挖细挤;仔细甄别,快速转递。     

Raised By a Predator: Sex Offender Parents and an Effort To Keep Them Out of the Child's Home

Registered sex offenders are obligated to comply with rules put forth by their state's registry. While there are stringent guidelines regarding the offender's interaction with the public, a sex offender's ability to obtain custody of their child is less rigid. Statutes differ on the level of scrutiny referencing their right to parent, which leaves an opening for offenders to abuse their child. This Note proposes the adoption of a model statute in which registered Tier III sex offender parents who were convicted for a crime involving a minor are precluded from gaining physical or legal custody of their child.     

扣押程序的基本原则研究

通过对扣押程序的基本原则进行系统理论研究，从而将保障人权的理念贯穿于扣押程序中，解决扣押程序中存在的理论难题，规范扣押程序的执行，使扣押程序成为一种稳定有序、符合合法性、正当性原则的强制性措施。     

刍议我国刑事拘留制度改革与完善

我国现行刑事拘留制度在司法实践运行中存在着一系列的问题:刑事拘留强制措施适用的工具化、拘留期限过长的普遍化、羁押期限的极限化、拘留适用的随意性,这极大地损害了犯罪嫌疑人权利。这些问题归因于我国立法规定的冲突、拘留标准过低、拘押合一制度、司法审查缺失等。因此,应当对我国刑事拘留制度进行改革。     

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.

     

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

     

超期羁押刑事赔偿的若干问题

超期羁押是一种严重侵犯公民人身自由权的违法行为 ,对于被超期羁押者应当贯彻全面的国家赔偿原则 ,不以犯罪嫌疑人、被告人最终是否被判处“无罪”为条件。一个人即使最终被判有罪 ,判决前如果存在超期羁押的情形 ,那么也应进行相应的经济补偿。我国的国家赔偿应当实现“无过错”责任原则和“违法”责任原则的结合 ,对被超期羁押者予以全面的经济上的救济。当然 ,这在目前中国还存在严重的制度和观念上的障碍。     

Gatekeeping by Allegations: An Examination of Verified,Unfounded, and Fabricated Allegations of Child Maltreatment Within the Context of Resist and Refusal Dynamics

Allegations of child maltreatment and neglect, including child sexual abuse, in the context of child custody disputes pose particular challenges for child protection services, family law professionals and the courts to identify children at risk of harm, as well as children impacted and exposed to other risk factors. Accurately identifying child maltreatment requires assessing the background, the history and the context of the allegations in order to differentiate confirmed, unfounded, and fabricated allegations. The paper provides a review of the history and current understanding of allegations within the context of child custody disputes by considering the connections of fabricated allegations to the theory of alienation and the role of gatekeeping. The paper then examines the social science literature regarding allegations within child protection investigations (the prevalence, types of maltreatment, reporter of allegations, and case outcomes) and explores the factors that have contributed to the challenges faced by child protection services to investigate and make determinations regarding allegations within the context of child custody disputes. We argue for early assessment protocols for child protection services to screen child custody cases, to differentiate allegations of alienation from other types of harm, to enhance role clarity in these volatile situations, to refrain from “taking sides” and to work collaboratively with the family law community. Lastly, we offer legal implications to improve collaboration between child protection services and the family law field to better respond to these complex cases.     

Risks and Realities of Working with Alienated Children

Involvement in custody cases that include accusations of parental alienation—whether as an evaluator, expert witness, lawyer, judge, therapist, provider of a specialized intervention, or researcher—incurs both professional and personal risks. Some risks relate to false negative or false positive identifications of parental alienation that can lead to regulatory agency complaints and public condemnation by the parent who feels wronged by the case outcome. Other risks stem from providing services in an emerging area of practice and working with children who overtly oppose repairing the relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: unfounded accusations of mistreating children; negatively biased commentary and sensationalist attacks in the media and in social media, professional conferences and journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, vilification, and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public humiliation; shunning and rumor spreading by colleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines circumstances, beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to these risks, suggests precautions to reduce the risk of false accusations against professionals, and offers recommendations for dealing with regulatory agencies. Criticisms that a court or service provider has mistreated a child merit careful scrutiny in the context of the case evidence and empirical data. While some interventions for alienated children raise legitimate concerns, others have been maligned by anecdotal complaints that studies show do not represent the experience of most participants.     

Faster and as Satisfying: An Evaluation of Alaska's Early Resolution Triage Program

The Alaska Court Early Resolution Program (ERP) addresses many issues – self‐representation in divorce and custody cases, triaging to determine the appropriate resolution approach, the importance of early intervention and the desire to use a simplified process and a problem‐solving approach. This article reports on an evaluation of the Anchorage ERP. It found different outcomes for ERP cases that settled than comparable cases that proceeded on the regular trial process track with respect to the following outcomes:

• time to disposition,
• number of staff processing steps and associated completion time, and
• number of motions to modify filed within two years of the disposition.