司法权异化解读

司法权具有多义性,但主要指审判权即裁判权,异化是哲学上的概念,司法权的异化是对其本质与价值的背离,司法权异化后具体显现为攻击性、混沌性、非终结性、非及时性,从而异化为一种侵犯公民权利的恶法。我们必须对司法权的异化进行矫正,寻找规制司法权异化的“阿基米德基点”,恢复其应有的正义品格,创造一个良好的司法权运作范式。     

地方政府竞争中的制度创新及异化分析

我国地方政府在政府竞争的压力之下,起着政治企业家的作用,进行了诸如产权制度变革、行政审批制度改革以及地方公共物品供给制度改革等制度创新行为。但行政性分权的非制度性和非稳定性,法律约束机制的缺失以及中央政府宏观调控式微等制度安排中的缺陷导致了地方政府制度创新中的悖论,地方政府在政府竞争中以曲解规则、补充文件等异化的制度创新行为和方式来理解和贯彻国家的法律法规和上级要求实施的制度规则,以求满足自身利益的最大化。     

略论广松涉对早期马克思“异化劳动”概念的解读——以《1844年经济学哲学手稿》为例

广松涉在《唯物史观的原像》一书中作出了一个基本判断,认为异化劳动不过是马克思对私有财产所作的概念性把握,二者的真实关系在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中尚未最后解决。广松涉的这个判断基本上是正确的,但关于马克思所面临的逻辑张力和理论困境,他的分析就难免有疏漏之处。     

U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse allegations: what do the data show?

ABSTRACT

Family court and abuse professionals have long been polarized over the use of parental alienation claims to discredit a mother alleging that the father has been abusive or is unsafe for the children. This paper reports the findings from an empirical study of ten years of U.S. cases involving abuse and alienation claims. The findings confirm that mothers’ claims of abuse, especially child physical or sexual abuse, increase their risk of losing custody, and that fathers’ cross-claims of alienation virtually double that risk. Alienation’s impact is gender-specific; fathers alleging mothers are abusive are not similarly undermined when mothers cross-claim alienation. In non-abuse cases, however, the data suggest that alienation has a more gender-neutral impact. These nuanced findings may help abuse and alienation professionals find some common ground.     

Responding to Severe Parent–Child Rejection Cases Without a Parentectomy: A Blended Sequential Intervention Model and the Role of the Courts

There have been significant developments over the past two decades that have expanded our understanding of the dynamics of parent–child contact problems post‐separation, which have resulted in some changes in judicial processes to respond to these cases. One significant advancement is a more sophisticated differentiation of the nature and severity of contact problems, which better assists legal and mental health professionals to provide more suitable legal and clinical interventions. However, the issue of innovative court processes has received limited attention. The authors describe a subgroup of families within the “severe” category, for whom an expanded intervention model, referred to as a Blended Sequential Intervention is proposed. This approach involves a reversal of care with court mandated therapeutic support for the rejected parent and child, but also involves the favored parent in the therapeutic plan from the outset, and is intended to avoid a permanent “parentectomy” of the child from either parent. The authors discuss how the courts should respond to these cases, and posit that until all therapeutic treatments are exhausted, interim orders should be preferred to final determinations, and judges should maintain oversight. The authors discuss the critical role of judicial leadership in working with lawyers and mental health professionals to manage and address the issues in these high conflict cases.     

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.     

农村仪式性人情异化后果及其矫正

当前农村普遍面临着仪式性人情异化的困境。基于鄂西H县Z村的实地调查发现,人情名目的无序增加、随礼规则的失序和礼金的攀升以及去仪式化构成了仪式性人情的异化面向,仪式性人情变异为功利性人情。传统人情交往规则的瓦解是造成人情异化的宏观背景,经济分化背景下富人群体的带动、村民村庄生活预期的短期化以及村民对在村关系的依赖所导致的人情退出机制的缺乏是人情异化产生的中观层面原因。仪式性人情的异化带来了农村消费性贫困的生成、社会交往的底层排斥以及村庄社会关系的撕裂等社会后果。建议可充分借助政策及制度手段,有针对性地强化地方政府对农村人情交往秩序的引导作用,使之有意识地对农村做出移风易俗的努力,积极倡导社会主义新型物质精神文明的建设,重建农村良性的人情交往秩序。     

Response to “Ideology and Rhetoric Replace Science and Reason in Some Parental Alienation Literature and Advocacy: A Critique,” by Milchman,Geffner, and Meier

The author wrote an article, “Parental Alienation and Misinformation Proliferation,” for this Special Issue of Family Court Review, which is devoted to various aspects of parental alienation (PA). This short article is a response to the article by Milchman, Geffner, and Meier, which discussed my article and other contributions to the Special Issue. All of these articles represent an attempt by the Editors of the Special Issue to promote “dialogue” among writers who have different perspectives regarding parental alienation. In my view, this is a misguided endeavor, since the publication of cascading criminations, recriminations, and re‐recriminations simply creates confusion and consternation for the readers of Family Court Review. This new article offers an alternative approach for creating constructive dialogue among PA‐promoters and PA‐detractors, that is, convene a face‐to‐face discussion of these individuals and encourage them to write an article together in which they jointly explain their various perspectives regarding PA.     

囚在富士康——富士康准军事化工厂体制调查报告

富士康准军事化的工厂管理体制其本质是劳动的严重异化,本文以马克思主义的劳动价值观为理论视角,根据第一手实证资料调查研究了富士康的生产管理体制,发现它与马克思对早期资本主义原始积累的观察是一致的,其绝对剩余价值的生产同样是通过延长劳动时间、克扣工人工资以及制造各种形态的血汗劳动来实现的。富士康工人感觉工厂像监狱,其原因在于富士康着力打造了一个以绝对服从和惩罚性的制度为特征的法家式兵营社会。