MEYER ELKIN ADDRESS

The millennium Association of Family and Conciliation Courts conference, held in New Orleans, Louisiana, brought about the third annual Meyer Elkin Address. Following Jonah, Peter, and Marian Wright Edelman in 1998 and George Thomson in 1999, the organization was honored to have Senator Paul Wellstone and Sheila Wellstone discuss important issues involving domestic violence and other family and children's issues. Both Senator Wellstone and Wellstone are nationally recognized leaders in the area of domestic violence advocacy. They are sincere and diligent in their efforts to protect and promote families and children. It was a privilege to listen to the following address.     

WHO WILL MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE OF MEDIATION?

Expanding on the issue raised by Meyer Elkin in the June 1986 issue of Conciliation Courts Review, Barbara Younger, a mediator in Massachusetts reviews some opinions of attorneys, therapists and mediators regarding whether referrals to mediation are actually made to their clients. She notes that because of what seem to be possible overlaps in services, conflict in services and perhaps even protection of territorial limits, professionals seem to make preferential judgments about which clients should be provided knowledge of the mediation option.     

Guiding Principles for Family Justice Programs

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and Relate, UK, co‐convened a 24‐hour consultation at St George's House, Windsor, UK, on modern family justice issues across Europe. This article identifies a preliminary set of guiding principles for family justice programs developed by consultation participants.     

THE FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT FINAL REPORT

The Family Law Education Reform Project (the FLER Project) is co‐sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra Law School. This Final Report is based on a series of dialogues between family law academics and practitioners from many disciplines, a FLER Project survey, and research conducted by law students at Hofstra University and Northeastern University. 2     

Reprinted from Vol. 44 No. 4 in Honor of Professor J. Herbie DiFonzo. The Family Law Education Reform Project Final Report†

The Family Law Education Reform Project (the FLER Project) is co‐sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra Law School. This Final Report is based on a series of dialogues between family law academics and practitioners from many disciplines, a FLER Project survey, and research conducted by law students at Hofstra University and Northeastern University. 2     

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD FOR JUDICIAL EXCELLENCE ADDRESS

The William H. Rehnquist Award is one of the most celebrated judicial honors in the country. It is given each year to a state court judge who demonstrates the “highest level of judicial excellence, integrity, fairness, and professional ethics.” The 2008 recipient, Jonathan Lippman, was recently appointed and confirmed as Chief Judge of the State of New York. Chief Judge Lippman was previously the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department of the New York State Supreme Court. He was appointed New York's Chief Administrative Judge by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and served from January 1996 to May 2007 and was responsible for the operation of a court system with a $2.4 billion budget, 1300 state‐paid judges, 2300 town and village judges, and 16,000 nonjudicial personnel. Among his numerous professional activities, Chief Judge Lippman served as president of the Conference of State Court Administrators from 2005 to 2006 and was the vice‐chair of the National Center for State Courts from 2005 to 2006, where he was a member of the Board of Directors from 2003 to 2007. During his tenure, Chief Judge Lippman has been the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions, including the 2006 Fund For Modern Courts Cyrus R. Vance Tribute for Vision, Integrity and Dedication to the Fair Administration of Justice Personified by Cyrus R. Vance (November 27, 2006); the New York County Lawyers’ Association Conspicuous Service Award in Recognition of Many Years of Outstanding Public Service (September 28, 2006); and the Award for Excellence in Public Service of the New York State Bar Association's Committee on Attorneys in Public Service (January 24, 2006). Chief Judge Lippman received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and International Relations from New York University, Washington Square College, where he graduated cum laude in 1965. He also received his J.D. from New York University in 1968. Below is the speech he delivered after accepting the William H. Rehnquist Award from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts.     

ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS WHITE PAPER GUIDELINES FOR COURT‐INVOLVED THERAPY: A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

This article was written by the Honorable Linda S. Fidnick and Kelly. A. Koch, Esq. Judge Fidnick is an Associate Justice with the Hampshire Probate and Family Court. Prior to her appointment to the bench in 2008, Judge Fidnick was a partner in the Amherst law firm of Burres, Fidnick & Booth LLP, where she concentrated her practice in all areas of family law. Judge Fidnick is a graduate of Smith College and the University of Connecticut Law School, and she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar for over thirty years. Judge Fidnick is past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and currently serves on the national board of directors of AFCC. Judge Fidnick and Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. are the co‐chairs of the AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists. Attorney Koch is a graduate of Brandeis University and WesternNew England College School of Law. She served as a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court and is presently an associate attorney with the Springfield, Massachusetts firm of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas. Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in California who has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on interventions in high conflict divorce, Parenting Coordination and child alienation in family law cases. He currently serves on the Board of Directors at AFCC. Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. is a family forensic psychologist practicing in Los Angeles, California. She serves as the reporter for the AFCC Court‐Involved Therapist Task Force and Co‐Chairs the Family Forensic Special Interest Group of Div. 43. She Co‐Chaired the APA‐ABA Working Group on Representation and Advocacy for Children. The AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists was given the charge of defining guidelines for the professional practice of therapists working with court‐involved families. A draft of the Guidelines was presented for Comments in March 2010 and all comments were submitted to the Task Force Reporter, Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. on May 1, 2010.     

AFCC Think Tanks: Promoting Dialogue on Difficult Issues in Family Law*

This article examines three think tanks sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which convened representatives of different disciplines, often with differing perspectives, to address policy and practice dilemmas in family law and dispute resolution. This essay was initially commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation, London, UK, as an Insight Article for its Family Justice Observatory, which aims to improve the use of data and research evidence in the family justice system in England and Wales. The think tank process is described and analyzed, identifying factors that created challenges and those that led to success.     

SOLVING THE FAMILY COURT PUZZLE: INTEGRATING RESEARCH,POLICY, AND PRACTICE

In my opening remarks to the 42nd Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, I discuss trends in family law cases from the Supreme Court of Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court. I also review the wide variety of advancements in the way that court systems approach family law cases. Noting a recent emphasis on the fundamental rights of parents, I advocate a new paradigm, moving away from a focus on the parents and toward a focus on the child.     

A Systematic Approach to Domestic Abuse–Informed Child Custody Decision Making in Family Law Cases

This article introduces an approach to domestic violence–informed decision making developed under the auspices of the National Child Custody Differentiation Project, a cooperative undertaking among the Battered Women's Justice Project, the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges, Praxis International, and the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. This approach has four essential elements: (1) identifying domestic abuse; (2) understanding the nature and context of domestic abuse; (3) determining the implications of abuse; and (4) accounting for the nature, context, and implications of abuse in all custody‐related recommendations and decisions.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Applying a systematic approach to domestic violence can help practitioners identify, understand, and account for abuse in family law cases.
• The approach recommended here is suitable for use by anyone who is involved in a contested child custody case at any stage of the proceeding.
• The specific application of the recommended approach will vary depending upon the practitioner's role and function in the case, relationship to the parties, and access to information, as well as the nature of the proceeding and the issues to be decided.

     

CHILDREN IN CONCILIATION THE EXPERIENCE OF INVOLVING CHILDREN IN CONCILIATION

Conciliation services in Scotland have developed rapidly since the first service, Lothian Family Conciliation Service (LFCS), was set up in Edinburgh in 1984. Conciliators in Scotland work principally with parents, but wherever possible involve children in the process. The author monitored and evaluated this work over two years. This article outlines the context of conciliation in Scotland, briefly describes the LFCS and presents the research findings on the service's involvement with children.     

CONFIDENTIALITY REVISITED:California Style

Stewart and I have lived through the legal adversary system and we know what havoc it could have wrought on our family…. We were nuts. We were crazy. We were your average psychotic divorcing parents…. What you do not see is we get well. We bailed out of the adversary court system because we could see it was no help to us. We were the lucky ones…. There are thousands like us who could use your help before the war gets started.
—Parent at the 1978 Midwinter Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, Los Angeles.     

REPORT FROM THE WINGSPREAD CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FAMILY COURTS

In February 2007 the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts brought together a working group of thirty‐seven experienced practitioners and researchers to identify and explore conceptual and practical tensions that have hampered effective work with families in which domestic violence has been identified or alleged. Five central sets of issues were raised at the conference and are discussed in this report. These include the following: differentiation among families experiencing domestic violence, screening and triage, participation by families in various processes and services, appropriate outcomes for children, and family court roles and resources. The report emphasizes the need for continued multidisciplinary collaboration in order to better serve families affected by domestic violence and it includes an appendix of consensus points as well as suggestions for formation of ongoing work groups.     

FACTORS AFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF DIVORCE AND PATERNITY MEDIATIONS

Divorce mediation, an alternative to litigation when resolving disputes raised by the dissolution of a marriage or the separation of unmarried parents, has gained popularity over the past few decades. Yet, research is needed to better understand what processes make family mediation successful and for whom family mediation is successful. To study predictors of reaching agreement in family mediation, we gathered data from divorce and paternity cases at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law Viola J. Taliaferro Family and Children Mediation Clinic. Numerous factors, including history of intimate partner violence, father's reported concerns about participating in mediation, higher levels of father's income, number of mediation sessions, and attorney representation, were associated with lower rates of agreement. Associations between significant predictors are presented, as well as the combined impact of attorney representation and a history of relationship violence, which together significantly predicted lower agreement rates. The implications of these findings for understanding family mediation processes are considered.     

SURVIVING BENCH STRESS

The article presents a discussion of judicial stress, along with proposed solutions. The authors gathered information on the topic of judicial stress from judges via a survey and attendance at two Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) conventions. Some of the daily stressors endorsed by judges included endless caseloads, severe time limitations, social isolation, lack of privacy, and the weight of deciding the fates of others. It is important for our judges to be provided with ways of relieving and preventing burnout and stress. Proposed bench stress solutions include incorporating the Psychologist Advocate Program into the judicial system and creating specific guidelines for judges to take sabbaticals, which will serve to enhance our judicial system and the entire community.     

JOHN BOWLBY'S LEGACY AND MEANINGS FOR THE FAMILY LAW FIELD: IN CONVERSATION WITH SIR RICHARD BOWLBY

John Bowlby (1907–1990), a British psychologist, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, is widely known as the father of attachment theory. He was also the father of Richard Bowlby. Since his father's death, Sir Richard Bowlby has made it his life's work to carry on his father's legacy, seeking ways to help the general public benefit from a better understanding of attachment relationships and his father's work in particular. Although an Honorary Research Fellow, Department of Psychology, University College, London, and patron of many organizations that address challenging attachment issues, Richard Bowlby emphasizes that his strengths are in being “a well‐informed layman, having some pretty good inside information, and some wonderful stories to tell.” Here, he covers a wide range of topics and controversies core to family law, offering contemporary and historical insights, perspectives from his father, and an interesting tale or two.     

"SHE LOVES AMY MORE THAN HER CAT!"

This article explores the two languages of divorce–the language of the couple and the language of divorce. Originally, this article was submitted for the Meyer Elkin contest.     

Mental disorder as the cause of a crime

An offender's punishment can be reduced when a court decides that his mental disorder reduces his responsibility for what he did. Courts have sought to establish whether a mentally disordered offender's responsibility is reduced by asking whether his disorder caused the crime. Acceptance of this “causation by mental disorder” criterion has fluctuated, however. This may be because causal explanations are not the types of explanations we are accustomed to offering for the kinds of acts that bring defendants, and psychiatric witnesses, to court. More often, we offer what philosophers have called “possibility” explanations for these acts. The application of psychiatry to possibility explanations has not been widely explored. It offers the potential for the improved use of psychiatric evidence in criminal proceedings.     

To recommend or not recommend: That is still the question

The boundaries around what parenting plan evaluators should and should not say in their reports to Courts has been debated in both mental health and legal circles for decades. The controversy about whether parenting plan evaluators should make specific recommendations to Courts regarding access plans and decision-making rights revolves around varied views of the limits of mental health professionals' knowledge about such matters, whether they are socio-moral or psychological in nature, and the benefits to children and society of facilitating case-resolution. In the conversation presented below a seasoned family law attorney and a psychologist who is a frequent critic of the practice of making specific recommendations debate this area of controversy.     

错误的生命之诉的法律适用

错误的生命之诉是近年来出现的一种新型诉讼。目前,法国、美国五个州的最高法院准许了原告就此提起的财产损害赔偿请求,而英国、美国19个州的最高法院、加拿大的两个省、德国联邦宪法法院均驳回了原告的损害赔偿请求。但实际上,全部或部分驳回原告方诉讼请求所持的理由并不成立,原告的确受到了侵害,受侵害的客体是拥有充分知情的父母的利益。