MANDATED CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER

Kelly and Ramsey are clearly correct that a shift from a “how to” approach to custody evaluations to one that asks the more fundamental question “why” is long overdue. However, in addition to assessing the efficacy of custody evaluations (which Kelly and Ramsey propose), the legal system must also clarify the justification for imposing this extensive—and often expensive—intrusion into the privacy of parents. Three possible justifications for these intrusions are examined in this article: privilege, harm, and voluntariness. Is divorce a privilege, rather than a right, and can qualifications (including intrusive and expensive ones) be attached to requesting that privilege? Are custody evaluations instead justified as a means of avoiding harm to children? If a harm justification is asserted, exactly what harm do evaluations prevent, and how do they accomplish this harm avoidance? Finally, given the high value placed on parental cooperation by the family courts, is it simply too perilous for a parent to oppose a custody evaluation if one is suggested, either by the other parent or by the court? If so, are consents to custody evaluations truly voluntary?     

SETTLEMENT‐FOCUSED PARENTING PLAN CONSULTATIONS: AN EVALUATIVE MEDIATION ALTERNATIVE TO CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

The divorce mediation field has recently seen the development of several “hybrid” alternative dispute resolution approaches to child custody disputes. The “settlement‐focused parenting plan consultation” (SFPPC) is a form of evaluative mediation, conducted by a “parenting plan consultant” (PPC), who possesses the combined expertise of a mediator and child custody evaluator. This hybrid model is a more expedient and considerably less expensive approach than a child custody evaluation, but preserves the hallmark mediation principle of self‐determination. The article describes the theory underlying the SFPPC, delineates the role requirements, procedures, and techniques of the parenting plan consultant, and addresses legal and ethical issues.     

Chapter 5: Jurisdiction to Make an Initial Custody Determination

This chapter explains the state and federal statutory scheme for the existence and exercise of jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination. Grounds for declining jurisdiction are also discussed, including simultaneous proceedings pending in another state, inconvenient forum and “clean hands” considerations, and the federal preference for “home state” jurisdiction. The next chapter examines jurisdiction to modify a child custody determination.     

Queer Criminology,Critique, and the “Art of Not Being Governed”

This article builds on previous work that argues that a useful path for a “queer/ed criminology” to follow is one that takes “queer” to denote a position. It suggests that one way of developing such an approach is to adopt a particular understanding of critique—specifically one that draws from Michel Foucault’s view of critique as “the art of not being governed.” It then charts some of the possible directions for such a “queer/ed criminology.” While such an approach to critique has previously been discussed within critical criminologies, this article suggests that it is useful for queer criminologists to explore the opportunities that it affords, particularly in order to better appreciate how “queer/ed criminology” might connect to, draw from, or push against other currents among critical criminologies, and help to delineate the unique contribution that this kind of “queer/ed criminology” might make.     

Rights as a Divide‐and‐Rule Mechanism: Lessons from the Case of Palestinians in Israeli Custody

Critics have highlighted the complicity of human rights law in mass disempowerment and domination—a criticism equally applicable to child law. This article investigates this issue, as evidenced by three recent developments that Israel has justified by invoking these legal frameworks: an increased separation of Palestinian adults and children in Israeli custody; the Israeli legal system's growing preoccupation with “rehabilitating” the now‐segregated Palestinian children; and the Israeli authorities' ever‐diminishing interest in such rehabilitation for adult Palestinian prisoners. By canvassing the legal architecture, judicial rationalizations, adverse effects, and sociopolitical context of these developments, this article foregrounds their divide‐and‐rule logic and structure of driving a generational wedge between Palestinians and potentially weakening their political ties, solidarity, and resistance.     

An Exploratory Study of Custody Challenges Experienced by Affirming Mothers of Transgender and Gender‐Nonconforming Children

Family courts have lacked familiarity with evidence‐based recommendations regarding the best interests of transgender and gender‐nonconforming (TGNC) children, resulting in some affirming parents losing physical and/or legal custody. This exploratory, qualitative study with 10 affirming mothers of TGNC children who had experienced custody‐related challenges reported on salient themes, including “blame” for causing children's gender nonconformity, coercion by ex‐partners, bias in the courts, negative impact on children, emotional and financial toll on participants, and the critical importance of adequate resources. Findings indicate the need for better‐educated family court professionals, as well as socioemotional support and financial and legal assistance for affirming parents of TGNC children.     

“Critical Legal Histories Revisited”: A Response

The author responds to comments reappraising “Critical Legal Histories” (CLH) (1984). CLH critiqued “evolutionary functionalism,” the idea that law is a functional response to a typical modernizing process. CLH argued that “society” was partly constituted of legal elements and that law was too indeterminate to have reliably regular functional effects. CLH has been misinterpreted as calling for a return to internal histories of “mandarin” doctrine: all it said was that some doctrinal histories were valuable, without privileging them. This response clarifies that the relations of law to society and social change, and of high‐level official law to everyday local law are distinct issues. CLH is mostly moot today, since social‐legal historians have incorporated its insight that legal concepts are embedded in everyday social practice. But other fields have revived deterministic Whiggish accounts of progressive development and of law functional to it—to which CLH's critique still seems relevant.     

High Conflict Divorce,Violence, and Abuse: Implications for Custody and Visitation Decisions

Today, judges are faced with the daunting task of determining the best interests of the child and making appropriate custody awards to that end. The best interests of children becomes a critical question when domestic violence is involved; yet, determining what constitutes domestic violence is often debated. Research is often divided on what constitutes domestic violence. One body of research focuses on conflict, another focuses on domestic violence. What the first group identifies as intense emotional distress and disagreement, the other identifies as abuse. Judges making custody determinations in such cases are faced with the difficult challenge of distinguishing between a divorce with “high conflict” and a domestic violence case with ongoing abuse. This article will summarize the legal, philosophical, and historical understandings of the “high conflict” family and its potential impact on children. It will also provide practical judicial guidelines for making the important distinction between high conflict and domestic violence and subsequently crafting appropriate and safe child custody awards.     

The “Discourse” of International Law and Humanitarian Intervention

This essay analyzes the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” in the frame of international law in the second half of nineteenth century and identifies the ground of legitimation of this intervention in the violation of presumed universal laws of humanity. The analysis emphasizes the transformation of the paradigm of “humanitarian intervention” into the current doctrine of the “responsibility to protect,” which under the rubric of “responsibility” legitimizes limitations on a state's sovereignty in cases where the state fails to guarantee the protection of its own population. This reconstruction of the genealogy of “humanitarian intervention” illustrates the continual exceptions to the principle of nonintervention, which means that the Westphalian principle of sovereignty has always been violated. Both doctrines—humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect—can be considered “hegemonic techniques” that use so‐called universal concepts in order to legitimize unilateral power interests.     

A New Index for the MMPI‐2 Test for Detecting Dissimulation in Forensic Evaluations: A Pilot Study

This pilot study is the starting point of a potentially broad research project aimed at identifying new strategies for assessing malingering during forensic evaluations. The forensic group was comprised of 67 males who were seeking some sort of certification (e.g., adoption, child custody, driver's license, issuance of gun permits, etc.); the nonforensic group was comprised of 62 healthy male volunteers. Each participant was administered the MMPI‐2. Statistical analyses were conducted on obtained scores of 48 MMPI‐2 scales. In the first step, parametric statistics were adopted to identify the best combination of MMPI‐2 scales that differentiated the two groups of participants. In the second step, frequency‐based, nonparametric methods were used for diagnostic purposes. Results: A model that utilized the best three predictors (“7‐Pt”, “L,” and “1‐Hs”) was developed and used to calculate the Forensic Evaluation Dissimulation Index (FEDI), which features satisfactory diagnostic accuracy (0.9), sensitivity (0.82), specificity (0.81), and likelihood ratio indices (LR+ = 4.32; LR? = 0.22).     

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

     

REALITY IS. . . . A RESPONSE TO MARTINDALE,TIPPINS, BEN‐PORATH,AUSTIN, AND WITTMANN

This article is written as a response to the Martindale et al. critique of the Ackerman and Pritzl (2011) child custody evaluation practices article. The Martindale et al. critique focuses on a small portion of the overall results regarding test usage and suggests that the entire article is “flawed and deficient.” However, their critique engages in confirmatory bias and exaggerated statements and ignores the overall value of the article in general. A more broad‐based explanation of the results is provided herein.     

CONSULTANT CONDUCT IN ANTICIPATION OF A CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION: ETHICAL AND SOCIAL DILEMMAS AND THE NEED FOR NEUTRAL PARENT EDUCATION

Mental health professionals are being retained with increasing frequency as “custody consultants” to prepare a parent for a child custody evaluation. While this practice may serve a legitimate function, no ethical guidelines clearly govern the conduct of a consultant in such circumstances. This lack of guidance has led to professional disagreement regarding the ethical implications of the practice. This ethical ambiguity is accompanied by social concern regarding the high cost of custody consulting, which has the practical effect of denying consulting services to low‐income or self‐represented litigants. This Note will describe the growing practice of custody consulting and the ethical and social unease currently associated with the practice. This Note will then propose that mandatory parent education programs be developed for parents preparing to undergo a custody evaluation. This type of educational program would provide many of the benefits of custody consulting in an ethically neutral fashion and would ensure that all parents have access to the benefits of this growing practice.     

MOVING BEYOND GENERALIZATIONS AND STEREOTYPES TO DEVELOP INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACHES FOR WORKING WITH FAMILIES AFFECTED BY PARENTAL INCARCERATION

Competing narratives about incarcerated parents and their children are provided by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) and the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights (“Bill of Rights”). Both the “child‐at‐risk” narrative of ASFA and the “good mother” narrative of the Bill of Rights are stereotyped and oversimplified and contribute, in opposite ways, to misperceptions about incarcerated parents and their children by suggesting a uniformity of situations and appropriate responses that does not actually exist. The time‐driven approach of ASFA—and many state termination of parental rights statutes—is overly rigid, while the Bill of Rights overlooks important differences among families, as well as tensions and trade‐offs among policy choices. In actuality, the situations of the parents and children involved vary widely and defy easy analysis and solutions. We should therefore be taking an individualized, qualitative approach that is nuanced and based on actual information about incarcerated parents and their children, rather than a quantitative, categorical approach based on generalized and simplistic assumptions. Only if we recognize and grapple with the complexities of parental incarceration can we develop sound legal and social policy to meet the needs of these families.     

Carl Schmitt on the Secularisation of Religious Texts as a Resacralisation of Jurisprudence?

Carl Schmitt, an increasingly influential German law professor, developed a provocative and historically oriented model of “political theology” with specific relevance to legal scholarship and the authorship of constitutional texts. His “political theology” is best understood neither as an expressly theological discourse within constitutional law, nor as a uniquely legal discourse shaped by a hidden theological agenda. Instead, it addresses the possibility of the continual resurfacing of theological ideas and beliefs within legal discourses of, for instance, sovereignty, the force of law and states of emergency (or “exception”) that present themselves as relentlessly secular, even—in the case of Kelsenian jurisprudence—”scientific”. This article illustrates and then critically evaluates Schmitt’s theory in terms of the authorship of constitutional texts in particular. It includes two case studies—genocidal colonial land appropriation and Kelsenian positivism in order to illustrate aspects of his political theology. Whilst Schmitt is defended against reductionist interpretations, I show that there remains considerable unfinished business before a Schmittian approach to legal theory merits full acceptance.     

THE SIZE OF THE “CRIMINAL POPULATION”: THE PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF ADULT ARREST*

The recent emphasis in criminological theory and research on “chronic offenders” assumes that involvement in crime is concentrated among a small group of offenders rather than being widespread in the population. To address this question, this study employs a longitudinal data base on criminal histories to estimate the prevalence of arrest—defined as the proportion of a population ever arrested—and the incidence of arrest—defined as the number of arrests incurred by those ever arrested—for an age cohort of young adults between the ages of 18 and 29. The results show that being arrested is a relatively common experience for young adults: nearly one-quarter of the entire cohort and one-third of the males in the cohort were arrested at least once. One of six males and two of five black males were arrested for an index offense. The data on incidence reveal the presence of a subset of “chronic offenders” who are responsible for a disproportionate number of arrests. However, defined in terms of three or more arrests for any offense, their numbers are smaller, but the data suggest it may be difficult to distinguish “chronic offenders” from “one-time” offenders because 60% do not recidivate. These findings suggest that the current preoccupation with chronic offenders may obscure the broader social structural factors that cause very large segments of the population to come into conflict with the law.     

The Biggest “Have” of Them All: Wal‐Mart and Its Litigation Outcomes in Slip‐and‐Fall Cases

Scholars have theorized that resource‐rich litigants known as the “haves” tend to succeed disproportionately in litigation when the adverse party is a “have‐not.” The traditional theory suggests that haves are able to use their wealth to secure better attorney representation and can use their frequent experience in litigation to tip the scales of justice in their favor, particularly when faced with “one‐shotters” whose involvement in litigation is infrequent. A remaining question, however, is whether some haves fare better than other similarly situated haves. Specifically, this article posits that the litigation strategy used by the defendant may also play a role in litigation outcomes. Companies that tenaciously fight claims that, in the short term, would be cheaper to settle might discourage otherwise valid claims in the future from being filed out of fear that the litigation will be a protracted battle. This article examines Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal‐Mart)—the largest revenue‐generating company in the United States—to explore whether it fares better than other resource‐rich defendants. Wal‐Mart in particular has a reputation against settling cases and thus is an excellent vehicle to investigate this hypothesis. Appellate cases in an eleven‐year period involving slip‐and‐fall litigation were compiled, and the results show that Wal‐Mart did win at a higher rate than other defendants. Although more research is needed to explore fully the effect of litigation strategy on win–loss rates, this sample of cases demonstrates that Wal‐Mart is a more effective and victorious litigant.     

WHEN POLICY COMES TO TOWN: DISCOURSES AND DILEMMAS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF A STATEWIDE REENTRY POLICY IN KANSAS

In this case study, we document challenges to reform implementation posed by line staff, supervisors, and managers during a large‐scale realignment of the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) in which they sought to replace a traditional approach of “risk containment” focused on surveillance and incarceration with a new model of “risk reduction” focused on service delivery and reintegration. We draw on interviews, observations, and archival research to document the staff's discursive challenges to the rollout of the new policy. More specifically, we describe how varying challenges to the reforms—“denial,” “dismissal,” and “defiance”—reflect actors’ positions within the organization, the local contexts in which they operate, and more general frames of interpretation of the long‐term orientation of the KDOC. We integrate these perspectives to contribute to the ongoing expansion of conventional models of penal change that highlight the role of actors and local social and institutional context as moderators of the gap between “law on the books” and “law in action.”