IS THE APPROXIMATION RULE IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS?

In an effort to develop clear and uniform standards for the allocation of custodial responsibility, the American Law Institute has proposed a number of reforms. For example, under the approximation rule, the proportion of time parents spent with their children performing direct caregiving functions prior to the divorce would be reflected in the proportion of custodial time allotted to each parent after divorce. Much of the rationale used to justify the approximation rule is explicitly or implicitly based on attachment theory ( Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980 ). This article discusses the assumptions and implications of the approximation rule from the standpoint of attachment theory.     

INTRODUCING PERSPECTIVES IN FAMILY LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH

This article provides an editorial introduction to the following three related articles on the growing use and influence of social science research in family law. It first considers why this has become problematic and identifies some common strategies used by advocates, sometimes under the guise of scholarship, to destroy the standing of research findings contrary to their ideological or political position. Then it discusses briefly the remedies proposed to mitigate these kinds of problems within the following three articles.     

COMMENTARY ON TIPPINS AND WITTMANN'S "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Although in substantial agreement with Tippins and Wittmann's analysis, their call for a moratorium on the practice of custody evaluators making recommendations to the court does not solve the many problems that they have raised, and may have unintended consequences which place families at even greater risk. This commentary reflects our agreement with some of the authors' major points of contention, focuses on several points of disagreement, and suggests alternative remedies for the shortcomings and ethical problems described in child custody evaluations.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

COMMENTARY ON KELLY AND JOHNSTON'S "THE ALIENATED CHILD: A REFORMULATION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME"

In a previous issue of this journal, Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston describe their reformulation of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Here, I present areas in which I agree with the authors and areas in which I disagree. Particular focus is placed on these PAS-related issues: the syndrome question, PAS versus parental alienation, the medical model, custodial transfer, gender bias, DSM-IV . empirical studies, and the misapplication of PAS.     

A COMMENT ON WILLIAM J. HOWE AND HUGH MCISAAC'S ARTICLE “FINDING THE BALANCE” PUBLISHED IN THE JANUARY 2008 ISSUE OF FAMILY COURT REVIEW

This article is a response to an article written by William Howe and Hugh McIsaac that questions their recommendations that court‐based mediation not be used when certain types of persons appear in court. We assert that it will be very difficult for the court to identify these people. Further, we argue that mediation practice has advanced so far that even these persons (those with serious issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health) should be given an opportunity to participate in mediation before being referred to the adversarial court process.     

REJOINDER TO GARDNER'S "COMMENTARY ON KELLY AND JOHNSTON'S 'THE ALIENATED CHILD: A REFORMULATION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME'"

In this reply to Richard Gardner, we outline our points of disagreement with his formulation of parental alienation syndrome (PAS), showing that his focus on the alienating parent as the primary cause of children's negative attitudes and rejecting behavior toward the other parent is overly simplistic and not supported by findings from recent empirical research. It follows that we strongly object to Gardner's recommendations for legal and mental health interventions with alienated children as well as the use of the term PAS when referring to this problem.     

FAMILY DEFINITIONS AND CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN CUSTODY DECISION MAKING: THE IMPORTANCE OF A CHANGING LITIGANT CONTEXT

Recent scholarship has advocated two distinct approaches to promoting the preservation of children's attachment relationships during custody disputes between their biological and nonbiological parents. Some scholars argue that legal recognition of expansive definitions of the family is the key to protecting children's attachments, while others argue that such protection is contingent upon legal recognition of children's rights. This research examines the efficacy of these competing arguments through an analysis of 75 cases decided in 21 states and the District of Columbia between 2004 and 2005. Findings suggest that judicial attention to definitions of the family is generally confined to cases involving specific types of litigants; namely, former homosexual partners, couples who utilized fertility technologies, former stepparents, and presumptive fathers. In these instances, attention to broad conceptions of the family is associated with the maintenance of children's attachment relationships. Beyond this particular context, however, judges focus almost exclusively on balancing children's interests and rights against those of their biological parents. These findings suggest that both children's rights and family definitions influence judicial decisions, but their impact is context specific. For those scholars advocating legal change, this is an important insight because it shifts the debate from an “either/or” focus to one that recognizes the importance of the litigant context in custody decision making.     

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.     

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE SUITABILITY AND LIMITATIONS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS IN FAMILY COURT

Psychologists are frequently consulted by the courts to provide forensic evaluations in a variety of family court proceedings. As part of their evaluations, psychologists often use psychological tests to assess parents, guardians, and children. These tests can have profound effects on how psychologists arrive at their opinions and are often cited in their reports to the court. However, psychological tests vary substantially in their suitability for these purposes. Most projective tests in particular appear to possess little scientific merit for evaluations within family court proceedings. Despite these serious limitations, expert testimony derived from evaluations using both projective and objective tests is often admitted uncontested. This article reviews the psychometric properties of psychological tests that are widely used in family court proceedings, cautions against their unfettered use, and calls upon attorneys to inform themselves of the limitations of evaluations that incorporate these tests.     

HELPING ALIENATED CHILDREN WITH FAMILY BRIDGES: PRACTICE, RESEARCH, AND THE PURSUIT OF "HUMBITION"

This article briefly summarizes and responds to feedback offered by Joan Kelly regarding Family Bridges: A Workshop for Troubled and Alienated Parent–Child Relationships™. We emphasize principles that promote an educational atmosphere, as opposed to a therapeutic one, and the court's role in contributing to successful interventions with severely alienated children. Among the considerations discussed are: working with favored parents, economic comparisons of Family Bridges with counseling approaches, modifying the program for use in prevention and with milder cases of alienation, and issues related to training additional team leaders and conducting outcome research.     

A BETTER BEGINNING: FAMILY LAW IN THE FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL

The American Bar Association's Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar's Standards Review Committee has focused law schools' efforts to modify their curriculum with an appeal to focus on outcomes and assessments. A cornerstone of the outcomes and assessments discussion is skills training. The committee's call for more skills training has prompted family law faculty to consider innovative methods to bring that training into substantive courses or to bring the substantive curriculum into a skills course. This essay discusses how law faculty are incorporating family law doctrines into first‐year legal research and writing courses.     

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS: APPLICATIONS TO CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME CASES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA

A program to apply Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), a confidential, settlement‐oriented and accelerated alternative dispute resolution technique, to child custody and parenting time cases has been cooperatively developed by Hennepin county Family Court Services and the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Family Court. Parties are referred by the court to a male/female team of experienced neutral evaluators for early feedback on the probable outcome of a full evaluation and an opportunity to negotiate a settlement. It has proven to be a highly successful program in its first 2 years, with the majority of cases reaching an early settlement. The ENE program reduces the stress and expense of custody disputes for clients, expedites judicial case management, maximizes Family Court Services staff efficiency, and focuses subsequent evaluations on critical issues.     

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.     

GUEST EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE ON ATTACHMENT THEORY,SEPARATION, AND DIVORCE: FORGING COHERENT UNDERSTANDINGS FOR FAMILY LAW

Every day in family law courts and mediation rooms across the world, complex decisions are made about postseparation parenting that affect the developmental outcomes of countless children. Attorneys, judges, parents, and even mental health professionals are often poorly equipped to accurately apply developmental knowledge to these decisions, including knowledge from the vast field of attachment theory. A mounting body of research from developmental psychology and neuroscience confirms attachment relationships to be a central axis of the child's developmental pathway, in every family, in every culture throughout the world. The health of a child's attachments can influence multiple and far‐reaching outcomes. As such, attachment theory and knowledge deserve a place in the family court's deliberations and planning for children, but to date, that place remains ill defined. Inconsistencies and misunderstandings, conundrums and complexities of applying attachment knowledge to divorce and separation matters are evident throughout the field. This Special Issue went in search of a shared praxis of meaning about attachment. The resulting collection of papers and interviews documents the views of multiple, eminent attachment experts, who discuss advances in the theory and consider guidelines for legal and mental health practitioners in applying attachment concepts to post‐separation decision making. This opening paper charts the course of this project and summarizes the major points of convergence.     

OVERCOMING BARRIERS FAMILY CAMP:A PROGRAM FOR HIGH‐CONFLICT DIVORCED FAMILIES WHERE A CHILD1 IS RESISTING CONTACT WITH A PARENT

Overcoming Barriers Family Camp is an innovative program designed to treat separating and divorced families where a child is resisting contact or totally rejecting a parent. Both parents, significant others, and children participate in a 5‐day family camp experience that combines psycho‐education and clinical intervention in a safe, supportive milieu. This article describes the components of the program, from referrals to intake to aftercare. Evaluation immediately following the camp experience is provided for the camps that ran in 2008 and 2009, and 6‐month follow‐up interview information is provided for the 2008 camp program as well as 1‐month follow‐up about the initiation of aftercare with the 2009 families. A discussion of the strengths and challenges of this approach with entrenched, high‐conflict family systems concludes the article.     

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN EUROPEAN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: WHY ARE FAMILY PRACTICES SO DIFFERENT FROM LEGAL THEORIES?

Debates about child custody following parental separation often have been framed in terms of a battle between the competing rights of different family members. In the United States, advocates of mothers’ rights square off against proponents of fathers’ rights, with each side claiming to truly represent children's rights. Of course, not all advocates lay claim to children's rights in contact and custody disputes merely as a tactical maneuver. Some experts believe that children are entitled to (and benefit from) their own, independent legal advocate in custody cases. In theory, at least, the position that children lay claim to a third set of independent rights is strongly held in Europe, more strongly than in many U.S. states, because of the adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in Europe, but not in the United States. In this article, we examine children's rights in custody disputes from a European perspective, particularly children's legal right to contact with their parents, as well as the children's right to be heard in custody and contact disputes. We find that, despite differences in legal theory, tradition, and family demographics, European countries ultimately face a familiar reality: Custody and contact disputes are, in reality, more about renegotiating family relationships than they are a matter of a mother's, father's, or child's rights.