SHOULD PREMARITAL COUNSELING BE MANDATORY AS A REQUISITE TO OBTAINING A MARRIAGE LICENSE?

Despite the fundamental importance of marriage in forming the foundation of family and society, divorce in the United States has become a common occurrence with disruptive consequences immediately affecting the children, the family, and society at large. The state therefore has a strong and legitimate interest in strengthening marriage by mandating premarital counseling for all couples contemplating marriage. Premarital counseling is a program that offers the necessary guidance to assist couples in evaluating their readiness to enter marriage, and allows couples to enter marriage with greater understanding and certainty. As a result, mandatory premarital counseling will promote stability in the marital and family relationship and help to reduce marital discord.     

REVIEWS: IS IT SIMPLE TO BE A MARXIST IN LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY?1

Book reviewed in this article: Law and Economic Organization : A Comparative Study of Preindustrial Societies Marital Violence : The Community Response . By Margaret Borkowski , Mervyn Murch and Val Walker International Maritime Law Conventions . By Nagendra Singh F. E. Smith —First Earl of Birkenhead . By John Campbell     

RAISING THE BAR: WHY SUPERVISED VISITATION PROVIDERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET STANDARDS FOR SERVICE PROVISION

The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC) has provided a supervised visitation program (SVP) for high‐risk families for almost two decades. Parents needing supervised visitation often have histories of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, mental illness or substance abuse, therefore providers delivering services must be adequately trained and supervised in order to protect the child from further harm during the visitation process. This article describes the need for SVP's, parental issues warranting consideration, the special needs of children in these circumstances, policy recommendations for provider standards, and a certification process to be developed and adopted in New York State.     

WHO SHOULD GO AND WHO SHOULD STAY

The need for more efficient use of probation services is widely accepted. Indeed, many offenders are being incarcerated who might have been better served on probation. However, the percentage of incarcerated offenders who perhaps should have been retained in the community has been open to question The purpose of this study was to provide a bench mark as to the percentage of incarcerated offenders who might be better served on probation.     

COMPETITION POLICY WITH OPTIMALLY DIFFERENTIATED RULES INSTEAD OF "PER SE RULES VS RULE OF REASON"

Both in U.S. antitrust and EU competition policy, a developmentto a broader application of rule of reason instead of per serules can be observed. In the European discussion the attemptto base competition policy on a "more economic approach" ismainly viewed as improving the economic analysis in the assessmentof specific cases. In this paper it is shown from a generallaw and economics perspective that the application of rulesinstead of focussing on case-by-case analyses can have manyadvantages (lower regulation costs, rent-seeking, and knowledgeproblems), although an additional differentiation of rules througha deeper assessment can also have advantages in regard to thereduction of decision errors of type I and II. After introducingthe notion of a continuum of more or less differentiated rules,we show—based upon law and economics literature upon theoptimal complexity of rules—in a simple model that a competitionrule is optimally differentiated if the marginal reduction ofthe sum of error costs (as the marginal benefit of differentiation)equals the marginal costs of differentiation. This model alsoallows for a more detailed analysis of the most important determinantsof the optimal degree of rule-differentiation. From this lawand economics perspective, competition policy should consistmainly of (more or less differentiated) rules and should onlyrarely rely on case-by-case analysis. Therefore the main taskof a "more economic approach" is to use economics for the formulationof appropriate competition rules.     

LET'S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE: WHY THE FORENSIC INTERVIEWS OF CHILDREN IN CHILD PROTECTIVE CASES SHOULD BE VIDEO RECORDED*

Child sexual abuse is often difficult to prove due to a lack of physical evidence. In many instances, the only evidence is a child's statement given during a forensic interview. Forensic interviews are conducted to assess whether the child has been abused, to develop a plan to protect a child's safety pending trial, and to provide further investigative leads. Note taking by the interviewer is currently the primary method for documenting what takes place in a forensic interview. Research shows that this form of documentation is problematic because interviewers tend to omit abuse‐related details in their notes. This Note suggests that federal law should require that forensic interviews of children in child sexual abuse cases be video recorded. State law can provide for a policy of video recording even in the absence of a federal law mandate. Video recording would better preserve the child's statements thereby improving the reliability of the information that is obtained during forensic interviews. The child's demeanor would also be fully captured on video as opposed to getting lost in an interviewer's notes.     

JURISDICTION FRICTION AND THE FRUSTRATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION: WHY INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION CASES SHOULD BE HEARD EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL COURTS

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction confronts the growing problem of international parental child abduction by providing for the prompt return of the child to their home country. However, the legislation that implements the Hague Convention in the United States confers concurrent state and federal court jurisdiction for cases brought under the Treaty. This vast jurisdictional grant has contributed to delay in case resolution, inconsistent interpretation, and unresolved cases and has frustrated the original intent of the Hague Convention which seeks to expedite the child's return. At their core, Hague Convention proceedings are choice of forum cases in an international context and the Convention depends on reciprocity and respect for the rule of law among Contracting States. Consolidating Hague Convention proceedings within the federal system would encourage uniform interpretation of Treaty provisions and allow expertise to develop among judges. This will promote the interests of parent and child victims by facilitating the prompt return and eventual resolution of the underlying custody controversy while strengthening the effectiveness of performance under the Hague Convention.