Associations between Parent and Child Reports Of Interparental Conflict/Violence And Child Difficulties in A Family Mediation Setting*

We examined the association between parents’ (N = 52 mothers and 52 fathers) and children's (N = 27) reports of interparental conflict and child difficulties in a family mediation setting. Parents’ reports of conflict were moderately associated with children's reports of exposure to parental conflict, but only fathers’ reports of conflict were associated with children's reports of negative responses to parent conflict. While mothers and fathers agreed on their child's difficulties, only mothers’, not fathers’, report of child difficulties were moderately related to child reports of child difficulties. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of conflict generally were not strongly associated with reports of child difficulties. In contrast to parent reports, children's reports of exposure to parents’ conflict were moderately and significantly related to self‐reported child difficulties and moderately related to parents’ reports of child academic difficulties. The magnitude of the association between the child's report of interparental conflict and self‐report of difficulties was stronger than the association between parent report of conflict and parent report of child difficulties, suggesting that parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parent conflict/violence or the problems their child is experiencing.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Family law stakeholders prioritize the creation of parenting arrangements that are in the best interest of the child; however, it is unclear how to gather information about the child and the child's perspective in order to inform such arrangements.
• The study results suggest that parents may not agree with each other or with the child about important family issues, such as parent conflict and child difficulties. For example, parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parental conflict/violence when in the midst of custody negotiations.
• More research is needed to determine the best method for gathering information about the child during custody proceedings. In the meantime, it is important to gather information from multiple sources and to consider the agreement and differences across such sources of information.

     

Relocation Issues in Child Custody Evaluations: A Survey of Professionals

We report on a sample of 90 child custody evaluators in the United States, who completed an online questionnaire on their attitudes and beliefs in child custody relocation cases. Findings indicated that the vast majority of participants relied on relevant professional literature and utilized a relocation risk assessment forensic model. Participants found many risk, protective, and specific relocation factors important, but the triad of past parental involvement, support for the other parent, and child's age were afforded the most importance. Participants also reported that the moving parents sought relocation for educational/vocational reasons, to receive support of their extended family, or to remarry, while the nonmoving party most commonly opposed relocation due to fears of interference/damage to the nonmoving parent–child relationship, restrictive gatekeeping, and alienation. A common trend among participants was concerns over the possible detrimental impact of any relocation on the nonmoving parent–child relationship and quality of co‐parenting. The vast majority of participants reported that they made specific recommendations to the court about relocation, and the court agreed with their recommendation the overwhelming majority of the time. We discuss Implications of the findings as well as areas needing further research.     

Socializing Distrust of the Justice System through the Family in Juvenile Delinquency Court

Juvenile delinquency courts in the United States generally require parents to attend all court hearings, but little is known about how parents' experiences in the court process affect their discussions of the justice system with their court‐involved children. Using multiperspectival and longitudinal data combining observations with interviews of parents and youth in two courts, this research finds that many parents discuss the legal process in negative terms with their children when parents are outside the presence of legal authorities. This research adds to the literature on legal socialization by examining how parents' perceptions of law and their experiences with the court become part of the socializing content provided by parents to their court‐involved children. Creating a more meaningful role for parents in the juvenile justice process may potentially lead to more positive discussions of the court process between parents and juvenile defendants.     

An Interdisciplinary Case Management Protocol for Child Resistance or Refusal Dynamics†

High‐conflict parental separation cases associated with child's estrangement or contact refusal take an unusually large amount of court time and generate high emotional costs for parents and children. This paper reports on a study of a research‐based pilot project and protocol, called the Parenting Conflict Resolution (PCR), which is intended to reduce parental conflict, improve interparental communication, and support or restore the parent–child relationship. The protocol was developed at the Superior Court in Quebec City (Canada), and involves single judge case management, and lawyers' commitment to have the child's best interests as their primary consideration and to guide their clients to trust the process. The assigned judge and lawyers have the ongoing involvement of a mandated psychotherapist, taking a family systems approach with the case. The PCR also requires the parents to participate in a psycho‐educational, introspective group program to work on co‐parenting and communication skills. Ongoing communication between the professionals involved in the PCR is required to ensure cohesion and accountability. This pilot project was implemented with 10 high‐conflict families, 6 of which presented with the child's resistance or refusal to see one parent. A qualitative data study was undertaken into the experiences of all the participants. The most salient result is the resumption of parent–child contact in all six contact refusal cases. Discussion highlights key elements to successfully address these cases: (a) interdisciplinary program delivery, (b) systemic understanding of the contact problems, (c) focus on the child's best interest, (d) single judge assigned to the case, (e) lawyers' support of the parents' participation, and (f) psychotherapist reporting to the court.     

Social Control and Emancipation ? Ambiguities in Child Welfare

Child welfare may be regarded either as a tool used by the authorities to exercise social control over family life, or as a weapon supporting the cause of children, striving to emancipate them from both parental and societal neglect or oppression. Research into Norwegian child welfare in the period since the Second World War reveals an ambiguous picture: the intervention of the state into family life signals both tightening social control of all family members and emancipation of the less powerful from patriarchal rule. As the rights and needs of children are considered more important, the control of parents, especially the mother, is increased. The central position of children and their interests have been strengthened in child welfare legislation. However, it is not the child, but the child welfare officials who define what is 'in the best interest of the child'. Post-war development has not granted children autonomy. Child welfare legislation is still mainly paternalistic. In child welfare casework, there is a danger that the lived experience of the child never emerges from the shadows cast by the interaction between adults. In relation to older children who came in contact with child welfare primarily because of their own problem behaviour, the ambiguity of emancipation and control has taken a somewhat different shape. The authorities wanted to keep these children out of prison. Humanitarian considerations, however, have been coupled with hopes of more effective crime prevention. In the postwar years, misbehaving children were also embraced by the increasing importance of 'the best interest of the child' as the main objective in child welfare decisions. In order to secure both emancipation and control, 'the best interest of the child' and the state's interest in preventing crime had to be understood as one and the same.     

Raised By a Predator: Sex Offender Parents and an Effort To Keep Them Out of the Child's Home

Registered sex offenders are obligated to comply with rules put forth by their state's registry. While there are stringent guidelines regarding the offender's interaction with the public, a sex offender's ability to obtain custody of their child is less rigid. Statutes differ on the level of scrutiny referencing their right to parent, which leaves an opening for offenders to abuse their child. This Note proposes the adoption of a model statute in which registered Tier III sex offender parents who were convicted for a crime involving a minor are precluded from gaining physical or legal custody of their child.     

Legal Capacity at a Crossroad: Mental Disability and Family Law

In this introductory essay to the Special Issue, I argue that both family law and disability rights law scholars should examine a key point of intersection across areas: legal capacity or the law's recognition of the rights and responsibilities of an individual. For example, parental termination proceedings center on parental fitness and functional capabilities. I contextualize the articles in the Special Issue by Leslie Francis and Robyn Powell on the role of reasonable accommodations for parents with disabilities in parental termination proceedings. In addition, I call upon legal scholars, family law courts, and practitioners to reimagine governing legal standards in family law according to principles of universal design to shift the baseline capabilities associated with parenting and parental fitness.     

Undocumented consciousness: Citizenship and illegality in the lives of US citizen youth

This paper examines the impact of immigration law on US citizens' understanding of legal status categories. Prior research on legal consciousness has uncovered the ways in which undocumented persons make sense of and navigate their legal position in society. Less is known, however, about the paradox of US citizen children who are legally protected by their citizenship yet grow up in the context of their parents' precarious immigration statuses. Drawing on interviews with US citizen youth and undocumented parents, I conceptualize the phenomenon of undocumented consciousness to explain how US citizens make sense of parental legal status vulnerability. By witnessing their parents' blocked opportunities from work, travel, and other aspects of life, youth begin to attach meaning to citizenship and its protections, all the while forming an understanding of what it means, practically, to live in the United States with and without legal status. Findings reveal the mechanisms by which it is possible for functions of immigration law to have adverse impacts on the lives of US citizens themselves.     

Evaluation of Topics in Utah's ONE‐HOUR Divorce Education Program

Divorce education programs are mandatory in most states. Despite the ongoing debate in the field regarding the appropriate duration of these programs, the goal of the current study was to identify the following five content areas in divorce education that may be most relevant for predicting favorable outcomes: (1) impact of divorce on children, (2) impact of divorce on family relationships, (3) financial responsibilities of divorcing parents for children, (4) benefits of positive coparenting, and (5) impact of domestic violence on children and family relationships. Using divorcing parents' self‐reported data (N = 3,275) from a one‐hour online divorce education program in Utah, we examined participants' post‐divorce intentions to treat each other respectfully, especially in front of the child(ren), and engage in positive coparental practices. The results showed that the program was effective in obtaining these objectives. We discuss these findings in depth and offer suggestions for future programs.     

New York State of Mind: Parental Incarceration and Children's Visitation in New York State

The incarceration of a parent has a variety of negative effects on a child's psychological, academic, and developmental success. Children can end up in foster care as a result of the state terminating parental rights due to the parent's incarceration. Despite imprisonment of their parent(s), maintenance of visitation with the parent(s) is still important for their children. However, not all prisons have visitation programs that are suitable to visiting children. This Note proposes a model state statute that will recognize the importance of visitation, implement “child friendly” visitation programs, facilitate training for prison staff, and provide transportation for children in major cities to the prison facilities.     

Threats to Perceptions of Fairness in the Termination of Parental Rights

Termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings are among the most important family court activities. This study contributes to knowledge of the TPR process by illustrating practices employed in TPR proceedings and considering ways that certain practices can hinder perceptions of fairness. TPR court records from one state were analyzed using inductive coding procedures. The analysis identified nine categories of threats to perceptions of fairness in the TPR process. Findings have implications for procedural justice and the legitimacy of child welfare practice.     

Child Protection Law as an Independent Variable

Child protection professionals work in a multidisciplinary system in which the law and the family court play central roles and which collects an increasing amount of data. Yet we know little about what impact the law has on whether a child is removed by child protective services, is deemed neglected by a family court, or reunifies with a parent. Do state‐to‐state variations in child protection laws, or changes by individual states to their laws, lead to different outcomes for children and families? The dramatic variations in child welfare practice from one state to another suggest that legal variations do matter. Yet empirical research on these questions is scarce both because we collect too little data to measure all such issues, and, because we have failed to study the data we do have. This article is a plea for researchers to rectify that problem and for policymakers to improve data collection. Doing so would facilitate a more clear understanding of the law's effect on child protection outcomes and aid policymakers and advocates in identifying both promising and problematic practices and legal reforms.     

From Helping Court to Community‐Based Services: The 30‐Year Evolution of Australia's Family Relationship Centres

As a centrepiece of Australia's 2006 family law reforms, the community‐based Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) represented a major development in the Government's commitment to incorporate family relationship services into its family law system. This paper sees FRCs as a logical development of the original conceptualising the Family Court of Australia as a “helping court”. The paper suggests that the aspiration to create a helping court was partially achieved in 1976 via the creation of an in‐house family court counselling service, which was primarily focused not on law and legal principles, but on supporting the ways in which family members were managing the task of redefining relationships. While generally valued by judges and others, this service nonetheless found itself in tension with the Family Court's continued primary commitment to legally informed and adversarially driven negotiation and decision‐making processes. Since 2006, the creation of FRCs has spearheaded a family law system that provides relationship‐focused interventions away from the courts as the default option for most parenting disputes. Consistent with this aim, there is evidence of a diminished percentage of cases now requiring judicial intervention. The 2006 legislation also provides for courts to conduct “less adversarial trials.” Paradoxically, this has occurred alongside unequivocal evidence from the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ evaluation data that judicial officers are dealing mainly with families displaying seriously dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours. The legal challenge in dealing with these cases is for courts to provide child focused, fair and non‐destructive internal processes. In addition, however, it is increasingly clear that to support and help facilitate their decisions, courts also need good working relationships with FRCs and other community based services. FRCs and the 2006 reforms offer the possibility of moving beyond the ideal of a “helping court” to the broader concept of helping family law system.     

Child Welfare Workers and Michigan's Family Court Legislation: The Relationship Between Policy and Practice

Michigan created a family court in 1998, combining in a single court jurisdiction over most family law cases. This study examines the child welfare workers' role in creating the family court, the family court's impact on child welfare workers' practice, and child welfare workers' efforts to educate other professionals on the potential benefits of the family court system. This study found that child welfare workers were not actively involved in the creation of the family court and have not aggressively sought to educate other professionals regarding the family court's potential. Further, though child welfare workers' reception of the family court has largely been positive (or at least neutral), child welfare workers must take greater advantage of the family court system to improve the effectiveness of their practice.     

Unintended and Unavoidable: The Failure to Protect Rule and Its Consequences for Undocumented Parents and Their Children

Parents without immigration status in the United States regularly face the threat of deportation and separation from their children. When an undocumented parent is brought to the attention of law enforcement through the child welfare system, they also face the potential of the loss of legal custodial rights to their children. The child welfare system and immigration enforcement mechanisms operate independent of one another with little regard for how actions in one can impact a parent's legal rights in the other, often permanently separating children from their parents. This article examines the particular issue of undocumented parents who are charged with the failure to protect their children from witnessing or otherwise experiencing abuse committed by a third party. It explores how such a charge, whether founded or unfounded, can result in loss of eligibility for immigration relief to which the undocumented parent would otherwise be entitled, as well as deportation of the parent and permanent separation of parent and child. These issues are situated within the larger context of the normative guideposts of both family and immigration law, namely, the best interests of the child and family unity. It identifies issues for further academic inquiry as well as tips for practitioners who may represent undocumented parents in either the family or immigration systems.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Learn about the potential consequences under family law and immigration law when an undocumented parent's child is abused by a third party
• Gain strategies for planning with undocumented parents to avoid the loss of the custody of their children in the event of a sudden deportation
• Be able to identify and address particular concerns for clients who are undocumented victims of domestic violence

     

Addressing Infant and Toddler Issues in the Juvenile Court: Challenges for the 21st Century

To achieve the goal of permanency for children in the child welfare system, it is critical that different disciplines work together, improve communication, and understand each other's role and expertise in the process. Through a case study, this article attempts to show the problems, conflicts, and solutions in working to ensure a child's best interests from three points of view: a children's attorney from New York City, a judge from Miami, Florida, and an infant mental health specialist and interdisciplinary trainer from Los Angeles. First, we propose that emotional caregiving is a fundamental right of all children and includes a stable, nurturing, and permanent long‐term relationship. Conflicts between the timing of children's needs, parents' needs, and the judge's legal duties are discussed as a tension with which we all must struggle to resolve if we are to successfully address children's “irreducible needs” (Brazelton & Greenspan, 2000). If the provision of custodial care shifts toward including emotional care as a goal for the growing number of infants entering the foster care system, the ensuing conflicts will provide opportunities for all parts of the foster care system—including the courts—to rethink how infants' needs are evaluated and factored into decision making.     

Surrogacy,Identity, Parentage and Childrenʼs Rights – Through the Eyes of a Child

In this article I will focus on two important aspects of children's rights which are impacted by artificial reproductive technology (particularly surrogacy); being the rights to identity and the rights to legal parentage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the importance of a child's right to identity, to be protected from discrimination on the basis of the status or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members. For many children born through surrogacy arrangements, they may have only one or no legally recognized parent. The adults caring for them may have parental responsibility orders but this falls well short of providing children with the benefits and protections that legal parentage does. The issue of identity can be complex. Increasingly, states have recognized the importance of children knowing the circumstances of their birth and being able to access biological and genetic information including medical information. From a child's perspective the issues of identity and parenthood are intertwined. Given the importance of identity, more needs to be done to ensure that identifying information about children born as a result of artificial reproductive technology is properly stored and readily accessible for these children. Denying a child legal parentage when there are no concerns about the care being provided by their parents cannot be justified when considered from a children's rights perspective.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.

     

Risk Factor Models for Adolescent Verbal and Physical Aggression Toward Fathers

Using a French-Canadian population-based longitudinal data set, we examine the impact of socioeconomic factors (paternal education and family structure); inherent individual factors (child gender and developmental trajectories of physical aggression from early to later childhood, problematic substance use), family environment (concurrent parent-child involvement, parental problematic substance use), and prospective and concurrent parenting process variables (mean parental supervision at puberty, concurrent punishment practices) as predictors of adolescent-directed aggression against fathers (in the last 6 months). A childhood behavioral pattern characterized by physical aggression showed the highest risk of adolescent-directed verbal and physical aggression toward fathers, regardless of sex. In terms of parental practices, verbal (and not corporal) punishment in the last 6 months significantly predicted aggression toward fathers. A childhood life-course of violence is likely to culminate in aggression toward fathers during adolescence. Beyond this risk, it seems that harsh verbal punishment by parents builds up the odds of child-directed aggression against fathers.