THE SELF‐REPRESENTED LITIGANT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BENCH AND BAR

It is widely accepted that the number of self‐represented litigants has skyrocketed nationwide, especially in family law cases. Although nationwide comprehensive data on the number of self‐represented litigants do not exist, anecdotal evidence supports the belief that self‐representation is increasing. The challenge for courts and the entire legal profession is how to respond. Most observers in Indiana would agree that the traditional model of family law litigation—both spouses represented by lawyers settling their disputes before a judge—is no longer the norm in family law cases. Judges face a dilemma: assisting a self‐represented litigant to level the playing field against a represented party is seen by many as violating impartiality, even if the assistance is rendered to create a just result. In an effort to address the situation, the Indiana Supreme Court created the Pro Se Advisory Committee in April 2001. This article explores the long‐range implications of the issue of self‐represented litigants on Indiana's court system in hope that it will provide some insight for other jurisdictions. The first part of the article addresses the numbers of self‐represented litigants by tracking growth or declines in self‐represented cases and assessing whether there are any pockets of self‐represented litigants geographically or in certain case types. The second part of the article puts Indiana into context with the rest of the nation and reviews national trends. The third section reviews Indiana's response to self‐represented litigants over the last decade. The fourth section reviews current and ongoing projects in Indiana. The article concludes that the issue of self‐represented litigants will not fade away and that the challenge that guides the legal profession is how we provide equal access to justice for all who enter our courthouses.     

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.     

ON BEING A CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATOR: PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CHALLENGES,RISKS, AND REWARDS

Conducting child custody evaluations is one of the most complex, challenging, and sometimes risky professional endeavors that a mental health professional can perform. This article examines the professional and personal challenges which may be encountered by the evaluator. In addition to discussing the role requirements and need to maintain awareness of bias and countertransference, challenges such as coping with state board or ethics complaints and possible risks to personal safety are also addressed. Suggestions for risk management and coping with the demands of these assessments are offered, as well as the benefits and rewards of engaging in this important work.     

LEGAL USE OF MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS

The authors examine the use of mental health evaluations in legal decision making within a large, urban juvenile court system. The focus was on court files in child protection cases relating to 171 randomly selected mental health evaluations completed on parents and 44 evaluations completed on children. Parent evaluations (46.7%) were much more likely to be present in court files than child evaluations (5.9%), and evaluations conducted by in-house court clinicians (63.8%) were more often present than those conducted by noncourt clinicians (37.5%). References to evaluations in child welfare, legal, or mental health documents varied with the type of information, subject (parent or child), and source of the evaluation. Findings and/or recommendations of evaluations were cited in legal or mental health documents for approximately two thirds of parent evaluations but only one third of child evaluations. Evaluation findings and/or recommendations were stated as a basis for legal decisions in 36.2% of court-based parent evaluations, 21.0% of noncourt-based parent evaluations, and 2.3% of child evaluations. These results provide evidence of a modest impact of parent evaluations on legal decisions and notably less impact for child evaluations. The authors suggest directions for future research and practice in order to increase the accessibility and usefulness of clinical evaluations in legal decision making.     

Improving Decision Making in Forensic Child Sexual Abuse Evaluations

Mental health professionals can assist legal decision makers in cases of allegations of child sexual abuse by collecting data using forensic interviews, psychological testing, and record reviews, and by summarizing relevant findings from social science research. Significant controversy surrounds another key task performed by mental health professionals in most child sexual abuse evaluations, i.e., deciding whether or not to substantiate unconfirmed abuse allegations. The available evidence indicates that, on the whole, these substantiation decisions currently lack adequate psychometric reliability and validity: an analysis of empirical research findings leads to the conclusion that at least 24% of all of these decisions are either false positive or false negative errors. Surprisingly, a reanalysis of existing research also indicates that it may be possible to develop reliable, objective procedures to improve the consistency and quality of decision making in this domain. A preliminary, empirically-grounded procedure for making substantiation decisions is proposed.     

Parent–child contact problems and family intensive interventions: The crisis of adolescent suicidality and the role of social media

Although clinicians, educators and parents have been alarmed by the decline in the mental health of children and adolescents commensurate with the Covid-19 pandemic, statistics indicate there has been a downward spiral over the last decade. This has been evident in the overall increase in suicide rates for young people. For legal and mental health professionals working in the Family Court system, this has provided unique challenges. Most vulnerable has been those children and adolescents embroiled in high conflict divorces, especially those exhibiting parent child contact problems. This article focuses upon that population exhibiting parent child contact problems, and their treatment, specifically Family Intensive Intervention. Building Family Resilience is an Intensive family treatment program that has had to address this deterioration in child and adolescent mental health and increase in suicidality. The role of social media in both exacerbating and/or ameliorating mental health issues is explored.     

PROTECTING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN CONTACT DISPUTES: THE ROLE OF CHILDREN'S CONTACT SERVICES IN AUSTRALIA*

This article explores the role of Children's Contact Services (CCSs) in protecting children's right to express, and have heard, their wishes in contact disputes. The findings presented are drawn from the Australian Children's Contact Services Project and were based on 142 interviews with representatives from the government, the courts and legal profession who refer families to CCSs, service staff, as well as the parents and children who use the services. An analysis of client data from 396 families who had used one of six contact services in Victoria and Queensland during the month of August 2003 was also conducted. The findings suggested that CCSs successfully engaged children in a “dynamic self‐deterministic” process where children were able to explore their own wishes in relation to contact visits over time as their relationship goals changed. John Eekelaar described this process as being central to making decisions that are in children's best interests.