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.     

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.     

CHILDREN'S AND PARENTS’ PERCEPTIONS ON CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING AFTER PARENTAL SEPARATION AND DIVORCE*

This article outlines the views of children and parents involved in family law disputes, about the need for and appropriateness of children's participation in decisions regarding residence and contact arrangements. Ninety parents and 47 children (ranging in age from 6 to 18 years) who had been through parental separation, were interviewed. Both parents and children had a range of views about the general appropriateness and fairness of children being involved, but the great majority, particularly of parents, thought that children should have a say in these matters. Core findings of the study include the considerable influence that older children had over the arrangements either in the aftermath of the separation or in making further changes over time, and the higher stated need of children who had experienced violence, abuse, or high levels of conflict to be heard than those in less problematic and noncontested matters. Parents involved in contested proceedings supported the participation of children at a younger age than those who were not. There was a reasonable degree of agreement between parents and children about the need for children to be acknowledged and the value of their views being heard in the decision‐making process. Parents, however, expressed concern about the pressure and manipulation that children can face and exert in this process, whereas children were generally more concerned about the fairness of the outcomes, and maintaining their relationships with their parents and siblings.     

UNDERSTANDING CHILDREN'S RIGHTS: THEORY AND PRACTICE

This article discusses the meaning of children's rights in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Both place primary responsibility for the upbringing and education of children on their parents and families. The freedom of parents to bring up their children in their own way is an important component of a liberal democracy founded on respect for individual differences. So if parents believe in moderate corporal punishment as a means of educating their children in their own religious beliefs, is the state justified in banning such punishment either in school or in the home in order to protect the children's rights? This article discusses the children's rights which are protected by doing so.     

CHILDREN,THE UNCRC,AND FAMILY LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES

There is no doubt that, overall, there has been a great deal of activity in relation to children's rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) since it was ratified by the UK government in 1991. Of particular significance in the context of family law, however, are the provisions of Article 12, which have in many ways proved to be more problematic than other provisions, not least because, in the context of family law, children's participation rights are necessarily juxtaposed with the long‐standing and hitherto unchallenged rights of parents to make important decisions about family life. The reorganisation in 2001 of the family court welfare services in England and Wales with the creation of the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), generated a new impetus for the consideration of children's participation rights and, at an organizational level, considerable progress has been made in embracing the provisions of the UNCRC. More problematic, however, is the acceptance of children's participation in making decisions about their futures by adults using and working in the family justice system. At the level of the courts, judicial attitudes are slow to change and in England, as court judgments often demonstrate, these are firmly rooted in a view of children as being incompetent in such issues; at the level of parents using the system, it is arguable that new discourses about the best interests of the child serve as a proxy for continuing discourses about parents’ rights that have become evident, most recently, in the context of an increasingly influential fathers’ rights lobby; and at the level of welfare practitioners, recent research also demonstrates that, although the rhetoric of children's rights is widely accepted, the willingness and ability to make these real in the context of family proceedings is, for a variety of reasons, less in evidence.     

PARTNERS IN THE PROCESS: HOW ATTORNEYS PREPARE THEIR CLIENTS FOR CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND LITIGATION

We surveyed 113 family attorneys regarding what they did to prepare their clients for child custody evaluations and litigation. Findings revealed that participants saw child custody evaluations as useful on a variety of levels and effective in settling cases. In general, participants reported using professionally acceptable procedures, appropriately advocated for their clients, and dealt with complaints in a reasonable fashion. Referrals to mental health professionals in advance of a child custody evaluation were generally made to provide support rather than for evaluation or test preparation. Work product reviews by mental health consultants were infrequent, although such reviews were seen as highly useful by those who used them. Lastly, participants reported that allegations of parental alienation and domestic violence were often used to gain leverage in custody cases. Implications for practice are discussed for both attorneys and evaluators.     

CRITIQUE OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION

This study explored the congruency between child custody evaluations and the needs of the legal profession. One hundred twenty-one judges and attorneys were surveyed. In general, both groups expressed similar attitudes and beliefs. Findings indicated that court-ordered evaluations were most useful, and objectivity was paramount. Judges and attorneys also expressed a need for improvements in child custody reports, particularly greater child focus, provision of custody and visitation recommendations, discussion of legal criteria, and timely completion of evaluations. It is hoped that the findings will inform professional practice and help evaluators better serve the needs of the family court.     

THE ELUSIVE PURSUIT OF SOLOMON: FALTERING STEPS TOWARD THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

This article provides a brief critique of presumptions about parenting and children seen through the lens of family law. It argues that, historically, decisions largely followed gender‐based and/or moral presumptions of the day and that sometimes these were in tension with each other. Sometimes, too, as in the biblical story of Solomon's judgment, biological parenthood was contested and/or gender did not provide a ready answer. The article argues that, as children's rights and the best interests of the child increasingly came to dominate the decision‐making rhetoric, a Solomon‐like belief has nonetheless persisted, that judicial ingenuity and sophisticated investigative resources can determine the underlying truth of a dispute and lead to the correct outcome. The evidence, however, points in the direction of significant predictive limitations to the legal, social, and psychological knowledge bases supporting most postseparation parenting decisions. It is argued that what is needed is a formal shift in emphasis from a somewhat idealized commitment to discovering the truth in most contested cases to a focus on good decision‐making processes. It is suggested that most transitional families are best served by an emphasis on good, respectful processes associated with good‐enough decisions that formally acknowledge the limitations of our capacity to predict. Good processes and good‐enough decisions are in turn best supported by a clear emphasis on children as individual agents, who, though dependent on adults, are entitled to the full panoply of human rights.     

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.     

REFLECTIONS ON THE STATE OF CONSENSUS-BASED DECISION MAKING IN CHILD WELFARE

Consensus approaches to child protection decision making such as mediation and family group conferencing have become increasingly widespread since first initiated about 25 years ago. They address but are also constrained by paradoxes in the child protection system about commitments to protecting children and to family autonomy. In a series of surveys, interviews, and dialogues, mediation and conferencing researchers and practitioners discussed the key issues that face their work: clarity about purpose, system support, family empowerment, professional qualifications, and coordination among different types of consensus-building efforts. Consensus-based decision making in child protection will continue to expand and grow but will also continue to confront these challenges.     

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.     

THE FIFTH WORLD CONGRESS ON FAMILY LAW AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Editor's note on the 5^th World Congress on Family Law and Children's Rights held in Halifax Nova Scotia, August 23–26, 2009     

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.     

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The Child Abduction Convention, an international treaty, protects custody rights internationally among its member states by providing a remedy of return in cases where a child was wrongfully removed in violation of a parent's custody right. There is no such remedy for the violation of a parent's access (or visitation) rights. A ne exeat clause in a child custody agreement restrains a custodial parent from removing a child from a predetermined jurisdiction (such as a particular country) and can be issued when there is a risk that the custodial parent might flee to another country with the child(ren). Currently there is a circuit split within the United States as to whether a ne exeat right coupled with the right of access should equal a protected custody right under the Convention. Most international courts protect the ne exeat right under the Convention; however some do not. A ne exeat right should convey a protected custody right for policy reasons. The beneficial implications of a ne exeat right creating a protected custody right under the Child Abduction Convention clearly outweigh the detriments. While there is no instant solution to the inconsistencies among various courts in interpreting the Child Abduction Conventions’ scope in regard to a ne exeat right, there are ways to resolve the problem. If consistency in judicial interpretation cannot be achieved, a movement needs to be initiated to create a protocol to the Child Abduction Convention to further explain the scope of custody rights and ne exeat rights under the Convention.     

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.     

EXTENDING COMITY TO FOREIGN DECREES IN INTERNATIONAL CUSTODY DISPUTES BETWEEN PARENTS IN THE UNITED STATES AND ISLAMIC NATIONS

International custody disputes involving parents and children from Islamic nations and the United States have yielded a spectrum of interpretation of Islamic Shari'a law and the best interests of the child. The lack of a determinative treaty between the United States and all but one Islamic nation has led to an inconsistency of criterion in determining whether to extend comity to a custody decree from a court of an Islamic nation. The domestic law statutes, which determine jurisdiction in these matters, have provisions for international application and recognition of foreign custody decrees. The recognition of custody decrees from the courts of Islamic nations is contingent upon the satisfying of procedural and substantive thresholds. Focusing on the substantive, the author opines that American courts have a responsibility to understand certain aspects of the law, culture, and religion of Islam in order to accurately determine if the threshold has been meet.     

THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE IN CONTEXT: EXPLORING THE MODERATING ROLES OF NEIGHBORHOOD DISADVANTAGE AND CULTURAL NORMS

Although the cycle of violence theory has received empirical support (Widom, 1989a, 1989b), in reality, not all victims of child physical abuse become involved in violence. Therefore, little is known regarding factors that may moderate the relationship between abuse and subsequent violence, particularly contextual circumstances. The current investigation used longitudinal data from 1,372 youth living in 79 neighborhoods who participated in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), and it employed a multivariate, multilevel Rasch model to explore the degree to which neighborhood disadvantage and cultural norms attenuate or strengthen the abuse–violence relationship. The results indicate that the effect of child physical abuse on violence was weaker in more disadvantaged communities. Neighborhood cultural norms regarding tolerance for youth delinquency and fighting among family and friends did not moderate the child abuse–violence relationship, but each had a direct effect on violence, such that residence in neighborhoods more tolerant of delinquency and fighting increased the propensity for violence. These results suggest that the cycle of violence may be contextualized by neighborhood structural and cultural conditions.     

MEDIATIVE EVALUATIONS: THE PROS AND PERILS OF BLENDING ROLES

Child custody evaluators with experience in mediation may be tempted to use mediation skills and strategies in their evaluation processes. This article explores the benefits and risks of blending mediation with evaluation, comparing the perspectives of professionals and clients.     

FATHERS AND CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF PARENTAL SEPARATION AND DIVORCE

Fathers' role in child abuse in the context of parental separation and divorce has been the subject of continuous stereotyping over the last several decades. This article examines the stereotypes projected against current research, particularly findings from a study of an experimental family court program designed for the better management of residence and contact disputes where child abuse allegations had been made. These findings are discussed in regard to similar studies internationally. While the two prevailing but opposing stereotypes of fathers' role in child abuse in this context were not confirmed by the research, aspects of the stereotypes regarding fathers' views and mothers' views of each other were supported. Problems associated with the paradoxical position of fathers as the most frequently alleged perpetrators of abuse, the most frequently substantiated perpetrators, and also the most frequently unsubstantiated perpetrators tend not to be fully addressed by the current court process for these disputes.