Children Resisting Contact with a Parent Due to Abuse,Alienation, or Other Causes: Can a Proactive Role for Lawyers Contribute to Better Outcomes?

Lawyers have a significant role to play in cases where children are resisting contact with a parent, or the family appears to be going down that path, in the context of parental alienation, family violence or other factors. These cases pose great challenges for lawyers dealing with parents, as their clients are often anxiety‐ridden, angry, scared, and may have difficulty focussing on the long‐term interests of their children or themselves. A lawyer may be one of the first professionals encountered by the parents; lawyers for parents are advocates, but they are also in a position to provide wise counsel, to help triage the situation, provide practical advice, and early, helpful solutions. This article sets out practical suggestions for lawyers acting for parents. What can and should lawyers do to ensure they are part of the solution, not part of the problem? Lawyers need to be able to identify the potential problems and provide practical help to the family – whether they are acting for the “preferred” parent, the “rejected” parent, or the involved children.     

The State of the Art of Child Hearings in Germany. Results of a Nationwide Representative Study in German Courts

According to German family law, in family court proceedings that deal with custody or access rights, family judges are obligated to personally hear the child if the feelings, ties, or will of the child are significant for the decision. In a research study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice, a nationwide representative survey of all judges compiled their personal information and their attitudes and expectations as well as various parameters regarding the concrete practice of hearing children. Also, with a very complex methodological design, over 50 children and their parents were studied one week in advance of the hearing, directly before and after the hearing, and four weeks following the hearing. The results of the study are presented, particularly those pertaining to the burden and relief for the children and the expectations of judges. The practical experiences of family judges in personally hearing children are included as well.     

Theoretical foundation for a debtor friendly bankruptcy law in favour of creditors

Although many works support creditor friendly bankruptcy laws, an evolution towards debtor friendly systems is at work. This paper proposes a theoretical ground to meet this paradox. It reconsiders the economic role of bankruptcy law by stressing on the courts’ production of information. It reveals that the transmission of a lenient signal by judges makes it possible to reduce the hazard that bad risks seek to avoid going on trial. Thus, it shows that debtor friendly bankruptcy laws are not systematically opposed to creditors’ interests. They reduce the risk of the economy and contribute to the improvement of the global efficiency.      

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

In recent years, there has been much discussion within international fora about the need for a greater consensus on how to approach relocation cases. Empirical research on the lived experience of parents and children who have been through relocation disputes has an important role to play in providing an evidence base for decisions on policy. In this article, we summarize the findings of a 5‐year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia and make recommendations in the light of this and other research evidence concerning a new approach to relocation law. We argue that there should be no presumptions. Nonetheless there is an appropriate place for legislative or appellate guidance on how to approach these disputes. “Good faith” should be irrelevant to decision making, and children should not be placed in the center of the conflict. The adjudication of relocation disputes should be on the basis of asking three questions: First, how close is the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child and how important is that relationship developmentally to the child? Second, if the relocation is to be permitted, how viable are the proposals for contact with the nonresident parent? Third, if the relationship between the child and the nonresident parent is developmentally important to the child and is likely to be diminished if the move is allowed, then (a) what are the viable alternatives to the parents living a long distance apart? and (b) is a move with the primary caregiver the least detrimental alternative?

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Describes the findings of empirical research on relocation disputes in Australia on the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes.
• Reviews various features of relocation law and proposals for reform in the light of this research evidence.
• Proposes an approach to deciding relocation cases based upon three essential questions.

     

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.     

Helping Families by Maintaining a Strong Well‐Funded Family Court that Encourages Consensual Peacemaking: A Judicial Perspective

This article explores alternatives for the court process that promote a child‐centered approach to resolution of family law issues including a summary of procedures used in Los Angeles County to assist families. The article also explores alternatives to the traditional custody litigation model.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Evaluations and trials are not the only tools available in family law.
• Structured court ordered counseling can provide a meaningful intervention and reduce family conflict.
• Alternative forms of mediation can help families address the “need to be heard” and retain personal autonomy in decision making.
• The court system should help educate families about how to resolve conflict in a safe, effective, and meaningful way.