DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND THE POSTDIVORCE FAMILY: IMPLICATIONS OF A PARADIGM SHIFT1

Over the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift in the way the legal system handles most family disputes—particularly disputes involving children. This paradigm shift has replaced the conventional model of adjudication with a more collaborative, interdisciplinary, and forward‐looking family dispute resolution regime. It has also transformed the practice of family law and fundamentally altered the way in which disputing families interact with the legal system. This essay examines the elements of this paradigm shift in family dispute resolution and explores the opportunities and challenges it offers for families, children, and the legal system.     

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.     

FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT: A FACULTY PERSPECTIVE

The Family Law Education Reform Project Report calls for shifting the family law teaching paradigm from a focus on case‐based analysis toward a problem‐solving, interdisciplinary approach. This essay encourages law professors to take seriously this shifting teaching and learning paradigm. Aligning family law curriculum with the realities of practicing family law is a critical step in this process. This essay discusses the numerous intellectual challenges family law professors will face as they reflect on the proposed FLER Project curriculum.     

Commentary on Interdisciplinary Teamwork in Family Law Practice

This commentary discusses and expands upon Mosten and Traumm's extraordinary work on interdisciplinary teams. Focusing on the continuum between independence and interdependence in team formation, we explore the benefits of team members' shared responsibility and highlight potential challenges. We emphasize that regardless of where a team may fall on the continuum, establishing and adhering to a strong structure results in increased practitioner satisfaction and better client outcomes. This commentary identifies five best practices that promote highly functioning teams and urges family law practitioners to seek more advanced interdisciplinary team training opportunities.     

HOFSTRA'S FAMILY LAW WITH SKILLS COURSE: IMPLEMENTING FLER (THE FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT)

The Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) Final Report documented that the current doctrinally oriented family law curriculum at most law schools does not adequately prepare students for modern family law practice. FLER recommended that law school courses move from the study of cases to the study of the legal system's effect on families, and integrate the study of alternative dispute resolution and interdisciplinary knowledge. In response, Hofstra Law School has made a comprehensive attempt to implement FLER's curricular recommendations. This article discusses one major innovation – the Family Law with Skills course. Family Law with Skills is the basic course in Hofstra's revised curriculum and is designed to integrate doctrinal teaching with professional skills development. In addition to studying legal doctrine, students are required to engage in structured field observation of family court proceedings; interviewing, counseling, negotiation, and mediation representation exercises in a divorce dispute; direct and cross examination of a social worker in a child protection dispute; and drafting of a surrogacy agreement. The article describes each exercise and discusses its rationale, student reaction to the course, and lessons learned.     

Family Relationship Centres: partnerships with Legal Assistance Services

In June 2009, the Commonwealth Attorney General in Australia announced a Family Relationship Centres/ Legal Assistance Partnerships Program, (the “Better Partnerships” program). Its aim was to assist separated or separating families, “by providing access to early and targeted legal information and advice when attending Family Relationship Centres” (McClelland, 2009). After contextualizing this significant shift in policy and practice, the present paper reports on largely positive key results of an evaluation of the program by the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The paper concludes with reflections on future challenges and possibilities regarding ongoing collaboration between Australia's legal and family relationship sectors.     

THE POTENTIAL OF THE FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT FOR FAMILY LAWYERS1

Family lawyers are major beneficiaries of the reforms set out in the Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) Report. This commentary from a veteran family law practitioner explores the needs of the family law bar for the training of law students in practical, interdisciplinary, client‐centered lawyering that goes beyond the traditional case method. I trace many of the current innovations evolving in family law practice and how FLER reforms will not only benefit law schools but also have a major impact in the courts and private practice sector.     

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on A Collaborative and Child‐Focused Approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (RCSDF) is a teaching model for providing interdisciplinary services to separating and divorcing families. The model was developed by the Honoring Families Initiative at the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. Services are provided by graduate and law students at the University of Denver, working side‐by‐side with a supervising licensed attorney, psychologist, and social worker. The experiential and interdisciplinary model of teaching and providing direct client services is the first of its kind in the United States. RCSDF students and staff seek to empower parents to make positive decisions about their family's future in a supportive and educational environment.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• The current system of preparing graduate and law students for careers in family law is in need of improvement. This article provides information for educators and the family law community about the impact of interdisciplinary and experiential learning for students.
• Parents going through the transition of separation or divorce experience psychological and financial stressors that can create serious behavioral and adjustment issues for their children. The RCSDF works in a holistic manner with parents and children to minimize the levels of stress and anxiety during the transition.

     

Redesigning the Family Law System to Promote Healthy Families

Family law professionals should be proactive in seeking and implementing constructive reforms. We identify some successful cutting‐edge reforms: (1) family resource centers, where all kinds of needs can be met; (2) informal family law trials, which streamline clogged calendars and provide an empowering and efficient forum; (3) licensed legal technicians, who increase public access to legal services; and (4) unbundled family law services. Second, we outline a protocol for implementation of reform developed by the Oregon Task Force on Family Law which is effective and replicable. Thoughtful reform of dispute resolution processes will serve family health and promote peace.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Evolving family constellations, private ordering through pre‐ and postmarital agreements, an increase in self‐represented litigants, and shrinking judicial resources are changing family law dramatically.
• Thoughtful, practical process reforms are needed in order to accommodate these changes.
• Practitioners should be proactive about seeking out and implementing such reforms.
• Some reforms already finding success include family relationship resource centers, informal domestic relations trials, licensed legal technicians, and unbundled legal services.
• We outline a protocol with a proven track record of success for implementing cutting‐edge family law reform.

     

Law and Family Formation Among LGBQ‐Parent Families

This article addresses how the law affects family formation among families with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) parents in the United States. Our discussion draws on a socio‐legal approach to law that focuses not only on the law on the books (what we refer to as “legal barriers”) but also on issues like how the law is practiced, how people experience the law in everyday life, and how the law serves as an interpretive framework through which people understand themselves and their families (what we refer to as “social barriers”). In our review, we highlight how attorneys can play a role in valuing and advancing rights for LGBQ‐parent families and LGBTQ prospective parents.     

NO MORE CASEBOOKS: USING SIMULATION‐BASED LEARNING TO EDUCATE FUTURE FAMILY LAW PRACTITIONERS

Teaching family law using the traditional casebook method provides students with marginal knowledge and skills. To practice family law, one needs to know how to interview and counsel clients, negotiate with opposing counsel, file pleadings and supporting documents, draft agreements, and understand tax consequences. Moreover, ethical issues abound in the practice of family law, such as confidentiality, conflict of interest, and fee arrangements. Critics of traditional pedagogies in legal academia have included the MacCrate Report, the Carnegie Report, and Best Practices for Legal Education. The Family Law Education Reform Project has focused its attention on the failure of law schools to keep pace with the ever‐evolving nature and requirements of family law practice. This article offers one answer to those who seek to educate law students in a manner that will better prepare them for the practice of family law. The author, who is the director of Vermont Law School's General Practice Program, describes a family law course she has developed and taught for many years. The course is taught in an integrative fashion, and includes substantive law, practice skills, and ethical and professionalism issues. She offers the course as a response and antidote to the ongoing criticisms of tradition a methods of teaching law.     

Public investment in private problems: legal aid and the family justice system

This paper examines findings from the Legal Aid Board Research Unit's Case Profiling Study in the light of the current reform programmes for both legal aid and family law. The findings relate to over 650 legally aided family cases including divorce, separation, ancillary relief and Children Act 1989 applications. The main aim of the study was to gain a better understanding of what is currently funded by the legal aid fund. Costs have been related to stages of cases and to the strategies employed by solicitors. Finally, I comment on the future role of legal aid in family law, suggesting that, to a large extent, public investment will be maintained. Remuneration of service providers will evolve as systems of contracting are introduced in January 2000. There will be continued emphasis on family mediation as an alternative method of dispute resolution. However, cases involving issues relating to children and their welfare will remain within the scope of public support. Domestic violence and other emergency issues will also merit high priority. Although there will be extensive changes in other areas of legal aid, family law appears to remain relatively unscathed.     

Family Peacemaking with an Interdisciplinary Team: A Therapist's Perspective

Interdisciplinary teams provide an unparalleled opportunity for peacemaking in families within the consensual dispute resolution continuum. This interdisciplinary environment was born out of the integration of Collaborative Law, in which lawyers limit the scope of their services to settlement by way of a signed agreement, and Collaborative Divorce, a team approach to divorce services that includes a lawyer for each party along with a Collaborative Divorce Coach for each party, a neutral financial specialist, and a neutral child specialist. Taken together, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Practice supports the resolution of legal issues out of court as well as addressing any emotional, relational, or behavioral problems that create obstacles to the successful resolution of the separation process.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Collaborative Practice creates legal representation in a consensual environment limiting services to settlement negotiations by way of a written agreement.
• The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals includes 5,000 members in twenty‐five countries.
• Legal representation in a consensual environment together with interdisciplinary teams create endless possibilities for dispute resolution processes.
• Collaborative Lawyers, Collaborative Divorce Coaches, child specialists, and financial specialists can create custom‐fit interdisciplinary teams that work together out of court to support families through marital transition.
• Interdisciplinary teams are family centric, bridging appropriate disciplines and resources to the needs of the family to address the vast majority of divorce‐related problems.
• Divorcing families are moving targets, learning and evolving through the process.
• Therapeutic teams support families with more complex relational, emotional, and mental health problems to find resolutions out of court.
• Divorce is a mainstream event in Western culture; we need supportive processes to encourage the best possible outcomes for all family members, especially the children.

     

Families in Circle Process: Restorative Justice in Family Law

This article explores the use of “circle process”—a form of restorative justice—in family law and places this effort within a larger movement within the law toward law as a healing profession, or the “comprehensive law movement.” It explores the features and underpinnings of circle process and its relationship to original forms of dispute resolution such as those used in African‐style mediation and indigenous people's dispute resolution in North America. Values expressed by these forms of dispute resolution are argued to be particularly relevant in family law. Finally, it focuses on an innovative and exciting court‐sponsored program begun in Chicago in 2008, using circle process with families in conflict, in the Cook County Parentage and Child Support Court. This program's results suggest potential benefits and cautions of using circle process in family law.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Restorative justice, in particular, circle process, can be used to resolve family law cases.
• Circle process widens the group of participants in alternative dispute resolution of family law matters.
• Circle process brings more voices to the table, namely, extended family, friends, and supporters, thus enhancing the group's decisionmaking.
• Judges will want to be sure the families in question are appropriate for circle process before referring them to this method of resolving disputes.
• Circle processes can result in improved communication and relations among families in conflict.
• Circle process reflects the values of “original dispute resolution,” which often in turn reflects ubuntu, the idea that all humankind is interconnected.
• Circle process is part of a greater movement towards law as a healing profession/the comprehensive law movement, which includes therapeutic jurisprudence.

     

‘Til Death Do Us Part: Affidavits of Support and Obligations to Immigrant Spouses

This article analyzes the use of a federal affidavit of support, a required document that forms part of all family immigration petitions to overcome public charge grounds of inadmissibility. The federal statute mandating affidavits of support was altered in 1996 in an attempt to make them contractually binding, even after the dissolution of marriage. Further, affidavits of support implicate not only obligations between spouses, but also deeming analysis for public benefit eligibility. Case law interpreting these affidavits of support is scarce and varied, but trends, patterns, and contested issues are emerging. Yet courts have not settled on any theory and practice for incorporating these affidavits into their decisions related to family dissolution. This article provides an introduction to affidavits of support and an initial effort to frame the most critical issues related to them that arise in family litigation. This article also highlights some of the key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• An introduction to affidavits of support and the immigration law context in which it exists
• A review of trends, patterns, and contested issues emerging in available judicial decisions in state and federal courts
• Key strategic issues and caveats for litigants and parties on the use of affidavits of support

     

SOLVING THE FAMILY COURT PUZZLE: INTEGRATING RESEARCH,POLICY, AND PRACTICE

In my opening remarks to the 42nd Annual Conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, I discuss trends in family law cases from the Supreme Court of Washington and the U.S. Supreme Court. I also review the wide variety of advancements in the way that court systems approach family law cases. Noting a recent emphasis on the fundamental rights of parents, I advocate a new paradigm, moving away from a focus on the parents and toward a focus on the child.     

The Future and Legal Education: Are Law Schools Failing and,If So,How?

In Failing Law Schools (2010), Brian Tamanaha recommends that law schools respond to the current economic crisis in the legal profession by reducing support for faculty research and developing two‐year degree programs. But these ideas respond only to a short‐term problem that will probably be solved by the closure of marginal institutions. The real challenge lies in the powerful long‐term trends that animate social change, particularly the shift to a knowledge‐based economy and the demand for social justice through expanded public services. These trends demand that law schools transform their educational programs to reflect the regulatory, transactional, and interdisciplinary nature of modern legal practice.     

20世纪初美国法学与心理学的交叉研究及反思

二十世纪初,美国法学进行了一场与心理学的交叉研究尝试。心理学家闵斯特伯格首倡进行法学与心理学的交叉研究,受到著名法学家威格摩尔的激烈反击以及一些心理学家的反对。但是,也有部分心理学家随后开始进行法律行为实验研究及法律心理学研究,法学界的著名学者哈钦斯针对一系列具体主题进行法学与心理学的交叉研究,而威格摩尔在反击之后也开始在这一领域展开研究。此次交叉研究为二战后行为法学派在美国法学界的兴起提供了基础。我们可以由此思考法学对于交叉研究的接受度,以及那个时代心理学影响法学研究的可能。并通过20世纪美国法学各类交叉研究的繁荣,反思我国当下司法实践的现代化变革及法学研究范式的发展。     

The Practice of Law With LGBT‐Parent Families

In this article, I examine how a history of legal conflict has produced a constantly evolving professional identity for lawyers representing lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) clients on family matters. Drawing on in‐depth interviews with 21 lawyers, I describe variation across areas of specialization, advertising, clientele, and access to professional networks. In addition, I focus on how sociopolitical and legal context shapes professional identity and practice for these lawyers, demonstrating the importance of practice location for this group of lawyers. Although interviews were conducted prior to national marriage recognition, these findings provide insight into the future development of the LGBT family law profession post‐Obergefell.     

FAMILY SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE: EMERGING ISSUES IN SOME DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WITH MIXED JURISDICTIONS

Family support and maintenance laws in several developing countries with mixed legal traditions derived from colonial and local laws are based on a litigation model. This model often fails to give adequate legal relief in the socioeconomic context of poverty. The situation is made worse by inequitable and gender‐biased inheritance laws. This article will use examples mainly from countries in South Asia and Commonwealth Africa to demonstrate how reformist legislation and constitutional jurisprudence in the area of public law and judicial activism highlight the issues that must be addressed if the legal system is to provide an effective system of family support and maintenance.