NATIONAL ATTITUDES REGARDING GENDER BIAS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Recent changes in family law have mandated equal treatment in child custody cases. Surveys of 4,579 attorneys and judges from four states, deemed to be nationally representative, were used to discover whether attorneys or judges perceive any favoritism toward mothers' or fathers' claims in the awarding of custody of children. Whereas attorneys, particularly males, perceive that mothers continue to be favored over fathers in custody cases, judges do not share this opinion.     

ASSESSING FOR ALIENATION AND ACCESS IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

Alienated children in high-conflict (HC) custody cases differ from nonalienated children in HC custody cases. Efforts to assess and differentiate between the children should focus first, on establishing what differences do exist and then on what psychometrics are of most help in the assessment. Five categories of HC children and areas where HC children are all alike and where alienated and nonalienated children differ are reviewed. Psychometrics appropriate for the tasks of research and evaluation are proposed.     

CHILDREN'S ALIGNMENT WITH PARENTS IN HIGHLY CONFLICTED CUSTODY CASES

In one of two samples discussed in this article, 41% of 24 consecutively referred latency-age children were aligned with one parent in a divorce. In a separate sample of 20 families, both parents of aligned children were more rigid, naively defended, and less emotive than were parents of nonaligned children. Aligned children preferred the more emotive, problem solving, and outgoing of the two parents. Aligned children were less adept at conceptualizing complex problems than were nonaligned children, but they were more self-confident.     

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND EMPOWERMENT IN CUSTODY AND VISITATION CASES

This article reports a State Justice Institute funded research project attempting to demonstrate the difference between mediation and evaluation disputes over child custody, and visitation where domestic violence is involved. The researchers attempted to develop samples at two courts—Hennepin County Circuit Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Multnomah County Circuit Court in Portland, Oregon.     

ASSESSING MUTUAL PARTNER-ABUSE CLAIMS IN CHILD CUSTODY AND ACCESS CASES

This article explores issues associated with mutual claims of domestic violence in the context of research on gender and violence, and in the context of litigation tactics commonly employed by perpetrators in child custody and access cases. Quotations from parents involved in such cases illustrate why accurate assessment of mutual cliams requires complete information about social context and the analysis of patterns of domination, power and control in the relationship over time. Recent developments in Canadian law ought to enhance the ability of judges to take such evidence into account. The article aims to provide a lens through which to understand and assess such cases.     

EVALUATING "NONTRADITIONAL" RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IN CHILD CUSTODY CASES

This article suggests a model for objectively evaluating "nontraditional" religious practices in child custody and visitation rights cases. The model draws a distinction between religious beliefs and religiously motivated behavior. This distinction assists the evaluator in approaching the family in an unbiased, objective, and respectful manner. Emphasis is placed on considering the religiously motivated behavior in a constitutionally sensitive procedure that simultaneously protects the fundamental rights of parents and children and the children's best interests.     

INDEPENDENT LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR CHILDREN IN CUSTODY AND ACCESS CASES

In this article, the author discusses the role of children's representation in custody and access cases, and in particular, considers whether the Stobridge case came to a correct determination of the most appropriate role for children's counsel. The three possible modes of child representation are considered: amicus curiae, litigation guardian, and advocate. The role of amicus curiae is rejected because it does not provide the child with an opportunity to be heard, thus defeating the purpose of representation. The role of litigation guardian is rejected on the basis that the guardian does not advocate the child's interests unless they are consistent with that of the guardian. The author concludes that Stobridge was correctly decided, and that the role of children's counsel in a custody or access dispute in which the children are capable of directing counsel should be that of advocate.     

ONE CASE–ONE SPECIALIZED JUDGE: WHY COURTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE ALIENATION AND OTHER HIGH-CONFLICT CASES

This article challenges the traditional approach to alienation and other high-conflict cases in which many different generalist judges deal with the case. The objectives of the judicial process, dealing with cases in a just, timely, and affordable way that instils confidence in the public and litigants, cannot be met unless high-conflict cases are actively managed by one specialist family law judge. Allowing parents in high-conflict cases to decide when and how often their case should come before the court exacerbates the negative effects of the litigation on children. This article concludes that, unless the litigation is properly managed by specialist judges, the justice system unintentionally causes harm to children.     

EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATIONS: APPLICATIONS TO CUSTODY AND PARENTING TIME CASES PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION IN HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA

A program to apply Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE), a confidential, settlement‐oriented and accelerated alternative dispute resolution technique, to child custody and parenting time cases has been cooperatively developed by Hennepin county Family Court Services and the Minnesota Fourth Judicial District Family Court. Parties are referred by the court to a male/female team of experienced neutral evaluators for early feedback on the probable outcome of a full evaluation and an opportunity to negotiate a settlement. It has proven to be a highly successful program in its first 2 years, with the majority of cases reaching an early settlement. The ENE program reduces the stress and expense of custody disputes for clients, expedites judicial case management, maximizes Family Court Services staff efficiency, and focuses subsequent evaluations on critical issues.     

完善司法鉴定制度的一项重大改革举措

公正是司法的灵魂,司法鉴定的公正是实现司法公正的一项重要保证。司法鉴定公正的实现,既要求鉴定结果的客观准确,也要求鉴定过程符合正当程序的基本要求。最近全国人大常委会通过的《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》(以下简称《决定》)规范和加强了对鉴定人及鉴定机构的管理,为实现司法公正创造了条件,是对司法鉴定制度的一项重大改革,具体体现在:     

知识产权全球治理体系改革的中国方案

知识产权是国家在全球竞争的核心要素。当前的知识产权全球治理体系主要是由发达国家集团,尤其是美国主导建立的。中国未能参与治理体系的制定,只是被动的接受。在"后金融危机时代",美国利用"胡萝卜加大棒政策"和"国家俱乐部模式",推动知识产权全球治理规则朝着"保护最大化"和"国际规则美国化"方向发展。中国应努力实现由知识产权全球治理的规则内化型参与到规则外溢型参与,在充分考虑外部世界舒适度的前提下参与知识产权全球治理,推动全球治理体系的逐步转型。     

WHO SHALL HAVE CUSTODY?: A Case for the Equal Consideration of Fathers

Current statutes and case decisions formally declare that fathers and mothers should be treated equally in child custody dispute awards. Outcomes of actual court awards, however, favor mothers, presumably because this is viewed by judges as being in the best interests of the child. A review of research derived from child and animal studies suggests there is no basis for favoring mothers over fathers in awarding child custody.     

EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

This article proposes a four-level model of clinical inferences to analyze the psychological evaluation process in custody matters. At each level the authors summarize the status of the relevant psychological literature and conclude that, as clinicians respond to the ultimate issues (e.g., who should be the custodial parent) the empirical foundation for such conclusions is tenuous or non-existent. A jurisprudence argument is also made that such opinions should be routinely excluded from the fact-finding process. Given the significant potential for specific custody recommendations to limit personal liberties and the trajectory of a child's life, the paucity of relevant research available in this area, and profound evidentiary issues, such recommendations should be viewed as ethically inappropriate. A model for what clinicians can ethically say to courts is proposed.