Understanding Pathways to Family Dispute Resolution and Justice Reforms: Ontario Court File Analysis & Survey of Professionals

This article reports on two related studies about varying pathways to the resolution of family disputes and the effects of family justice reforms in Ontario: a survey of family court professionals (n = 118) and an analysis of 1,000 closed court files of family cases involving children. Both studies reveal that the vast majority of cases are resolved without a trial, often by negotiation. While professionals generally support family justice reform initiatives, there remain significant gaps in the implementation of these strategies. For example, many litigants do not attend information programs despite the requirement for mandatory attendance; there is limited use of mediation; the views of children are being sought in only a small number of cases; and there is a large proportion of self‐represented family litigants. Despite the increase in shared care and joint decision‐making arrangements, a majority of cases in the court file study were sole custody arrangements to the mother, whether the case was settled or resolved by trial. Mediation was associated with greater time of contact with the non–primary residential parent (usually the father).     

Critical Issues in Relocation Cases: A Custody Evaluator's Response to Parkinson and Cashmore (2015) and Thompson (2015)

Parkinson and Cashmore ( 2015 ) and Thompson ( 2015 ) have written comprehensive articles outlining suggested reforms to the family law system in relocation cases. This brief article, from a child custody evaluator's perspective as opposed to researchers' and legal scholars' perspectives, highlights areas of agreement, in hope of leading to increased consensus, as well as areas of disagreement, furthering the discussion and debate of critical issues in relocation matters. Rather than an either/or approach to relocation presumptions, this article will identify a both/and perspective on presumptions for these cases. It will also focus on suggestions for evaluators in an effort to help guide ways that evaluations can be most helpful to the court.     

RELOCATION,RESEARCH, AND FORENSIC EVALUATION,PART I: EFFECTS OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY ON CHILDREN OF DIVORCE1

The issue of relocation presents courts and child custody evaluators with dilemmas on the issue of allowing a child to move with a parent to a new community and how to craft long‐distance parenting plans if relocation is allowed. The issue of the potential effects of residential moves on children of divorce has focused on the importance of the child–nonresidential parent relationship. The research literature on the effects of residential moves, or relocation, on children of divorce has not been fully integrated into the examination of this issue and its relevance for the child custody evaluation. The literature shows residential mobility is a general risk factor for children of divorce and this is a starting point for the custody evaluation, but it is not a basis for bias or a presumption against relocation. Predicting a child's adjustment to relocating or not relocating requires a careful and contextual investigation of the child and family circumstances. The research literature is a helpful frame of reference.     

Strengthening Coparenting Relationships to Improve Strained Parent–Child Relationships: A Follow‐Up Study of Parents’ Experiences of Attending the Overcoming Barriers Program

Several interventions have been developed to address children's resistance and/or refusal to have contact with a parent following separation and divorce. There remains little agreement about how best to evaluate the success of these approaches. To explore the experiences of parents in the Overcoming Barriers Program (OCB), an online survey was distributed to all previous participants. Of the 40 parents who completed the survey at least six months after attending OCB, findings suggest mixed results. Benefits of OCB were more pronounced when changes were made to the coparenting relationships. Improvements in the coparenting relationship were specifically related to children's spending more time with both parents and better parent–child outcomes postintervention. Findings suggest that both the quality of parent–child relationships and the time that the children spend with both parents are associated with reported improvements in the cooperative coparenting relationship as a result of attending OCB. Implications are discussed in terms of lessons learned for developing, delivering, and evaluating similar programs for strained parent–child relationships.     

An Exploratory Study of Custody Challenges Experienced by Affirming Mothers of Transgender and Gender‐Nonconforming Children

Family courts have lacked familiarity with evidence‐based recommendations regarding the best interests of transgender and gender‐nonconforming (TGNC) children, resulting in some affirming parents losing physical and/or legal custody. This exploratory, qualitative study with 10 affirming mothers of TGNC children who had experienced custody‐related challenges reported on salient themes, including “blame” for causing children's gender nonconformity, coercion by ex‐partners, bias in the courts, negative impact on children, emotional and financial toll on participants, and the critical importance of adequate resources. Findings indicate the need for better‐educated family court professionals, as well as socioemotional support and financial and legal assistance for affirming parents of TGNC children.     

Using Rule 11 Sanctions to Punish Accusers Who Make False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Divorce Cases

False claims of child sexual abuse negatively affect the accused parent and the child. Such false claims can be used to sway custody determinations and cause frivolous applications to the court. This Note proposes that courts impose sanctions, comparable to those set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on litigants who make false claims of child sexual abuse.     

Adaptive and Maladaptive Gatekeeping Behaviors and Attitudes: Implications for Child Outcomes After Separation and Divorce

Gatekeeping has been used as a theory and a measure to describe and assess family dynamics within the context of separation and divorce. In this article, we explore adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping behaviors and attitudes that can affect the other parent's relationship with the child. Implications are presented for connecting adaptive and maladaptive gatekeeping responses to child outcomes of safety, well‐being, and positive parent–child relationships following separation and divorce. We build on the recent attention to gatekeeping as a potential framework within the child custody context.     

Risks and Realities of Working with Alienated Children

Involvement in custody cases that include accusations of parental alienation—whether as an evaluator, expert witness, lawyer, judge, therapist, provider of a specialized intervention, or researcher—incurs both professional and personal risks. Some risks relate to false negative or false positive identifications of parental alienation that can lead to regulatory agency complaints and public condemnation by the parent who feels wronged by the case outcome. Other risks stem from providing services in an emerging area of practice and working with children who overtly oppose repairing the relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: unfounded accusations of mistreating children; negatively biased commentary and sensationalist attacks in the media and in social media, professional conferences and journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, vilification, and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public humiliation; shunning and rumor spreading by colleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines circumstances, beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to these risks, suggests precautions to reduce the risk of false accusations against professionals, and offers recommendations for dealing with regulatory agencies. Criticisms that a court or service provider has mistreated a child merit careful scrutiny in the context of the case evidence and empirical data. While some interventions for alienated children raise legitimate concerns, others have been maligned by anecdotal complaints that studies show do not represent the experience of most participants.     

Divorce, Custody, and Spousal Violence: A Random Sample of Circuit Court Docket Records

The fastest growing marital status category in America is divorced, with the number of divorced individuals quadrupling between 1970 and 1996. The majority of children in divorced families live with a single parent and often lose contact with the noncustodial parent. A recent review of the literature suggests that many noncustodial fathers fail to keep contact with their children and become delinquent in child support payments because of their dissatisfaction with the custody arrangement. However, there has been little examination of how custody arrangements are typically determined or settled. In addition, divorces that involve spousal violence bring further complications to child custody, visitation, and child support decisions. This study included a 20% random sample of court records for all divorces settled in one county judicial circuit court during 1998. The purpose of this study was to examine characteristics of divorcing adults as well as characteristics of child custody arrangements, visitation, and child support decisions. Contrary to popular belief, findings from this study indicate that divorce actions were almost always settled through agreement of the divorcing parties rather than by adjudication. About 38% of the couples had children in common and between 78 and 92% of cases were settled through agreement, which suggests that fathers are in fact agreeing to the custody arrangement, rather than being forced into it. About one in five records overall noted spousal violence, and there was no significant difference in settlement methods for couples with or without spousal violence. Cases with children and spousal violence were significantly more likely to have also mentioned substance use and postdecree activity. This study suggests a need for more focused attention on divorce cases with spousal violence to reduce postdecree court involvement and safety of children and adult victims, as well as further study into what causes noncustodial parents to lose contact with their children.     

Gatekeeping by Allegations: An Examination of Verified,Unfounded, and Fabricated Allegations of Child Maltreatment Within the Context of Resist and Refusal Dynamics

Allegations of child maltreatment and neglect, including child sexual abuse, in the context of child custody disputes pose particular challenges for child protection services, family law professionals and the courts to identify children at risk of harm, as well as children impacted and exposed to other risk factors. Accurately identifying child maltreatment requires assessing the background, the history and the context of the allegations in order to differentiate confirmed, unfounded, and fabricated allegations. The paper provides a review of the history and current understanding of allegations within the context of child custody disputes by considering the connections of fabricated allegations to the theory of alienation and the role of gatekeeping. The paper then examines the social science literature regarding allegations within child protection investigations (the prevalence, types of maltreatment, reporter of allegations, and case outcomes) and explores the factors that have contributed to the challenges faced by child protection services to investigate and make determinations regarding allegations within the context of child custody disputes. We argue for early assessment protocols for child protection services to screen child custody cases, to differentiate allegations of alienation from other types of harm, to enhance role clarity in these volatile situations, to refrain from “taking sides” and to work collaboratively with the family law community. Lastly, we offer legal implications to improve collaboration between child protection services and the family law field to better respond to these complex cases.     

POSTDECREE LITIGATION Is Joint Custody to Blame?

The Joint Custody Symposium Project examined almost 600 court files in five judicial districts to investigate the common perception that joint custody contributes significantly to relitigation rates. Data indicated that joint custody as a factor accounted for only 10.8% of court returns. Financial concerns accounted for the majority of actions. Disputes over child custody appeared to be related to finances as well. Unfortunately, returns to court do not necessarily resolve the financial needs of divorced parents. The findings suggest that children may be used as pawns in court battles over money that are disguised as parenting concerns, as evidenced by the close relationship found between visitation or custody disputes and child support modification filings.     

An Interdisciplinary Case Management Protocol for Child Resistance or Refusal Dynamics†

High‐conflict parental separation cases associated with child's estrangement or contact refusal take an unusually large amount of court time and generate high emotional costs for parents and children. This paper reports on a study of a research‐based pilot project and protocol, called the Parenting Conflict Resolution (PCR), which is intended to reduce parental conflict, improve interparental communication, and support or restore the parent–child relationship. The protocol was developed at the Superior Court in Quebec City (Canada), and involves single judge case management, and lawyers' commitment to have the child's best interests as their primary consideration and to guide their clients to trust the process. The assigned judge and lawyers have the ongoing involvement of a mandated psychotherapist, taking a family systems approach with the case. The PCR also requires the parents to participate in a psycho‐educational, introspective group program to work on co‐parenting and communication skills. Ongoing communication between the professionals involved in the PCR is required to ensure cohesion and accountability. This pilot project was implemented with 10 high‐conflict families, 6 of which presented with the child's resistance or refusal to see one parent. A qualitative data study was undertaken into the experiences of all the participants. The most salient result is the resumption of parent–child contact in all six contact refusal cases. Discussion highlights key elements to successfully address these cases: (a) interdisciplinary program delivery, (b) systemic understanding of the contact problems, (c) focus on the child's best interest, (d) single judge assigned to the case, (e) lawyers' support of the parents' participation, and (f) psychotherapist reporting to the court.     

Parenting Plans for Special Needs Children: Applying a Risk‐Assessment Model

Family courts are seeing an increasing number of separating or divorced families who have a special needs child. These cases present complex challenges for family law professionals charged with crafting parenting plans based on best interests standards. For many of these children, the typical developmentally based custodial arrangements may not be suitable, given the child's specific symptoms and treatment needs. We present a model for understanding how the general and specific needs of these children, as well as the demands on parents, can be assessed and understood in the context of divorce. This includes an analysis of risk and protective factors that inform timeshare and custodial recommendations and determinations. The risk assessment model is then applied to three of the most commonly occurring childhood neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders likely to be encountered in family court, namely, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depressive disorders, and autistic spectrum disorders.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• There has been a dramatic rise in the population of children with neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and medical syndromes whose parents are disputing custody in the family courts.
• Family law professionals of all disciplines should develop a fundamental knowledge base about the most commonly seen special needs children in family court, such as those with neurodevelopmental conditions like autistic spectrum disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and severe depressive disorders (especially with teenagers), which may involve suicidal or self‐harming behaviors.
• Commonly recommended parenting plans may be inappropriate for many special needs children, as some function significantly below their chronological age and pose extreme behavioral challenges.
• A systematic analysis of risk and protective factors should inform timeshare arrangements and determinations with this varied population, including the safety of the child and severity of the disorder, parental commitment and availability to pursue medical, educational, and therapeutic services, the parental attunement and insightful about the problem, and the differential parenting skills of each parent.

     

ATTORNEYS' BELIEFS AND OPINIONS ABOUT CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

We surveyed a national sample of family law attorneys (N = 192) regarding their beliefs and opinions about child custody evaluations, particularly those performed by independent/private practitioners. Findings revealed participants' strongly preferred court‐ordered evaluations performed by doctoral‐level psychologists who assumed a neutral position. The participants expressed concern regarding procedures used by evaluators, the application of evaluation data to the Best Interests of the Child Standard, and certain report components. A clear majority supported evaluators making recommendations about custody and parenting time, but their satisfaction with these evaluations varied widely. Specific concerns and suggestions noted by the participants are highlighted; we conclude with recommendations.     

Raised By a Predator: Sex Offender Parents and an Effort To Keep Them Out of the Child's Home

Registered sex offenders are obligated to comply with rules put forth by their state's registry. While there are stringent guidelines regarding the offender's interaction with the public, a sex offender's ability to obtain custody of their child is less rigid. Statutes differ on the level of scrutiny referencing their right to parent, which leaves an opening for offenders to abuse their child. This Note proposes the adoption of a model statute in which registered Tier III sex offender parents who were convicted for a crime involving a minor are precluded from gaining physical or legal custody of their child.     

A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY MODEL OF RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHILD CUSTODY RELOCATION LAW

Relocation in child custody presents a psycho-legal dilemma of trying to preserve stability in the child's residential family unit while maintaining continuity in the role of the nonresidential parent. Courts have shown a strong preference to permiting the child to move away with the residential parent unless there is a showing of potential harm to the child. The forensic violence risk assessment literature provides an analogous conceptual framework for understanding the prediction of harm. Instead of predicting violence, the evaluator is predicting the effect of environmental circumstances on the child's adjustment. A forensic psychology model of risk assessment is adapted to the relocation problem. The elements of the model are an expected base rate of short-term emotional distress due to relocation, risk and modulating factors, and how to handle the potential consequences of prediction errors. A hierarchical predictive process, derived hypotheses, and practical considerations in relocation are discussed.     

Unintended and Unavoidable: The Failure to Protect Rule and Its Consequences for Undocumented Parents and Their Children

Parents without immigration status in the United States regularly face the threat of deportation and separation from their children. When an undocumented parent is brought to the attention of law enforcement through the child welfare system, they also face the potential of the loss of legal custodial rights to their children. The child welfare system and immigration enforcement mechanisms operate independent of one another with little regard for how actions in one can impact a parent's legal rights in the other, often permanently separating children from their parents. This article examines the particular issue of undocumented parents who are charged with the failure to protect their children from witnessing or otherwise experiencing abuse committed by a third party. It explores how such a charge, whether founded or unfounded, can result in loss of eligibility for immigration relief to which the undocumented parent would otherwise be entitled, as well as deportation of the parent and permanent separation of parent and child. These issues are situated within the larger context of the normative guideposts of both family and immigration law, namely, the best interests of the child and family unity. It identifies issues for further academic inquiry as well as tips for practitioners who may represent undocumented parents in either the family or immigration systems.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Learn about the potential consequences under family law and immigration law when an undocumented parent's child is abused by a third party
• Gain strategies for planning with undocumented parents to avoid the loss of the custody of their children in the event of a sudden deportation
• Be able to identify and address particular concerns for clients who are undocumented victims of domestic violence

     

Play by the Rules: why States Should Adopt Uniform Court Rules for Forensic Psychologists in Child Custody Evaluations

It is not uncommon for children to fall victim to the stress and tension of a contentious custody dispute. If a party seeks a mental health evaluation and the opposing party challenges the results, the child then endures a series of evaluations until a valid report is produced. The court will often remedy this situation by appointing a neutral forensic psychologist to perform the evaluation independent from a previous party‐hired forensic psychologist. 1 This Note proposes that the court instead appoint the forensic psychologist first to conduct an evaluation and draft a report. Only at the judge's discretion may the parties hire a private forensic psychologist to challenge the report. Additionally, states should codify court rules that enumerate standards for forensic psychologists in child custody evaluations. These rules should set forth criteria that shall be required and highlighted throughout each mental health evaluator's report, allowing judges to compare and contrast each evaluation more effectively. This legislation will not only reduce the child's exposure to excessive testing, but will also provide a more efficient way of arriving at a just result.     

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.

     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.