PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS IN CUSTODY AND ACCESS DISPUTES IN THE FAMILY COURT

Child abuse allegations in custody and access disputes are serious matters and present family courts worldwide with major problems. This article reports a large research study just completed that investigated the way the Family Court of Australia managed child abuse cases. The study showed that such cases had become a substantial part of the court's current workload, their "core business" in fact. The families involved had many difficulties, including a history of family violence, and the present system was not appropriate for their particular problems. Thus, as new specialized court lead model of intervention was devised, based on principles relevant to family violence and incorporating the most effective strategies identified in the research.     

Can feminist judges make a difference?

Many of the expectations and aspirations about the ‘difference’ that women judges would make have proved unrealistic, given the inevitable diversity and often conservatism of women appointed as judges. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect feminist judges to ‘make a difference’. This essay focuses on feminist judges, and seeks to identify what it is that we might reasonably expect of them. This in turn requires consideration of who counts as a feminist judge, what might be included in a feminist approach to judging, and what institutional norms inherent within the judicial role might constrain the adoption of a feminist approach. The essay concludes that feminist judges both can and ought to make a difference across a wide range of judicial activities.     

An international NGO representative in Colombia: reflections from practice

Certain contexts render particularly challenging the disjunctures and discontinuities between international NGO (INGO) headquarters and in-country operations, as this Christian Aid case demonstrates. Torn loyalties result when seeking to discern how best to work with partners in a human-rights crisis in a middle-income country. Navigating these challenges requires a critical interrogation and radical practice of partnership. With many INGOs partially or wholly decentralising operations, and in anomalous and complex INGO programme contexts like this, it is vital to analyse the disjunctures and to support in-country staff to respond creatively to them, to do justice to programme potential and partnership principles.     

Assessing Testimonial Evidence in Asylum Proceedings: Guiding Standards from the International Criminal Tribunals

Although credibility determinations rest at the core of refugeeprotection, international refugee law has failed to developa body of evidentiary principles that is tailored to the uniquedimensions of the testimony of those seeking asylum. This articleexamines recent developments in assessing oral testimony ininternational criminal law. International criminal law judges,like national asylum adjudicators, must transcend geographic,linguistic, cultural, educational and psychological barriersin order to assess the credibility of testimony. As a result,these new international courts have developed a body of principlesof international evidence law for assessing the testimony ofalleged victims of, and witnesses to, human rights abuses. Currentsocial science research on the asylum procedures in severaljurisdictions reveals that asylum decision makers often failto adapt the determination process to account for the realitiesof refugees presenting their cases in legal fora, directingproceedings with a ‘presumptive skepticism’ of claims.It is argued that the nuanced and rigourous model for the assessmentof the testimonial evidence of alleged victims and witnessesof human rights abuses in war crimes trials introduces effectiveinternational norms for the assessment of credibility in asylumproceedings.     

A Brief History of Doing Time: The California Institution for Women in the 1960s and the 1990s

Recent scholarship on penality describes profound changes in the ideology, discourses, and policies shaping criminal punishment in the late-twentieth-century United States. To assess the implications of these changes for those subject to criminal punishment, we examine the experiences of women in prison at two key points in the recent history of penality. We compare how imprisonment was practiced and responded to at the California Institution for Women in the early 1960s, when the rehabilitative model dominated official penal discourse, and in the mid-1990s, near the height of the "get tough" era. We find that the ways in which women related and responded to other prisoners, to staff, and to the prison regime, while in some ways specific to one or the other penal era, did not fundamentally change. Thus, penal regimes ostensibly informed by profoundly different rationalities nevertheless structured the daily lives of prisoners through a very similar set of deprivations, restrictions, and assumptions.