Reforming Relocation Law: A Reply to Prof. Thompson

This article provides a response to Prof. Thomson's critique, noting many points of agreement and also the broader consensus that is emerging among experts in the field. The research evidence, and the wider body of knowledge on children's well‐being generally, supports the proposition that relocation is a risk factor for children after parental separation but provides no support for a general presumption either in favor of, nor against, relocation. Nor should it be assumed that the interests of children are the same as those of their primary caregiver. We defend our three questions arguing the need in an adult‐centric debate to focus resolutely on children's interests rather than on adult rights. Both Prof. Thompson's approach and our own involve guided decision making with the child's best interests as the paramount consideration—his through weak presumptions based upon research about how judges respond to relocation issues and ours through focused questions based on research on how parents and children respond to relocations issues. We do not consider that codifying the existing practices of the courts represents real reform. We identify various risks involved in using presumptions, but note that, in jurisdictions with limited publicly funded resources for individual case assessment, presumptions, burdens or guidelines may be needed to offer rough justice to impecunious parents.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Notes points of emerging agreement on relocation within the research community
• Explores the differences between the use of presumptions and focused questions and highlights the role of empirical research of the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes
• Identifies how the level of public resourcing for the family law system may impact upon decisions about the substance of the law concerning relocation

     

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Intimate Partner Violence Advocates and Agencies

Relatively few studies have considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intimate partner violence (IPV) advocates or the agencies where they work. In this study, based on United States IPV advocates’ experiences working with survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted interviews to explore: 1) personal challenges and resilience working as IPV advocates during the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) how agencies adapted to the pandemic to support IPV survivors and advocates; and 3) specific needs and challenges of culturally-specific agencies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 IPV advocates from June to November 2020. Participants were included if they worked directly with survivors, identified as an IPV advocate, worked at a US-based agency, and spoke and understood English. We created a sampling matrix to ensure adequate representation from IPV advocates serving survivors from communities which have been marginalized. Interviews were conducted through a virtual platform by a trained member of the research team. We used an inductive thematic analysis approach, with weekly coding meetings to resolve discrepancies in coding. Five themes emerged from the data: 1) IPV advocates described how working as an IPV advocate during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted them personally; 2) agencies developed new methods of addressing IPV advocates’ needs; 3) agencies developed new solutions to address pandemic-related client needs; 4) transitioning advocacy work to virtual formats created challenges but also opportunities and; 5) pandemic limitations and impacts compounded pre-pandemic challenges for culturally specific agencies. IPV advocates are frontline workers who have played essential roles in adjusting services to meet survivor needs during the COVID-19 pandemic while simultaneously coping with pandemic impacts on themselves and their agencies. Developing inter-agency collaborations and promoting advocates’ safety and wellbeing during future public health crises will help support IPV survivors.