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.

     

Reviews & Resources

Theatre

The Miss Firecracker Contest, by Be A Henley at Westside Arts Theatre, New York City.

Me and My Shadow by Terry Wolver‐ton, at ABC No Rio in New York City, Fall 1984.

A Good American Novel, by Beth Lapides, at P.S. 122, New York City, December 1984.

nubs? (?nubs/'nebz/n: an ugly woman), by Lisa Goldberg, produced at SUNY‐Binghamton Fine Arts Center, December 1984.

Out/In The World: Life in the Work of Jane Bowles, created, directed and performed by Ellie Covan, produced by Open Channels in New York City, October‐November, 1984.

Dance

Pooh Kaye and Eccentric Motions at Dance Theatre Workshop, New York City, October 1984.

Sequestered Gestures, Carol Martin, Experimental Intermedia Foundation, December 1984.

Senta Driver's Harry, Emanu‐El Midtown YM‐YWHA, New York City, October 1984.

Marie Chien Noir at the Jerusalem Festival, Israel, Summer 1984.

Film

A Question of Silence, directed by Marlene Gorris, Netherlands. A Quartet Films Release, 1982.

An earlier version of this review, “Ordinary Women Who Kill,” appeared in the New York Native, August 13–26, 1984.

Books

The Diaries of Judith Malina: 1941–1957 by Judith Malina. NY: Grove Press, Inc., 1984. 464 + index. Cloth: $22.50; paper: $11.95.

Women in Motion by Alexa L. Foreman. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1983. 245 pp. + bibliography. Cloth: $19.95.

Women Composers, Conductors, and Musicians of the Twentieth Century by Jane Weiner LePage. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, Inc., Volume I, 1980; Volume II, 1983. 275 pp. and 360 pp. respectively, index. Cloth: $18.50 and $21.50 respectively.

Stormy Weather: The Music and Lives of a Century of Jazzwomen by Linda Dahl. NY: Pantheon Books, 1984. 268 pp. + notes, discography, bibliography, index. Paper: $12.95.

Mother of the Blues: A Study of Ma Rainey by Sandra B. Lieb. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1981. 173 pp. + discography, appendices, notes, bibliography, two indices. Paper: $9.95.

Listings     

An alternative method of capital jury selection

The purpose of this research was to develop and evaluate an alternative method of capital jury selection. Subjects who were classified as excludable and nonexcludable from capital jury service were exposed to a crime questionnaire which contained 16 brutal crimes. Sixty-five percent of the excludables indicated that they would consider imposing the death penalty in one or more scenarios, with 76% maintaining the new position 48 hours later. Furthermore, the rehabilitated excludables were significantly more tolerant of ambiguity and more due process oriented than the nonexcludables. A second study showed that the crime questionnaire did produce a small amount of bias against the defendants in terms of conviction rates and penalties. The advantages of the alternative system for providing a more objective, standardized questioning procedure and a more representative, less attitudinally biased jury are discussed.