A MODEL FOR TELEPHONE MEDIATION

A unique mediation service using the telephone to help parents resolve conflicts over visitation ("access") is described. The program presented special advantages of low cost and high responsiveness to parents and their children and was designed to particularly benefit families that lacked the mobility or financial resources to participate in traditional face-to-face mediation. Because the service featured highly educated and experienced mediators and a child-focused, principle-based mediation approach, family members received reframing, refocusing, informative, and empathic assistance in understanding and dealing with their parenting disputes. Some 700 families and nearly 900 mediation cases were handled during the service's 19 months of operation, and some features of the families and the cases are described. Recommendations and directions for future research are included.     

Innovation in the U.S. Service Sector

This paper contributes to ard a better understanding of innovation in the service sector by focusing on the disparate nature of R&D in the U.S. service sector as learned through case studies of the U.S. telecommunications, financial services, systems integration services, and research and development testing services industries. Based on this understanding of the nature and scope of R&D therein, a new policy-oriented model of innovation specific to the service sector is posited. Also, policy recommendations are offered with regard to the public sector’s collection and interpretation of R&D data related to the service sector.      

Presidential mandates and ministerial institutions: Summitry of the Americas, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

The periodic Summits of the Americas are the highest form of regional multilateralism in the Western Hemisphere, but summits lack their own means to implement their mandates. Hence, Summit Plans of Action assign many initiatives to existing regional institutions, especially the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). But a notable difference exists in the character and degree to which these two institutions have responded to their unfunded mandates, in that the OAS has become “nested” under the hierarchy of summitry, while the IDB has eschewed subordination in favor of a “parallel” relationship pursuing largely convergent activities. Relying on extensive interviews and reviews of open source and internal documents, six variables are found to explain this differential response: ministerial authorities, competing mandates, institutional missions, internal structures, membership and leadership. Yet for both regional institutions there remains a wide gap between the directives emanating from the Summits and what the two regional institutions have been—and could be—accomplishing. The study concludes with recommendations to improve institutional design. JEL codes L31 · F42 · F02 · D73 · F1     

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: WHY WE NEED TO EXPAND CUSTODY RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The Child Abduction Convention, an international treaty, protects custody rights internationally among its member states by providing a remedy of return in cases where a child was wrongfully removed in violation of a parent's custody right. There is no such remedy for the violation of a parent's access (or visitation) rights. A ne exeat clause in a child custody agreement restrains a custodial parent from removing a child from a predetermined jurisdiction (such as a particular country) and can be issued when there is a risk that the custodial parent might flee to another country with the child(ren). Currently there is a circuit split within the United States as to whether a ne exeat right coupled with the right of access should equal a protected custody right under the Convention. Most international courts protect the ne exeat right under the Convention; however some do not. A ne exeat right should convey a protected custody right for policy reasons. The beneficial implications of a ne exeat right creating a protected custody right under the Child Abduction Convention clearly outweigh the detriments. While there is no instant solution to the inconsistencies among various courts in interpreting the Child Abduction Conventions’ scope in regard to a ne exeat right, there are ways to resolve the problem. If consistency in judicial interpretation cannot be achieved, a movement needs to be initiated to create a protocol to the Child Abduction Convention to further explain the scope of custody rights and ne exeat rights under the Convention.