AND HOW ARE THE CHILDREN?

Recent innovations in American child custody law have affected both the substantive law and the procedures by which custody decisions are reached. Professor Bruch describes these developments, analyses their underpinnings in psychology and ideology, and identifies both intended and unrecognized effects of the dispute resolution process on the custody decision. She concludes that many new doctrines and procedures that have been widely assumed to benefit children, including joint custody and mediation, often disserve children's interests.     

Maternal and joint custody

The present study examined differences between 40 couples who agreed to traditional mother custody and 12 couples who agreed to joint custody as the postdivorce arrangement for their children. Data were collected by interview and questionnaire within six months of the filing of the divorce petition. Differences emerged in the social context of the decision process, the criteria used, and the application of criteria to parents' particular circumstances. The findings are then organized into a framework that suggests a model for the process by which parents make their decision about custody.     

Perspective and procedural justice: Attorney and litigant evaluations of court procedures

A comparison of the procedural justice judgments of attorneys and those of lay people judging the same procedures offers an opportunity to generate new information on what factors affect judgments of fairness. In a survey of reactions to conventional and innovative procedures in a United States district court, attorneys and lay people involved in tort and contract cases were asked to judge the overall fairness of court procedures and the fairness of specific procedures used in arbitration hearings. The respondents were also asked for their judgments concerning the favorability of the procedure's outcome, the opportunity to have the case heard and decided by an impartial third party, and their side's control over what happened in the case, all of which are factors found in previous studies to affect procedural fairness judgments. The results showed that, while attorneys gave higher overall fairness ratings than did litigants, the difference was not affected by the procedure assigned to the case. In addition, attorneys and litigants appeared to use the same standards to evaluate the fairness of procedures, although they disagreed about where the procedures they experienced fell on these dimensions. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Region, Local Context, and Voting at the 1997 General Election in England

There has been considerable debate in recent work on voting patterns in Great Britain regarding the importance of regional effects: are these “real” or are they simply statistical artifacts of decision‐making processes at smaller spatial scales which are aggregated up to the regional scale if not incorporated directly into any modeling? Using a multilevel model design, this article reports on analyses of survey data for the 1997 general election in England which allows tests of whether regional variations are no more than aggregation effects. Individual voters are nested within households, neighborhoods, constituencies, and regions and when all of the smaller‐scale spatial levels are included in the model, the observed regional effects are statistically insignificant. At the 1997 general election, at least, regional variations within England in support for the three main parties—basically, a north‐south divide—are aggregation effects.