FAMILY COURT IMPROVEMENT AND THE ART OF GRANTSMANSHIP: A JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE

Many American courts face funding obstacles as they try to create and implement unified family court processes that have not been part of the traditional family court adversarial process. To create new staff positions, build and equip adequate facilities, and create and implement innovative programs, grant funding may be available to supplement what local and state governments provide. While social science research confirms that children are adversely affected by exposure to high‐conflict family litigation and domestic violence, many communities have few affordable and available resources to address these issues. This article presents lessons and principles that one court learned as it applied for a grant to design programs for high‐conflict families and families with domestic violence history.     

Domestic Violence against Women in Cambodia: Husband’s Control,Frequency of Spousal Discussion,and Domestic Violence Reported by Cambodian Women

This study sought to examine the effects of husband’s control and frequency of spousal discussion on domestic violence against Cambodian married women, using the 2005 Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey data. The sample included 1,707 married women, aged 16–49 (M = 35.14). Structural Equation Modeling showed that husband’s control positively predicted both emotional and physical violence. Frequency of spousal discussion positively predicted emotional violence, an association consistent with the idea that a husband holding patriarchal beliefs would interpret women’s more frequent discussion as a violation of Cambodian norms for quiet, submissive wives. Frequency of spousal discussion and husband’s control were positively correlated. The role of gender issues in husband’s control and frequency of spousal discussion are discussed with respect to violence in the lives of Cambodian women.     

Legislating for Your Own Good: Criminalising Moral Choice. The Modern Echoes of the Victorian Vaccination Acts

Victorian vaccination legislation has important echoes for the present age in the dilemma over how to promote compliance with government-endorsed scientific and medical public health strategies for the welfare of the community in a context of growing popular mistrust of such initiatives, in terms of their likelihood to confer benefits as well as their possible negative impacts on individuals. Victorian experience of dealing with the issue of ‘conscientious objection’ to policy initiatives seen as intruding into the area of individual moral choice, especially parental choice for children, is invoked to suggest better ways of comprehending the present resistance to take-up of the MMR vaccine, and its wider implications; as well as commenting on the role of the media.

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.