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.

     

Does Level of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Predict the Content of Family Mediation Agreements?

This study investigated whether reported levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or abuse (IPV/A) victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues. Whether or not parties reached agreement was analyzed for 105 cases at a law school mediation clinic. Agreement content was coded for the 71 cases that reached agreement. Levels of IPV and IPV/A were determined separately for males and females, using a standardized measure. Regression models were utilized to examine reports of IPV or IPV/A as predictors. Results indicated that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns; levels of partner violence/abuse predicted numerous issues in mediation agreements, including arrangements regarding legal custody, parenting time, holidays, child exchanges, interparental communication, safety restrictions, counseling referrals, child support, financial arrangements, and other miscellaneous topics (e.g., relocation). However, some findings were consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A; for example, increasing levels of male‐perpetrated IPV/A predicted increased likelihood of making an agreement to share legal custody. Further research is needed to resolve the longstanding debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• This study adds to the debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.
• It examines whether reported levels of IPV and IPV/A victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues.
• Results provide some evidence that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns.
• However, some findings are consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A.
• Findings have implications for the practice of family mediation with parties reporting a history of IPV or IPV/A.

     

Learning to be A Peacemaking Lawyer: Law Student Perspectives on Building Peacemaking into Law School Curricula,Building Paths to Practice for New Lawyers,and Interdisciplinary Training

From our perspectives as students, we reflect on the teachings of Lawyer as Peacemaker, a Winter 2015 course taught at UCLA School of Law — the school's course devoted to peacemaking lawyering. Utilizing our newfound peacemaking worldview, we share our collective reactions to the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the ten articles in the Family Court Review Special Issue on Peacemaking for Divorcing Families. We then advocate for integrating peacemaking into law school curricula and experiential learning offerings and make recommendations on how law schools today can prepare students to practice peace.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• This article is a collaborative work product of three students who come from an array of work experience, backgrounds and interests and from their newly founded peacemaking worldview, the three students collaboratively analyzed ideas presented in the Lawyer as Peacemaker course and the articles from this issue.
• The peacemaking mediation allows the parties more control over their legal disputes and allows the control of the costs that come with litigation.
• Peacemaking involves a holistic and collaborative method, involving mental health professionals to financial advisors as well as legal professionals.
• However, peacemaking skill courses are not readily available to many law students while studying in law school.
• This valuable asset should be made available more extensively to law students interested in family law.

     

论分家习惯与家的整体性——对滋贺秀三《中国家族法原理》的批评

滋贺秀三的《中国家族法原理》,在关于中国古代分家、遗嘱、赠与等财产习惯方面存在着不少误解,这导致他形成了中国家父享有家产所有权的观点。今天,当更多的文书资料特别是徽州文书得以整理面世后,对滋贺秀三著作中存在的问题,似乎有可能提出质疑和讨论了。实际上,中国家长从属于作为整体性的“家”。因为在近代法制转型之前,家产尚未完全分离为个人财产,家长可以管理和增益家产,却不能随意处分。因此,以分家习惯为主线索,围绕滋贺秀三的著作,结合其它财产习惯,对近代中国法制转型之前的家产制进行一个尝试性的探讨颇有必要。     

临淮淮阴步氏与孙吴政权之关系述论

步骘作为临淮淮阴步氏家族的代表人物,东汉末年避难江东,饱尝艰辛。后来进入孙权幕府,处境不断改善。建安十五年,骘受命领兵入交州,对孙吴疆域的扩大作出了不小的贡献。后来任职荆州,不断举荐士人,坚决反对孙权重用校事吕壹。孙权步夫人“宏冠后庭”,权屡欲立其为后,并引起统治集团上层的激烈纷争。其女全公主凭依孙权的支持,暗中操纵“二宫构争”等一系列政治斗争,步骘则随声附和,不仅使其士节有亏,而且埋下了其家族覆灭的祸根。     

A Process Evaluation of a Kentucky Court Improvement Initiative

This article describes a court improvement initiative designed to promote uniformity and improved court practice with the ultimate goal of the improvement of outcomes for children and families. The article focuses on the results of interviews and focus groups conducted as part of the evaluation of this initiative. Twelve jurisdictions were purposively selected to exhibit a range of family court and non–family court jurisdictions in rural and middle‐sized locations. The discussion of the qualitative results focuses on changes in court practice and the impact of the initiative on case time.     

V—ed的认知阐释与语法教学

依据原型范畴理论,V—ed（英语过去时）分别表过去、表虚拟和表口气委婉的三种不同用法是得益于隐喻概念的形成和使用的,其认知理据为空间上的距离通过人的隐喻认知机制分别被隐喻到时间域、事物或事件的真假性概念和心理认知域。在语法教学中,可以充分应用原型范畴理论。