Beyond Taphonomy: Exploring Craniometric Variation Among Anatomical Material

Anatomical crania are occasionally encountered in forensic anthropology laboratories when that material is mistaken for forensically significant human remains. Using craniometric analyses and statistical measures of sample homogeneity, we determine whether anatomical material can be described as a single, homogenous group or as a diverse mix of populations. Twenty‐one interlandmark distances were collected from 85 anatomical preparations. Distance measures were calculated between all pairs using a pooled within‐sample variance/covariance matrix and then subjected to a Defrise‐Gussenhoven test between each paired distance to test whether each pair was drawn randomly from the same population. In the Defrise‐Gussenhoven analysis, twenty‐two percent (n = 66) of the 300 pairwise combinations were significant at the 0.05 level or below. The level of homogeneity suggests a majority of that material originated from the subcontinent of India or West Asia. Therefore, anatomical material can be viewed as a moderately homogenous group, but with a shared taphonomic history.     

Vertical Lip Position and Thickness in Facial Reconstruction: A Validation of Commonly Used Methods for Predicting the Position and Size of Lips

This study examined several methods used to estimate oral fissure position, lip margin position, and lip thickness recommended by Angel, George, Lebedinskaya, Taylor, Wilkinson et al., Balueva and Veselovskaya. A sample of 86 lateral head cephalograms of adult subjects from central Europe were measured and the actual and predicted dimensions were compared. The best estimation for oral fissure position was “opposite the lower ¾ mark of maxillary incisors” (error of 1.3 mm). Upper lip margin was predicted best by “upper ¼ mark of maxillary incisors” (error of 1.7 mm), and lower lip margin by “cementum‐enamel junction of mandibular incisors” (error of 2.3 mm). The regression equations of Wilkinson et al. displayed least error (1.3 mm and 1.8 mm, respectively) for upper and lower lip thickness, and method of George (error of 3.4 mm) for total lip thickness.     

Catching Them Before Too Much Damage is Done: Early Intervention with Resistance‐Refusal Dynamics

Children often need help before their parents are ready to stop fighting. Children at the center of high‐conflict disputes, particularly those who resist contact with a parent, face extraordinary risks of maladjustment. Years of investigation and litigation may precede any meaningful attempt at intervention, based on the questionable belief that all elements of causality (or blame) must be established before any effective treatment can occur. Children's functioning may continue to deteriorate during this time, undermining their future adjustment and reducing the chance of successful intervention later. We illustrate the application of the coping‐focused, multisystemic Child Centered Conjoint Therapy model to assisting these families. Methods to assist children without compromising external investigations are discussed.     

Co‐parenting in a Highly Conflicted Separation/Divorce: Learning about Parents and their Experiences of Parenting Coordination,Legal, and Mental Health Interventions

Sixty high‐conflict separated/divorced co‐parents completed surveys investigating characteristics and dynamics (narcissism, empathy, conflict) that were examined in relation to co‐parenting style and parents' experiences of parenting coordination, legal, and mental health interventions. Study findings for this sample did not support common notions found in the literatures on parenting coordination and high‐conflict divorce that suggest these parents are often narcissistic or low in empathy. Findings pertaining to all high‐conflict participant experiences revealed the presence of common elements across aspects of practitioners and interventions with which they were both satisfied and dissatisfied.     

Convenient and Inconvenient Truths in Family Law: Preventing Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in the Use of Social Science Research for Public Policy

This is the second of two articles on the risks of advocacy bias in the reporting of research findings when boundaries are blurred between social science research and advocacy in the pursuit of public policy. In the first article we identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence. The first article discusses the difference between truth in social science and truth in law and identifies a range of scholar‐advocacy strategies that bias research evidence, illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. In this second article we show how biased research evidence by scholar advocates results in increased confusion and controversy that diminishes the credibility of all parties and stalemates progress in the field, using a case illustration of intimate partner violence in family court. We also show how adherence to scientific methods prevents the misuse of research and suggest a number of collaborative, integrative measures that can help transcend the adversarial stalemate. In a look to the future we consider some unbiased, standardized ways of assessing the strength and generalizability of research evidence.     

A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Two Court‐Connected Programs for High‐Conflict Families

Parents who experience great amounts of legal conflict as they dissolve their relationship and arrive at their parenting arrangements require an outsize proportion of courts’ time and resources. Additionally, there is overwhelming evidence that conflict has a deleterious effect on their children. We partnered with the family court to conduct a study comparing the effectiveness of two programs for families deemed by their judge to be high conflict and thereby mandated to a program. Both involved one 3‐hour session; the existing program, Parent Conflict Resolution (PCR), used exhortational lecture and video; the newly designed experimental program, Family Transitions Guide (FTG), based on motivational interviewing, employed exercises attempting to get parents to decide for themselves what they needed to do for the sake of their children. Parents were assigned at random to one of the two programs (the literature often terms this a randomized clinical trial) and were interviewed just before it began and 9 months later, as was a child. Results showed that child's report of their own well‐being was significantly improved by FTG as compared to PCR and that these effects were mediated by children feeling less caught in the middle. On several variables, parent report showed that parents in PCR as compared to FTG felt decreased problems in co‐parenting and less interparental conflict, although the effects were not consistent across mother and father report. There was also evidence of diminished legal conflict over 9 months in FTG as compared to PCR.     

May Mediators Draft Settlement Agreements?

This article surveys the current law in various states as well as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct regarding whether a mediator‐lawyer may draft a settlement agreement at the conclusion of a mediation. It includes a look at the traditional boundaries between a lawyer and a mediator and concludes with a recommendation on how California should approach whether a mediator‐lawyer should be allowed to draft a settlement agreement for parties at the conclusion of a mediation.