Best practices for structuring a family court parenting plan evaluation under the 2022 AFCC Guidelines

Evaluation appointment orders provide enforceable scaffolding for conduct of family court parenting plan evaluations, and use of the evaluator's reports, feedback, file, and testimony. Unlike a contract, a stipulated or adjudicated appointment order is directly enforceable by the family court. It unambiguously positions the evaluator as the family court's appointee – answerable directly to the court and, in some jurisdictions, protected by quasi-judicial immunity from damages claims. A well-crafted appointment order governs the roles and expectations of the court, the evaluator, the parties, the lawyers, and the collateral witnesses. An appointment order mandates the legal duties, rights, powers, and responsibilities of the professionals, the parties, and the collateral witnesses. At minimum, an appointment order articulates the legal basis for the appointment, the purpose and scope of the evaluation, compensation of evaluator, and the duty of the parties to participate in the process. A written evaluation protocol or procedures statement discloses in advance the methods of investigation and assessment that the evaluator intends to use. Together, the appointment order and written protocol help the evaluator, lawyers, parents, and judge manage the complexity of the evaluation process.     

行政命令与行政处罚程序和谐关系之构建

行政命令与行政处罚是两种不同的具体行政行为,二者在实体上相互区分的同时,在程序上又相互联系,这种联系建立在二者都可针对相对人的违法行为作出的基础上,表现为程序上的排他关系、并行关系或优先关系,其中以命令前置为原则的程序优先关系是一种和谐的程序关系．它不仅体现了执法手段从轻到重的和谐,也体现了行政主体与行政相对人之间的和谐,构建这种和谐的程序关系对保障相对人的合法权益具有重要的意义。     

Factors Associated with Separation and Ongoing Violence among Women with Civil Protective Orders

This study examined a large sample of women recruited out of court at the time they received a civil protective order to better understand relationship status after obtaining a protective order (PO) and factors associated with protective order violations. Results are consistent with prior research suggesting that the protective order may be the impetus in separating from the abusive partner for some women, while for other women it is part of the separation process. Results also indicated that five out of ten women who did not continue a relationship experienced a violation while seven out of ten women who did continue a relationship with the PO partner experienced a violation. The majority of women felt safer and reported they believed the protective order was effective 13 months post-PO, regardless of relationship status. Furthermore, stalking played a significant role in separation from an abusive relationship and in protective order violations regardless of relationship status. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Do Judicial Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic Violence?

Every state in the United States authorizes its courts to issue civil orders of protection for victims of domestic violence. Ideally, restraining orders should be available to all victims. However, consistent with the patriarchal paradigm, research suggests that judicial responses to domestic violence temporary restraining order (TRO) requests may be sex-differentiated. This paper reports on a study that explored equal protection issues in family law by evaluating gender and violence profiles of a random sample of 157 TRO petitions involving intimate partners, dating couples, and married persons in a California district court. The majority of cases involved allegations of low or moderate levels of violence perpetrated by male defendants against female plaintiffs. Although there were no systematic differences in level of violence as a function of plaintiff sex, judges were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner. Further analyses revealed that this sex differentiation was limited to cases involving allegations of low-level violence.

Does Eligibility for Protection Orders Prevent Repeat Abuse of Domestic Abuse Victims in Caribbean States?

The English-speaking Caribbean state of Barbados enacted protection orders legislation in 1992. The goal was to protect household members from domestic abuse inflicted by those with whom they live. To understand the impact of this policy, the study utilized a survival analysis model to test the hypothesis that eligibility for protection orders on Barbados contributed to a significantly lower hazard of repeat abuse for women, compared to women on St. Kitts where protection orders were not available. Data were drawn from police reports that document incidents of domestic abuse reported on Barbados and St. Kitts where high rates of domestic abuse persist. The study found only a negligible difference between the hazard of repeat abuse of women on St. Kitts and women on Barbados.

A ‘double edged sword’: discretion and compulsion in policing domestic violence

Policing domestic violence is a complex area in which there are divergent views about the extent to which front line police action should be mandated by legislation and guidance. This study set in Victoria, Australia raised questions about the balance between discretion and compulsion in policing domestic violence through researching the implementation of the Code of Practice used to respond to domestic violence incidents. The project team interrogated aggregate data from the police database on family violence and also interviewed 125 police members (60 sergeants and 65 constables) to explore the attitudes to the Code of Practice and policing domestic violence. The findings reveal that discretion within a range of options is circumscribed. Variable understandings of the nature of domestic violence and the role of risk assessment and management suggest that constrained and guided discretion may be required to achieve optimum effectiveness in policing responses to domestic violence.     

略论企业的社会责任

企业的社会责任,是在获取利润,对出资人承担法律责任,包括依法纳税,守法经营的同时,还要承担对员工、顾客(消费者)、供应商、社区和环境的责任。企业的社会责任,要求企业必须超越把利润作为唯一目标的传统观念,强调在生产经营过程中对人的全面发展的关注,树立以人为本,促进社会和谐的现代企业理念,注重对消费者,对环境,对社会的贡献。     

Succession,power-sharing and the development of representative institutions in medieval Europe

Historians have documented that in medieval Europe, bargaining over the loyalty of lay magnates and high clergy was most intense during successions and that this often forced monarchs to give political concessions. We argue that matters related to succession predict short-term power-sharing concessions by rulers but that – because they do not permanently alter the balance of power between ruler and elite – they only trigger lasting changes of political institutions if these changes are in the mutual interest of the ruler and the elite groups. It follows that successions are unlikely to have long-term effects on representative institutions but that they may consolidate the rules regulating succession (the succession order). Using the natural deaths of monarchs as an instrument for successions, we confirm these claims with a new dataset that includes fine-grained data on succession and parliament-like assemblies in 16 European polities between 1000 and 1600. These findings shed new light on the development of representative institutions in medieval Europe, on the changes in succession orders that brought about clear rules about primogeniture and on the political leeway of legislatures in authoritarian regimes more generally.     

人格权侵害禁令的程序实现

人格权侵害禁令是人格权侵害领域中预防性责任形式的快速实现机制,其独立于先予执行和普通的行为保全,是不必然伴随诉讼程序、具有非暂时性和非保全性的人格权独立保护制度。根据此种实体法功能,禁令的程序模式在价值上要权衡程序的便利高效和当事人的程序利益保障。基于非讼程序法理的发展和现行法,虽然禁令案件是真正的诉讼案件,但仍可将其作为非讼程序的审理对象,并以非讼程序作为禁令的基本程序模式。据此,禁令程序应采用职权探知主义,建立被申请人最低限度的程序保障规则,确立非讼程序和诉讼程序之间的合理转换条件和方式,且禁令程序中的裁定不具有既判力。其他的具体程序规则也应根据非讼程序予以解释构建。