Association Of Family And Conciliation Courts Research Articles

International judicial symposium on family court reform: Final report

AbstractOn May 30, 2023, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) co‐sponsored an international symposium to explore the subject of family court reform. Twenty‐eight judges representing eight countries and including numerous North American states and provinces met in Los Angeles, California, to identify the most pressing challenges facing family courts and to document promising approaches to improve practice and outcomes in family court cases. They focused on domestic relations cases, as opposed to child welfare and juvenile justice matters. Prior to the symposium, participants responded to a survey about family court reform efforts in each participant's jurisdiction. Judicial officers attending the symposium represented diverse legal systems with some common and many different practices and challenges. After a day filled with small and large group discussions, participants identified key takeaways and made recommendations emanating from the day's discussions.

Experience with Ontario’s Parenting Plan Guide and Template

Abstract Detailed, voluntary parenting plans are being increasing used in many jurisdictions. In conjunction with legislative reforms that came into effect in Canada in 2021 and specifically provide for parenting plans in place of traditional custody and access orders, the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC-O) tasked a multidisciplinary group to prepare materials to assist professionals and parents in making parenting plans, including providing developmentally appropriate advice about parenting time schedules. This research project involved surveys and interviews with a total of 103 participants (lawyers, judges, mediators, mental health professionals, and parents) about their experiences with parenting plans and the AFCC-O materials. The use of parenting plans has increased as a result of the legislative changes, new resources to assist in making plans, and the accompanying professional education programmes. Professionals and parents appreciate having access to the type of jurisdictionally specific resource materials prepared by multidisciplinary groups, and judges have made significant use of these materials. The materials are especially useful for parents who have access to appropriate professional support and who have good literacy skills, and for lower conflict cases. It is, however, clear that the parenting plan materials have limitations, and in particular these resources have limited utility for self-represented litigants and cannot help in resolving higher conflict cases and those cases where family violence exists.

The AFCC‐Ontario Parenting Plan Guide and Template: Jurisdictionally‐Specific Resources for Family Justice Professionals and Parents

This article discusses the development of the concept of parenting plans and the different approaches to providing materials that can help parents and professionals to make individualized, future‐oriented plans for children post‐separation. More than a quarter century after American states began to enact laws to encourage the use of parenting plans, Canada amended its legislation to abandon the proprietary concepts of “custody” and “access,” and encourage the use of parenting plans rather than “custody orders”. To support the making and use of individualized, child‐focused parenting plans, the Ontario Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC‐O) prepared its Parenting Plan Guide and Parenting Plan Template. These web‐based materials are available without charge to parents and their professional advisors. The Guide discusses the value of parental co‐operation and planning, while recognizing that in cases where there are serious issues of abuse, violence or parental mental health, a protective judicial role and court orders may be needed. The Guide offers advice on the making of developmentally‐appropriate parenting plans, and the Template provides possible alternatives for the wording of specific clauses. While the available parenting plan materials from different jurisdictions have broadly similar content, there is value in having family justice organizations, including chapters of the AFCC, develop their own materials, that are consistent with the laws, justice processes and resources of their jurisdiction. The Ontario experience suggests that judges, lawyers and parents may be more likely to use jurisdictionally‐specific materials rather than more generic resources.

Comment on Kleinman and Walker's “Protecting Psychotherapy Clients From the Shadow of the Law: A Call for the Revision of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapy”

In reviewing Kleinman and Walker's paper critiquing the AFCC Guidelines for Court Involved Therapy and calling for their retraction, I found little with which to disagree. What is perhaps not empha...

Protecting Psychotherapy Clients From the Shadow of the Law: A Call for the Revision of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Guidelines for Court-Involved Therapy

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) published a set of guidelines a few years ago that called for the creation of what appears to be a new type of psychotherapy called “Court-Involved Therapy” (CIT) to substitute for the traditional psychotherapy sought by litigants in family court, though this may not have been the original intent. We posit the AFCC CIT Guidelines have suggested changes to typical psychotherapy practice, or perhaps even created a new form of therapy, that may have the unintended consequence of distracting from the psychotherapist's focus on the client's treatment needs and may result in not meeting the obligations to clients. The authors point out the flaws in the AFCC CIT Guidelines and further suggest that it is not best practices, standard of care, or harmless to clients and litigants to follow all of these guidelines. Finally, 14 suggestions are made for revisions of the proposal.

Response to Article on “Abused Mothers’ Safety Concerns and Court Mediators’ Custody Recommendations”

In their article, “Abused Mothers’ Safety Concerns and Court Mediators’ Custody Recommendations” (Journal of Family Violence, v.27, pp.321-332), Rivera, Zeoli, and Sullivan conclude, “IPA [intimate partner abuse] does not significantly influence mediators’ custody decision making. Rather, father’s actions and custody desires during mediation appear to be more important to mediators... Further, emotional abuse and control are not taken seriously, and physical abuse is considered to be the only legitimate form of abuse” (p.330). Further, the authors suggest, “Mediators prefer to award joint custody” (p.320), and this bias exists even in situations where the father has abused the mother. While these findings are very disconcerting, upon closer reading of the article, it is not clear that the researchers were actually studying a mediation process. The title of the article suggests the research focused on abused women’s concerns about mediation. The literature review focuses on research on mediation, particularly in the context of IPA. It is not until the bottom of the third page of the article (p. 324) that the authors note that they were not actually studying a mediation program or process, per se, but rather an intervention involving a courtappointed official who facilitated negotiation (in an unspecified manner) and who “makes a custody and visitation recommendation regardless of whether the divorcing couple comes to an agreement” (p.324). Although the authors note that they use the term “court mediator” and “mediator” interchangeably, they refer to the process they studied as mediation. In fact, the process was not mediation, and the article is not clear whether the program even uses the term “mediation” to describe its services. According to the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) 2000), family and divorce mediation is defined as:

Family Court Services: A Reflection on 50 Years of Contributions

In the fifty years between 1963 and today, the family court landscape has entirely changed. In many jurisdictions, family court judges have access to a range of court services to refer parents to, from mediation, to parent education, to parenting coordination. Courts are more aware of and sensitive to issues of domestic and family violence and the special needs of nontraditional families. Bound by precedence, courts are generally not considered to be institutions which change rapidly and, in court time, fifty years is quite brief. How can one explain these changes? Certainly societal changes (e.g., the role of women in the workforce changed significantly since 1963 as did the number of people seeking divorce), overburdened civil court dockets, and legal changes (e.g., abrogation of the tender years doctrine and adoption of joint custody presumptions) all contributed to the need for courts to develop new ways of providing services but one cannot ignore the major role that the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) played as a catalyst to support and expand the provision of innovate court services to litigants and their families. In fact, if one looks at the significant discussions at AFCC conferences, which then developed into articles or special issues of Family Court Review and ultimately led to the development of guidelines, standards, or best practices either led by AFCC or with AFCC as a major contributor. The author examines these contributions by reviewing them in the context of the major changes in family court services over the past five decades. The article will conclude with some speculation about the future.

Self‐Represented Parties in Mediation: Fifty Years Later It Remains the Elephant in the Room

The past fifty years have borne witness to increases in parties representing themselves and mediating, rather than litigating, in divorce and other family law cases. In this article, we review changes in family law; discuss challenges for self‐represented litigants and mediators working with them; review guidance developed by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the American Bar Association (ABA); and discuss state ethics opinions, guidelines, and rules. We conclude with our proposal and urge the AFCC and the ABA to draft Model Rules of Practice for Mediating with Self‐Represented Parties to assist states in implementing appropriate rule changes.

ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS WHITE PAPER GUIDELINES FOR COURT-INVOLVED THERAPY: A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

This article was written by the Honorable Linda S. Fidnick and Kelly. A. Koch, Esq. Judge Fidnick is an Associate Justice with the Hampshire Probate and Family Court. Prior to her appointment to the bench in 2008, Judge Fidnick was a partner in the Amherst law firm of Burres, Fidnick & Booth LLP, where she concentrated her practice in all areas of family law. Judge Fidnick is a graduate of Smith College and the University of Connecticut Law School, and she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar for over thirty years. Judge Fidnick is past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and currently serves on the national board of directors of AFCC. Judge Fidnick and Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. are the co-chairs of the AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapists. Attorney Koch is a graduate of Brandeis University and WesternNew England College School of Law. She served as a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court and is presently an associate attorney with the Springfield, Massachusetts firm of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas. Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in California who has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on interventions in high conflict divorce, Parenting Coordination and child alienation in family law cases. He currently serves on the Board of Directors at AFCC. Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. is a family forensic psychologist practicing in Los Angeles, California. She serves as the reporter for the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force and Co-Chairs the Family Forensic Special Interest Group of Div. 43. She Co-Chaired the APA-ABA Working Group on Representation and Advocacy for Children. The AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapists was given the charge of defining guidelines for the professional practice of therapists working with court-involved families. A draft of the Guidelines was presented for Comments in March 2010 and all comments were submitted to the Task Force Reporter, Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. on May 1, 2010.

SURVIVING BENCH STRESS

The article presents a discussion of judicial stress, along with proposed solutions. The authors gathered information on the topic of judicial stress from judges via a survey and attendance at two Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) conventions. Some of the daily stressors endorsed by judges included endless caseloads, severe time limitations, social isolation, lack of privacy, and the weight of deciding the fates of others. It is important for our judges to be provided with ways of relieving and preventing burnout and stress. Proposed bench stress solutions include incorporating the Psychologist Advocate Program into the judicial system and creating specific guidelines for judges to take sabbaticals, which will serve to enhance our judicial system and the entire community.

JULY 2008

Family Court ReviewVolume 46, Issue 3 p. 431-433 JULY 2008 Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Editor Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law and Director, Center for Children, Families and the Law Hempstead, New York 11549Search for more papers by this author Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Editor Professor of Law, Hofstra University School of Law and Director, Center for Children, Families and the Law Hempstead, New York 11549Search for more papers by this author First published: 14 May 2008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00211.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume46, Issue3July 2008Pages 431-433 RelatedInformation

Use of Collateral Contacts in Child Custody Evaluations

ABSTRACT Four hundred nineteen members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) identify themselves as custody evaluators in the 1999–2000 membership directory. One hundred of these custody evaluators were randomly selected for inclusion in this survey of the use of collateral contact interviews in child custody evaluations. Fifty-three of those selected responded to a brief questionnaire concerning their use and views of collaterals. All evaluators reported use of the collateral interview. Most practitioners reported using both personal and telephone interviews. Respondents indicated that they interview family and friends, but routinely place greater trust in more objective sources that have no obvious, vested interest in outcome. More experienced evaluators reported evolving toward use of written questionnaires for use in interviewing collateral sources for purposes of risk management as well as increasing relevance and convergent validity.