Conciliation Courts Research Articles

El Coordinador de Parentalidad: Un análisis de las resoluciones judiciales en España

ResumenEl coordinador de parentalidad (CP) interviene en situaciones de judicialización de la relación entre los progenitores y de alto conflicto, abordando desde el interés superior de los menores, las cuestiones relativas a la coparentalidad. Este nuevo rol ha sido objeto de directrices específicas de las asociaciones profesionales internacionales, tales como Association of Family and Conciliation Court (AFCC, 2006) y la American Psychological Association (APA, 2012), en las que se establecen orientaciones para la práctica de este profesional. En España, su implantación es muy reciente, siendo iniciada en Cataluña y seguida por otras comunidades autónomas. Desde este contexto, nos planteamos un estudio para conocer cómo se ha concretado esta nueva figura en las resoluciones judiciales, atendiendo por una parte a la motivación legal y, por otra, a la motivación de la práctica que los jueces atribuyen a esta figura. Se llevó a cabo un análisis de contenido de las resoluciones judiciales que incluían la figura de Coordinación de Parentalidad en la base de datos CENDOJ. Los resultados obtenidos permiten conocer los detalles legales que los decisores judiciales incluyen en sus resoluciones, así como los criterios que emplean para motivar esta figura y su correspondencia con las directrices internacionales. Se concluye que las sentencias se dotan de motivación legal, y que los criterios se corresponden, en lo esencial, con las directrices editadas por las asociaciones internacionales, aunque sería preciso mejorar el conocimiento de los operadores jurídicos acerca de las posibilidades que ofrece la CP, para ayudar a las familias con separaciones conflictivas de los progenitores a ejercer una coparentalidad positivaAbstractA parenting coordinator (PC) is a professional who inter­venes in judicial contexts involving high conflict parental litigation in order to safeguard the child’s best interest, as well as dealing with issues concerning coparenting. This new role has been the object of specific directives from international professional associations such as the Asso­ciation of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC, 2006), and the American Psychological Association (APA, 2012), who have established guidelines for professional practice. The figure of the PC has been introduced only recently in Spain, with Catalonia being the first autono­mous communities to do so. Bearing these circumstances in mind, this study aims to assess the impact of this new figure on judicial judgements by examining both the legal reasoning, and the judges’ rationale guiding the professional practice of this figure. Judicial judgements from the CENDOJ database involving the figure of the Parenting coordinator were analysed. The results ob­tained shed light on the legal reasoning cited by judicial decision-makers in their judgements and the criteria em­ployed to justify this new figure and its correspondence with international guidelines. Judgements were found to be grounded on legal reasoning and the criteria was es­sentially in accordance with guidelines proposed by in­ternational associations. Nevertheless, legal decision-makers must further their understanding concerning the role of the CP in order to assist families with high con­flict parents to ensure positive coparenting.

The Evolution of Tariff Protection and Wage Protection in the Late Colonies and Early Federation

This paper examines the links between tariff protection and wage protection. These two areas of regulation were linked politically by a coalition of the Protectionist Party and the Labour Party which supported both policies together. In the regulatory systems themselves there were links through New Protection Policy and the major influence it had on the hugely important Harvester Judgment of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. By 1910, these developments had laid down the foundations of Australian tariff policy and labour market regulation which became among the most highly regulated markets in the non‐communist world for many decades.

Usage of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods for Settlement of Labour Disputes of Manufacturing Industry in Sri Lanka

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as Arbitration, Conciliation, Collective Agreements and Industrial Courts are utilized for settlement of labour disputes in manufacturing organizations in Sri Lanka instead of litigation where applicable. Thus, this study aims to identify ‘to what extent manufacturing industry in Sri Lanka practices ADR methods’. The aforesaid research problem was approached through a multiple case study including three manufacturing organizations in Sri Lanka. Semi structured interviews were utilized for data collection considering both employer and employee perspectives. Findings of the case study survey revealed that usage of ADR methods was lesser comparing to the usage of litigation even though the arduous litigation process provides considerable of drawbacks. As a result of that organizations do not receive benefits of using ADR and the native drawbacks of the litigation process are there. Further findings revealed that ineffectiveness incorporated in to current ADR system was the major reason for the less usage. In this research improvements are recommended for development of ADR to achieve strong position with effective settlements which leads to increase the usage of ADR. When the usage is increasing, simultaneously organization will be benefited in two ways with reduced litigation drawbacks and benefits of ADR. This study will provide information for authorized persons about current ADR practice and areas where further improvements are required. The study emphasizes business managers and employees the significance of using ADR instead of litigation practices where applicable.

A Systematic Approach to Domestic Abuse–Informed Child Custody Decision Making in Family Law Cases

This article introduces an approach to domestic violence–informed decision making developed under the auspices of the National Child Custody Differentiation Project, a cooperative undertaking among the Battered Women's Justice Project, the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges, Praxis International, and the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. This approach has four essential elements: (1) identifying domestic abuse; (2) understanding the nature and context of domestic abuse; (3) determining the implications of abuse; and (4) accounting for the nature, context, and implications of abuse in all custody‐related recommendations and decisions. Key Points for the Family Court Community: Applying a systematic approach to domestic violence can help practitioners identify, understand, and account for abuse in family law cases. The approach recommended here is suitable for use by anyone who is involved in a contested child custody case at any stage of the proceeding. The specific application of the recommended approach will vary depending upon the practitioner's role and function in the case, relationship to the parties, and access to information, as well as the nature of the proceeding and the issues to be decided.

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:

Focus: The erosion of a distinctive system

INTERNATIONAL union rights Page 6 Volume 21 Issue 2 2014 Wages must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort But in recent decades, a disturbing trend has emerged and persisted. Until 2005, the Australian minimum wage bite (the relationship of minimum wages to average full-time wages or median full-time earnings) was the highest in the OECD. But over the last two decades, this has changed. In that period, our minimum wage bite has fallen sharply (see Figure 1), earnings inequality has grown and the incidence of low pay has risen. While Australia has not experienced a recession since the early 1990’s, the minimum wage bite has declined during both economic booms and times of slower growth. It has declined under each of the three institutions that have had responsibility for adjusting minimum wages over that time. While the real value of minimum wages has grown modestly since the late 1990s, the bite has still continued to fall. Australia is now rapidly converging with other OECD countries. If the trend of a declining minimum wage bite continues , Australia’s distinctive minimum wage system will have been lost. Our wage floor will, in a few short years, be akin to those of Canada or the UK (see Figure 2). This changes our country, for the worse. It means a significant decline in the relative living standards of low- paid workers, and it presents a profound contemporary challenge of the trade union movement. And yet despite this trend, more than a century after Harvester, the decision of Higgins still echoes through our system. His principles, modified and adapted, can still be found in our national labour law which directs the Fair Work Commission (who conduct the annual wage review) to have regard to the relative living standards and needs of the low-paid (Fair Work Act 2009, section 484). Heavily contested at the time, the Higgins view that business has an obligation to pay living wage A ustralia has historically been something of an outlier on minimum wages, even when measured against the rest of the developed world. Australia’s relatively high minimum wage and our essentially unique system of awards arbitrated by workplace tribunals has been a key reason why our country has had a relatively low inequality in earnings. The institutional arrangements adopted at both a State and Federal level ensured that our labour market exhibited a (relative) egalitarianism. Today, around 16 percent of Australian employees are paid exactly at the national minimum wage or an award minimum wage and the Annual Wage Review conducted by our national workplace tribunal indirectly influences the pay of many more. But bit-by-bit, in the current era, the traditional egalitarian character of Australia’s labour market is being eroded and the relative living standards of Australia’s lowest paid workers are declining. Australia adopted a form of minimum wage in November 1907. In the landmark Harvester 1 decision , Justice Higgins of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration (applying a statue that said wages had to be ‘fair and reasonable’) held that workers were entitled to a living wage. He defined this by reference to ‘the normal needs of an average employee living in a civilised community ’. Higgins, using language that also appears in the famous 1891 Papal Encyclical on the working class Rerum Novarum, said that wages ‘must be enough to support the wage earner in reasonable and frugal comfort’. Harvester established a male basic wage. The intention was to support a minim standard of living for a male breadwinner and his family. But equal pay was not on the agenda. A 1919 case determined that women were entitled to 54 percent of men’s wages, a standard that persisted until World War II, when the standard rose to 75 percent.2 It wasn’t until key tribunal decisions in 1969 and 1972 that the principles of equal pay for equal work and (to more practical effect) equal pay for work of equal value were adopted, ensuring that he minimum wage system did not exacerbate the gender pay-gap. Shamefully, the last race-based differential in our system of minimum wages (in relation to...

Reforming Ontario's Family Justice System: An Evidence-Based Approach

Commissioned by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Ontario Chapter.This Report summarizes research about justice system responses to family disputes, makes recommendations for government action based on that empirical evidence, and identifies some as yet unanswered system design questions requiring further study. This document is provocative as it is premised on a realistic appreciation of the nature of family disputes and the limits of government action, especially in the present fiscal environment, and the fact that there are issues related to family justice that research has not adequately addressed and hence development of public policy must be undertaken in the face of uncertainty.There are interrelated challenges in addressing the problems in the family justice process, not only for governments, but also for the professionals who work in the justice system. There are issues related to laws, structures and policies that governments need to address, as well as issues of professional culture and practice that need to be addressed by legal educators, professional organizations and individual practitioners. There is, however, also a need for a realistic appreciation of what can be done to better resolve family disputes, both in terms of what any programs, policies or professionals can do to reduce the stress and suffering that is a common feature of these cases, and in terms of the resources that governments can and will commit to dealing with these issues given present fiscal realities.This Report focuses on measures that governments, in particular in Ontario, should be undertaking to improve access to family justice and the functioning of Ontario’s family justice system. The Report especially considers how empirical research informs how the government should respond to family relationship breakdown. Part 1 of the Report identifies the criteria by which the efficacy of separation-related interventions should be evaluated. It is argued that three processes are most clearly demonstrated to be effective in achieving these goals. These responses are then discussed in detail: enforced adjudication (Part 2); mediation (Part 3); and providing information to those involved in family disputes (Part 4). The Report considers each of these three responses, identifying evidence of their efficacy, alternative ways to provide them, ways to improve their delivery and their limitations. Knowing that these three things work leaves several important questions unanswered, and Part 5 identifies and discusses these challenging issues. These are questions for which, to this point, research has not adequately determined clear answers. Should services be delivered under a triage model, or through tiers? To what extent should the state seek to consolidate and simplify separation-related services? In what circumstances should users be required to pay for family justice services? Should adjudicative functions and settlement-seeking/relationship-building functions be kept in separated spheres, or brought together?

Exploring Best Practices in Parenting Coordination: A National Survey of Current Practices and Practitioners

This study addresses a lack of empirical research informing evidence-based practices in the field of parenting coordination. We conducted a national survey of parenting coordinators (PCs), using the PC Network of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Participants (N = 79) were presented with narrative descriptions of interventions prescribed by parenting coordination trainers, and rated how effective they perceived each intervention to be in resolving conflicts. Results indicated that PCs perceived specific interventions to be more effective than others. Contrary to expectations, legal and mental health professionals surveyed did not differ significantly in the degree to which they rated interventions as effective. Implications for interdisciplinary, evidence-based practice and training of PCs are presented, although caution should be exercised when attempting to generalize findings from a limited sample to the broader population. Keypoints for the Family Court Community gain insight into interventions prescribed by parenting coordination trainers across the country. To understand which interventions are seen as most important by a national sample of parenting coordinators. To explore the differences in perceived importance of specific interventions between legal and mental health professionals. To guide training and collaboration in the field of parenting coordination.

Association of Family and Conciliation Court Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation

The Child Protection Mediation Guidelines Workgroup came together under the auspices of the Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network to examine program development and the practice of Child Protection Mediation (CPM). The Workgroup convened and began its work in 2010. The resultant “Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation” was approved by the AFCC Board of Directors in 2012. Key Points for the Family Court Community Child Protection Mediation provides an opportunity for families and professionals involved in child abuse and neglect matters to resolve disputes in a safe, inclusive and thoughtful manner. The Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation establish core principles and strategies for establishing and maintaining high quality child protection mediation programs and practices. The Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation can serve as a road map for programs and practitioners to follow in their day-to-day work with families and their children who are involved with the child welfare system.

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation

The Child Protection Mediation Guidelines Workgroup came together under the auspices of the Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network to examine program development and the practice of Child Protection Mediation (CPM). The Workgroup convened and began its work in 2010. The resultant “Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation” was approved by the AFCC Board of Directors in 2012.Key Points for the Family Court Community Child Protection Mediation provides an opportunity for families and professionals involved in child abuse and neglect matters to resolve disputes in a safe, inclusive and thoughtful manner. The Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation establish core principles and strategies for establishing and maintaining high quality child protection mediation programs and practices. The Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation can serve as a road map for programs and practitioners to follow in their day‐to‐day work with families and their children who are involved with the child welfare system.

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.

Reflections of Leadership: Fifty Years of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Family Court ReviewVolume 51, Issue 1 p. 10-19 Perspectives on the Past Reflections of Leadership: Fifty Years of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Peter Salem, Peter SalemSearch for more papers by this author Peter Salem, Peter SalemSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 January 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12002 Correspondence: psalem@afccnet.org Read 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 onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume51, Issue1Special Issue: Family Court Review's Fiftieth AnniversaryJanuary 2013Pages 10-19 RelatedInformation

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.

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.

An Overview of the Rules Governing the Performance of Public Middle School Teachers in Mexico City

Rules governing the performance of public middle school teachers in Mexico City are contained in a myriad of regulations, a fact which leads to certain difficulties in understanding them. This article analyzes them based on a detailed review of the relevant laws and interviews with the public officers who enforce these provisions. Teacher performance rules are divided into three groups depending on the type of activity regulated: performance in the classroom, discipline, and attendance/punctuality. The comment also provides a brief explanation of the remedies for sanctions imposed on teachers by the educational authorities, and explains the nature of the termination lawsuit before the Federal Court of Conciliation and Arbitration.

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

REPORT FROM THE WINGSPREAD CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FAMILY COURTS

In February 2007 the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts brought together a working group of thirty‐seven experienced practitioners and researchers to identify and explore conceptual and practical tensions that have hampered effective work with families in which domestic violence has been identified or alleged. Five central sets of issues were raised at the conference and are discussed in this report. These include the following: differentiation among families experiencing domestic violence, screening and triage, participation by families in various processes and services, appropriate outcomes for children, and family court roles and resources. The report emphasizes the need for continued multidisciplinary collaboration in order to better serve families affected by domestic violence and it includes an appendix of consensus points as well as suggestions for formation of ongoing work groups.