Family Justice Research Articles

Professionals’ perceptions of the impact of a family justice center: a four-year, cross-sectional study

Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives held by professionals affiliated with an FJC through a cross-sectional survey. The family justice center (FJC) model is expanding rapidly in the USA and internationally. Despite the rapid growth of the FJC movement, there is a need for more research to document the impact of FJCs on victims and survivors, professionals working in FJCs and the broader community. Design/methodology/approach The current paper focuses on perspectives of professionals who serve victims of family and interpersonal violence and it includes the results of a four-year, cross-sectional survey of professionals working in a community that established an FJC. Data analyzes examined differences in perspectives of professionals based on timing (i.e. from before an FJC was established to the time when the center was in operation for three years) and based on whether professionals worked primarily onsite at the FJC location. Findings The findings demonstrated that although some statistically significant differences were identified that suggest a positive impact of an FJC for professionals, more research is needed to further explore how professionals’ perspectives and experiences are impacted through the establishment of an FJC. Originality/value This study is the first-known cross-sectional examination of the perspectives of professionals working within an FJC model over a multi-year period.

Reducing Recurrent Care Proceedings: Building a Local Evidence Base in England

Recent studies of public law care proceedings within the family justice system in England and Wales suggest that up to a quarter of all mothers who appear in such proceedings will reappear within a subsequent—or recurrent—set of such proceedings within seven years. In the last decade, new interdisciplinary research spanning social work, clinical psychology and sociology has defined and investigated the previously hidden challenge and social costs of ‘recurrent care proceedings’ (RCP). This article adds to this new field by analysing the core values, practice and impact of three different local services in the northwest of England working with birth parents to reduce the risk of recurrent proceedings. The article combines data gathered from the three distinct services using a common evaluation framework co-produced by the authors working with service leads, practitioners and users. It explores how all three services are seeking to reduce the risk of recurrent care proceedings in their local areas without requiring women to use long acting reversible contraception (LARC) or other forms of contraception as a condition of accessing the service. It concludes that insights gained from these and cognate services can inform an emergent community of practice in the recurrent care field.

Under the punitive aegis: Dependency and the family justice center model

The San Diego Family Justice Center (FJC) model seeks to lessen the burden on domestic violence victims by co-locating social service agencies, law enforcement, and prosecution at one site. Shortly following the inception of the model in 2002, it gained widespread acclaim (and federal funding), spreading the model across the country. Using visual and textual discourse analysis, this paper examines the promotional and procedural material produced by proponents of the San Diego FJC model. FJC materials construct victimhood using discourses of crime control and therapeutic intervention. The resulting discursive formation is that of the passive, dependent battered woman, curable only through robustly punitive state intervention. In this way, FJC materials not only advance a distinct construction of victimhood but also a particular agenda for punishment policy. Extending Jonathan Simon’s contentions regarding the resonance of victim discourse within American society, I argue that therapeutic discourse can bolster the effectiveness of punitive campaigns.

The ‘toxic trio’ (domestic violence, substance misuse and mental ill-health): How good is the evidence base?

• Risk of maltreatment from combined toxic trio factors a dominant concept in UK child protection. • Systematic review found 20 papers. • Evidence base lacks definition of key measures, intersectionality analysis or theoretical basis. • Other key risk factors, especially family socio-economic circumstances, excluded. • Need to rebuild the evidence base and rethink the focus of policy and practice. The term ‘toxic trio’ was coined to describe the risk of child abuse and neglect stemming from a combination of domestic violence, parental mental health issues and/or learning disability, and parental alcohol and/or drug misuse (Brandon, 2009). Although concerns about the language have been raised in some quarters, it has become a dominant reference point in children’s social care in England and, to an extent, internationally over the past two decades. It has become embedded in the family justice system, child protection assessment processes and national data collection. There is evidence that each factor in isolation can lead to worse child outcomes, although this is of mixed quality and far from comprehensive. This article reports the results of a systematic review of evidence relevant to the relationship between the ‘toxic trio’ factors in combination and child maltreatment, identifying 20 papers. Despite the term’s currency, we found little quality evidence of the incidence of the ‘trio’ factors in child maltreatment, little consideration of intersectionality and almost no theoretical examination of the supposed relationships. Such studies as have been conducted have too rarely taken into account, or controlled for, contextual factors, such as the socioeconomic circumstances or the ethnicity of the families, or children’s ages. The discrepancy between the priority given to the ‘toxic trio’ and the paucity of the evidence-base makes a case for a shift away from over-simplified attributions of parental risk in policy and practice, and towards greater attention being given to other significant factors for child protection.

Just-ish? An analysis of routes to justice in family law disputes in England and Wales

It is widely documented that the formal family justice system in England and Wales is in crisis. The family courts are plagued by delays and backlogs, whilst parties struggle to secure access to advice and representation due to cuts to public funding. Increasingly, litigants face economic, physical and cultural barriers to courts brought about by rising court fees, reforms to the court system and demographic changes which have resulted in diverse family forms for whom the family courts may have little legitimacy. The first part of this article examines how recent changes to family law and policy in England and Wales have reduced the ease with which parties are able to achieve procedural and substantive justice through the family courts. The second part of the article analyses how forums of dispute resolution which are delivered by non-state actors, but which rely on the state for their authority, have evolved to fill this justice gap and are therefore indicative of a move towards ‘weak’ legal pluralism in the context of family justice. It is argued that although the family courts are still an important cornerstone of the justice landscape, alternative forums of dispute resolution increasingly play a positive role in enabling disputants to achieve their procedural and substantive goals and this is strengthened by a weak approach to legal pluralism which upholds the autonomy of the parties whilst also ensuring necessary protections and safeguards for vulnerable litigants. The article therefore challenges critics of weak pluralism, who perceive that reliance on state recognition precludes institutions playing an important role outside of the state hierarchy.

The barriers to effective access to justice encountered by litigants in person in private family matters post-LASPO

ABSTRACT In February 2019, some six years after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) removed legal aid from a wide range of civil and family matters, the Government released its Post Implementation Review of the impact of LASPO and accompanying action plan. Publication is at a time when governmental policy extolling the virtues of mediation and online dispute resolution has the potential to have a profound effect on family law process. Against this background and having regard to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the family justice system, this paper discusses the findings of the author’s qualitative study on the experiences of litigants in person in civil and family courts. It suggests a typology of litigants in person, explains how and where litigants in person in child arrangements proceedings seek advice and the significant access to justice barriers arising from the compulsory requirement to attend a MIAM before commencing proceedings and attending the fact-finding stage without representation. Ultimately, the paper offers fresh evidence of the harsh realities of litigating without representation in the family court, which despite espousing an inquisitorial process, remains adversarial in character.

Resolution Regarding Access to Medication‐Assisted Treatment for Adolescents and Adults in the Juvenile and Family Justice System

Resolution Regarding Access to Medication‐Assisted Treatment for Adolescents and Adults in the Juvenile and Family Justice System

Data Resource: population level family justice administrative data with opportunities for data linkage.

IntroductionAlthough there has been considerable progress in the use of administrative data for applied health research, the family justice field lags behind. Better use of administrative data are essential to enhance understanding of how the family justice system is working, as well as the characteristics of, and outcomes for, children and families. The Family Justice Data Partnership (FJDP) supports this aim through analyses of core family justice and linked datasets in the SAIL Databank (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage). Cafcass Cymru provide expert advice for children involved in family court proceedings in Wales, ensuring decisions are made in the best interests of the child. We provide an overview of Cafcass Cymru data. We also describe and illustrate linkage to administrative datasets within SAIL.MethodsCafcass Cymru data was transferred to SAIL using a standardised approach to provide de-identified data with Anonymised Linking Fields (ALF) for successfully matched records. Three cohorts were created: all individuals involved in family court applications; all individuals with an ALF allowing subsequent health data linkage; and all individuals with a Residential Anonymised Linking Field (RALF) enabling area-level deprivation analysis.ResultsCafcass Cymru application data are available for child protection matters (public law, range 2011-2019, n=12,745), and child arrangement disputes (private law, range 2005-2019, n=52,023). An 80% data linkage match rate was achieved. 40% had hospital admissions within two years pre or post application; 54% had emergency department attendances and 61% had outpatient appointments. Individuals were more likely to reside in deprived areas regardless of law type.ConclusionCafcass Cymru data can be accessed through the SAIL Databank. The FJDP will continue to enhance research opportunities for all to better understand the family justice system, and outcomes for those involved, such as health and wellbeing for children and family members.

Aproximación al valor de la preclusión en la justicia de familia chilena. A propósito de un estudio aplicado

La justicia de familia en Chile experimentó un cambio cardinal en 2005, al pasar de un procedimiento escrito a uno oral y desformalizado. Sin embargo, a pesar de que han transcurrido 14 años, dentro de los que se han experimentado constantes modificaciones legales, aún no se tiene un cabal entendimiento de la manera en que operan algunos institutos procesales, como la preclusión: las fronteras de las diversas etapas que suceden en las audiencias son menos visibles y suelen difuminarse a la sazón de la oralidad, lo que de alguna manera diluye su aplicación estricta. Lo anterior se detectó a través de un examen cualitativo efectuado a ciertos jueces de familia de Chile. Los resultados de esa investigación, confrontados a parámetros teóricos del instituto en referencia, son los que se dan a conocer en este estudio.

Reactive Law or Conservative Law? The Reform of Divorce Procedure in China

Abstract A marriage can be terminated in two ways in China, by registration or by litigation. Recently, China’s crude divorce rate has been gradually rising. Reforms are being carried out by the judiciary by introducing more supportive measures in divorce litigation. The legislature is writing drafts of the marriage and family part in the Civil Code. In the third draft, proposed articles would change the law on divorce slightly. These reforms reflect some trends in the development of Chinese family law. With respect to some debates on these reforms, the author suggests there could be a better way to draw up drafts. At the level of the judiciary, the present family justice reform has its advantages, and this bottom-up reform should be adhered to.

COVID-19: Wake-Up Call to Reduce Barriers to MH Care for Intimate Partner Violence, Other Traumas

Back to table of contents Previous article ViewpointsFull AccessCOVID-19: Wake-Up Call to Reduce Barriers to MH Care for Intimate Partner Violence, Other TraumasObianuju O. Berry, M.D., M.P.H.Obianuju O. BerrySearch for more papers by this author, M.D., M.P.H.Published Online:24 Jun 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.7a27Under pre-COVID-19 circumstances, intimate partner violence (IPV) was already a public health crisis, with the World Health Organization naming IPV a global health problem of epidemic proportions. In a 2015 national survey, a staggering 12 million men and women, 24 people per minute, were victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner within the United States.During a pandemic, we can expect gender-based violence to intensify due to increased tension and economic distress in the household, compounded by limited in-person resources to seek help and an inability to escape abusive partners. In fact, preliminary reports suggest that there has indeed been an exponential rise in IPV-related cases.In addition to increased rates of IPV, mental health experts are warning of a mental health crisis to follow this initial COVID-19 outbreak that will impact a large segment of the population. Vulnerable populations will be especially affected as socioeconomic and racial inequities underlie multiple mental health conditions. The presence of these inequities prior to COVID-19 now serve as catalysts for heightened mental health–related stress during this pandemic: Members of marginalized groups are less likely to work in jobs that can be performed remotely, less likely to have benefits such as paid sick leave and health insurance, less likely to have a financial safety net, and more likely to live in dense neighborhoods and crowded homes, limiting the ability to maintain social distancing safety measures, but also limiting the ability for accessing social support during times of need. IPV and mental health have a bidirectional relationship: IPV increases the risk of mental illness (for example, posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, substance use disorders, suicide attempts), which themselves increase the vulnerability to IPV. The added risks during COVID-19 require interventions that are agile for identifying and addressing both IPV and mental illness.Prior to COVID-19, significant structural and systemic barriers prevented IPV survivors from accessing high-quality mental health care. Importantly, these obstacles were especially pronounced for minority women, who in the United States are less likely than white women to seek help from various formal and informal sources. In New York City, some of us began addressing this issue in 2014, initiating a tripartite partnership with private, public, and academic collaboration that imbeds skilled mental health clinicians within the Family Justice Center (FJC), a resource center for survivors of IPV and sex trafficking. Since 2017, this new collaboration has been funded by ThriveNYC and provides free, evidence-based treatment, including psychotherapy, skills-based learning, and psychopharmacology in a trauma- and culturally informed capacity by the country’s largest public hospital system, NYC Health + Hospitals. This is the nation’s first such integrated mental health model. New York City now boasts the largest network of FJCs in the country, operated by the Mayor’s Office to End Domestic and Gender-Based Violence.By bringing experienced mental health clinicians to the community, the program is meeting the survivors where they are and where they feel safest. In a citywide program evaluation I led, our data demonstrated that not only do the survivors continue to report feeling safe physically, but they also report feeling safe emotionally and improvements in sleep, mood/anxiety, psychological distress, interpersonal relationships, and parenting skills. Aditional bonuses of the program are reduced wait times and improved staff morale.At this time, the continuing challenge is to create and maintain a system that can meet the ever-growing mental health needs of IPV survivors during COVID-19. Although our program has shifted to remote work, technology has allowed for greater cross-collaboration across institutions and immediate access to clients. Increased brief sessions serve as anchors for augmented support during social distancing measures. Privacy, confidentiality, and assessing safety present ongoing challenges that require creative solutions. Furthermore, formal psychological support systems are have been created for frontline mental health workers, who are partaking in a shared collective trauma response.IPV and mental health concerns were here prior to COVID-19, but as with any disaster, cracks in the system have been revealed that should not be overlooked. This is a wake-up call and an opportunity to reduce systemic barriers to ensure families affected by trauma are not only safe physically, but also emotionally. ■Obianuju O. Berry, M.D., M.P.H., is medical director of the H+H Behavioral Health/Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Collaboration. ISSUES NewArchived

Effective Use of Parenting Coordination: Considerations for Legal and Mental Health Professionals

Parenting Coordination (PC) is a dispute resolution and case management role to assist high conflict coparents (Coates et al., Family Court Review, 2004; 42, 246–262; Sullivan, Journal of Child Custody, 2008; 5, 3–24; Carter & Lally, Parenting Coordination in Post‐Separation Disputes, 2014; Fidler, Canadian Family Law Quarterly, 2012; 31, 237–273). A revision of the original practice 2005 guidelines for parenting coordination was just published by the Association of Families and Conciliation Courts in 2019, providing an update for the family justice community about developments in the parenting coordinator (PC) role in the last 14 years. This article focuses on how family law professionals can support effective parenting coordination practice in their jurisdiction. Support begins with understanding the PC role as the most intensive intervention available at this time for high conflict coparents, and guidance about what types of cases are appropriate for referral and which are not. A description of the essential components of appointment orders, parenting coordination procedures, and court review are provided as well to best structure the parenting coordination process for success. Finally, the article addresses how jurisdictions can support the development and maintenance of this unique role.

Gluren bij de buren

In de zomer van 2004 werd de Vlaamse provincie Limburg opgeschrikt door een aantal familiedrama’s. Een gevolg hiervan was dat de aanpak van wat in Vlaanderen ‘intrafamiliaal geweld’ heet, hoog op de politieke agenda kwam te staan. Tot die tijd was er niet echt sprake van een gecoordineerde of gestructureerde samenwerking. Er waren veel verschillen in aanpak op lokaal niveau en wat in Vlaanderen politiezones worden genoemd. De vraag was: kon en moest dat niet anders?

Meenoostahtan Minisiwin: First Nations Family Justice "Pathways to Peace"

Community justice initiatives are now common in Canada, both for young offenders and in adult criminal cases; there are only a few examples of alternative methods for dealing with justice issues in the area of mandated child welfare services. The initiative outlined in this paper represents one of the most comprehensive family justice initiatives in First Nations Child and Family Services in Canada. Meenoostahtan Minisiwin: First Nations Family Justice offers a new way of addressing conflict in child and family matters, outside of the regular Child and Family Services (CFS) and court systems. It incorporates the traditional peacemaking role that has existed for centuries in Northern Manitoba Cree communities, alongside contemporary family mediation. The program brings together family, extended family, community members, Elders, social workers and community service providers in the resolution of child protection concerns through the use of properly trained Okweskimowewak (family mediators). The Okweskimowewak’s role involves assisting participants to articulate their personal ‘truth’ (dabwe) and to hear and respect the dabwe of others; to create a safe and nurturing context by addressing inherent power imbalances; to explore the root causes of family conflict in order to address the long term best interests of children; and to facilitate innovative and collaborative planning outcomes for families. The program was developed by the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba, a mandated First Nations Child and Family Services agency, although it receives its services mandate from the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) Exectuive. It is jointly funded by the Aboriginal Justice Strategy of Justice Canada and the Manitoba Department of Family Services and Housing. Overall direction for the program is provided by the First Nations Family Justice Committee, a sub-committee of the MKO Exectuive Director of Awasis Agency, and representative chiefs of the MKO region. The program currently employs a Program Coordinator, two full time regional Okweskimowewak, two full time community-based Okweskimowewak and an administrative assistant. Since its inception in 1999, the program has received referrals involving more than seven hundred families, including well over 1900 children and 1500 volunteer participants. Services have been provided in seventeen First Nation communities in Northern Manitoba as well as in Thompson, Winnipeg, The Pas, and Gillam. The Meenoostahtan Minisiwin program responds to all aspects of mandated child welfare, as well as other situations where the best interests of children are in jeopardy. These have included mediating care placement arrangements; child-parent conflicts; family-agency or family-agency-system conflicts; assisting in the development of service plans in neglect and abuse cases; advocating on behalf of families attempting to access services; family violence; larger community-wide conflicts; and working to address systemic problems which impact the lives of First Nations children and families. We believe that by establishing processes which focus on restoring balance and harmony within families and communities, we are working towards an overall increase in the health and wellness of community members. And you who would understand justice,
 How shall you, unless you
 Look upon all deeds In the fullness of light?
 Only then shall you know that the erect
 And the fallen are but one
 man standing in
 The twilight between the
 Night of his pigmy-self
 And the day of his god-self.
 K. Gibran

Domestic Violence and Safe Storage of Firearms in the COVID-19 Era.

Domestic Violence and Safe Storage of Firearms in the COVID-19 Era.

Mavis Maclean and Bregie Dijksterhuis (eds), Digital Family Justice: From Alternative Dispute Resolution to Online Dispute Resolution?Oxford: Hart, 2019, 244 pp, hb £55.00.

The Modern Law ReviewVolume 83, Issue 6 p. 1358-1362 REVIEWS Mavis Maclean and Bregie Dijksterhuis (eds), Digital Family Justice: From Alternative Dispute Resolution to Online Dispute Resolution? Oxford: Hart, 2019, 244 pp, hb £55.00. Chris Barton, Corresponding Author Chris Barton cjbarton@sky.com Emeritus Professor, Staffordshire University. Email: cjbarton@sky.comSearch for more papers by this author Chris Barton, Corresponding Author Chris Barton cjbarton@sky.com Emeritus Professor, Staffordshire University. Email: cjbarton@sky.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 May 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12539 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 onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume83, Issue6November 2020Pages 1358-1362 RelatedInformation

Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 hague child abduction convention

ABSTRACT This article addresses two contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: (i) domestic violence and (ii) child participation. It also outlines three components of a global socio-legal policy and research initiative undertaken to address these issues and, where relevant, their intersection. The published literature on these topics, including the children’s objections exception, is explored, as are the ways in which these challenges are addressed within some of the 101 Contracting States to the Convention and through the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention. Regard is paid to the data provided by the statistical analysis of applications made under the Convention in 2015 by Lowe and Stephens, and the changes which will occur once the Recast of The European Brussels 11a Regulation comes into operation. The likely impact for 1980 Hague Convention abduction proceedings of the UK having left the European Union at 23.00 GMT on 31 January 2020 is contemplated. Other current international initiatives are discussed, including the development of a child-friendly version of the Convention through The International Association of Child Law Researchers. Training is a key to changing attitudes and upskilling family justice professionals to ensure the Convention operates in a fully child-centric way. This will maintain and strengthen the Convention by keeping it ‘fit for purpose’.

‘Our normal is different’: autistic adults’ experiences of the family courts

ABSTRACT This article reports the findings of a small-scale qualitative study exploring the experiences of autistic adults who have had experience of the family justice system. While participants related some positive elements to their experiences, in particular with regard to the willingness of professionals to try to learn more about their clients’ needs, the overall picture showed significant concerns. The reports given showed significant misunderstandings about autism, and a system which struggled to make appropriate adjustments which would allow autistic court users to have access to justice on an equivalent basis to non-autistic litigants. This situation stands in contrast to the position regarding other disabilities in the Family Justice System, but also to the relatively greater level of provision for autistic people within the Criminal Justice System. Based on participants’ experiences and existing good practice in other areas, we make recommendations that could be adopted by the Family Court and practitioners.

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA‐ from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi‐factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi‐factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention‐focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions.

Methodological Challenges in Social Science: Making Sense of Polarized and Competing Research Claims

Legal and mental health professionals face significant challenges when addressing situations in which children resist contact with a parent. There remains only limited empirical research on the differentiation of types and severity of contact problems, the resulting impacts on children and adolescents, and the outcomes of interventions. Often, family justice professionals encounter conflicting information that presents wildly diverging views on the scientific knowledge base used to guide understandings of human interaction. In cases involving resist‐refuse dynamics (“RRD”), the polarized claims, characterized by dichotomous thinking, often assert abuse by the rejected parent, on the one hand, or alienating behavior by the favored parent, on the other hand. When presented with conflicting social science research, understanding basic experimental design methodology is critical to resolving questions of the reliability and utility of the information presented. Equally important, is an understanding of cognitive bias and the human tendency to experience difficulty in modifying belief systems when presented with updated information; this understanding includes changing conceptual frameworks for decision making in family law cases. While polarized and often acrimonious debate in the field may be reflective of larger societal strife, recognizing strengths and weaknesses in the ideas presented in research literature allows for an integrative approach to bring more light, and less heat, to the larger conceptualization of human interactions we have to address in the family court setting.