Unified Family Court Research Articles

Therapeutic Justice ‐ What It Means for the Family Justice System in Singapore†

For some time now, the family courts in Singapore have recognised that in the area of family disputes, a more conciliatory and less adversarial approach is required to achieve better outcomes for families. Hence, since the mid‐1990s, mediation and counselling programs have been incrementally introduced into the family justice process, culminating in compulsory court mediation and counselling for divorcing couples with minor children. Building on these efforts, and pursuant to the recommendations of an inter‐agency committee, a second wave of wide‐ranging reforms were introduced in 2014 to further transform the family justice system. The reforms included the setting up of a unified family court, namely, the Family Justice Courts (FJC), the introduction of a differentiated case management system and the introduction of the “judge‐led” approach to empower the judge to more effectively manage a case. Building on this momentum and in yet another milestone moment, Presiding Judge Debbie Ong recently announced in FJC's workplan speech in May 2020 that the family justice system in Singapore will seek to deliver “Therapeutic Justice.” Expressly embracing and articulating TJ at this point of FJC's journey provides an important organising framework within which, and lens through which, the family justice system can pull together the threads of its past efforts and, at the same time, collectively co‐create a truly transformative TJ vision for the future. Since her announcement, the apex court in Singapore has, in published case law, stated that “TJ is not merely an ideal it is a necessity. It is not merely theoretical but it is intensely practical. It is axiomatic that relationships constitute the very pith and marrow of a family. When familial relationships break down, those relationships (between spouses and between each spouse and the children) are damaged. Such damage cannot be repaired (completely at least) by way of material recompense; healing needs to take place.” TJ is now firmly established in the lexicon of family justice in Singapore. The challenge and task ahead is for all the family justice professionals including law and policy makers, universities, academics and teachers of family law, family judges, family lawyers, psychologists, counsellors and other allied mental health professionals who operate within the family justice eco‐system to work together, to build on what adopting TJ means for family justice in Singapore, in refining our TJ narrative and implementing TJ in practical terms, entailing both the therapeutic design of family law and the therapeutic application of family law.

Delinquency Jurisdiction in a Unified Family Court: Balancing Intervention, Prevention, and Adjudication

This article will examine the demographics of the current juvenile delinquency caseloads and will argue that, despite trends toward greater punitive measures-including placement of juveniles in adult courts for certain offenses, the concept of a therapeutic "family-centered court," which inspired Jane Addams and her colleagues, remains the most promising approach to delinquency, articulated most notably by the proponents of the unified family court concept. The article will consider and address objections and concerns raised with respect to this approach, looking at ways in which several states have incorporated juvenile delinquency into a family-centered unified family court.

Commentaries on the IAALS' Honoring Families Initiative - White Paper

Family courts are not likely to disappear, as they currently constitute the largest proportion of trial court filings in most states. It appears as though family courts have become an emergency room for family problems. Thus, we need to enhance our efforts to improve the family justice system. In order to revamp family courts most effectively, there must be a focus on the creation of unified family courts that are grounded in therapeutic jurisprudence and the ecology of human development. This framework allows for a more responsive and holistic approach to families' legal and underlying nonlegal needs. The goal of a unified family court is to aim to improve the lives of families and children through judicial action, informal court proceedings, alternative dispute resolution, and the provision of appropriate social services.Key Points for the family court Community:-The need for family court reform;-An underlying theoretical foundation to guide the Family Court reform process;-Employing therapeutic jurisprudence to ensure an outcome that can positively affect the lives of the families and children involved in each legal proceeding;-Utilizing the ecology of human development to assist with obtaining a holistic view of families' legal and underlying nonlegal issues;-A blueprint to create a unified family court to provide an effective, efficient, comprehensive resolution to each family's dispute.

Commentaries on the IAALS' Honoring Families Initiative White Paper

Family courts are not likely to disappear, as they currently constitute the largest proportion of trial court filings in most states. It appears as though family courts have become an emergency room for family problems. Thus, we need to enhance our efforts to improve the family justice system. In order to revamp family courts most effectively, there must be a focus on the creation of unified family courts that are grounded in therapeutic jurisprudence and the ecology of human development. This framework allows for a more responsive and holistic approach to families' legal and underlying nonlegal needs. The goal of a unified family court is to aim to improve the lives of families and children through judicial action, informal court proceedings, alternative dispute resolution, and the provision of appropriate social services. Key Points for the Family Court Community The need for family court reform An underlying theoretical foundation to guide the family court reform process Employing therapeutic jurisprudence to ensure an outcome that can positively affect the lives of the families and children involved in each legal proceeding Utilizing the ecology of human development to assist with obtaining a holistic view of families' legal and underlying nonlegal issues A blueprint to create a unified family court to provide an effective, efficient, comprehensive resolution to each family's dispute

Divorce Professionals in Flanders: Policy and Practice Examined

Recent Belgian policy changes led to progressive shared parenting, mediation, and no-fault legislation. However, little is known about the practices and policy preferences of the implicated professionals. The present study surveyed 664 Flemish divorce lawyers, mental health professionals, and mediators. The majority of professionals supports no-fault divorce legislation, unified family courts, court-independent mediation, and well-informed trajectory decisions, but disagree with a primary caretaker presumption. Equally shared parenting agreements were uncommon in lawyers' practice and most frequent among mediators. Yet, whereas mediators were mostly skeptical, the majority of lawyers were convinced of the positive effect of such agreements on children. Mental health professionals are set apart by exclusive maternal authority agreements and rarely providing trajectory information in their practice. Implications for clients, practice, and policy are addressed. Keypoints for the Family Court Community Discusses recent sociological and legal developments in Flanders Details key policy and practice preferences of different divorce professionals Clarifies policy and practice differences and similarities between divorce professionals on: Equally shared parenting agreements No-fault divorce and the nature of mediation services Informing on divorce trajectories and changing divorce trajectories Informs on possibilities for interprofessionnal collaboration and areas of expertise

Do Specialty Courts Achieve Better Outcomes for Children in Foster Care Than General Courts?

This study assessed the effects of unified family and drug treatment courts (DTCs) on the resolution of cases involving foster care children and the resulting effects on school performance. The first analytic step was to assess the impacts of presence of unified and DTCs in North Carolina counties on time children spent in foster care and the type of placement at exit from foster care. In the second step, the same data on foster care placements were merged with school records for youth in Grades 3-8 in public schools. The effect of children's time in foster care and placement outcomes on school performance as measured by math and reading tests, grade retention, and attendance was assessed using child fixed-effects regression. Children in counties with unified family courts experienced shorter foster care spells and higher rates of reunification with parents or primary caregivers. Shorter foster care spells translated into improved school performance measured by end-of-grade reading and math test scores. Adult DTCs were associated with lower probability of reunification with parents/primary caregivers. The shortened time in foster care implies an efficiency gain attributable to unified family courts, which translate into savings for the court system through the use of fewer resources. Children also benefit through shortened stays in temporary placements, which are related to some improved educational outcomes.

Do Specialty Courts Achieve Better Outcomes for Children in Foster Care than General Courts?

Objective: This study assessed the effects of unified family and drug treatment courts on the resolution of cases involving foster care children and the resulting effects on school performance. Methods: The first analytic step was to assess the impacts of presence of unified and drug treatment courts in North Carolina counties on time children spent in foster care and the type of placement at exit from foster care. In the second step, the same data on foster care placements were merged with school records for youth in grades 3-8 in public schools. The effect of children’s time in foster care and placement outcomes on school performance as measured by math and reading tests, grade retention, and attendance was assessed using child fixed-effects regression. Results: Children in counties with unified family courts experienced shorter foster care spells and higher rates of reunification with parents or primary care givers. Shorter foster care spells translated into improved school performance measured by end of grade reading and math test scores. Adult drug treatment courts were associated with lower probability of reunification with parents/primary caregivers. Conclusions: The shortened time in foster care implies an efficiency gain attributable to unified family courts; which translate into savings for the court system through the use of fewer resources. Children also benefit through shortened stays in temporary placements, which are related to some improved educational outcomes.

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem‐solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem‐solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem‐solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem‐solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem‐solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.

Comparison of Family Courts in India, U.S.A. and Australia

This paper is a comparative analysis of the legal system in three different countries with varying regimes with respect to the family courts system followed. Family courts are mainly constituted as a separate court, or more likely a separate division of the regular trial court, that considers only cases involving divorce (dissolution of marriage), child custody and support, guardianship, adoption, and other cases having to do with family-related issues, including the issuance of restraining orders in domestic violence cases. Like other specialized courts, their formulation was done with the object of efficient, fast and cheap justice delivery. However, as it will be portrayed in the paper, the three countries have developed systems quite different from each other and yet the problems that plague them are not very different. Delays, Lack-of Coordination are the beginning blocks of the list. Thus, the paper also proposes the foundation of a unified Family Court which can effectively root out the difficulties without compromising on the quantity or quality of decisions given.

FAMILIES, COURTS, AND THE END OF LIFE: SCHIAVO AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEM

The article discusses a proposed universal adoption of comprehensive family law subject matter jurisdiction, inclusive of end‐of‐life (EOL) cases, as articulated in the unified family court (UFC) concept. It posits, using the Schiavo matter to illustrate the difficulties inherent in EOL disputes, that contested EOL cases are unlike other civil court cases in that they involve intimate facts and emotionally laden family dynamics. As such, these cases pose a distinctive challenge for the courts. The article suggests that contested EOL cases should be heard in a UFC because UFCs include alternative dispute resolution (ADR) protocols to deescalate family strife with the goal of facilitating out‐of‐court settlements and that litigation is an imperfect solution for an EOL dispute. It is also noted that judges presiding in UFCs are more experienced in handling fractious family matters and thus they are more likely to avert protracted litigation if the matter is not settled via ADR.

SUMMIT ON UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS: SERVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EFFICIENTLY, EFFECTIVELY, AND RESPONSIBLY

As president of the American Bar Association when the “Summit on Unified Family Courts” convened in May 2007, Karen J. Mathis welcomed summit attendees. Recounting the many reasons children wind up in court, Mathis observed that society is lucky if these problems even come before the courts. Too often, she said, the underlying problems of destructive behavior among youth are lost in the shuffle of too many lawyers, case workers, and judges. “Many times they’re ignored by the professionals among us who are not trained to be aware that the problems even exist,” she said. The solution to this fragmented approach is unified family courts, she concluded.

JOURNEY FROM SUCCESS TO SIGNIFICANCE

One of the most important journeys that we can take as individuals is the journey from success to significance. Success is what we become and what we achieve when we value ourselves. Significance, however, is what we become and what we achieve when we value others. In this article, based on remarks by Judge David W. Young at the May 2007 “Summit on Unified Family Courts,” Judge Young invites us on a journey, first described by John Maxwell in The Journey from Success to Significance. Judge Young further explores what the journey from success to significance entails and reminds us that any success we have will leave the world with us while our significance will continue to live on in future generations through our service to children, families, and others.

FAMILY COURT IMPROVEMENT AND THE ART OF GRANTSMANSHIP: A JUDGE'S PERSPECTIVE

Many American courts face funding obstacles as they try to create and implement unified family court processes that have not been part of the traditional family court adversarial process. To create new staff positions, build and equip adequate facilities, and create and implement innovative programs, grant funding may be available to supplement what local and state governments provide. While social science research confirms that children are adversely affected by exposure to high‐conflict family litigation and domestic violence, many communities have few affordable and available resources to address these issues. This article presents lessons and principles that one court learned as it applied for a grant to design programs for high‐conflict families and families with domestic violence history.

CONFIDENTIALITY, DUE PROCESS, AND JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION IN THE UNIFIED FAMILY COURT: REPORT TO THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE DOMITROVICH

To the extent that courts realize the pure one judge–one family notion of the unified family court—in which one judge handles all domestic relations, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and domestic violence cases involving members of the same family—they encounter three potential legal barriers: confidentiality of court records in some of the cases, due process issues arising from the consideration of material from a related case file in which the parties to the current case may or may not be parties, and judicial disqualification arising from the judge's handling of a previous case involving the family. This article summarizes information obtained from a survey conducted for the Children and Family Law Committee of the National Conference of State Trial Judges, of courts in sixteen states, to learn how they have resolved these legal issues.

REEVALUATING WHERE WE STAND: A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF AMERICA'S FAMILY JUSTICE SYSTEMS

The call for court reform remains critical in the face of the growing complexity of burgeoning family law cases nationwide. Many states have restructured their court systems using the unified family court model, resolving legal, personal, emotional, and social disputes with the aim of improving the well‐being of families and children. Other states utilize the traditional approach, resulting in cases being handled in a fragmented, time‐consuming and expensive manner. In this article, Professor Barbara A. Babb presents the results of her nationwide survey regarding how each state handles family law matters. The survey is a follow‐up to her comprehensive 1998 survey and her 2002 survey update. The results of the recent analysis reveal that a total of thirty‐eight states now have either statewide family courts, family courts in selected areas of the state, or pilot or planned family courts, representing seventy‐five percent of states. The number of states without a specialized or separate system to handle family law matters has decreased from seventeen states in 1998 to thirteen in 2006. These changes are significant when one considers the complexities involved in court reform. The need for court reform remains an urgent one, as family law cases occupy a significant percentage of court dockets across the country. Families and children deserve a court system where justice is effective and efficient and where their legal, personal, emotional, and social needs are resolved in a therapeutic and holistic manner.

Using Profile Analysis for Assessing Need in Domestic Violence Courts

This study utilizes profile analysis to evaluate the social and economic justice impacts of domestic violence court processes. Data were gathered from all cases involved in a Domestic Violence Unified Family Court in one Florida county from January 1 through December 31, 2003. Findings suggest domestic violence courts are not responding equitably to victims (petitioners), which means that some petitioners may be revictimized by the system. Furthermore, in cases involving criminal behavior, the court system’s focus on criminality may not be having an impact on reducing the recurrence of domestic violence.

Mending Broken Families: Social Policies for Divorced Families: How Effective Are They? ‐ by Emily M. Douglas

Mending Broken Families: Social Policies for Divorced Families: How Effective Are They? Emily M. Douglas. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2006. 211 pp. ISBN- 13: 978-0-7425-4277-8. $29.95 (paperback). In Mending Broken Families: Social Policies for Divorced Families: How Effective Are they?, Emily Douglas begins to answer the question vexing professionals working with families involved with the legal system. She does so by analyzing research concerning several social policies including divorce mediation and divorce education programs and statutory requirements regarding parenting plans and joint custody. Also analyzed are policies concerning parent relocation, covenant marriages, and problem prevention programs. audior concludes with recommendations for policymakers and researchers. Dr. Douglas presents an accurate picture of the state of research for most family law issues. The divorce literature is lacking both quality and substance for almost every social policy that is addressed in this book. (p. 133) Although there are many scholars, private practitioners, and court personnel committed to developing policies to assist families, there is general malaise in terms of evaluating them for effectiveness. And, more importandy, Dr. Douglas notes mat virtually no research examines me impact of participation in several programs simultaneously or sequentially. Most families participate in several programs (e.g., mediation, divorce education) in addition to litigating issues not covered in mediation and possibly attending problem prevention programs. Research on die interaction of these policies is critical for us to fully understand me impact of these programs together or individually. A significant exception to the gloomy state of social policy research generally is research assessing the effectiveness of problem prevention programs. These programs include those that focus on parent, child, and parent-child adjustment problems. Dr. Douglas aptly notes that these programs are often well designed and appear to have promising results. She also finds tiiat some of the research in family mediation is also well designed. Not surprisingly, these are the programs that Dr. Douglas then recommends be mandated for all divorcing parents. Important social programs not covered in this book but also important to consider in future analyses are the impact of dedicated (sometimes called unified) family courts and parenting coordinators. Dedicated or unified family courts have been argued to better coordinate social programs for families. Parenting coordinator programs have been instituted across the country with little to no evaluation. Although Dr. Douglas states that when conducting research we should not include never-married parents in samples of married parents, I emphasize that full consideration of the needs of this growing group is critical. Births outside of marriage now constitute nearly 40% of all births in the United States. needs of this important group of parents will have enormous impact on all social policies related to families. From analysis of the research, the author then moves to advocating for continued implementation of social policies to influence social behavior and attitudes. …

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject‐matter jurisdiction to handle all family‐related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.

Unified Family Courts: A Saving Grace for Victims of Domestic Violence Living in Nations with Fragmented Court Systems

Unified Family Courts: A Saving Grace for Victims of Domestic Violence Living in Nations with Fragmented Court Systems

A SURVEY OF UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

The American Bar Association Coordinating Council on Unified Family Courts, with the assistance of Hofstra University's Center for Childre. Family and the Courts, recently conducted a survey of various courts and jurisdictions that either implemented or experimented with a unified family court structure. The purpose of the project was to get a sense of the state of unified family courts with the goal of building more support for the unified family court concept based on demonstrated effectiveness. The findings of the survey have been summarized in this article. The survey, survey data, and list of survey respondents can be found in the article's appendices.