This report presents a descriptive study of characteristics of persons using a family court service. A comparison is made between persons using the service and a sample of the population whom the agency was designed to serve. The purposes of the study were to determine if the agency was serving the client population it was designed to serve and to provide a socio-demographic data base for further research and planning at the agency.

This study explored family members� experience of, and satisfaction with, New Zealand Family Court dispute resolution processes concerning children�s care arrangements following parental separation. A qualitative method was employed, using individual interviews with 22 parents and 8 children from 15 families, in three court districts, during 2001-2002. Follow-up interviews were also conducted with the parents one year later to assess the factors affecting compliance with their agreements and court orders. Focus groups were held with 16 Family Court professionals (lawyers, counsellors, specialist report writers and judges) in two cities to obtain their views on the family members� perspectives. Sociocultural and ecological theories, the sociology of childhood and the UNCRC provided the conceptual basis for the research. Historical developments in child custody and divorce laws, which provided the impetus for the establishment of Family Courts internationally, have also been reviewed. Each parent was legally represented, with 87% of the families also attending Family Court counselling and judge-led mediation conferences. Defended hearings occurred in 27% of the cases. Family members reported a broad range of views about their legal and court experiences. They valued their interactions with professionals who took an interest in them and their children, provided clear information and support, let them have their say, and competently managed the dispute resolution processes. Dissatisfaction was frequently expressed with the conduct of ex-partners and with professionals� styles of practice, particularly where these involved erratic or uncompromising attitudes and adversarial tactics. The desire to respond to what was written in an ex-partner�s affidavit escalated some parenting disputes onto a litigation pathway. Delay, cost, gender bias, lack of enforcement of court orders, and inadequate opportunities to feel heard, understood and respected were also identified as problems associated with Family Court proceedings. Earlier access to a wider range of information, support and conciliation services was recommended, together with more post-order explanation and support. The professionals wanted a stronger emphasis on the Family Court as a court of law, rather than a social agency. A clearer demarcation between the court�s conciliation and adjudication functions was considered necessary to avoid clients having unrealistic expectations of the Family Court. Family members� therapeutic needs were important, but thought best met within community-based agencies. The children were aware of their parents� court proceedings and most wanted the opportunity to play a more direct role in the decision about their future living arrangements. Significant or modest changes had occurred in 60% of the families by the time of their follow-up interviews. Some changes had led to a reversal in the original care arrangements, while others had impacted upon the frequency of a child�s contact with their non-resident parent. A new conceptual model for the resolution of post-separation parenting disputes has been developed. This integrates the theoretical framework underpinning the study with the international research evidence on the impact of parental separation and the principles and practices of an effective child-inclusive and culturally responsive family law system.

This study explored family members� experience of, and satisfaction with, New Zealand Family Court dispute resolution processes concerning children�s care arrangements following parental separation. A qualitative method was employed, using individual interviews with 22 parents and 8 children from 15 families, in three court districts, during 2001-2002. Follow-up interviews were also conducted with the parents one year later to assess the factors affecting compliance with their agreements and court orders. Focus groups were held with 16 Family Court professionals (lawyers, counsellors, specialist report writers and judges) in two cities to obtain their views on the family members� perspectives. Sociocultural and ecological theories, the sociology of childhood and the UNCRC provided the conceptual basis for the research. Historical developments in child custody and divorce laws, which provided the impetus for the establishment of Family Courts internationally, have also been reviewed. Each parent was legally represented, with 87% of the families also attending Family Court counselling and judge-led mediation conferences. Defended hearings occurred in 27% of the cases. Family members reported a broad range of views about their legal and court experiences. They valued their interactions with professionals who took an interest in them and their children, provided clear information and support, let them have their say, and competently managed the dispute resolution processes. Dissatisfaction was frequently expressed with the conduct of ex-partners and with professionals� styles of practice, particularly where these involved erratic or uncompromising attitudes and adversarial tactics. The desire to respond to what was written in an ex-partner�s affidavit escalated some parenting disputes onto a litigation pathway. Delay, cost, gender bias, lack of enforcement of court orders, and inadequate opportunities to feel heard, understood and respected were also identified as problems associated with Family Court proceedings. Earlier access to a wider range of information, support and conciliation services was recommended, together with more post-order explanation and support. The professionals wanted a stronger emphasis on the Family Court as a court of law, rather than a social agency. A clearer demarcation between the court�s conciliation and adjudication functions was considered necessary to avoid clients having unrealistic expectations of the Family Court. Family members� therapeutic needs were important, but thought best met within community-based agencies. The children were aware of their parents� court proceedings and most wanted the opportunity to play a more direct role in the decision about their future living arrangements. Significant or modest changes had occurred in 60% of the families by the time of their follow-up interviews. Some changes had led to a reversal in the original care arrangements, while others had impacted upon the frequency of a child�s contact with their non-resident parent. A new conceptual model for the resolution of post-separation parenting disputes has been developed. This integrates the theoretical framework underpinning the study with the international research evidence on the impact of parental separation and the principles and practices of an effective child-inclusive and culturally responsive family law system.

abstract: Never married parents (NMPs) are a burgeoning population within the Family Court system. However, there is no empirical research on these parents' separation process, though the neighboring literature purports that NMPs are more at risk for negative child wellbeing outcomes than their divorcing counterparts. This study investigated child behavior problems in high conflict litigating never married families by assessing four salient issues collectively termed chaotic environment: economic strain, lack of social support for the parents, parental repartnering, and family relocation, which included parent changing residence and child changing schools. They were then compared to divorcing parents. It was hypothesized that NMPs would experience higher levels of chaotic environment, and subsequent increases in child behavior problems than divorcing parents, but that the relationship for NMPs and divorcing parents would be the same with each of the chaotic environment variables. This study found the contrary. NMPs only had significantly higher mean scores on lack of social support for fathers and marital status did not predict child behavior problems. Both economic strain and child changing schools predicted child behavior problems for both mothers and fathers. Two interaction effects with mothers were found, indicating that the more a never married mothers repartnered and/or changed her residence, the more behavior problems her child had, while divorcing mothers experiencing the converse effect. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Counseling Psychology 2011

À l’heure où un mariage sur deux finit en divorce, la question du rôle du juge aux affaires familiales (JAF) est plus que jamais d’actualité. Ce rôle a été modifié à de nombreuses reprises en fonction des considérations sociales du moment et, aujourd’hui, l’heure est à la déjudiciarisation. Mais est-ce pertinent ? Le rôle du JAF tend à être de plus en plus réduit à tel point que des pans entiers du droit familial sont retirés de sa compétence. Le règlement des conflits familiaux subit une tendance générale de déplacement vers la sphère privée dont le point culminant a été atteint, il y a peu, par la loi Justice XXI qui a déjudiciarisé le divorce par consentement mutuel et confier son règlement privé aux notaires et aux avocats. Quant aux autres pans du droit familial qui restent de sa compétence, ils subissent des délais judiciaires de plus en plus longs ou une présence symbolique du juge ; tant le nombre de ces derniers est bas. Les fautes sont dédramatisées, ce qui conduit à une absence d’indemnisation de ces dernières. Afin de pouvoir correctement appréhender les conséquences de ce mouvement de recul du judiciaire, une enquête a été menée sur le terrain auprès des JAF, avocats, notaires, psychiatres et, surtout, des justiciables. Les résultats de cette enquête ont permis de démontrer les conséquences dramatiques que ce mouvement entraîne ; tant sur le plan des conjoints/parents, que sur celui des enfants, voire des tiers. L’importance sociale des conflits de famille a toujours été la motivation première de l’intervention étatique afin de protéger les victimes que ces conflits peuvent engendrer. Il est regrettable que cette protection ne soit plus à l’ordre du jour. / At a time when every second marriage ends in divorce, the question of the role of the family affairs judge (JAF) is more relevant than ever. This role has been changed many times based on the social considerations of the moment and nowadays it is time for diversion. But is it relevant? The role of the JAF tends to be reduced to such an extent that entire sections of family law are removed from its jurisdiction. The settlement of family disputes is under-going a general trend of displacement towards the private sphere, the culmination of which was recently reached by the Justice XXI Act, which di-verted divorce by mutual consent and entrusted its private settlement to notaries and public servants. lawyers. As for the other parts of family law that remain within its jurisdiction, they suffer longer and longer court delays or a symbolic presence of the judge; as the number of these is low. The faults are played down, which leads to a lack of compensation for the latter. To be able to correctly grasp the consequences of this movement of retreat of the judiciary, an investigation was carried out in the field near the JAF, lawyers, notaries, psychiatrists and, especially, litigants. The results of this investigation have shown the dramatic consequences that this movement entails; spouses / parents, children and even third parties. The social importance of family conflicts has always been the primary motivation for state intervention to protect the victims that these conflicts may engender. It is regrettable that this protection is no longer on the agenda.

The family law system effectuates case outcomes affecting the lives of parents, children, and society through court orders imposing important life decisions upon divorcing or unmarried parents, children, and post divorce families. While some cases are resolved in alternative dispute resolution forums, others enter the courtroom and judicial decisions cause unintended consequences for millions of adults and children each year. This research details a parent’s suboptimal family law system experience caused by judicial decision-making, highlighting the need to examine the causes of unintended systemic outcomes. The purpose of this research is to raise awareness and provide justification for systemic reform to prevent unintended consequences of court ordered outcomes caused by underlying structural violence. Conflicting objectives of litigants and problem solvers are investigated to determine the causes of systemic failures so recommendations for improved outcomes can be formulated. Theories of justice, civil rights, public policy, systems, structural violence, and nonviolence are integral components of this research. Applied theory in the context of the researcher’s experience highlights the need to address this social system issue while demonstrating the system intended to resolve disputes actually exacerbates conflict, resulting in more disputes. This research contributes to the literature because many litigants are unable to share their stories due to their oppressed condition within the system. This autoethnography documents the effects of a social system for conflict management gone awry and establishes a foundation to promote dialogue in support of a new way to manage disputes that is conducive to conflict resolution instead of conflict escalation.

This report describes a consumer evaluation study of the Clackamas County Family Court Service, a court-connected marriage and divorce counseling agency near Portland, Oregon. A questionnaire was mailed to 168 individuals who had participated in counseling at the agency between November 1, 1976, and November 1, 1977. The questionnaire focused on former clients' perspectives on agency helpfulness, satisfaction with counselor’s assistance, accomplishment of agency identified objectives for counsel1ng, and suggested areas for program improvement.

Over the last 30 years, the justice system has increased attention toward domestic violence. In many states, the emphasis has emerged to a specialization, separate dockets and specially trained judges (Center for Court Innovation 2009). Domestic violence courts have evolved, however the Ninth Circuit Court in Orange and Osceola County has yet to adopt this concept. At present, the Osceola County Courthouse utilizes the Unified Family Court (UFC), an integrated comprehensive approach which handles all cases simultaneously addressing the families involved in disputes, as well as the adults and the children of domestic violence. The Orange County Courthouse on the other hand, has the court rooms on one designated floor of the Orange County Courthouse which is dedicated to domestic relation’s cases. There are (3) specialized judges for domestic violence cases which rotate every (6) months. This thesis will explore the different challenges that are faced by the judicial system in domestic violence courts in Orange and Osceola County. One of those challenges is that there is no set “model” to develop a consistency in practices and policies; therefore there is no mutual understanding or agreement for the purposed outcome. With the study of case law, statutes, court research, court observation, and goal assessments, this thesis will explore the possibilities of change in this court system. The purpose of this study is to contribute awareness, present recommendations to the legal system, and state that it is not enough -although critical- to focus on the victim’s safety and the offender accountability, but also it is crucial to place an emphasis on specially trained judges and stakeholders in order to create a more unified structure.

Children’s rights are a world wide clarion call – yet, when it comes to implementing it in practice, the hearts of everybody starts racing because suddenly the issue is not just academic, it’s personal. In practice it is evident that children’s voices are not being heard or taken into consideration – while adults are solely responsible for making decisions that affects the lives children have to live. Children continue to suffer and are being traumatised due to the fact they have to live a life decided by adults who presumed to know the best. The fact that there is no consistency when working with children, specifically during the legal process, has been experienced as a serious problem. Research was undertaken to rectify the situation. The hypothesis for the intended study was formulated as follows: A protocol that can be followed by professional role-players can ensure that children’s rights will be protected during a legal process. The key professional role-players involved with children during a legal process have been identified as social workers, commissioners of child welfare, lawyers, family advocates and judges. In the qualitative study, a semi-structured schedule was utilized as guide for the personal interviews with each of the respondents. From this data, a protocol was developed and evaluated after implementation in order to determine whether such a protocol will enable the professional role-player to protect the rights of children during a legal process. The quantitative results proofed that a protocol as a hands-on guideline, is a much needed tool for the professional role-player in practice. From the study it was concluded that the existence of a protocol will enable the professional role-player to protect children’s rights during a legal process. Important recommendations included the following: <li>Specific skill training of the professional role-players in working with children.</li> <li>The value of implementing a separate family court system, involving all the professional role-players.</li> <li>The different professional role-players should respect each other’s profession, their abilities and skills and perform as a team to the benefit of the children in the legal process. Working against each other is to work ego-centered in stead of child-centered.</li> / Thesis (DPhil (Social Work))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted

Le droit de la famille est une vaste matière en constante évolution. Son histoire démontre que ce contentieux n’est pas facile à traiter. Depuis le XVIIème siècle, notre législateur a essayé par différents procédés d’apporter la meilleure réponse au conflit familial. Le tribunal de famille était composé de membres de la famille ou de voisins. Les juristes étaient totalement évincés de cette juridiction durant la Révolution française, et ont progressivement réapparu, pour anéantir cette juridiction au début du XIXème siècle. Le divorce et la filiation bénéficièrent également des changements de la société et connurent de nombreuses réformes. Les guerres mondiales du XXème siècle et la libéralisation de la femme ont amené les professionnels du droit à créer la chambre de la famille composée de juges habilités au traitement des divers conflits familiaux. Cette expérience conduit notre législateur a créer un juge spécialisé en la matière et notamment dans le divorce. Ses pouvoirs se développent en 1993 le remplaçant par le juge aux affaires familiales chargé de l’examen des conflits familiaux, en fonction des compétences qui lui sont confiées. Cependant, ce contentieux restant important, il se trouve dépassé. C’est ainsi que le législateur a introduit la médiation familiale, confiée au médiateur familial. Notre législateur utilise la procédure afin de trouver la meilleure solution au traitement de ces conflits familiaux. Actuellement, la commission Guinchard a soumis plusieurs propositions faisant l’objet de diverses lois intégrées dans notre droit français de la famille pour accroitre les compétences de ce juge et développer les modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits. / The family law is a vast subject which is in constant evolution. His history reveals that is litigation is not easy to treat. Since the XVIIth century our legislator tried different systems to bring the best solution to the familial litigation. The Family Court (tribunal de famille) was composed of persons who belong to the family in dispute, or of neighbors. Jurists were completely absent of this jurisdiction during the French Revolution. Finally, citizens realized that jurists were necessary in order to have a justice respecting each one’s rights. It disappeared at the beginning of the XIXth century. The divorce law and filiation law followed changes of the society and knew some reforms. The World Wars of the XXth century and the women’s liberation movement bring up jurists to create the family chamber (chambre de la famille) which is composed of judges who know families disputes. This experience was taken our legislator to invent a judge who is specialized in this subject and especially in the divorce. His powers were developed in 1993 with the “juge aux affaires familiales” who is charged to analyze family’s disputes which are in his competences. But this litigation is always to important and this judge doesn’t have enough time to treat it in a reasonable time, That’s why the legislator integrated into our legal system the familial mediation which is directed by a familial mediator. Our legislator uses the legal term to find the best solution to this litigation. Recently the Commission Guinchard is proposed some ideas which are legalizing in our French family law according more powers to this judge and developing alternative dispute resolutions.