The use of psychological testing in child custody assessments has become more common and important as psychologists are increasingly used as expert witnesses in contested child custody and visitation cases. Currently, the MMPI-2 is the most commonly used psychological test in child custody cases, but there is no research indicating which version of the measure (K-corrected, non-K-corrected, or the RC scales) provides the most accurate picture of the custody litigant in terms of substantial correlations with external variables. This study represents the first examination of the convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the MMPI-2 K-corrected Basic Clinical Scales, the MMPI-2 non-K-corrected Basic Clinical Scales, and the RC scales in a sample of (n = 196) custody litigants from the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Results indicated that all three sets of scales showed some evidence of convergent validity and discriminant validity with external criteria, with gender differences shown in correlate patterns. Additionally, results indicated that none of the three versions demonstrated incremental validity relative to the other versions. There were several limitations of the study including the use of dichotomous, self-report external correlate variables, the simultaneous collection of both predictor and outcome variables, and potentially limited generalizability of the data.

Litigation in person is a widespread phenomenon in common law jurisdictions. A right to litigate in person is treated as a fundamental right, regardless of whether the litigant has the financial means to hire a lawyer or the capacity to conduct litigation effectively. Due to the high numbers of litigants in person and the various burdens placed on judicial resources by their lack of legal knowledge, they pose a serious challenge to the effective and efficient administration of justice. This thesis assesses the theoretical value of a right to self-representation, and challenges the position that courts should not impose legal representation on a litigant nor require him to obtain such representation as a condition for litigation. It argues that a litigant who lacks the professional knowledge and skills to present his case effectively cannot legitimately insist upon representing himself if in doing so he is likely to inflict disproportionate costs on his opponent and on the administration of justice. This thesis advances the case for mandatory representation in civil proceedings on three main fronts: a comparison with the criminal context, an assessment of the value of self-representation in terms of outcome, and an examination of its possible intrinsic justifications.

Au-delà des différences tenant aux spécificités respectives du contrôle de constitutionnalité a posteriori des lois en France et au Canada, l’un étant un contrôle institutionnel, l’autre juridictionnel, la question prioritaire de constitutionnalité jette un véritable « pont juridique » entre le système français et canadien. Des rapprochements majeurs apparaissent quant au mode de protection des droits des justiciables pénaux. En effet, au-delà, de la divergence de conception des deux contrôles de constitutionnalité des lois a posteriori, l’un étant un contrôle concret a posteriori, l’autre abstrait a posteriori et, mises à part les différentes histoires conduisant à l’avènement du contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois a posteriori dans les deux pays respectifs, l’émergence d’un fond commun apparaît. En ce sens, il peut être dégagé aussi bien un rapprochement des droits pénaux procéduraux français et canadiens tenant au mécanisme même du contrôle de constitutionnalité des lois a posteriori, qu’une convergence des droits pénaux substantiels français et canadien résultant des effets du mécanisme sur la protection des droits des justiciables franco-canadiens au sein du procès pénal. Ces ressemblances témoignent de la perméabilité du système français à l’égard de son homologue canadien. En définitive, le droit comparé ouvre ici la voie à des pistes de réflexions pour l’amélioration de la jeune question prioritaire de constitutionnalité dans une optique de renforcement de la protection des droits des justiciables français au sein du procès pénal / Beyond the differences in the specificity of the ex post constitutionality review laws in France and in Canada, one being an institutional control, the other a jurisdictional one, the priority issue of constitutionality (QPC) established a "legal bridge" between the French and Canadian systems. Moreover, major similarities appear of the way in which the rights of criminal offenders are protected. Indeed, beyond the divergence of conceptions of the two ex post constitutionality reviews of laws, one being a concrete ex post control, the other an abstract one and, apart from the various histories leading to the advent of the constitutional review of the laws a posteriori in the two respective countries, the emergence of a common background appears. In this sense, a comparison of French and Canadian procedural penalties relating to the mechanism of the ex post constitutionality review of laws can be found, as well as a convergence of substantial French and Canadian criminal rights resulting from the effects of the mechanism on the protection of the rights of Franco-Canadian litigants in the criminal trial. These resemblances demonstrate the permeability of the French system and the influence applied by the Canadian system. Finally, comparative law paves the way to suggestions for the improvement of the new problematic of the priority issue of constitutionality in order to strengthen the protection of the French litigants rights in criminal proceedings

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DIR - Leonel Maschietto.pdf: 470570 bytes, checksum: c978c827362018888055bd4716ac41a8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-10-05 / The Labor Judiciary Power has suffered much criticism due to the lack of punishment of the bad intentioned litigants, since they contributed to the slowness of the guidelines to the distributions of barrety and baseless procedures delays. The present study objective is to analyze the lawyer s responsibility in the bad intentioned litigation, as well as, the eventual legality of its conviction in proper files of legal documents. Trying to get closer to a possible solution, initially procedural goodfaith issues and its repercussions inside the procedure have been discussed and studied. The study of the origin and historical evolution of the bad intentioned litigation served as a basis for a better understanding of the foreign and Brazilian legislation, as well as, basing the necessity of a legislative improvement concerning the treatment of bad intentioned litigation on the Labor Justice. Finally, a specific chapter was dedicated to study the lawyer s responsibility in the bad intentioned litigation occurrence in the labor procedure, where the lawyer s role and characteristics had been analyzed inside the procedure as part of the purpose of conviction for bad intentioned litigation. The responsible exclusion, as well as, the supportive and subsidiary responsibility modalities had also deserved study and reflection, since neither exclusiveness of bad intentioned litigation nor practice of the malicious acts can be attributed to lawyers. The result reached through the present study, inspires us to make a reform in the working procedural legislation aiming to the judges rigidity increase in the repression against bad intentioned acts. Such procedure, allied to a better preparation and technician and moral improvement of some lawyers could contribute a lot to the reduction of the amount of procedures distributed for the Labor Justice / O Poder Judiciário trabalhista tem sofrido muitas críticas quanto a questão da falta de punição dos litigantes de má-fé, já que esses mesmos litigantes de má-fé têm contribuído para a morosidade das pautas ante as distribuições de lides temerárias e protelações infundadas dos processos. O presente estudo tem por objetivo a análise da responsabilidade do advogado na litigância de má-fé, bem como a eventual legalidade de sua condenação nos próprios autos. Para tentar chegar o mais próximo possível de uma solução, foram abordadas e estudadas inicialmente as questões da boa-fé processual e suas repercussões dentro do processo. O estudo da origem e evolução histórica da litigância de má-fé serviu de embasamento para uma melhor compreensão da legislação estrangeira e brasileira, bem como para fundamentar a necessidade do aprimoramento As excludentes de responsabilização, bem como as modalidades solidária e subsidiária de responsabilização também mereceram um estudo e reflexão, já que ao advogado não se pode atribuir a exclusividade da litigância de má- fé ou a prática dos atos maliciosos. O resultado obtido através do presente estudo, nos leva a aspirar a uma reforma na legislação processual trabalhista objetivando maior rigidez dos juizes na repressão aos atos de má-fé. Tal medida, aliada a um melhor preparo e aperfeiçoamento técnico e moral de alguns advogados poderia contribuir, e muito, para a diminuição da quantidade de processos distribuídos perante a Justiça do Trabalho. legislativo referente o tratamento da litigância de má-fé na Justiça do Trabalho. For fim, dedicou-se um capítulo específico para o estudo da responsabilidade do advogado na ocorrência da litigância de má-fé no processo trabalho, onde foram analisados o papel do advogado dentro do processo e os elementos caracterizadores do advogado como parte para efeitos de condenação por litigância de má-fé

Please read the abstract in the front of this document. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

Si l’expression liaison du contentieux est communément utilisée en jurisprudence administrative, dans les manuels et ouvrages de contentieux administratif, c’est pour être confondue avec la règle de la décision administrative préalable. Or, la liaison du contentieux est plus vaste que cette dernière, elle renvoie à une réalité différente qui reste à découvrir. L’étude pratique de la liaison du contentieux révèle qu’elle est dans l’intérêt des parties à l’instance et qu’elle est l’instrument de travail du juge car sans elle, le litige ne peut être réglé. Et comme le litige est avant tout l’affaire des parties à l’instance, ce sont elles qui devront lier le contentieux. Le juge, destinataire de la liaison du contentieux, va intervenir dans sa réalisation alors qu’il restait initialement à l’extérieur de celle-ci. L’analyse juridique de la liaison du contentieux montre qu’elle exerce en parallèle, et ce à tous les niveaux du procès, une emprise forte sur la matière litigieuse qu’elle délimite. Le contentieux, qui se lie devant les premiers juges du fond, se cristallise en effet après l’expiration du délai de recours avant d’être rendu totalement immuable à la clôture de l’instruction. Le litige, tel qu’il a été lié, est « transféré » dans les instances dérivées pour être, éventuellement, rejugé. La liaison du contentieux se poursuit alors devant le juge d’appel et de cassation mais tout en assurant au litige son unicité. / If expression link of contentious is commonly used in administrative case law, in manuals and books of administrative contentious, it is to be confused with the rule of administrative decision. But the link of contentious is vaster than this last, it returns in a different reality which remains to discover. The practical study of link of contentious reveals that it is in interest of litigants and that itis the working instrument of the judge because without it, litigation cannot be settled out of court. And as litigation is before the affair of litigants, it is them who will have to link contentious. The judge, addressee of the link of contentious, is going to play a part of link of contentious’srealization while he resided outside this one initially. The juridical analysis of the link of contentious shows that it exercises in the same time a strong hold, at all the law suit, over the litigation which it delimits. In effect, the contentious, which linked in front of the first investigation magistrates, is crystallized after the expiry of the deadline of submission for a legal settlement before being completely irremovable at the close of investigation of the case. Litigation, such as it was linked, is possibly “transferred” in other proceedings to be re-judged. The link of contentious continues then in front of the judge of appeal and cassation but while ensuring to the litigation his uniqueness.

No description available.