Early Resolution for Family Law Cases in Alaska's Courts

Note: The PDF of this article includes a web supplement which did not appear in the original print version of the article.The Early Resolution Program (ERP), the first program of its kind in the nation, was developed by the Alaska Court System's Family Law Self-Help Center to provide self-represented litigants in family law cases with free legal assistance and mediation to help resolve issues and reach settlements without protracted court trials. This article discusses the ERP's goals and development, describes how cases are screened and processed, and presents ERP statistics though August 2014.[Introduction] / Goals of ERP / Beginning of ERP / Screening Considerations / How ERP Works / Modifications to Custody and Child Support Orders / Program Benefits / Conclusion / [SIDEBAR:] Early Resolution Program Timeline / [WEB SUPPLEMENT:] Issues in an ERP CaseYe

The Modern Application of the Best Interests of the Child Theory in Custodial Law

In its traditional sense, family law (aka domestic relations law) involves the legal relationships between husband and wife, parent and child, as a social, political, and economic unit. Recently, the boundaries of family law have to grown to encompass relationships among persons who live together but are not married, so-called non-traditional families. The legal aspects of families, whether they are traditional or non-traditional, include principles of constitutional law, property law, contract law, tort law, civil procedure, statutory regulations, equitable remedies, and marital property and support rights. Most family law statues are drafted as general guidelines. Consequently, state court judges normally have broad discretion in resolving many family law disputes. Moreover, a particular judge’s interpretation of family law issues will be guided by the law of the state whose family law governs the case, and the underlying law is rarely uniform from state to state. A judge may be bound by a state’s traditional family law statutes and judicial precedents, a more modern approach, or a combination of the two

CME for family mediators

Meeting proceedings of a seminar by the same name, held September 24, 2020

The Revolution in Family Law Dispute Resolution

This article surveys a wide range of procedures that divorcing parties now use, including self-representation. Lawyers sometimes provide “unbundled” legal services to help parties who want to divide responsibilities for legal tasks between themselves and their lawyers. Parties often use mediation, arbitration, and private judging. Norms for lawyers’ professional roles have emphasized the importance of cooperation and some lawyers offer “planned early negotiation” processes such as Collaborative and Cooperative Law. Family courts engage in a wide range of activities beyond traditional litigation and adjudication. Many courts manage or mandate parent education and services related to domestic violence. Courts regularly appoint professionals including advocates for children, custody evaluators, early neutral evaluators, and parenting coordinators.The revolution in family law dispute resolution is still underway. Changing circumstances and limited resources can contribute to deterioration of family court services, frustration of family law professionals, and, most importantly, increased family dysfunction. These pressures create incentives for family law professionals and courts to use dispute system design methods to collaborate more effectively to serve family members and the public. The great challenge for family law professionals is to continue to create better ways to serve families in conflict and transition

FDR and victims of family violence: Ensuring a safe process and outcomes

Family dispute resolution (FDR) is a positive first-stop process for family law matters, particularly those relating to disputes about children. FDR provides the parties with flexibility within a positive, structured and facilitated framework for what are often difficult and emotional negotiations. However, there are a range of issues that arise for victims of family violence in FDR that can make it a dangerous and unsafe process for them unless appropriate precautions are taken. This article discusses the nature of FDR and identifies the many positive aspects of it for women participants. The article then considers the nature and dynamic of family violence in order to contextualise the discussion that follows regarding concerns for the safety of participants in the FDR process. Finally, it offers some suggestions about how Australia could approach FDR differently to make it safer for victims of family violence

Bargaining in the Shadow of the Best-Interests Standard: The Close Connection Between Substance and Process in Resolving Divorce-Related Parenting Disputes

This essay, written for a Symposium celebrating the child custody scholarship of Professor Robert Mnookin, examines the close connection between changes in substantive child custody doctrine and changes in custody dispute resolution processes over the past 30 years. Part I of the article explores how the widespread adoption of an unmediated “best interest of the child” standard, and the ensuing rejection of the sole custody paradigm, precipitated a shift from adversarial to non-adversarial resolution of divorce-related parenting disputes. Part II of the essay reverses the direction of the analytic lens and considers how the shift from adversarial to non-adversarial dispute resolution has affected both the substantive legal norms that govern custody contests and the role of law and lawyers more generally in the custody decision-making process. The essay suggests that the shift from adjudication and adversary negotiation to mediation and collaboration as the preferred means of resolving divorce-related parenting disputes has delegalized custody decision-making -- initially by disaggregating the various components of child custody and ultimately by eroding the importance of custody as an essential legal concept in disputes between parents. The primary purpose of the analysis is not to evaluate the desirability of these changes, but to underscore the close connection between changes in substantive legal doctrine and changes in dispute resolution processes

Collaborative Family Law, the New Lawyer, and Deep Resolution of Divorce-Related Conflicts

Unlike many of the contributions to this Symposium issue, mine is a speculative, idiosyncratic opinion piece. I want to explore what we know, what we think we know, what we do not know, and what we need to know about Collaborative Law and interdisciplinary team Collaborative Divorce Practice as they presently exist in the field of family law, in two respects: what these processes offer to clients (the deep resolution part of my title) and what effect the practice of these processes has on lawyers (the new lawyer part of my title). Instead of citing to authority, this essay draws mainly upon perceptions and concerns arising from fifteen years of practicing Collaborative Law, as well as a decade of training lawyers and mental health and financial professionals in Collaborative Law and interdisciplinary team Collaborative Divorce Practice. I will also draw upon my decade of building, leading, and supporting the international umbrella organization for the Collaborative movement, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP). I believe it is worth giving serious consideration to these ideas while we await empirical research that reliably tests their validity. I ask readers, in other words, to play what has been called the believing game

Hong Kong\u27s \u3ci\u3eChildren Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill\u3c/i\u3e: Comparative Family Law Reform and Multidisciplinary Collaboration

Many comprehensive reviews of family justice systems have been undertaken in common law jurisdictions over the past 20 years, all seeking to provide more meaningful affordable access to justice for families and children. Hong Kong is also under pressure to enact legislative reforms originally proposed in 2002-2005 which deal with children’s matters and more broadly, with family and matrimonial issues. Legislative reform was anticipated when the Government announced the long awaited Children’s Proceedings (Parental Responsibility) Bill (“Children’s Bill”) in 2015. After significant public consultation, however, the Government announced in 2018 that it would delay implementation of this draft legislation. Unfortunately, Hong Kong is still governed by an out-dated and confusing family law system that is failing its children and families. While family law reform remains stalled in Hong Kong, other jurisdictions are reviewing their family justice systems and have introduced new family laws. The federal Government of Canada and the province of Manitoba have recently enacted new family legislation. Singapore and the UK enacted family law reforms in 2014 with the UK now considering further extensive reforms. Scotland, Australia and New Zealand are all currently in the midst of comprehensive family justice reviews. This article evaluates the need to reform Hong Kong’s family justice system. Particular focus is on promoting children’s best interests, ensuring children’s voices are heard, providing support to high conflict families, addressing family violence issues and enhancing child support services. The provisions of the draft Children’s Bill are analysed and the current lack of comprehensive family justice reform discussed. The Government’s cautious approach to legislating doctrinal reform away from a “custody, care and control” and “access” approach to that of “parental responsibility” is reviewed. Suggestions for further revision are made, with reference to comparative models of legislative reform and best measures and practices. As in many jurisdictions, the challenge in Hong Kong is transforming the rhetoric of children’s participation into successful effective practice. Some Judiciary-led initiatives are discussed, along with “views of the child” reports and independent child advocates. The importance of providing multidisciplinary family support measures assisting children and families going through separation and divorce is considered. Finally, the creation of a formal independent “Hong Kong Family Justice Commission” is proposed to implement effective and timely family law reform and to help integrate more comprehensive multidisciplinary responses and services

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

This Report summarizes research about justice system responses to family disputes, makes recommendations for government action based on that empirical evidence, and identifies some as yet unanswered system design questions requiring further study. This document is provocative as it is premised on a realistic appreciation of the nature of family disputes and the limits of government action, especially in the present fiscal environment, and the fact that there are issues related to family justice that research has not adequately addressed and hence development of public policy must be undertaken in the face of uncertainty