An early process evaluation of the public law outline in family courts

Context Local authorities with serious allegations of significant harm or likely significant harm to a child which cannot be resolved with a parent may apply to the court to place the child under local authority care or supervision, under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989. Care proceedings resulting from such applications can be very lengthy. The Public Law Outline (PLO) was introduced by the Judiciary and Ministry of Justice as a tool for the management of care proceeding cases (Ministry of Justice 2008). The aims of this study were to describe and evaluate the process of implementation of the Public Law Outline (PLO) in two tiers of the family justice system (magistrates’ Family Proceedings Courts and county court Care Centres). The PLO was initially trialled in ten areas in England and Wales from June 2007, and rolled out nationally on the 1st April 2008, together with the issue of statutory guidance for local authorities issued by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF 2008), and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG 2008)

Family Courts

A great deal has been said, but very little has been authoritatively written upon the subject of Domestic Relations Courts in this country. So far as I know, no such court has yet been successfully established embodying the jurisdiction and powers the advocates of such a court claim it should possess. I am not unaware, however, that courts under the name ef Domestic Relations Courts have been established, notably in New York City and Cincinnati, and that certain Municipal Courts, notably in Chicago, have been given jurisdiction in certain family matters, but none of these courts, as at present organized, have the broad and exclusive jurisdiction the advocates of these courts demand. There are substantial and fundamental difficulties in the way. These difficulties strike at the very root of our established judicial system. Nevertheless, there is much that has been said that must appeal to the judgment of all those interested in the betterment of our social conditions

Family Courts as Certifying Agencies: When Family Courts Can Certify U Visa Applications for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Undocumented intimate partner violence survivors living in the UnitedStates have limited options for immigration relief. One of the only avenuesopen to them is the U Visa: a nonimmigrant visa established by the BatteredImmigrant Women Protection Act of 2000. To apply for a U Visa, a survivormust prove to immigration authorities that she was the victim of a crime;suffered substantial abuse; and was, is,or is likely to be helpful in theinvestigation of her abuser. The statute requires that all U Visa applicationsbe certified by an appropriate officialwho testifies to the applicant’shelpfulness with the investigation. This certification is a tremendous obstaclefor survivors: agencies are under nolegal obligation to provide thesecertifications, the procedure to obtainthem is often complicated and timeconsuming, and the decision-makingprocess is opaque. Moreover, manyundocumented survivors fear involvement with the criminal courts or policeout of fear of their abusers and deportation.In response, survivor advocates approach certification creatively and seekcertification from less obvious authorities. Undocumented survivors aremore likely to be involved in family court proceedings—seeking orders ofprotection from, or adjudicating custody and visitation disputes with, theirabusers—than criminal proceedings. Advocates have likewise turned tofamily courts to certify U Visa applications. Family courts are unclear onwhether they are authorized to certifythese applications and are oftenreluctant to make a final decision.This Note proposes that family courts are empowered by statutorylanguage and history to certify U Visa applications for undocumentedsurvivors. After a textual and legalprocess analysis of the statutoryprovisions regarding U Visa certification, this Note proposes guidelines for practitioners seeking U Visa certification from a family court and for familycourt judges ruling on these applications

The Family Courts Information Pilot : November 2009 - December 2010

"This paper reviews the working of the Family Courts Information Pilot (FCIP). The pilot made written anonymised judgments available to the parties in certain Children Act cases (listed at paragraph 9) and to the wider public through the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) website" -- page 4

A study of family courts TamilNadu

"The Family Court Act of 1984 was conceived as part of the legal reform to improve the position of women. The Act also brought civil and criminal jurisdictions under one roof. This was seen positive measure to centralize all litigations concerning women. The Family Courts Act, 1984, was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith by adopting an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.EKTA initiated a field study in 2003 to have an in-depth understanding about the functioning of the Family Courts. At the same time, there were initiatives at the nation - level to review the functioning of the Family Courts. EKTA was also a part of that discussion. In 2005, association with Ms.Flavia Agnes of Majlis, Mumbai prompted EKTA to undertake a detailed study in Tamilnadu.

Breaking Down the Silos that Harm Children: A Call to Child Welfare, Domestic Violence and Family Court Professionals

The intersection of domestic violence and child maltreatment has been the subject of research and reform efforts focused on the need to integrate a better understanding of domestic violence into child welfare system practice. But a similar effort at integration of domestic violence and child maltreatment concerns has never been directed at family courts adjudicating private custody litigation. And while such courts’ responses to domestic violence have been analyzed and discussed extensively in the literature, legal discussions of custody courts’ responses to child maltreatment are few and far between. At the same time, there has been an explosion of traumatic narratives on social media and in the literature describing family courts’ refusals to keep children safe from a parent alleged to be dangerous. This article examines the legal system’s siloed responses to domestic violence and child maltreatment, with a focus on family courts in custody cases. Newly published data have affirmed the growing outcry about family courts frequently rejecting child maltreatment allegations and removing custody from mothers who make such allegations. Custody court judges’ resistance to adjudicating child maltreatment is widespread and helps explain these patterns. Yet child welfare agencies, as well as reformers seeking to reduce reliance on foster care, trust family courts to protect children that come before them. We argue that systemic changes are needed to break down the silos between family courts and child welfare agencies to better protect children. We propose three practicable, concrete reforms to achieve this. We hope that this article will awaken those who care about children’s safety to the real dangers in family court adjudications, and encourage specialists in domestic violence, family court, and child maltreatment to collaborate in effectuating these much-needed changes