COVID-19 and the family courts: key practitioner findings in children cases

In March 2020, stringent social distancing measures were introduced across England and Wales to reduce the spread of Covid-19. These measures have presented significant challenges for the family justice system. This article sets out the findings of interviews conducted with professionals in the North East of England who have represented or otherwise supported litigants in private and public children proceedings since social distancing measures were introduced. The findings reveal that whilst practitioners are broadly positive about their experiences of shorter non-contested hearings, they nonetheless have concerns about the effectiveness of remote/hybrid hearings in ensuring a fair and just process in lengthy and complex cases. In particular, the findings indicate that the move to remote hearings has exacerbated pre-existing barriers to justice for unrepresented and vulnerable litigants. The aims of this article are not to ‘name and shame' any particular court but to highlight evidence of good practice in the North East of England and provide scope for improving practitioners' and litigants' experiences within current restrictions.

The barriers to effective access to justice encountered by litigants in person in private family matters post-LASPO

In February 2019, some six years after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) removed legal aid from a wide range of civil and family matters, the Government released its Post Implementation Review of the impact of LASPO and accompanying action plan. Publication is at a time when governmental policy extolling the virtues of mediation and online dispute resolution has the potential to have a profound effect on family law process. Against this background and having regard to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the family justice system, this paper discusses the findings of the author's qualitative study on the experiences of litigants in person in civil and family courts. It suggests a typology of litigants in person, explains how and where litigants in person in child arrangements proceedings seek advice and the significant access to justice barriers arising from the compulsory requirement to attend a MIAM before commencing proceedings and attending the fact-finding stage without representation. Ultimately, the paper offers fresh evidence of the harsh realities of litigating without representation in the family court, which despite espousing an inquisitorial process, remains adversarial in character.

How the Judiciary Has Driven Systemic Innovation During the Pandemic

In 1998, the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA)8 urged member state courts throughout the United States to join a national effort to exchange data and integrate information systems in ways that would improve case management.9 COSCA issued a position paper on information sharing in 2002,10 followed by joint resolutions adopted by the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ)11 and COSCA that called for public access to electronic court records and removal of Social Security numbers from court records.12 In 2004, COSCA joined with the National Association for Court Management (NACM)13 to issue a policy statement for court acceptance of information technology.14 It established a "nine part agenda" that emphasized serving the court's business needs, stressed the importance of effective implementation, and addressed security and privacy issues.15 A series of incremental resolutions followed over several years, including one from the CCJ entitled "The Emergence of E-Everything. The Landscape of Civil Litigation determined that nonfamily civil litigation in state courts "takes too long and costs too much," which undermined access to justice.18 Court dockets were dominated by "lowervalue contract and small claims" cases that rarely were adjudicated on the merits.19 Courts were using outdated automated case management systems, and they were giving self-represented parties (involved in 76% of cases) and lawyers too much control over the pace of litigation.20 The Landscape of Civil Litigation lamented the decline in funding for court systems and observed that courts were expected to dispense more justice using fewer resources.21 B.The Call to Action in Civil Cases One year later, the NCSC published its influential Call to Action: Achieving Civil Justice for All22 That report built upon the Landscape of Civil Litigation and criticized the "cost, delay, and unpredictability of civil litigation" under existing court processes.23 It recommended that courts update differentiated case management processes to assign cases to three "pathways," which it designated as "Streamlined," "Complex," and "General. "31 States should design courthouses that incorporate emerging changes in technology.32 Six months before the CCJ and COSCA endorsed the Call to Action, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates approved the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services (Model Regulatory Objectives).33 The Model Regulatory Objectives were drafted by the ABA's Commission on the Future of Legal Services not long before it released its innovative and controversial 2016 Report on the Future of Legal Services in the United States 24 The Model Regulatory Objectives provided guidelines for state courts to regulate nontraditional legal services providers, and discouraged blanket exclusions of nonlawyers based on unauthorized practice of law rules.35 The CCJ agreed, and resolved that state courts should consider broadening their regulatory frameworks to nonlawyers who provide legal services.36 Expanding the regulatory framework would give courts greater flexibility to implement the Call to Action21 In 2011, the NCSC advised state courts on how to automate court processes so that information technology could help assign cases to one of the three pathways.38 Pathway assignments should be data-driven and involve less human discretion. The NCSC joined in partnership with the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS)41 and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ)42 to launch the Family Justice Initiative (FJI).43 The FJI would operate in collaboration with the CCJ and COSCA to build upon the research contained in the Landscape of Civil Litigation and the policy directives in the Call to Action 44 While the FJI was ramping up its operations, the NCSC issued a 2017 white paper that examined existing case management systems in family courts throughout the United States, titled Triage Protocols for Divorce and Child Custody Cases.45 The white paper noted "tension between what should ideally be done, what courts can afford to do, and what litigants want," and that courts may need to "identify[] 'good enough' solutions" that are more feasible due to resource limitations.46 "As long as budget constraints exist, a court that provides more services to one case is essentially reducing services in another case, so some sense of cost/benefit is definitely helpful in making these kinds of service and process tradeoffs. .

REDUCING FAMILY SEPARATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY: THE COVID-19 EXPERIMENT AND A CALL FOR CHANGE

Child welfare agencies and family courts have long removed children from allegedly abusive or neglectful parents as an ultimate means of ensuring a child's safety. The theory that high numbers of removals are necessary to keep children safe, however, had never been tested-there was no mechanism or political will to do so until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. With the near-complete shutdown of New York City, the child welfare apparatus had no choice but to remove fewer children from their homes. Catastrophe did not ensue. Rather, the numbers tell a different story. Children remained safe across a range of metrics, avoided the trauma of removal from their homes during a global pandemic, and experienced sustained safety as the City began to reopen. This Piece argues that New York's child welfare system must learn from COVID-19 and significantly curtail its drastic measure of removing children from their families, which can cause substantial, often irreparable trauma to children. It uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study to demonstrate the safety and soundness of reserving removals (also known as remands) for only the most extreme circumstances. This Piece focuses on the dramatic reduction of removals specifically during the pandemic;examines the traumatic, racially biased, and overused practice of family separation from a child's perspective;and calls for specific reforms within the existing system to reduce remands while protecting children's safety.

Reconciling remote learning with imputed income for custodial parents

One of the logical, yet seemingly unanticipated, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the exodus of parents, primarily mothers, from the workplace. An October 2020 Pew study indicates that as many as 30% of parents reduced work hours or left the workforce all together, with a pronounced burden falling on working mothers. This paper examines one possible consequence of voluntary under- or unemployment by these parents: imputed income for the purposes of calculating child support. Forecasters predict that remote learning is now an option schools will likely turn to again to address all sorts of possible problems from environmental disasters to flu outbreaks. Family law practitioners should be prepared to deal with this likelihood, and should be ready to address the possible effects on child support with their clients. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Abandonment of Women's Rights in Child Marriage, An Islamic Law Perspective

The number of child marriages has recently increased significantly, particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. This is caused by assumption that child marriage will save the child's financial and social security. In fact, child marriage actually causes many problems, especially regarding the abandonment of women's rights in domestic life. This is contrary to the purpose of marriage in Islam which is to create harmonious, prosperous and happy household. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding on the forms of abandonment of women's rights in child marriage cases and how the Islamic family law perspective percieves it. The data were obtained through observation, interviews, and literature searches. The research location was conducted in Palembang City, South Sumatra, Indonesia. Data analysis is carried out with an interpretive approach to give meaning so that it has coherence between one another. The research findings show that the forms of abandonment of women's rights in child marriage cases include three types, namely the abandonment of economic rights, human rights and reproductive rights. The abandonment occurs because of community's legal culture which considers the action as commonplace in the household. Even, the victim of abandonment allowed herself stuck in that position. According to Islamic family law, the abandonment of women's rights in the household is an act of disobedience against justice as well husband's reluctance to the wife. It is a form of violation of the commands of Allah and His Messenger which is is also emphasized in the legislation with the existence of both social and criminal sanctions. Copyright © 2022 by Al-Ihkam, Jurnal Hukum dan Pranata Sosial.

Commentary on Act n. 14,010 of 2020, which established an emergency legal framework for relationships involving Private Law during the period of covid-19 pandemic

This paper analyses the set of rules established on Law n. 14,010 of 2020, as originated from Bill n. 1,179 of 2020, which determined the Emergency and Temporary Legal Framework for relationships involving Private Law during the period of Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil (Portuguese acronym: RJET). The aim of such Law was to regulate the most relevant themes regarding relationships involving Private law. In this sense, Law 14,010 of 2020 should be interpreted as an additional set of rules to those on the Brazilian Civil Code in order to deal with the legal issues arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, including those related to prescription and Inheritance Law. Based on legal scholarship and precedents, the paper intends to analyse the set of rules established on Law 14,010 of 2020 and its consequences. © 2021, Thomson Reuters Brasil Conteudo e Tecnologia. All rights reserved.

Stanley v Finnegan: Child Abuse and Bad Medicine.

In April 2020 American President Donald Trump publicly stated that consuming disinfectant could cure COVID-19. This apparently shocking statement was not so shocking to many: some people believe that consuming Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), a name for chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach, can cure many illnesses. This article is a case note about Stanley v Finnegan, 447 F Supp 3d 771, 777 (WD Ark, 2020), in which parents sued their local county and sheriff in Arkansas for taking their children away after they encouraged their children to consume MMS. This case is particularly important in the current COVID-19 world.

Mediation as an Alternative Mechanism to Resolve Family Disputes in Malaysia: A Comparative Analysis with Australia and New Zealand

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mempromosikan penyelesaian alternatif untuk menangani masalah atau perselisihan keluarga di Malaysia, yang dikenali sebagai mediasi. Mediasi adalah mekanisme penyelesaian alternatif yang paling sesuai untuk perselisihan keluarga, di mana objektifnya adalah untuk menjaga hubungan kekeluargaan. Isu keluarga adalah sesuatu yang sensitif, kerana ia melibatkan anak-anak dan harta hasil dari perkahwinan. Ini kerana peningkatan dari segi statistik mengenai konflik yang berlaku antara pasangan suami isteri di media sosial. Alasan untuk mengesyorkan mediasi keluarga adalah bagi mengelakkan publisiti dan perselisihan mereka diketahui umum. Perbincangan dan syarat-syarat penyelesaian pihak-pihak yang terlibat adalah sulit. Artikel ini membincangkan dan menjelaskan tentang prinsip dan proses mediasi dan bagaimana cara terbaik yang perlu diterapkan dalam penyelesaian perselisihan keluarga. Artikel ini juga menekankan perlunya keadilan perlu ditegakkan dalam menangani isu-isu keluarga. Dengan menggunakan analisis kandungan teks, artikel ini mengumpulkan dan menganalisis makna dan konsep, latar belakang dan sejarah serta struktur mediasi. Kajian ini membandingkan proses dan aplikasi mediasi keluarga di Australia dan New Zealand dengan Malaysia. Mediasi keluarga seperti yang dipraktikkan di negara-negara ini dapat menjadi rujukan bagi Malaysia bagi mewujudkan model mediasi keluarga yang praktikal di Malaysia.Alternate :Settlement of disputes outside of the court is quite popular nowadays as it gives more advantages compared to litigation. Many mechanisms can be applied under the umbrella of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), including mediation. Mediation is a suitable dispute settlement mechanism for family issues, where it seeks to preserve the familial relationship. Family issues are sensitive, as they involve children, maintenance, and matrimonial properties. The reason for recommending family mediation is to avoid the glare of publicity and keep the family disputes low-key and private. Discussion between the parties is confidential as to the terms of the settlements. This article discusses and explains the principles and process of mediation and how it is best applied in the settlement of family disputes. It also highlights the need for a family court in Malaysia. Applying qualitative research methodology, this article managed to gather and analyse the meaning, concept, historical background, structure and application of mediation. This article comparatively analyses family mediation practices in Australia and New Zealand. Family mediation as practised in these two countries can be a reference for the Malaysian government to learn from their experiences to establish a good and practical family mediation model in Malaysia.

Black Families Overlooked, Misunderstood, and Underserved in the Family Courts

Studies show that even people consciously committed to equality may still hold unconscious stereotypes that influence their actions.1 The courts' technological pivot during the COVID-19 pandemic has made access to justice available at our fingertips.2 Attorneys and parties can dial into hearings using a web-based conferencing platform like Zoom, arguably making participating in court proceedings easier.3 However, what happens when the parties face challenges such as lack of broadband access, lack of devices to access web-based conference platforms, or lack of computer knowledge to access hearings, among a host of other problems? [...]mediation is a way to preserve positive relationships and garner adherence to parenting time agreements, which leads to a better wellbeing for the children involved. "10 State and local court administrators can "[p]rovide education on implicit bias that includes judicial facilitators/presenters, examples of implicit bias across other professions, and exercises" to personalize training sessions.11 In addition, administrators can "[p]rovide routine diversity training that emphasizes multiculturalism and encourage court leaders to promote" the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.12 To further assist the bench with addressing implicit bias, administrators can develop guidelines or protocols "for decision makers to check and correct for implicit bias (e.g., taking the other person's perspective, imagining the person is from a non-stigmatized social group, thinking of counter stereotypic thoughts in the presence of an individual from a minority social group). "20 Like courts in Massachusetts and New York, other court systems could request an independent commission to analyze administrative data from state agencies regarding racial disparities and submit a report of its findings as well as proposed strategies for improvement.21 "Courts exist to do justice, to guarantee liberty, to enhance social order, to resolve disputes, to maintain rule of law, to provide for equal protection, and to ensure due process of law.

Doctrine, experiential learning, and client-centered lawyering: Teaching family law in a post-pandemic world

The restrictions of pandemic teaching served as a catalyst for the authors' integration of the skills-based and client-centered teaching. Their refurbished models of teaching family law aspire to capture the needs of under- and unrepresented populations of society, build students' lawyering skills including "soft" skills like client interviewing, contemplate what a satisfying career in family law could look like, and deliver instruction on the theoretical underpinnings of the law governing the creation and dissolution of familial units. The article summarizes the authors' methods for incorporating such "hands-on" learning into our classes, and demonstrates how these ideas are malleable enough to work in in-person, remote, concurrent, asynchronous, and synchronous classes.

FAMILY ;HOME ;SCHOOL

The state grants residents who live within a school district's border an ownership interest in that district's schools. This interest includes the power to exclude nonresidents. To attend school in a school district, a child must prove that she lives at an in-district address and is a bona fide resident. But in highly-sought-after districts and schools, establishing a child's bona fide residence may be highly contested. In this Essay, I show that education law, policies, and practices fail to recognize a child's residence when the child's family and living situation do not comport with a particular ideal of family life. This ideal is rooted in the archetype of the White, middle-class nuclear family headed and controlled by two parents and living in a single dwelling around which all family life revolves-a "home." While this idea may be normatively familiar, it is elusive for many families. For many families, especially the race-class-gender subordinated, "family" looks and functions differently from the archetype. Parents are rarely the only or primary caregivers for children in these families, and home-making is likely to occur across multiple sites, not just one "home." By valorizing the nuclear family and its accouterments- and refusing to consider other family forms as sufficient to establish residency-residency requirements not only impede access to educational resources for those who are most in need, but also entrench a race-class-gender-specific ideal of the family and ignore the reality of how many families actually function.

Reconciling remote learning with imputed income for custodial parents

One of the logical, yet seemingly unanticipated, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the exodus of parents, primarily mothers, from the workplace. An October 2020 Pew study indicates that as many as 30% of parents reduced work hours or left the workforce all together, with a pronounced burden falling on working mothers. This paper examines one possible consequence of voluntary under- or unemployment by these parents: imputed income for the purposes of calculating child support. Forecasters predict that remote learning is now an option schools will likely turn to again to address all sorts of possible problems from environmental disasters to flu outbreaks. Family law practitioners should be prepared to deal with this likelihood, and should be ready to address the possible effects on child support with their clients. © 2022 The Author. Family Court Review published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Ways of Being Together During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Support Bubbles and the Legal Construction of Relationships.

This article focuses on the concept of the support bubble. The concept was introduced in New Zealand in March 2020 in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic to denote a network of people with whom a person could have physical contact, and was later taken up in various forms elsewhere, particularly in the UK. The article focuses on the meaning that was attached to the concept and to the ways of being together that it encapsulated and stipulated. Where support bubbles were formalised as a matter of law, as in New Zealand and the UK, a particular form of relating was legally constructed and real relationships were affected through law. The article addresses the meaning and implications of the concept of the support bubble in this light. First, it considers the concept of the support bubble as a new legal form, which drew in, and built on, a range of relationships and then recast them in terms of a new legal form. Second, it analyses the central question posed by the concept as one of the meaning of being together in a support bubble, not only for those navigating and living with the concept in practice, but also as mediated in and through law. Third, it outlines how the concept of the support bubble represented a distinct legal development. It enabled those who were eligible to define for themselves, albeit within a specified framework, the meaning and nature of a relationship of support of this kind. It also supplied a space in which some kinds of relationships that had not necessarily attracted much previous legal attention-like friendships and dating relationships-came to find a degree of legal reflection and recognition.