Search results

Although the family plays a key role in affecting offender behavior, little research examines how sanctioning contexts affect familial relationships. Using data from the Australian reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE), we investigate how the processing of offenders via court and conference affects their bonds with family members by examining the type of shaming – reintegrative or disintegrative – they experience. In contrast to disintegrative or stigmatizing shaming, which tends to be associated with court processing, reintegrative shaming shames the act and not the moral character of the offender, allowing for the reparation of social ties. We find that despite higher levels of stigmatization in conferences, this form of processing is also more reintegrative and strengthens family relationships to a greater extent than courts, with offenders feeling prouder of being a member of their family and indicating that familial closeness and respect increased. Moreover, reintegrative but not disintegrative shaming mediates the relationship between criminal justice processing and family relationships.

Focusing on those aspects of the Children Act 1989 which relate to the family justice system, this article outlines the development over the last 20 years of the family courts and the court welfare system (now CAFCASS ‐ Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), and the operation of two provisions: section 1(5) the ‘no order’ principle and section1(2) the avoidance of delay. Neither of these provisions have delivered what they promised and further procedural change through the Public Law Outline and the Private Law Programme have been introduced to divert cases from proceedings and reduce delay. The foundations for a family court set down in the Act appear at last to be being developed. However, the recently announced Family Justice Review means that the role and function of family courts is again uncertain.

In this chapter, I examine stories that foster care youth tell to legislatures, courts, policymakers, and the public to influence policy decisions. The stories told by these children are analogized to victim truth testimony, analyzed as a therapeutic, procedural, and developmental process, and examined as a catalyst for systemic accountability and change. Youth stories take different forms and appear in different media: testimony in legislatures, courts, research surveys or studies; opinion editorials and interviews in newspapers or blog posts; digital stories on YouTube; and artistic expression. Lawyers often serve as conduits for youth storytelling, translating their clients’ stories to the public. Organized advocacy by youth also informs and animates policy development. One recent example fosters youth organizing to promote “normalcy” in child welfare practices in Florida, and in related federal legislation.

Domestic abuse presents significant challenges for legal systems around the world. In England and Wales, victims of domestic abuse sometimes find that they are pulled in different directions by multiple legal interventions in the criminal, civil, and family justice spheres. This is often due to inadequate information and evidence sharing but also inconsistent approaches and court orders. The “Harm Panel” report published in 2020 examined the approach of the family justice system in child arrangement cases involving allegations of domestic abuse. It found “silo working” was one of four structural barriers contributing to unsafe processes and outcomes. The Harm Panel provided renewed impetus for a policy to introduce integrated domestic abuse courts (IDACs) to address the problems of fragmented legal responses. There has previously been one unsuccessful attempt to introduce an IDAC in England Wales. This chapter will explore what went wrong and whether the evidence base for IDACs in other countries supports another attempt.

British colonization of Australia had lasting consequences for Australia’s legal system. Although designed as a “one law for all system” based on the English common law, the reality was, and is, that there have always been people regulating their lives according to their own distinctive culture and religion. Recognition of de facto legal pluralism, has only recently given rise to instances of de jure legal recognition. The latter necessitated a role for cultural expertise in a range of legal cases. The first considered is how social science expertise was employed in redressing the dispossession of the continent’s first peoples: indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. The landmark case of Mabo No 2 laid the legal ground for native title land ownership which fueled a demand for cultural experts in indigenous traditions, laws, and customs. The second aspect is Australia’s response to recent immigration from non-European nations, including from Muslim countries. Many Muslims continue to regulate their interpersonal relationships exclusively, or partially, by principles of Islamic law and their “homeland” culture. This is particularly evident in family matters and the prism for exploring the nascent role for cultural expertise is through post-divorce parenting orders. The third issue is the extent to which a court can accept an accused’s cultural practice or religious belief as a defense to a criminal act or omission. In all three, who is a “cultural expert” can be contentious. While cultural expertise in indigenous matters is well established, the role for cultural experts in the resolution of family disputes and criminal cases is just emerging.

If child custody decisions are based on erroneous beliefs, family courts may not be acting in the best interests of children. This study examined family court professionals' beliefs about family violence. Respondents (N = 410) of diverse professions, including child custody mediators, evaluators, and therapists, family law attorneys and judges, victim advocates and university students, completed a 10‐item multiple‐choice quiz. Results revealed low rates of correct responding, with respondents correctly answering approximately three out of 10 items on average, based on current research in the field. Overall, response rates were highly consistent with the discredited patriarchal paradigm. Shelter workers and victim advocates had the lowest average score, and men were found to have slightly higher scores than women. More troubling, students' scores were not significantly lower than those of family court professionals. Implications are discussed with respect to decision‐making in the context of child custody disputes.

In Family Law Court decisions in Australia, following divorce, the female party is frequently disadvantaged financially in the long term. This paper provides a critical assessment of valuation evidence as a data source in research and discusses valuation accuracy, valuation variation and valuation bias, as well as the Australian family court system and the role of valuers as expert witnesses. In particular, valuation in family law, as it relates to gender inequality, is discussed. The study aims to determine whether the current system of valuation in the Family Law Courts disadvantages women. This paper was important to reveal information that stakeholders in family law cases use on a day-to-day basis.

A database of 658 cases was developed and analysed to examine the influence of valuations of the matrimonial home provided by both the male and female parties on the final decision of the court.

Findings showed that valuations from the female party had marginally more influence on the outcome. However, financial disadvantages for the female party persist despite this. This raises several questions for future research, regarding reasons for this persistent disadvantage.

Research limitations included a time-consuming process.

Further researchers can use the findings from this paper to further research.

Social implications include the ability of the research to impact on society. In this regard, it was the matrimonial home in relation to divorce proceedings.

The originality of this paper stems from the analysis of a database that was created from a large number of cases from Austlii database family law cases.

The victim’s rights movement and restorative justice (RJ) have gained momentum around the world. More laws and policies have focused on crime victims and their families. Western literature suggests that the victim’s family suffers physical, emotional, and financial tolls and that the power of the victim’s family in pursuing justice for their loved ones remains limited. This is particularly concerning within the political and legal context of the abolitionist movement, innocence project, and human rights groups’ campaigns against police torture. Grounded in the perspectives of RJ and Chinese legal culture, this study examines the victim’s family, represented by Ding and senior Yu, of the Nian Bin capital murder case. Drawing on published reports and using the thematic content analysis method, this study examines the following aspects of victim’s family in a death penalty case: 1) victim family’s physical, emotional, and financial tolls; 2) victims’ family and the criminal justice system; 3) victims’ family and the media; and 4) the relationship between the victims’ and the accused’s families. This study concludes with discussions of the competing goals of families impacted by a crime and RJ practices that would help mitigate the loss of the victim’s family and enhance their confidence in the criminal justice system.

Attachment has long been considered relevant to child care proceedings. However, compared to other forms of evidence, it has been limited by the lack of consistent methods of assessment, training of experts, and empirical evidence. To reduce these limitations, The International Association for the Study of Attachment (IASA) has developed a Family Attachment Court Protocol for assessment and formulation of attachment issues. The purpose of the Protocol is to act as a guide to good practice and to begin a process of improving the application of attachment to family court proceedings.

The Dynamic-Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation (DMM) and its associated assessments were adapted for forensic use. The resulting Family Attachment Court Protocol was trialed in cases before 15 judges in five countries and modified based on feedback.

The judges and most of the professionals working for the court expressed approval of the new Protocol.

Implementation of the Protocol will require additional authorised experts.

The primary practical implication is that the courts will receive verifiable evidence on attachment can be tested and, thus, validated or disproven.

If accepted, the IASA Protocol will reduce the idiosyncratic nature of child care proceedings and increase the rigour of professional qualification to address attachment.

The IASA Protocol is new and valuable because its theoretical underpinnings in the DMM are based on both clinical and also neurological evidence about protection from danger, and it can replace untestable expert opinion about attachment with evidence-based assessment and transparent formulation of recommendations.

The Edmund Edelman Children’s Court is a juvenile dependency courthouse in Los Angeles designed with bright murals, open play spaces, and modified courtrooms to be “child-sensitive” and “family-friendly.” Through a recounting of the political and cultural forces at play building up to its construction, I argue that the decisions to build a “child-sensitive” court confirm the carceral containment of the culpable black adult. This article represents an inquiry into the cultural logic of the court’s construction, revealing the relationship between raced constructions of innocence and guilt. This study draws from five months of fieldwork conducted in the Edelman Children’s Court.