April 2016

• Date: 01 April 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12209
• Published date: 01 April 2016
• Author: Ruth C. Stern,Robert E. Emery

EDITORIAL NOTE

APRIL 2016

In this issue of Family Court Review (FCR) we present an array of service delivery strategies for

families undergoing significant periods of stress and conflict. Specifically, these services target

parents and children affected by poverty, familial breakup, child abuse allegations, and child abduc-

tion. We also examine gender differences in African American child-discipline practices and the

importance of allowing children to express their wishes and emotions in the context of court hearings

and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Two thought-provoking issues are addressed in our Stu-

dent Notes, the use of juvenile offenses in adult criminal sentencing and the constitutionality of stat-

utes that allow judges to order divorced parents to pay for their children’s college education.

Of special note is a two-part analysis of the hazards of relying on insufficient social science

research evidence to bolster one’s professional position, particularly where the subject is unsettled

and controversial. These two articles are written by the Researchers’ Roundtable, seven social scien-

tists who have done considerable research on family law issues. (The roundtable group includes, in

alphabetical order, Robert E. Emery, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe, Janet R. Johnston, JoAnne Pedro-

Carroll, Marsha Kline Pruett, Michael Saini, and Irwin Sandler.) Both articles discuss how social sci-

ence evidence too often is bent to advocate for a cause. The first article outlines both general prob-

lems arising from differences in truth seeking in social science and the law, as well as specific forms

of scholar-advocacy bias where empirical evidence is discounted, distorted, or overstated in support

of some advocacy position. The second article expands on these themes, while simultaneously sug-

gesting ways of containing scholar-advocacy bias. The papers make the essential and indisputable

points that (1) the field needs the support of some funding agency to promote systematic and relevant

research on family law topics and (2) existing research must be interpreted cautiously—a necessary

scientific caution that conflicts with the needs of practitioners and policy makers who are asked to

offer answers now.

Of late, increasing attention has been paid to the extent to which children should be allowed to

participate in either ADR or the judicial process. From Germany, Michael Karle and Sandra

Gathman report on a study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice regarding interviews of

children by family law judges. The vast majority of judges found the interviews advantageous in

helping to determine child functioning, best interests, and the feasibility of consensual settlement

between the parents. The interviews afforded children as young as 4 years old an opportunity to

express their wishes and resulted in no lasting negative impact in terms of stress. The authors con-

clude by strongly endorsing Germany’s legal tradition of acknowledging children as independent

personalities with a right to be heard.

There is also a growing awareness among family court judges, academics, and theorists that chil-

dren have strong thoughts and feelings about family transitions, family member relationships, and cus-

tody arrangements. In an effort to view children as individuals with rights and voices rather than as

passive victims, Lorri Yasenik and Jon Graham propose a model of child-centered mediation. The

authors suggest a number of approaches of varying intensity based on the skills and expertise of the

mediator as well as parental readiness to involve thechild and the child’s desire to participate. The goal

of this inclusive model is to ensure that children are not marginalized in the course of mediation but

actively involvedin the process.

The differences between African American mothers and fathers in matters of child discipline are

examined by Carla Adkison-Johnson, Jeffrey Terpstra, Jamie Burgos, and Dorphine Payne.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 2, April 2016 131–133

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts