July 2016

• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12228
• Author: Robert E. Emery,Ruth C. Stern

EDITORIAL NOTE

JULY 2016

This issue of Family Court Review (FCR) features several research studies. The analysis and

reexamination of strategies and interventions aimed at improving family functioning are integral to

the work of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). It is our pleasure to present

articles that test our assumptions about how to assist families and children in need and that explore

new ways to address service delivery.

Families lacking in financial resources are often socially and emotionally disadvantaged as well.

Ebony Ruhland, Alisha M. Hardman, Emily H. Becher, and Mary S. Marczak report on the rationale

for a three-year demonstration project in Minnesota designed to remove barriers to co-parenting in

low-income, unmarried parents. The objective of the program was to create a model for the establish-

ment of paternity while improving co-parenting in terms of the families’ financial, emotional, and

social functioning. Through the provision of individualized assessment and services tailored to each

family, the project attempted to improve parenting skills and communication, increase child support,

and enhance the functioning of children born to unmarried, often fragile, families. The authors con-

clude that community-based partnerships and competent case management are crucial to the success

of programs serving this particular population.

Reducing conflict in separating families continues to be an enviable, yet sometimes elusive goal.

Sanford L. Braver, Irwin N. Sandler, Liza C. Hita, and Lorey A.Wheeler compare the efficacy of two

different types of interventions addressing high legal conflict experienced by families undergoing dis-

solution. One approach, Parent Conflict Resolution, involves the use of a three-hour exhortational

lecture and video, primarily didactic in nature. The other approach, Family Transitions Guide, uti-

lizes motivational interviewing and relies on exercises meant to encourage parents to decide for

themselves the best actions to take for the welfare of their children. Families were assigned randomly

to one or the other intervention. The results describe positive impacts arising from each type of inter-

vention and illustrate the value of randomized trials of different interventions.

Andrew Zinn, Britany Orlebeke, Donald N. Duquette, and Xiaomeng Zhou examine the impor-

tant yet relatively recent mandate in many states that attorneys be appointed to represent children in

dependency cases. An ongoing debate concerns the organization of legal services for children in

terms of which setting offers the best quality representation. In a study of 126 attorneys across

Washington State, the authors analyzed and compared the characteristics of three settings: staff attor-

ney offices, private law firms, and solo practices. The study concludes that dedicated child welfare

legal services offices may be preferable in a number of respects. In some jurisdictions, however, con-

tracting with individual attorneys who have been trained in child dependency practice might prove to

be a more viable model.

Family justice reform is an issue frequently discussed at AFCC conferences and a recurring topic

in the pages of FCR. In an empirical study of pathways to family dispute resolution in Ontario,

Canada, Michael Saini, Rachel Birnbaum, Nicholas Bala, and Brenden McLarty describe a survey of

family court professionals and analyze 1,000 closed court files. Despite generalized professional sup-

port for family justice reform, the authors note that there is limited use of mediation, that litigants

often fail to attend mandatory information sessions featuring a lawyer and a mediator or mental

health professional, and that the perspectives of the children are rarely solicited and acknowledged.

The authors recommend further research as to how jurisdictions differ in terms of services and

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 54 No. 3, July 2016 333–335

V

C2016 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts