Jane C. Murphy’s research while affiliated with University of Baltimore and other places

In this article we sketch an overview of the increasing federal involvement in the child-support area. Because the federal role has grown so dramatically over the past 25 years, family law practitioners need to understand the different federal programs and requirements that affect state management of child-support programs. While for many low-income parents state agencies handle child-support establishment and collection, the federalization of child support has practical implications when it comes to both establishing and enforcing child support. For example, as the time limits of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act begin to have their effects, child support may become a supplement more and more needed by custodial parents. We begin this article with a brief history of the changing nature of federal involvement in child support-focusing on the origins of the federally mandated state child-support departments (“IV-D” agencies)-and then examine the development of mandatory child-support guidelines. We conclude with a listing of the implications of the federalization of child support for the family law practitioner.

This article is intended to assist practitioners in anticipating and responding to some of the evidentiary challenges in civil cases in which relief is sought for the victims of domestic violence. First, expert testimony is often necessary to dispel common myths about battered women and to educate judges and juries about the dynamics of domestic violence. Recent case law, however, has limited the admissibility of "non-scientific" expert testimony and may make it difficult for practitioners to use experts in their cases. In addition, particular evidentiary issues arise when victims are pursuing both criminal and civil remedies against the batterer. This article will explore the ways in which evidence issues may benefit and inhibit civil actions arising from the domestic violence. Finally, we will discuss the difficulties in using prior bad acts evidence. Because batterers tend to engage in repeated acts of abuse, evidence of prior acts may be particularly relevant in proving the extent of harm and predicting the likelihood of future abuse. Traditional principles of evidence law, however, often prohibit the admission of other crimes, wrongs and acts.

Perhaps you've seen the signs along a number of major highways in Maryland. A pregnant Mona Lisa advertising a DNA testing company with the caption "Who's the Daddy?" With the rise in the number of children born out of wedlock in Maryland in the last several decades, paternity testing is becoming routine and family law practitioners are handling more cases in which the father or mother or both are trying to change who is named as the legal father in a paternity or divorce judgment. The law governing such cases has changed substantially since 1995. This article will guide the practitioner through the changes in the law, describe the need for separate representation of children in many of these cases and provide guidance on effective representation of children in paternity modification proceedings.

Maryland judges have wide discretion to refer parties to mediate a variety of civil matters. Title 17 of the Maryland Rules, enacted in 1998, governs mediation of civil cases in the circuit courts. These rules are supplemented by Maryland Rule 9-205, which addresses mediation of child custody and visitation disputes. Although these rules define mediation and address mediator qualifications in some detail, they say very little about either a party's right to object to mediation or the court's authority to compel participation in mediation. Given that the mediation rules are relatively new and mediation orders would generally be considered interlocutory, no appellate law on the scope of the court's authority to compel participation in mediation currently exists in Maryland. With this lack of clarity in the law, practitioners may have some question about their options when faced with an order to mediate. In many cases, compliance with the order will be in the best interest of the client. But attorneys should always consider whether mediation is the most appropriate dispute resolution method for the client and the particular case. This practice tip will offer some guidance about when mediation might not be in your client's best interest, how to make an objection to a mediation order and what to expect from the court.

Part One of this Article explores the meaning of morality by briefly reviewing a variety of attempts to explore the meaning of moral conduct. This Section draws on a variety of contemporary moral philosophers who have built on the classical tradition to develop a broader definition of moral behavior. This discussion provides a context for the current debate about the meaning of morality in family law and moral discourse in the no-fault era. Part One also reviews the historical debate about how law should strike a balance between promoting communitarian values and respecting autonomy and individual rights. The Article argues that the conflict underlying this debate may be overstated. All laws have moral implications, and decisions about law, made by citizens, legislators and policymakers, necessarily involve choices that privilege some values over others. Regulating family members is a particularly value-laden task. A tension will always exist between protecting individual freedom and privacy of family members and state intervention to further the common good. However, this tension does not require a retreat from the concept of rights within the family; rather, rights can be conceived in a way that furthers the moral vision of family law by using rights as a tool to ensure the protection of vulnerable members of the family. Part One concludes by noting that the hierarchy of values embodied in the moral vision of family law has changed over time. Sexual morality has become less important over time while protecting children has become central to the moral framework of family law. Part Two of the Article examines the traditional, fault-based moral discourse in the law governing grounds for divorce, alimony and child custody that prevailed in this country until the 1970's. It concludes that this approach has several significant drawbacks. First, the fault-era's emphasis on sexual practices and traditional gendered family roles reinforced patriarchy and tended to hurt custodial parents-primarily women-and children. Additionally, the fault-era's reliance on broad discretionary standards resulted in inadequate financial awards and dual standards for men and women. Further, because moral discourse in family law has been primarily focused on issues of sexual conduct in marriage, the fault-era moral vision excluded families created outside of marriage. Litigating issues of fault also exacted significant financial and emotional costs on families. Finally, the emphasis on regulating sexual conduct in the fault-era did little to promote the evolving moral goal of family law-protecting children. Part Three of the Article explores the ways in which some laws that developed in the no-fault era express morality in family law. Examining current laws governing divorce, marital property, child support and custody, the Article identifies ways in which both the language surrounding the debates about such laws and the laws themselves express values of equality, commitment and responsibility for family members, particularly dependent members. The Article notes that for the first time, the language of morality has expanded into two areas that were largely unregulated in the “fault” era-access to marriage and family violence. The Article concludes that these developments over the last thirty years represent a healthy trend toward an overall family policy that strengthens families and protects each family's weakest members. Nevertheless, more needs to be done to achieve a family policy that protects children. Finally, the Article identifies additional measures, both in traditional domestic law and in the broader policy arena, that must be accomplished to truly strengthen families, and most importantly, to protect children.

New laws and policies aimed at protecting victims of domestic violence have been adopted across the country throughout the last twenty years. The legal approaches taken to protect battered women and control family violence have brought about significant changes in family law. New laws include statutes permitting civil protection or restraining orders, and laws requiring that domestic violence be considered in custody and visitation decisions. Both of these types of statutory reforms can provide protection to adult victims of domestic violence and their children. Evaluating a parent’s fitness by considering past acts of violence to other family members results in decisions that are more likely to protect children than decisions that discount or disregard spousal abuse. Civil protection orders can provide abused women and their children with a quick and easily accessible remedy that provides housing, financial relief, and an order of child custody. While there is some controversy about the effectiveness of such orders in cases involving severe violence, most advocates and scholars agree that these statutes contribute to improving the lives of women and children.The effectiveness of these new laws in reducing the incidence of domestic violence, however, has been limited for a number of reasons. One of the major barriers to using these laws is the difficulty litigants often encounter when trying to prove domestic violence. First, the alleged victim is often the only witness to the abuse. For a variety of reasons, victims are reluctant to testify against their abusers and pursue civil and criminal remedies. Even when they do testify, women who experience domestic violence sometimes exhibit characteristics that make them less believable. Despite changes in legal and popular conceptions of domestic violence, judges and juries fail to understand some of the effects of domestic violence and their impact on perceived credibility.

Lack of access to the courts to resolve domestic disputes is a national problem which deserves the attention of both family law scholars and practitioners. Family law scholars have exhaustively critiqued both the substantive and procedural law governing dissolution proceedings. This analysis of rules and standards, however, is rarely conducted with the explicit goal of maximizing access to the courts for people of low and moderate income. This paper begins by assessing the dimensions of the problem through an explanation of the existing domestic legal needs studies. This paper also presents a case study of a typical multi-issue domestic case to provide a context within which to explore procedural and other innovations aimed at both reducing formal requirements on simple domestic cases and replacing discretionary standards with structured, predictable rules. Procedural reforms identified in the paper include providing alternatives to full adversarial hearings in some domestic proceedings; relaxing barriers to non-attorney advice and representation; identifying the appropriate categories of cases for such procedural innovations; and designing appropriate mechanisms for informed pro se representation, including education programs and wider use of standardized forms.

The way in which families resolve disputes has undergone dramatic change over the last decade. Scholars have focused much attention on a number of substantive law changes that have contributed to this transformation. These include the changing definitions of marriage, parenthood, and families. But less attention has been paid to the enormous changes that have taken place in the processes surrounding family dispute resolution. These changes have been even more comprehensive and have fundamentally altered the way in which disputing families interact with the legal system. Both the methods and goals of legal intervention for families in conflict have changed, altering the roles of judges and lawyers and moving much of dispute resolution out of the courtroom. These developments have profound implications for the family justice system. They also reflect a broader jurisprudential shift away from the traditional values of the adversary system in both the civil and, to a lesser extent, the criminal justice system. The impact of this shift in this context has not been fully explored, particularly the direct and harmful impact of such changes on low income litigants. Part One of this Article describes the changes that have contributed to this paradigm shift. Part Two explores the fundamental ways in which the shift alters the traditional adversary system and the risks presented by these shifts. Finally, the Article offers proposals to assist in weighing the relative benefits of the therapeutic and adversarial approaches. Countering the trend in recent reform efforts, the Article argues for a reinvestment in the adversary system to design a justice system that serves all families.

Reporting on recent research at Chicago-Kent Law School and supported by studies at other schools, a group of student panelists noted sharp differences in participation rates in class discussions and lower feelings of self-confidence among female students compared with their male counterparts.

Establishing legal parentage, once a relatively straightforward matter of marriage and biology, has become increasingly complex. The determination of legal status as mother may now involve several women making claims based on genetic contribution, contract, status as gestational carrier or other bases. The debate about the best choice for children when adults are competing for parental status is ongoing, lively and filled with many voices. Less attention has been paid to a much larger, second category of cases - cases in which the law is faced with resolving the legal status of the one adult who may be available to serve as the legal mother or father. For mothers, these cases most often arise in the context of determining their legal status as biological mothers when the state has identified them as being at risk for abusing or neglecting their infant children. These cases almost always involve mothers or fathers who are poor, often members of minorities and usually without legal representation in parentage establishment and/or disestablishment proceedings. In these orphan cases, the governing rules or legal standards chosen by the legislature or courts will not be used to choose among potential parents; rather, the issue is whether anyone will serve as a child's parent.This paper examines the laws that establish and disestablish the maternal rights of poor women. The paper examines patterns of state intervention in child abuse and neglect law that determines the legal recognition of motherhood for these women. It concludes that current child welfare rules and policies promote the loss of birth mothers in poor children's lives, often with no long-term maternal substitute for affected children. The paper also notes that focusing on parentage laws alone cannot preserve fit mothers in children's lives. Notwithstanding the limitations of this exercise, the paper highlights the policies that have removed mothers from their children and urges a shift in policy direction. Finally, the paper concludes with some principles to guide the formulation of parentage laws that have as their primary goal protecting poor children by keeping mothers in their lives.