Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Issues in Problem-Solving Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Problem Solving Courts

Abstract

The access to justice for domestic violence victims is examined in the context of the role of problem-solving courts in the handling of family law cases. This examination is based upon endorsement by Professors Barbara Babb and Nancy Wolff of the use of problem-solving courts to handle family law matters that include allegations of domestic violence. Women who were victims of domestic violence historically were unable to receive protection through the legal system. Although significant improvements have been made in providing systems for protection through the courts, many claim that these systems remain inadequate. Problem-solving courts are designed to include principles of therapeutic jurisprudence that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. A number of therapeutic jurisprudence successes have been noted, including drug treatment courts and mental health courts. Arguments in favor of using problem-solving courts in situations involving domestic violence recognize that often the victim and the abuser maintain an ongoing relationship and thus it may be necessary to focus on a holistic approach that provides a positive outcome for the offender as well as the victim. This paper provides an assessment of the need to proceed with caution on the use of problem-solving courts when domestic violence is present. The lack of accountability for the abuser and the possibility of “blaming the victim” in the therapeutic jurisprudence approach may dictate against the use of problem-solving courts for domestic violence victims. A number of commentators have joined in the caution against restorative justice measures in matters involving domestic abuse, noting that rights of offenders as well as victims may be compromised.

Cline Williams Professor of Citizenship Law, University of Nebraska College of Law. This comment is based upon remarks made at the Problem-Solving Courts Symposium, January 2010, at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, in response to the presentations by Barbara Babb and Nancy Wolff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jessica Lenahan (Gonzalez) et al. v. United States, Case 12.626, Report No. 80/11, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Para. 110 (July 21, 2011) (released publicly on August 17, 2011) [Lenahan Final Report].

  2. 2.

    See David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Law in a therapeutic key: developments in therapeutic jurisprudence (1996).

  3. 3.

    The Gonzales’ divorce proceeding was apparently filed in district court in Castle Rock, Colorado, where at that time, the district court was a court of general jurisdiction that handled family law cases. Colorado decided not to adopt the unified family court, but some areas of the state have established family courts. See Nancy Thoennes, Family Court Pilot in Colorado’s 17th Judicial District. Denver, Colorado: Center for Policy Research (2001), http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/468/Default.aspx.

  4. 4.

    See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-6-803.5(3) (a).

  5. 5.

    Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).

  6. 6.

    These facts are based upon the description of the facts in Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The facts were never fully developed because the case was dismissed before trial. There is some dispute of the facts. See Jessica Gonzales v. United States, Petition No. 1490–05, IACHR Report No. 52/07, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.128, doc. 19, Para. 1 (July 24, 2007) [Gonzales, admissibility report].

  7. 7.

    Jessica Gonzales filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a remedy for deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States when that deprivation takes place “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory….” She claimed that her procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when the police failed to provide protection pursuant to a validly obtained protective order. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 754 (2005)

  8. 8.

    Section 1983 authorizes a cause of action for the violation of any constitutional right, including substantive due process and equal protection violations. See, e.g., Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Soc. Servs. Dept., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (failure to provide petitioner with adequate protection against his father’s violence did not violate his rights under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause).

  9. 9.

    See generally, Karen Czapanskiy, Domestic Violence, the Family and the Lawyering Process: Lessons from Studies on Gender Bias in the Courts, 27 Fam. L. Q. 247 (1993).

  10. 10.

    See Arthur L. Rizer III, Mandatory Arrest: Do We Need to Take a Closer Look?, 36 UWLA L. Rev. 1, 9 (2005) (noting that 15 states that have enacted mandatory arrest statutes and 24 states that have enacted a mandatory arrest statute requiring arrest when a protective order has been violated).

  11. 11.

    Randal B. Fritzler & Leonore M. J. Simon, Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Combat in the Trenches, 37 CT. REV. 28, 29 (2000)

  12. 12.

    The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) is the principal body of the inter-American system charged with human rights protection. The commission investigates petitions of alleged violations of human rights by the member nations of the Organization of American States (OAS). The United States is one of the 35 members of OAS.

  13. 13.

    See Gonzales, admissibility report, supra note 6 at Para. 1.

  14. 14.

    Gonzales, admissibility report, supra note 6 at Para. 1. doc. 22, rev. 1 (2007).

  15. 15.

    Lenahan Final Report, supra note 1.

  16. 16.

    Jessica Gonzales v. United States, Petition No. 1490–05, IACHR Report No. 52/07, OEA/Ser.L./V/II.128, Gonzales, admissibility report, supra note 6 at doc.19, Para. 58] (rejecting the U.S. position that the OAS American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man did not impose positive governmental obligations).

  17. 17.

    See, e.g., Michael Rand and Callie Rennison, “How Much Violence Against Women Is There?” in Violence Against Women and Family Violence: Developments in Research, Practice, and Policy, Edited by Bonnie S. Fisher U.S. Department of Justice: National Institute of Justice. (2004) NCJ 199701 at I-1–5 (noting that in 1998, about 1 million violent crimes were committed against persons by their current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends; violent crimes included murder, rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault); National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States 1–4 (2003), available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/IPVBook-Final-Feb18.pdf; Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Study 9–11 (2000), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf.

  18. 18.

    See United Nations Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs, Violence Against Women in the Family, U.N. Doc. ST/CSDHA/2 (1989).

  19. 19.

    U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics, Mathew Durose and Others (June 2005).

  20. 20.

    Ronet Bachman and Linda E. Salzman, L., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates From the Redesigned Survey 1 (January 2000); See generally, Barbara J. Hart, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, Battered Women and the Criminal Justice System (1992), http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.html.

  21. 21.

    See generally, Barbara J. Hart, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, Parental Abduction and Domestic Violence (1992), http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.html.

  22. 22.

    See The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, 1999.

  23. 23.

    Lenahan Final Report, supra note 1, Para. 93, citing Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005 and Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, citing statistics from Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence against Women in the United States 18 (2003) (estimating 5.3 million intimate partner assaults against women in the United States each year); Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.

  24. 24.

    Id. Para. 94 citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, p. 12.

  25. 25.

    Id. Para. 96 citing as an example Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Conn. 1984).

  26. 26.

    See generally, Richard Boldt & Jana Singer, Juristocracy in the Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Drug Treatment Courts and Unified Family Courts, 65 Md. L. Rev. 82, 83 (2006); James L. Nolan, Jr., Redefining Criminal Courts: Problem-Solving and the Meaning of Justice, 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1541, 1541 (2003) (“problem-solving courts ‘involve principles and methods grounded in Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ ”).

  27. 27.

    See, e.g., Boldt and Singer, supra note 26 at 83 (“[T]he judges who serve on these ‘problem-solving’ courts have largely repudiated the classical virtues of restraint, disinterest, and modesty, replacing these features of the traditional judicial role with bold, engaged, action-oriented norms.” quoting Mary Ann Glendon, A Nation Under Lawyers 4–5 (1994)).

  28. 28.

    Boldt and Singer, supra note 26 at 84.

  29. 29.

    See generally, Boldt and Singer, supra note 26 at 83.

  30. 30.

    See Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts (Bruce J. Winick & David B. Wexler eds., 2003) [hereinafter Judging in a Therapeutic Key] and David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence (1996) [hereinafter Law in a Therapeutic Key].

  31. 31.

    See generally, Sarah L. Miller & Abigayl M. Perelman, Mental Health Courts: An Overview and Redefinition of Tasks and Goals, 33 Law & Psychol. Rev. 113, 113 (2009).

  32. 32.

    See generally, Hon. Catherine Shaffer, Therapeutic Domestic Violence Courts: An Efficient Approach to Adjudication?, 27 Seattle U. L. Rev. 981 (2004).

  33. 33.

    See generally, Hon. Robert T. Russell, Veterans Treatment Courts Developing Throughout the Nation, in Future Trends in State Courts (2009) http://www.vis-res.com/pdf/Trends2009.pdf.

  34. 34.

    See generally, Thomas J. Scheff, Community Conferences: Shame and Anger in Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 67 Rev. Jur. U.P.R. 95 (1998).

  35. 35.

    Robert V. Wolf, “Principles of Problem-Solving Justice” (Center for Court Innovation, n.d.), http://www.courtinnovation.org/topic/problem-solving-justice.

  36. 36.

    See David Wexler, Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent (1990); Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Problem Solving Courts, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1055 (2003). See generally, Winick and Wexler, Judging in a Therapeutic Key, supra note 30 (collection of essays and edited versions of republished articles in the area).

  37. 37.

    Bruce Winick, Applying the Law Therapeutically in Domestic Violence Cases, 69 UMKC L. Rev. 33 (2000) [hereinafter Applying the Law] citing David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Law in a Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence (1996); Bruce J. Winick, The Jurisprudence of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 3 Psychol. Pub. Pol’y & L. 184 (1997).

  38. 38.

    Schopp, Robert F., “Integrating Restorative Justice And Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” 67 Revista Jurídica Universidad de Puerto Rico 665 (1990) citing David Wexler, Therapeutic Jurisprudence: The Law as a Therapeutic Agent 3–22 (1998).

  39. 39.

    David B. Wexler & Bruce J. Winick, Law in Therapeutic Key: Developments in Therapeutic Jurisprudence xvii (1996).

  40. 40.

    Wolf, supra note 35 at 1.

  41. 41.

    Boldt and Singer, supra note 26 at 84–85 (2006), citing Steven Belenko, Research on Drug Courts 6–7 (1998) and Drug Court Standards Committee, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components (1997) (listing 10 key components).

  42. 42.

    West Huddleston & Douglas B. Marlowe, Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Drug Courts and Other Problem-Solving Court Programs in the United States 14–15, National Drug Court Institute and United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance, (July 2011).

  43. 43.

    See generally, Emily Sack, Creating a Domestic Violence Court: Guidelines and Best Practices 2, Family Violence Prevention Fund (2002).

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., Problem-Solving Courts, New York (described as handling all criminal, family and matrimonial matters with domestic violence being the threshold requirement for entry into the IDV). https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/problem_solving/idv/home.shtml; Unified Family Court Pilot Project (seeking the adoption of authorizing legislation by the Tennessee legislature) http://www.shelbycountychildren.org/what-we-do/initiatives/unified-family-court.html.

  45. 45.

    See Anne H. Geraghty & Wallace J. Mlyniec, Tempering Enthusiasm with Caution, 40 FAM. CT. R. 435, 437 (2002).

  46. 46.

    Barbara Babb, Unified Family Courts: An Interdisciplinary Framework and a Problem-Solving Approach, in Wiener, R., & Brank, E. (eds.) Problem Solving Courts: Social Science and Legal Perspectives, Springer, 2012 [hereinafter Unified Family Courts]. Citations herein are based on a draft copy of the article.

  47. 47.

    See also Barbara A. Babb, University of Baltimore Law School, Remarks at the Eleventh Annual Symposium on Contemporary Urban Challenges (March 1, 2002), Problem Solving Courts: From Adversarial Litigation to Innovative Jurisprudence, 29 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1929, 1944 (2002); Barbara A. Babb, Where We Stand: An Analysis of America’s Family Law Adjudicatory Systems and the Mandate to Establish Unified Family Courts, 32 FAM. L.Q. 31, 35–36 (1998) (discussing the historical development of family courts).

  48. 48.

    Nancy Wolff, Domestic violence courts: The case of Lady Justice meets the Serpents of the Caduceus: Has the lady’s reach yielded promise or peril? In Wiener, R., & Brank, E. (eds.) Problem-Solving Courts: Social Science and Legal Perspectives, Springer, 2012. Citations herein are based on a draft copy of the article.

  49. 49.

    Bruce Winick has argued that specialty courts are better-suited to handle domestic violence cases than conventional courts if they are properly structured. See Winick, Applying the Law, supra note 37.

  50. 50.

    Paul A. Williams, A Unified Family Court for Missouri, 63 Umkc L. Rev. 383, 396–97 (1994).

  51. 51.

    See Adopted Resolution 117 (Coalition for Justice; Committee on State Justice Initiatives) August 2001 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/policy/index_aba_criminal_justice_policies_by_meeting.html. See generally, Herbert Belgrad, An Introduction to Unified Family Courts from the American Bar Association’s Perspective, 37 Fam. L.Q. 329, 329 (2003) (describing the American Bar Association’s endorsement UFCs).adopted resolution 117 August 2001.

  52. 52.

    ABA, America’s children at risk: a national agenda for legal action 53, 54 (1993).

  53. 53.

    See generally, Symposium, What Works and What Does Not, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1929, 1944 (2002); ABA, America’s Children at Risk: A National Agenda for Legal Action. 53, 54 (1993).

  54. 54.

    See generally, Andrew Schepard & James W. Bozzomo, Efficiency, Therapeutic Justice, Mediation and Evaluation: Reflections on a Survey of Unified Family Courts, 37 Fam. L.Q. 333, 335 (2003) (reporting that 94 % of the jurisdictions in their survey had jurisdiction over domestic violence cases).

  55. 55.

    Id. at 344.

  56. 56.

    Babb, Unified Family Courts, supra note 46 at 17.

  57. 57.

    See Babb, Unified Family Courts, supra note 46 at 2. See also Deborah J. Chase, Pro Se Justice And Unified Family Courts, 37 Fam. L.Q. 403 (2003); Barbara A. Babb & Judith D. Moran, Substance Abuse, Families, and Unified Family Courts: The Creation of a Caring Justice System, 3 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 1 (1999); Jessica Pearson, Court Services: Meeting the Needs of Twenty-First Century Families, 33 Fam. L.Q. 617 (1999).

  58. 58.

    See generally, Nancy Ver Steegh, Book Review, The Unfinished Business of Modern Court Reform: Reflections on Children, Courts, and Custody by Andrew I. Schepard, 38 Fam. L.Q. 449 (2004); Catherine J. Ross, The Failure of Fragmentation: The Promise of a System of Unified Family Courts, 32 Fam. L.Q. 3, 7 (1998).

  59. 59.

    See Barbara A. Babb, Fashioning an Interdisciplinary Framework for Court Reform in Family Law: A Blueprint to Construct a Unified Family Court, 71 S. Cal. L. Rev. 469, 475 (1998) (describing a multidisciplinary team approach to family law decision-making).

  60. 60.

    Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology Of Human Development (1979).

  61. 61.

    Babb, Unified Family Courts, supra note 46 at 7.

  62. 62.

    Id at 11–14.

  63. 63.

    Id. at 19 citing Sanford N. Katz & Jeffrey A. Kuhn, Recommendations for a Model Family Court 8–9 (1991) (due process and other concerns regarding the treatment of the offender) and Linda Szymanski, Theresa Homisak, & E. Hunter Hurst, III, Policy Alternatives and Current Court Practice in the Special Problem Areas of Jurisdiction over the Family 8–9 (1993) (noting significant concerns unless confined to misdemeanors).

  64. 64.

    Id. at 20 citing Judith S. Kaye, Delivering Justice Today: A Problem-Solving Approach, 22 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 125, 143 (2004).

  65. 65.

    See Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 Ind. L.J. 775, 787 n. 76 (1997) citing Joan S. Meier, Notes from the Underground: Integrating Psychological and Legal Perspectives on Domestic Violence in Theory and Practice, 21 Hofstra L. Rev. 1295, 1308–09 (1993).

  66. 66.

    Wolf, supra note 35 at 2.

  67. 67.

    See generally, Melissa Labriola, Sarah Bradley, Chris S. O’Sullivan, Michael Rempel, Samantha Moore, A National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts 80. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (2009).

  68. 68.

    Wolff, supra note 48.

  69. 69.

    Id. at 4.

  70. 70.

    Id. at 5 citing Labriola, Bradley, O’Sullivan, Rempel, & Moore, supra note 67.

  71. 71.

    Id. at 6.

  72. 72.

    Id. at 6 (citations omitted).

  73. 73.

    Id. at 9.

  74. 74.

    Id. at 12.

  75. 75.

    Winick and Wexler, Judging in a Therapeutic Key, supra note 30 at 8.

  76. 76.

    Wolff, supra note 48 at 19.

  77. 77.

    Id. at 25–28.

  78. 78.

    Id. at 6 (citations omitted).

  79. 79.

    Winick and Wexler, Judging in a Therapeutic Key, supra note 30 at 8.

  80. 80.

    See generally, Julie Stubbs, Domestic Violence and Women’s Safety: Feminist Challenges to Restorative Justice, in Restorative Justice and Family Violence, 42, 43 (Heather Strang & John Braithwaite eds., 2002).

  81. 81.

    See, e.g., Geraghty & Mlyniec, supra note 45.

  82. 82.

    Winick, Applying the Law, supra note 37 at 33.

  83. 83.

    See, e.g., Katherine Van Wormer, Restorative Justice as Social Justice for Victims of Gendered Violence: A Standpoint Feminist Perspective, 54 Soc. Work 107 (2009).

  84. 84.

    See, e.g., John E. Cummings, Comment, The Cost of Crazy: How Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Mental Health Courts Lower Incarceration Costs, Reduce Recidivism, and Improve Public Safety, 56 Loy. L. Rev. 279, 281 (2010) (noting that although problem-solving courts have their origins in therapeutic jurisprudence, all problem-solving courts are rooted in the legal theories of therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice).

  85. 85.

    Id.

  86. 86.

    Julia Weber, Domestic Violence Courts: Components and Considerations, 2 J. Ctr. Fams. Child & Cts., 23, 27 (2000).

  87. 87.

    Id. at 34.

  88. 88.

    National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence: Improving Court Practice 49 (1990).

  89. 89.

    Weber, supra note 86 at 32.

  90. 90.

    See generally, Nancy Thoennes, Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Justice System V: Center for Police Research (2007) (e.g., Maricopa County); Susan Keilitz, Specialization of Domestic Violence Case Management in the Courts: A National Survey, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice (2004) citing Deborah Epstein, Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence Cases: Rethinking the Roles of Prosecutors, Judges, and the Court System, 11 Yale J.L. & Feminism 3 (1999).

  91. 91.

    See, e.g., Geraghty & Mlyniec, supra note 45 at 443 citing Victor Eugene Flango, Creating Family Friendly Courts: Lessons from Two Oregon Counties, 34 FAM. L.Q. 115, 120 (Spring 2000).

  92. 92.

    See Schepard & Bozzomo, supra note 54 at 345.

  93. 93.

    See generally, Nancy Ver Steegh, Yes, No, and Maybe: Informed Decision Making About Divorce Mediation in the Presence of Domestic Violence, 9 WM. & Mary J. Women & L. 145, 147 n.2 (2003) (“Compare Carrie-Anne Tondo, et al., Mediation Trends, 39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 431 (2001) (arguing that mediation is never appropriate), with Penelope E. Bryan, Reclaiming Professionalism: The Lawyer’s Role in Divorce Mediation, 28 Fam. L. Q. 177, 203–05 (1994)”); Aimee Davis, Mediating Cases Involving Domestic Violence: Solution or Setback?, 8 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 253, 268 (2006); Leigh Goodmark, Law is the Answer? Do We Know That for Sure?: Questioning the Efficacy of Legal Interventions for Battered Women, 23 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 7, 11 (2004); Laurie S. Kohn, What’s So Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding? Restorative Justice as a New Paradigm for Domestic Violence Intervention, 40 Seton Hall l. Rev. 517, 527 (2010); Tom Lininger, Bearing the Cross, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1353, 1361 (2005).

  94. 94.

    Barbara A. Babb, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective, 72 Ind. L.J. 775, 803 n.179 (1997).

  95. 95.

    545 U.S. 748, 772.

  96. 96.

    Id. at 780 n.8 citing Sack, Battered Women and the State: The Struggle for the Future of Domestic Violence Policy, 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 1657.

  97. 97.

    Deborah J. Chase, Pro Se Justice And Unified Family Courts, 37 FAM. L.Q. 403 (2003) citing Anne H. Geraghty & Wallace J. Mlyniec, Unified Family  Courts: Tempering Enthusiasm with Caution, 40 FAM. CT. R. 435 (2002).

  98. 98.

    See, e.g., Gloria Danziger, Delinquency Jurisdiction in a Unified Family Court: Balancing Intervention, Prevention, and Adjudication, 37 FAM. L.Q. 381, 394–397 (2003) (discussing the role of the judge and due process in unified family court) citing Anne H. Geraghty & Wallace J. Mlyniec, Unified Family Courts: Tempering Enthusiasm with Caution, 40 FAM. CT. REV. 435, 437 (2002).

  99. 99.

    See, e.g., Minnesota Judicial Branch, Fourth District, Problem-Solving & Specialty Courts, Domestic Violence Court, http://www.mncourts.gov/district/4/?page=2004.

  100. 100.

    See generally, Elizabeth L. MacDowell, When Courts Collide: Integrated Domestic Violence Courts and Court Pluralism, 20 Tex. J. Women & L. 95 (2010–2011); Tamar M. Meekins, Specialized Justice: “The Over-Emergence of Specialty Courts and the Threat of a New Criminal Defense Paradigm”, 40 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1, 6–7(2006).

  101. 101.

    See generally, Samantha Moore, Two decades of specialized domestic violence courts: A review of the literature 2, New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation (November 2009) (noting that domestic violence courts lack an established set of principles).

  102. 102.

    See e.g., Steve Leben, Book Review, 26 Justice System Journal 109 (reviewing Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts, Bruce J. Winick and David B. Wexler., eds. (2003)) (noting that the book lacks “data to support the effectiveness of TJ over alternative procedures and concepts, as well as discussion of several conceptual challenges to TJ”). Available at http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/kis_prosoljudgingjsjv26no1.pdf.

  103. 103.

    Lenahan Final Report, supra note 1 at Para. 201.

  104. 104.

    Katharine T. Bartlett, Feminist Legal Methods, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 829, 837 (1990). See also Katharine T. Bartlett, Gender and Law: Theory, Doctrine, Commentary 634 (1993) (a feminist analysis “take[s] greater account of how legal rules often invisibly represent the partial perspectives of those who are dominant in society and ignore the perspectives of others”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nebraska–Lincoln College of Law, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Anna Williams Shavers

Authors
  1. Anna Williams Shavers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Williams Shavers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 339, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Eve M. Brank

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shavers, A. (2013). Gender Issues in Problem-Solving Courts. In: Wiener, R., Brank, E. (eds) Problem Solving Courts. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation