|
Every so often you’ll read a professional journal that leverages one article
after another to thoroughly flesh out one of the core issues of your work.
The January 2007 issue of Family Court Review is just such a piece
for me.
To summarize, contributing writer Janet R. Johnston writes: “…despite
efforts to make contemporary family courts more collaborative, family law
matters are situated in legal institutions that are historically and
traditionally adversarial. In this highly political, adversarial context,
where goals and agendas collide, advocacy for one’s viewpoint is the norm
and so it should be no surprise that, when social science knowledge is
brought into this arena to shed light on what to do about a problem, there
is steadfast pressure to subject and subvert it to advocacy ends.
“Moreover, political activists need to send clear, simple, unambiguous
messages — black-and-white truths, one-line shockers or sound bites — if
they are going to get the attention of policy makers and the public in order
to effect change. There is no room for the ifs and buts, the inherent
tentativeness, complexity, or nuance that characterizes all social science
knowledge because it would weaken their clarion call.”
More than once in this issue, you’ll see the term “TEGWAR” here, applied to
family court proceedings. It’s an acronym that stands for “That Exciting
Game Without Any Rules.” If you’re facing a divorce, wouldn’t such a system
top your list of worst fears?
—posted by Dell Deaton @5:18 PM EST 3/18/2008
RSD 16610
|
.jpg)
