Institute 6: Judicial Officer’s Institute Strategies for Domestic Violence and Alienation Allegations in Parenting Disputes in Family Court
Family court judicial officers are challenged daily in dealing with allegations of domestic violence and alienation. Often, there is limited evidence presented to the court at the outset of the legal proceedings. The challenges are accentuated when one or both parents represent themselves, a common situation in most family law cases. This institute will provide a review of the current research as well as emerging assessment and intervention strategies. Part 1 will focus on critical questions and potential evidence to gather in exploring multiple hypotheses about the dynamics in the family to address what happened and what impact it is having on the parents and children. Part 2 will move from potential court findings to differentiated court remedies including counselling support for the parents and children.

Question Title

* 1. Based on the content of this session, I am able to: (1=Strongly disagree, 5=Strongly agree)

  1 2 3 4 5
1. Identify the legal and clinical challenges in dealing with allegations of domestic violence and alienation in parent child contact problems (PCCP).
2. Recognize potential biases that present challenges for an accurate assessment of a family presenting with PCCP problems.
3. Discuss multiple hypotheses regarding the contributing factors for PCCP dynamics in the family.
4. Review safety considerations in the context of reviewing allegations of domestic violence and alienation in PCCP cases.
5. Identify critical questions to ask and potential evidence to gather in exploring multiple hypotheses about the dynamics in the family to address what happened and what impact it is having on the parents and children.
6. Develop differentiated parenting plans, court orders/remedies, and counselling support for the parents and children based on potential court findings.

Question Title

* 2. Please rate presenter: Peter Jaffe, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 3. Please rate presenter: Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 4. Please rate presenter: Barbara Jo Fidler, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 5. Please rate presenter: Hon. Anne Hirsch (Ret.) (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 6. Please rate presenter: Katreena Scott, PhD (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

  1 2 3 4 5
Level of knowledge and expertise
Teaching ability
Maintained my interest
Was responsive to questions, comments and opinions

Question Title

* 7. The content of the presentation was consistent with the abstract in the conference brochure

Question Title

* 8. Please rate this session presentation overall (1=Poor, 5=Excellent)

Question Title

* 9. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? (1=Very little, 5=Great deal)

Question Title

* 10. Information presented in this session reflected the most current evidence on this topic (1=Disagree, 5=Agree)

Question Title

* 11. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development (1=Not useful, 5=Extremely useful)

Question Title

* 12. Additional Comments

T