Familial Relationships

Research: The law requires certain professionals (“mandated reporters”) to report to local child protective services (“CPS”) agencies what those professionals perceive as potential child abuse or neglect. Because these mandated reporters—for example, physicians or teachers–lack alternatives, they sometimes also refer to CPS cases that they do not have to report, and might prefer not to report if there were an option other than CPS to attempt to address the situation. To reiterate, these optional reports are for cases near the margin – cases for which, if there were another alternative, reporters would not refer to CPS. Mandated reporters inform the A2J Lab that many of these “marginal cases” exist. These marginal cases often share some characteristics of instances of actionable neglect but might more accurately be characterized as resulting from poverty and its associated legal consequences. If so, then the problems could be susceptible to poverty-focused social and legal assistance (such as help with benefits applications, bankruptcy, or domestic violence protection orders) instead of CPS’ more punitive approach.

What We’ll Learn: This project will field a randomized controlled trial (“RCT”) of a program that integrates poverty-focused holistic legal and social work services into medical and educational settings that include mandated reporters. These poverty-focused holistic legal and social programs target marginal cases, again, cases approaching but not on or over the line of a mandated CPS report. The hypothesis is that such poverty-focused services will reduce the frequency with which these marginal cases are reported to CPS. In particular, the hope is that there will be fewer reports to CPS that result in “no-action” determinations, i.e., cases in which CPS investigates (thus imposing harm on the family) but takes no action (thus providing no benefit to the family). Given the national reach of the CPS system, evidence that poverty-focused legal and social services reduce the rate of investigations, especially no-action investigations, would improve the wellbeing of children and families and could revolutionize national CPS reporting policy.

Research Team: We partner with the Carolina Health Advocacy Medicolegal Partnership (“CHAMPS”), housed in the University of South Carolina (“USC”) School of Law, and the Kansas Holistic Defenders, serving Shawnee County, Kansas, to field the evaluation. We partner with Dr. Tricia Stephens, Associate Professor at the Silberman School of Social Work at Hunter College to conduct the evaluation.

Research: This research examines the comparative advantages of online versus in-person appearances in sensitive cases for vulnerable litigants (Self-Represented Ls).

Research to understand the effect of widespread remote justice necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic is scant, and particularly scant in the area of family law. What we know thus far, from two articles, both with severe methodological limits, is that litigants believed that online hearings hindered procedural justice as compared to in-person hearings.¹ But litigants believed online proceedings improved their ability to attend hearings as compared to in-person proceedings. No studies assessed how remote appearances affected case outcomes. Within the context of these studies, issues of civility and safety are not addressed either. Neither study deployed a credible research design.

On a related front, research using sampling and qualitative analysis has attempted to understand the effects of different types of custody orders on children. Most of these studies occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, after a movement away from a presumption of primary or sole maternal custody.² As such, arguably, we may have some knowledge of the preferred arrangement for children.

But we do not know how methods of conducting hearings, which constitute the key decision points in the judicial process, affect or inhibit courts’ capacity to order preferred arrangements. It is easy to suspect that parental poverty poses challenges to reaching optimal court decisions. Perhaps online proceedings, which may lessen the formidable mental bandwidth, scheduling, and organizational challenges low-income parents face, are a partial solution. But, if we believe remote appearances hinder procedural justice, will the outcomes resulting from a more organized, more accessible hearing still be meaningful if litigants do not feel heard, and if that dissatisfaction translates to dissatisfaction with their orders? Again, we do not know, and we need to in order to promote better outcomes for families.

¹ Elizabeth G. Thornburg, Observing Online courts: Lessons from the Pandemic, 54 Fam. Law. Q., 181, 198-199 (2020); Lynda B. Munro & Nicole M. Riel, Our Virtual Reality: Facing the Constitutional Dimensions of Virtual Family Court, 54 Fam. Law. Q., 245, 261 (2020).

² See, Robert Bauserman, Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review, 16(1) J. of Fam. Psych. 91 (2002) (analyzing 21 studies).

What We’ll Learn: This research will contribute two perspectives. It will examine whether SRLs in family court proceedings uniquely suffer when asked to participate in remote proceedings. It will also investigate whether online proceedings worsen, improve, or merely replicate the problems of in- person hearings with particular focus on issues of procedural justice, civility, and litigant safety.

Research Team: We partner with the Commissioners and the Self-Help Center of the Third District Court in Salt Lake County, Utah to field the operation. We conduct the evaluation in consultation with Emily LaGratta of LaGratta Consulting, LLC.

Research: 

What We’ll Learn:

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Mothers Outreach Network

Research: In partnership with the Boston Court Service Center and the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association, the Lab’s Guardianship Service of Process study evaluates whether self-help materials can make a difference for court users navigating the complex web of court procedures to initiate a guardianship case.

The Guardianship Service of Process Study, which launched in early September 2017, tests Lab-designed self-help materials. Participants receive printed materials (developed in large part at our first hackathon) on a randomized basis for both adult or minor guardianship cases and in English or Spanish. In addition, minor guardianship petitioners randomized to receive the hard copy booklets will also gain access to an online tool developed by Bill Palin, the Access to Justice/Technology Fellow with Harvard Law School’s clinical programs. That site walks users through their case to provide personalized instructions, using new guided interview software similar to TurboTax. The RCT will compare rates of successful service, among other outcomes, between the treatment and control groups.

What We’ll Learn: If self-help packets or a new tech tool can help people file for guardianship and then correctly complete service of process, then legal services providers know what types of resources to invest in and how best to allocate their limited resources. And if the self-help materials aren’t at all effective, perhaps we can learn something about the procedural hurdles and have a better understanding of how these hurdles themselves may need to change.

Research Team:

Boston Court Service Center

Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar Association

Court Centers Services of Worcester & Springfield

Jim Greiner, Faculty Director, Access to Justice Lab; Professor of Law at Harvard Law School

Chris Griffin, Visiting Professor and Research Scholar, James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona

Erika Rickard, Senior Officer, Civil Justice Innovation Project, Pew Charitable Trusts

With intervention design thanks to our affiliates,

Bill Palin, Developing Justice, Harvard Law School

Hallie Jay Pope, Graphic Advocacy Project

Research: Over four decades ago, the United States Supreme Court decided a trio of cases addressing the constitutionality of a court system’s imposition of filing fees without a corresponding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) process. These cases established that a court system could condition access to itself on a would-be litigant’s paying a mandatory (nonwaivable) filing fee, but that the due process clause demanded that courts waive the fee for indigent litigants in cases involving constitutional rights that could be effectuated only by resort to the courts. An example of a right within the exception was divorce, it being a feature of the United States legal system that when two spouses (even if childless and penniless) both affirmatively desire to exercise their constitutional right to terminate their marriage, one must sue the other in a court. The legal subject area in our study, divorce, is the same as that in the Supreme Court’s filing fee cases, and it remains the quintessential example of a constitutional right that can be effectuated
only by resort to the courts.

What if a court imposed other costs on mandatory “costs” on litigants in divorce cases? What if, effectively, a court system demanded that an indigent litigant find a lawyer in order to obtain a divorce?

Study Design: Our study randomized an individual seeking assistance to pursue a divorce to either an effort by a pro bono matching service to find a pro bono attorney to represent her (treated group) or a referral to existing self-help or low bono resources coupled with an offer to answer questions by telephone (control group). Our study partner was the provider of last resort for free legal services in our study site, Philadelphia County: it accepted intakes primarily via referrals from other organizations, and it required that service seekers exhaust all other options.

What We Learned:

Research Team: Jim Greiner, Faculty Director, Access to Justice Lab; Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Roseanna Sommers, Assistant Professor of Law University of Michigan

Ellen Degnan, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center

Thomas Ferriss, Staff Data Scientist, Google

Philadelphia VIP

Resources:

D. James Greiner, Ellen Degnan, Thomas Ferriss, and Roseanna Sommers, “Using random assignment to measure court accessibility for low-income divorce seekers,” PNAS April 6, 2021 118 (14)

Research:
Victims of domestic violence/sexual assault (DV/SA) experience the highest incidence of ancillary civil legal needs: on average, about eighteen per person in one state [this is crucial because the estimate isn’t nationwide, only from Washington State]. Yet the standard of care for civil legal assistance in the DV/SA context lags behind support for criminal prosecution. Compounding the problem is a severe lack of legal services in high-volume matters such as eviction and small-claims suits. The general expectation, therefore, is that DV/SA survivors will navigate the court system alone.

The Questions:
Does supporting DV/SA survivors in accessing available civil legal resources improve social outcomes and/or reduce revictimization? If so, could that model be replicated in other jurisdictions? This high-need, vulnerable population is difficult to study; they also have complex needs that demand the best possible allocation of limited resources. Can service providers employ research tools that indicate what really works?

The Study:
The A2J Lab has designed an evaluation to determine the impact of a unique resources referral program that assigns a legal navigator to assess survivors’ needs holistically and match them with appropriate resources. Participants will be randomized to one of two conditions: (1) automatic referral to the program; or (2) referral to other services, including direct referral to legal aid providers without the assistance of the program. The program will use a new survey tool to follow up directly with participants.

What We Hoped to Learn:
The study was expected to provide policymakers with concrete data about whether or not the program works and thus whether it is advisable to replicate (and continue to evaluate) the model elsewhere. By using new digital tools to survey DV/SA survivors, the evaluation was also expected to generate valuable data about whether or not online and text-based survey tools are effective ways to communicate with this vulnerable population.

Research Team: Access to Justice Lab