Family law, with sources
Does the family law industry profit from conflict?
The incentive structures in how family cases are billed, staffed and run - what the documented evidence shows, what it does not show, and what has been proposed.
This page asks whether the evidence supports the claim that the family-law system rewards conflict. It tests that framing against a fixed evidence base of public sources: statutes, court rules, bar ethics opinions, court and agency statistics, audits and peer-reviewed studies, plus commercial surveys, news releases and advocacy material, each labelled for what it is. It describes incentive structures - who is paid, how, and by whom - and reports what has and has not been measured. Where the evidence is missing, it says so instead of filling the gap.
Evidence published for review
Every source row behind this page is currently marked unverified: an automated check matched every quote and number to an archived copy of its source, and an independent review pass read every row, but the per-row human sign-off defined in the research methods has not been recorded yet. Check any claim against the sources list before relying on it.
Read the sources list (173 sources; 0 of 182 rows signed off) · What this page does not claim
BMD is a neutral co-parenting app. This page does not rank lawyers, professionals or parents, does not describe the motives of any profession, and names no practitioner, firm, evaluator, guardian ad litem or judge. Court opinions are cited without party names. General information, not legal advice.
How to read the labels
- Documented
- Data or a documented arrangement, from the cited source.
- Rule text
- What a statute, court rule, ethics opinion or guideline says.
- Stated, not measured
- A statement by a named official or professional source that gives no data for it.
- Advocacy position
- The view of an advocacy organization. Not evidence of fact.
- Evidence missing
- Searched for and not found in this evidence base.
- Cuts the other way
- Counter-evidence, or a limit on the framing of the section.
Each citation links to the source, with its publisher, date and page, followed by the row id, which jumps to that source's entry in the sources list at the end of the page.
1. How family-law fees are set and billed
Most of what can be documented about family-law billing is the rule text that governs it: retainers, written fee agreements, billing for communications, and court orders that shift fees between spouses. How common each arrangement is has not been measured by any source found.
What the fee rules require
The ABA model fee rule bars unreasonable fees, asks lawyers to communicate the basis or rate of the fee "preferably in writing", and bars any fee in a domestic relations matter that is contingent on securing a divorce or on the amount of alimony, support or a property settlement [ABA Model Rule 1.5, 2026, Client-Lawyer Relationship BIL-001]. The model rule is not binding until a state adopts its own version [ABA Model Rule 1.5, 2026, Client-Lawyer Relationship BIL-001].
Wisconsin goes further than the model text: the basis or rate of the fee must be communicated in writing (orally only if the total cost is foreseeably $1000 or less), the purpose and effect of any retainer or advance fee must be communicated in writing when the total cost exceeds $1000, and contingent fees are barred in any action affecting the family except for collecting past-due support, maintenance or property division [Wisconsin SCR 20:1.5, 2016-07, PDF p. 1 BIL-024; Wisconsin SCR 20:1.5, 2016-07, PDF p. 2 BIL-024]. New York bars a "nonrefundable retainer fee" (a plainly defined minimum fee clause is allowed) and any domestic relations fee without a written retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and client [NY Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5, 2026, Rule Text BIL-021].
Retainers and replenishment
New York's rules for lawyers in domestic relations matters, in the version posted after they took effect in 1993, require a signed, plain-language retainer agreement that states "How the attorney will be paid through the conclusion of the case after the retainer is depleted; whether the client may be asked to pay another lump sum" and the "Hourly rate of each person whose time may be charged to the client" [22 NYCRR Part 1400, 1993-11, 22 NYCRR sec. 1400 BIL-006].
An ABA formal ethics opinion that names a divorce as an example says fees paid in advance must be held in a client trust account and "may be withdrawn only as earned", and that labels "do not dictate whether a fee has been earned" [ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 1 BIL-016; ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 4 BIL-016].
A practice article by a legal payments company, published on an ABA practice management site, describes an "evergreen retainer clause" as a fee-agreement term that "outlines when a client must replenish funds and by how much" [ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019]. The article is general practice guidance, not specific to family law [ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019].
No source found measures how often family-law engagements use advance retainers, how often retainers are replenished, or how often evergreen clauses are used. The rules and articles above show what is permitted, not how common it is [22 NYCRR Part 1400, 1993-11, 22 NYCRR sec. 1400 BIL-006; ABA Formal Opinion 505, 2023-05-03, PDF p. 1 BIL-016; ABA Law Technology Today (vendor article), 2025-08-07, Refilling the Retainer Balance BIL-019].
Billing for calls, email and time increments
A North Carolina State Bar ethics opinion holds that "A lawyer may bill for intra-office communications about a client's matter", provided the lawyer sets a reasonable hourly rate, discloses the basis of the charges, avoids "wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant procedures" and makes sure the total cost "is not clearly excessive" [North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, Opinion: BIL-017; North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hou... BIL-017].
A Georgia advisory opinion states that "It is the practice of many attorneys to bill on a time-expended basis, and to bill for time expended by rounding to standard units of from 6 to 15 minutes", and that "repeatedly rounding up from one minute to fifteen minutes is questionable at best" under the reasonable-fee rule [Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1, 2001-05-03, Original opinion text BIL-018].
New York's required statement of client's rights in domestic relations matters entitles clients to "a written, itemized bill on a regular basis, at least every 60 days" and says "Time spent in discussion or explanation of bills will not be charged to you" [22 NYCRR 1400.2, 2026, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400... BIL-005]. The same statement warns that "There are no guarantees that the cost of your case will be as originally estimated" [22 NYCRR 1400.2, 2026, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400... BIL-005].
Neither ethics opinion is specific to family law, the North Carolina opinion covers communications inside the firm rather than client calls or texts, and no source found measures how often family lawyers bill for communications or in what minimum increments [North Carolina State Bar, 2008-01-25, 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hou... BIL-017; Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1, 2001-05-03, Original opinion text BIL-018].
Hourly rates and other fee arrangements
In a 2023 State Bar of Michigan survey of 2022 rates, 386 respondents reported a family-law hourly rate: the median was $300, the 25th percentile $250, the 75th percentile $350 and the 95th percentile $450 [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 8 BIL-015]. The survey was voluntary: it was emailed to 41,065 members and completed by 3,819 [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015]. It reports rates for those who bill by the hour and says nothing about how many family-law matters are billed hourly [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015].
A California Judicial Council task force stated in 2010 that "The average family law attorney in California charges more than $300 per hour and requires a retainer of approximately $5,000" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002]. The report gives no data source or sample for these figures [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
No source found reports family-law attorney fees from billing records; every attorney-fee figure on this page is self-reported or an unsourced estimate [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
A legal-software company's report page says "hourly billing is the most common, offered by 71% of law firms", and that "71% of clients prefer to pay a flat fee for their entire case" [Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020]. Its figures cover all practice areas and the page does not publish a method or sample [Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
No family-law-specific share of hourly, flat-fee and limited-scope engagements was found. This page therefore does not say that hourly billing dominates family law [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
A 2008 article on family-law fees in the State Bar of Michigan's journal states that "Hourly billing may lead to a conflict of interest between the lawyer and the client" and that flat fees are appropriate "when the issues involved in the case are relatively common" [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014; Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 4 BIL-014]. It is one practitioner's opinion, not a finding [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014].
No source in this evidence base measures whether the billing method changes how family cases are litigated [Michigan Bar Journal, 2008-06, PDF p. 1 BIL-014; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
California's court rules expressly provide for "limited scope representation" in family law cases, in which the lawyer is engaged for specific tasks only [Cal. Rules of Court 5.425, 2026 BIL-008], and the ABA model rule allows a lawyer to limit the scope of a representation "if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent" [ABA CPR compilation, 2021-09-20, PDF p. 1 BIL-022].
A Maryland access-to-justice commission white paper argued for limited scope representation, noting that some clients "may simply be worried that they cannot evaluate the full cost of representation at the outset and want to limit the costs" [Maryland Access to Justice Commission, 2009-09, PDF p. 1 BIL-023].
Neither the rules nor the white paper measure how often limited-scope engagements are used in family cases or what they save [Cal. Rules of Court 5.425, 2026 BIL-008; ABA CPR compilation, 2021-09-20, PDF p. 1 BIL-022; Maryland Access to Justice Commission, 2009-09, PDF p. 1 BIL-023].
Orders that shift fees between spouses
California directs the court to ensure each party has access to legal representation by ordering, where the income and needs assessments make it necessary, one party to pay the other's reasonably necessary fees during the case, and states that "If the findings demonstrate disparity in access and ability to pay, the court shall make an order awarding attorney's fees and costs" [California Family Code 2030, 2011-01-01, 2030. BIL-003]. A court rule requires a party asking for need-based fees to give the court "the attorney's hourly billing rate" and the fees incurred or anticipated [Cal. Rules of Court 5.427, 2026 BIL-009].
New York creates "a rebuttable presumption that counsel fees shall be awarded to the less monied spouse", and both parties and their lawyers must file an affidavit stating the retainer, the amounts paid and still owing, and "the hourly amount charged by the attorney" [NY Domestic Relations Law 237, 2026, (6) BIL-002]. Wisconsin's power is discretionary: after considering both parties' financial resources the court "may" order either party to pay a reasonable amount toward the other's costs and attorney fees [Wisconsin statute 767.241, 2026 BIL-004].
These provisions change which spouse pays; none of those quoted here sets a ceiling on the amount billed [NY Domestic Relations Law 237, 2026, (6) BIL-002; California Family Code 2030, 2011-01-01, 2030. BIL-003; Wisconsin statute 767.241, 2026 BIL-004].
Fee complaints in bar data
A study of all 4,898 grievances filed with Wisconsin's Office of Lawyer Regulation in criminal and family matters from 2013 to 2016 found "Excessive or Unreasonable Fees" alleged in 9.03% of family-matter grievances, failure to return unearned fees in 1.17% and general fee allegations in .94% [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 4 BIL-011; Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 13 BIL-011]. The most frequent family-matter allegation was lack of diligence, at 16.02% [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 13 BIL-011]. These are allegations, not proven misconduct [Report to Wisconsin OLR, 2020-08, PDF p. 4 BIL-011].
New York's fee-arbitration program says fee disputes from matrimonial representation "continue to be the majority case type" [NY Fee Dispute Resolution Program, 2019-11, PDF p. 8 BIL-013]. Its 2018 report gives 375 such cases in its text while its chart shows a largest category of 413 of the 825 cases closed, so the exact count cannot be confirmed from the archived copy [NY Fee Dispute Resolution Program, 2019-11, PDF p. 3 BIL-013].
Family law was 12% of docketed complaints in Maryland in fiscal year 2023, third behind criminal defense at 20% and civil litigation at 17% [Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-007]. Virginia's bar reported 145 family-law complaints against 151 criminal-law complaints in fiscal year 2021 [Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010]. Wisconsin's regulator reports family law as the second most common practice area in grievances in fiscal year 2024-2025 [Wisconsin OLR, 2025, PDF p. 4 BIL-012].
The Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin annual counts are not specific to fees [Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-007; Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010; Wisconsin OLR, 2025, PDF p. 4 BIL-012]. In Virginia, roughly 66 percent of complaints in all practice areas were resolved summarily because the conduct did not present an issue under the professional conduct rules [Virginia State Bar, 2021-10, Bar Counsel's Message BIL-010].
2. What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
The best-known divorce cost figures come from commercial surveys that do not publish their methods. Court data on case duration and self-representation are stronger. The asset-depletion claim - that litigation goes on while a family can pay - has no direct data either way.
What divorce costs, according to surveys
A financial publisher's reproduction of a 2019 Martindale-Nolo survey reports an average divorce cost of $11,300 and a median of $7,000 [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011]. It lists average attorney fees of $4,100 with no contested issues, $10,400 where a dispute was resolved outside court and $17,700 where a dispute went to trial, and fees of $6,500 for divorces completed in less than six months against $23,000 where the process took more than 30 months [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, Average divorce attorney fees: $11,300 CST-011].
The archived page publishes no method or sample size, its table and prose figures differ slightly, and it also describes $11,300 as a cost per spouse, so the figures may be per spouse rather than per divorce [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011].
In an online panel survey of 1,000 US adults who had finalized a divorce involving custody in the past two years, run for a custody-scheduling software company, respondents reported a median cost of $12,000, excluding support and property division [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012]. The median was $18,000 when both parents had lawyers, nearly $8,000 when one did, and $500 when neither did [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
The survey is self-reported and cannot separate cause from selection: complex or high-conflict cases may be the ones in which both parents hire lawyers [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
Beyond these self-reported survey figures, no study in the evidence base ties fees to measured conflict level, the number of contested issues or case length. This page therefore does not state that fees rise with conflict as a measured relationship [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011; Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
How long cases take
In eleven large urban courts (147,436 domestic relations cases disposed July 2016 to June 2017, about 8 percent of the national caseload), 68 percent of divorce cases resolved within 120 days, 76 percent within 180 days and 86 percent within 365 days, after subtracting statutory waiting periods [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 4 CST-001; NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 21 CST-001]. The national model time standards call for 75, 90 and 98 percent in those windows [NCSC Model Time Standards, 2011-08, PDF p. 24 CST-004].
In Texas, 58% of all family law cases (a total that includes child support cases) were disposed within 6 months and 81% within 12 months for September 2017 to August 2018 [Texas Office of Court Administration, 2019-06-28, PDF p. 4 CST-005].
The same national study found that contested and uncontested cases did not differ significantly in mean time to disposition [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 4 CST-001].
How cases end
A 1994 review summarizing a California study of 1,124 families reports that custody and visitation issues were uncontested in half of the divorces and settled without court help in nearly one-third more; the remaining one-fifth used court procedures, and 1.5% of all families had custody "decided by a judge" [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007]. The review cautions that the estimates were not intended as incidence statistics and are tied to that state's procedures [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007].
In California in fiscal year 2006-07, 1,551 of 130,213 marital family-law dispositions followed a court trial (1.2 percent in the printed table) [Judicial Council of California, 2008, PDF p. 62 CST-010]. The rest mix settlements with defaults, dismissals and uncontested judgments, so the table is not a settlement rate [Judicial Council of California, 2008, PDF p. 62 CST-010].
The 2018 national study could separate settlements from adjudicated and default judgments in only six courts; there, about 26% of cases resolved by settlement and 33.9% presumably through an adjudicative process, so its data do not show that most cases settle [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 19 CST-001].
Self-representation at filing and at disposition
In Colorado, 67% of the 34,846 domestic relations cases filed in fiscal year 2015 had no attorney for any party, and 75% of the 69,951 parties had none when the data were extracted [Colorado Judicial Branch, 2015-12, PDF p. 2 CST-015]. In the national study's courts, 72% of cases had at least one self-represented party [Texas Office of Court Administration, 2019-06-28, PDF p. 2 CST-005].
California's Judicial Council reported that family-law petitioners were self-represented at filing in an average of 67 percent of cases, and at disposition in 80 percent of dissolution cases [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009]. The two figures come from different data sources (an average of court-reported local rates, and statewide administrative data counting petitioners only), in a report from about 2004 [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
The California report read that difference as showing that "while some litigants may be able to afford representation at the time a case is initiated, they can not maintain it through disposition" [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009]. That explanation is the report's own reading, not a survey of litigants [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
Neither the Colorado nor the California data record why parties lack counsel [Colorado Judicial Branch, 2015-12, PDF p. 2 CST-015; Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
The asset-depletion claim
The closest official statement found is that 2010 California task force's: "People who start out with attorneys at the beginning of their cases often run out of money and become self-represented before their cases are over" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002]. A 2008 volume from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) says of high-conflict families that "The litigation costs drain their finances", citing secondary works [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No study, audit or court report found measures legal fees as a share of marital or family assets, or when cases settle relative to the assets left. The claim that litigation typically continues until assets are exhausted is neither supported nor disproven by direct data [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002; Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009; AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
The same task force wrote that in some courts "There can be long delays in getting contested matters heard" and that "Clients get billed for this unproductive time, which drives up the costs for representation unnecessarily" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 16 CST-002].
No source found measures how much billed time court delay adds to a case [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
Do a few high-conflict cases use most of the court's time?
The AFCC volume states that high-conflict families "compose approximately 8% to 12% of the domestic relations cases" yet "require about 90% of the family court's attention" [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013]. A 2023 Family Court Review perspective gives an estimate of 5-10% and says such cases "consume a disproportionate amount of court resources" [Family Court Review, 2023-12-17, Abstract CST-006]. Both attribute the figures to works from 2004 [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013; Family Court Review, 2023-12-17, Abstract CST-006].
The 1994 review's own figures put "substantial" legal conflict at 10% of families and "intense" legal conflict at 15% [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007]. A Canadian government review found definitions of high conflict "vague and inconsistent" [Department of Justice Canada, 2004, 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict CST-008]. NCSC guidance cautions that the number of hearings in a case "might also be indicative of multiple, repetitive filings rather than high complexity" [NCSC, undated, Complexity & conflict CST-014].
The primary source for the 90 percent figure could not be found, and no court-records study measuring the share of judicial time used by high-conflict cases was located. This page does not say that a small share of cases uses most court time [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013; NCSC, undated, Complexity & conflict CST-014].
3. The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
Custody evaluators, guardians ad litem, parenting coordinators, supervised visitation, reunification programs, parent-education classes and financial experts are appointed or ordered by the court, and under many of the rules reviewed here the parties pay, with public funding or caps in some states. Public cost data exist for only some services.
Custody evaluations
California's statewide rule has the court "Determine and allocate between the parties any fees or costs of the evaluation" and requires evaluators to disclose "conflicts of interest or dual relationships" [Cal. Rules of Court 5.220, 2023-01-01 ANC-004]. Colorado lets the court order an evaluation on a party's motion or its own, and requires the evaluator to disclose within seven days any "familial, financial, or social relationship" with the child, the parties, the attorneys or the judicial officer [Colorado statute 14-10-127, 2025 ANC-012; Colorado statute 14-10-127, 2025, (a) ANC-012].
One Ohio county's local rule sets evaluations by a court employee at $800.00 for a full evaluation and $700.00 or $600.00 for partial ones, and states that "The cost of a private custody evaluator shall be as charged by the evaluator" [Cuyahoga County (OH) Domestic Relations Court, 2022-10-04, Rule 39: Custody Evaluation ANC-011].
Colorado's statewide order form sets "A presumptive maximum fee of $2,750 per appointment" for privately paid child and family investigators, and the state court administrator pays them where a party is indigent [Colorado Judicial Department, 2022-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-015]. That role is an investigator, not a full psychological custody evaluator [Colorado Judicial Department, 2022-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-015].
In an anonymous survey of two hundred and sixty-eight judges from 42 states, judges found custody evaluations useful overall, but considered them "too expensive and too time-consuming" and perceived a shortage of trained evaluators [Family Court Review (abstract), 2024, Abstract ANC-024]. Only the abstract was archived, and the survey reports judges' perceptions, not outcomes [Family Court Review (abstract), 2024, Abstract ANC-024].
The 2010 California task force summarized what it heard from litigants: "The parties were required to pay huge costs for these services, and they believed the courts rubber-stamped their recommendations" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 14 POL-014]. It recommended that judges "limit the use of ancillary experts such as custody evaluators who are paid for by the parties to those cases in which it is necessary" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 25 POL-014].
Those are reported perceptions, not audited costs, and no recent national data on private custody-evaluation fees was found [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 13 POL-014; ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2020-06, Statutory Summary Charts DAT-014].
Guardians ad litem
In Wisconsin family actions the guardian ad litem is paid "at a rate that the court determines is reasonable", and the court orders either or both parties to pay; if both are indigent the county may be ordered to pay at a capped statutory rate [Wisconsin Legislature, 2026 ANC-002]. Texas sets ad litem fees in private suits "by reference to the reasonable and customary fees for similar services in the county" and orders one or more parties to pay them [Texas Family Code 107.023, 2005, (1) ANC-029; Texas Family Code 107.023, 2005, (a) ANC-029].
Massachusetts pays state-funded guardians ad litem $50.00 per hour including expenses, limits state-paid appointments to ten hours, and examines the parties' ability to pay before assessing costs to them [Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, 1. ANC-009; Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, B. ANC-009; Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 1988-01-01, D. ANC-009]. The state-paid rate was raised from $40 to $50 per hour in 2022 [Massachusetts Probate and Family Court, 2023-01-11, Memorandum ANC-010]. Arkansas lets a judge approve "any fee the judge finds reasonable" when the parties can pay, but caps the rate at $125.00 per hour when the state pays any part of it [Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts, 2023-07, Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Lite... DAT-020].
Minnesota's legislative auditor found that in fiscal years 2013 to 2017 fees charged to families made up an average of 4 percent of the state guardian ad litem program's revenue, the rest coming largely from state appropriations [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 25 ANC-001]. The auditor also found the program's board had "established few standards to ensure guardians ad litem provide high-quality services statewide" [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 3 ANC-001]. The program serves mostly juvenile and child-protection cases [Minnesota Legislative Auditor, 2018-03, PDF p. 3 ANC-001].
Utah's 2005 audit reported that private guardians ad litem in district-court custody cases without abuse allegations "are generally paid for by a parent or are offered pro bono" [Utah Legislative Auditor General, 2005-02, PDF p. 9 ANC-031].
A federal review of all states found that in child abuse and neglect proceedings, 33 states and the District of Columbia pay attorney or guardian ad litem fees through the court handling the case [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017]. It covers dependency cases, not private custody disputes [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017].
No 50-state compilation of guardian ad litem or custody-evaluator fee rules for private custody cases was found [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017; ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2020-06, Statutory Summary Charts DAT-014].
Parenting coordinators
Colorado allows a court to appoint a parenting coordinator; without the parties' agreement it must first find that they failed to adequately implement the parenting plan and that mediation was inappropriate or unsuccessful, appointments are limited to two years, and "The state shall not be responsible for payment of fees" [Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (6) ANC-006; Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006]. AFCC's 2019 guidelines say a coordinator may make "legally binding decisions" if authorized and "should be appointed by and accountable to the court" [AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 4 ANC-020].
Florida bars ordering parenting coordination without the parties' consent "unless it determines that the parties have the financial ability to pay the parenting coordination fees and costs" [Florida statute 61.125, 2025, The Florida Senate ANC-007].
No public cost data for parenting coordinators was found [Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006; Florida statute 61.125, 2025, The Florida Senate ANC-007].
Supervised visitation and exchange
One California county court's 2026 referral list shows provider-reported fees such as "Intake fee: $50 Per Parent" and "Starting at $40/hr.", and states that "there is no governing body that oversees these programs" [San Bernardino County Superior Court, 2026, PDF p. 2 ANC-016; San Bernardino County Superior Court, 2026, PDF p. 1 ANC-016].
The Justice Department's 2025 Justice for Families solicitation expected $14,000,000 for about 20 awards for programs including supervised visitation and safe exchange for families affected by domestic or sexual violence, stalking or child sexual abuse [US DOJ Office on Violence Against Women, 2025, PDF p. 4 ANC-018]. The federal access and visitation grants, about $10 million a year, may fund supervised visitation and neutral drop-off and pick-up [HHS ACF, 2026-09-15, Access and Visitation (AV) POL-009].
Reunification programs
A Norwegian public-health agency's 2021 mapping review of research on children who resist contact with a parent found 54 primary studies and "no studies that examined the effectiveness of interventions using a randomised controlled study design" [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028].
Federal law offers states extra grant funding if their law provides that "a court may not order a reunification treatment, unless there is generally accepted and scientifically valid proof of the safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value of the reunification treatment" [Pub. L. 117-103, 2022-03-15 POL-007]. California bars courts from ordering reunification programs that require or result in a no-contact order, an overnight, out-of-state or multiday stay, or a transfer of custody [California SB 331 (2023), 2023-10-13, 3193. POL-029].
No public cost data for reunification programs was found, and the program-side outcome study could not be archived [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028].
Parent-education classes
West Virginia requires parent-education classes in divorces with minor children unless the court finds attendance not appropriate or necessary, caps the fee at $25 per attendee, and waives it for indigent parties [West Virginia Code 48-9-104, 2026, sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes. ANC-017].
A 2024 review reports, citing a 2008 review, that mandatory parenting programs for divorce were "codified into law in all but a handful of states" [Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2024-05-18, Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions... ANC-003].
Forensic accountants and valuation experts
California courts may appoint neutral experts on their own motion or a party's, and "may fix the compensation for these services" [California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
No fee data for forensic accountants or business-valuation experts in family cases was found [California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
Referral relationships and conflicts of interest
Texas requires a prospective custody evaluator to disclose "any pecuniary relationship that the person believes the person has with an attorney in the suit", and bars the appointment after such a disclosure unless statutory conditions are met [Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (3) ANC-005; Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (b) ANC-005]. AFCC's guidelines state that "A PC shall not receive any commission, rebate, or remuneration from making a professional referral" [AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 8 ANC-020]. One Ohio county requires evaluators to "avoid self-dealing" [Cuyahoga County (OH) Domestic Relations Court, 2022-10-04, Rule 39: Custody Evaluation ANC-011].
The American Psychological Association's 2022 guidelines say psychologists refrain from serving as custody evaluators when "personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or other interests or relationships" could reasonably be expected to impair objectivity [American Psychological Association, 2022, PDF p. 17 ANC-008].
California's State Auditor found in 2011 that two county family courts did not log complaints about private mediators and evaluators during the four-year audit period (April 2006 to March 2010) and needed to "strengthen their policies for dealing with conflicts of interest" [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 6 ANC-019]. The audit tested small numbers of files in two counties [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019].
New York's judicial ethics committee advised that a judge whose spouse's firm had a continuing professional relationship with a municipality should refrain from appointing that municipality's attorney as a law guardian in custody matters, because continued appointments could give rise to an "appearance of impropriety" [NY Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, 2005-10-27 ANC-021].
These sources show that referral and appointment conflicts are regulated and sometimes audited. None measures how often they occur, so this page does not say that referral relationships are widespread [Texas Family Code 107.107, 2015-09-01, (a) ANC-005; California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019; NY Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, 2005-10-27 ANC-021].
4. Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
Professional-conduct rules, court rules and statutes name tactics that turn on process rather than merit - frivolous motions, delay, discovery used to wear a party down, emergency filings - set limits and sanctions, and limit the right to substitute a judge. What the evidence base does not contain is any count of how often these tactics occur in family cases.
What the conduct rules prohibit
The ABA model rules bar a lawyer from asserting or contesting an issue without "a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous" [ABA Model Rule 3.1, n.d., Advocate TAC-001], require "reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client" [ABA Model Rule 3.2, n.d., Advocate TAC-002], bar a "frivolous discovery request" [ABA Model Rule 3.4, n.d., Advocate TAC-008], and bar means that "have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person" [ABA Model Rule 4.4, n.d., Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients TAC-003].
Two of these standards are narrow: the duty to expedite is qualified by the client's interests, and the third-person rule reaches only tactics with no other substantial purpose [ABA Model Rule 3.2, n.d., Advocate TAC-002; ABA Model Rule 4.4, n.d., Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients TAC-003]. A model rule binds no lawyer until a state adopts it [ABA Model Rule 3.1, n.d., Advocate TAC-001].
Motion practice and settlement-frustrating conduct
California lets a family court award fees and costs "in the nature of a sanction" according to whether a party's or attorney's conduct "furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation" [California Family Code 271, 1994-01-01, 271. TAC-004]. A California appellate court described that discretion as broad, limited by the rule that sanctions "may not impose an unreasonable financial burden on the party sanctioned" [California Court of Appeal, 2012-02-23, In re the Marriage of TAC-021].
New York's court sanctions rule treats conduct as frivolous if "it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another" [22 NYCRR 130-1.1, n.d., N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 TAC-005]. It applies to matrimonial actions in the general courts but excludes certain Family Court proceedings [22 NYCRR 130-1.1, n.d., N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 TAC-005].
Discovery escalation and scorched-earth litigation
California requires money sanctions against a party who fails to comply with the family-law financial disclosure rules, unless the court finds substantial justification or that a sanction would be unjust [California Family Code 2107, 2016-01-01, 2107. TAC-023].
The Florida Bar Family Law Section's practice guide says that "Combative, discourteous, abrasive" conduct by family lawyers "contradicts both their obligations to effectively represent their clients and their roles as problem-solvers" [Florida Bar Family Law Section, 2018-05-01, PDF p. 8 TAC-024]. It adds that lawyers "may be tempted to wear down the opposing party or counsel" through oppressive discovery tactics, which "do not advance the legitimate interests of clients and are improper" [Florida Bar Family Law Section, 2018-05-01, PDF p. 15 TAC-024].
The guide is an aspirational standard, not an enforceable rule; acknowledging the temptation is not evidence of how often lawyers act on it [Florida Bar Family Law Section, 2018-05-01, PDF p. 8 TAC-024].
Continuances and delay
West Virginia's family-court rule allows no continuance "except for good cause shown", no more than one per party, and states that "The failure of a client to adhere to financial arrangements with an attorney does not constitute good cause for a continuance" [West Virginia Family Court Rule 19, n.d., Rule 19. Continuances, scheduling conflicts a... TAC-029]. California's general civil rule says trial continuances "are disfavored" [Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332, n.d. TAC-015]. One Maryland county follows "A strict continuance policy" with a goal of 90% of family cases concluded within 12 months [Anne Arundel County (MD) Circuit Court, 2023, Statement of Purpose TAC-028].
Emergency and ex parte orders
California bars custody orders on an ex parte basis "unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California" [California Family Code 3064, 2009-01-01, 3064. TAC-022], and requires the supporting declarations to rest on facts within the declarant's personal knowledge [Cal. Rules of Court 5.151, 2024-01-01 TAC-007]. Delaware's Family Court schedules a hearing "within fifteen days" after an emergency ex parte order [Delaware Family Court, n.d., Emergency or Expedited Relief TAC-016].
A Maine commission working group counted 31 jurisdictions with some ex parte family-court petitioning process [Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse, 2022-12, PDF p. 20 TAC-030]. In its survey many Maine attorneys and guardians ad litem voiced concern about misuse, but only five of 87 categorically opposed creating such a process [Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse, 2022-12, PDF p. 22 TAC-030].
Allegations of abuse as leverage
Alaska's bar ethics committee treats raising possible criminal charges to gain relief in a civil matter as permitted only where the criminal matter is related to the civil claim, the lawyer has a "well-founded belief" that both are warranted, and no improper influence over the criminal process is attempted [Alaska Bar Association, 1997-03-21, PDF p. 1 TAC-018]. It withdrew an older opinion that had applied the former bar on threatening criminal charges solely to gain an advantage in a civil matter [Alaska Bar Association, 1997-03-21, PDF p. 1 TAC-018].
The only US court-based study found is from 1990 and covers sexual-abuse allegations only: family court records put such allegations at "less than 2%" of contested custody and visitation cases, and of 129 cases with a validity determination, 50% were found to involve abuse, 33% no abuse and 17% were indeterminate [Child Abuse & Neglect (abstract), 1990 TAC-011]. A finding of no abuse is not a finding that the allegation was knowingly false [Child Abuse & Neglect (abstract), 1990 TAC-011].
In Canada, child-welfare workers classified 4% of 7,672 maltreatment investigations in 1998 as intentionally fabricated, and 12% of those where a custody or access dispute was noted [Child Abuse & Neglect, 2005, PDF p. 1 TAC-012]. Anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents most often made intentionally false reports; custodial parents and children were least likely to [Child Abuse & Neglect, 2005, PDF p. 1 TAC-012]. The authors note that an intentionally false classification "did not necessarily mean that the reporter was dishonest" [Child Abuse & Neglect, 2005, PDF p. 9 TAC-012]. They conclude that the rate of intentionally false allegations is relatively low [Child Abuse & Neglect, 2005, PDF p. 1 TAC-012].
A 2007 review by two of the same authors states that "A significant proportion of allegations of child abuse made in the context of parental separation are true, but this is a context with a relatively high rate of unfounded allegations", and that "more commonly unfounded allegations are made in good faith" [Journal of Family Studies, 2007, PDF p. 1 TAC-013].
In a survey funded by the National Institute of Justice, 465 custody evaluators estimated on average that 26 percent of mothers' and 31 percent of fathers' domestic violence allegations were false [Report for the National Institute of Justice, 2012-06, PDF p. 7 TAC-010]. These are professionals' beliefs from a convenience sample, not measured rates [Report for the National Institute of Justice, 2012-06, PDF p. 6 TAC-010].
There is no US court-based measure of knowingly false allegations in custody cases. This page does not say that false allegations are common, or that they are rare [Child Abuse & Neglect (abstract), 1990 TAC-011; Child Abuse & Neglect, 2005, PDF p. 1 TAC-012; Journal of Family Studies, 2007, PDF p. 1 TAC-013]. The dispute over how courts treat abuse and alienation claims is set out under effects on children [GWU Law School report (abstract), 2019, Abstract: TAC-014; NCJRS abstract, 2022-11, The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parenta... TAC-025; Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science TAC-026].
Temporary orders and the status quo
Wisconsin requires a ruling on a request for temporary physical placement within 30 days, made under the same factors the court must weigh before a final judgment [Wisconsin statute 767.225, n.d. TAC-019].
A 2024 dissertation based on an online convenience survey of 652 parents reported "a statistically significant association between temporary and final rulings", with no effect size given [Loma Linda University dissertation, 2024-06, Abstract TAC-027].
No court-records study of whether temporary orders predict final custody was found. This page does not say that temporary orders determine outcomes [Loma Linda University dissertation, 2024-06, Abstract TAC-027; Wisconsin statute 767.225, n.d. TAC-019].
Judge and venue strategy
Wisconsin lets a party file one written request to substitute the assigned judge without stating a reason [Wisconsin statute 801.58, n.d. TAC-006]. California allows one peremptory challenge per side, on a sworn statement that the judge is prejudiced [Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 170.6, 2011-01-01, 170.6. TAC-009].
A 2024 law-review note analysing 240 California decisions from 2021 that cite the challenge statute reported that "peremptory challenges do not occur frequently but abuse still occurs among the few times they are asserted" [Southern California Law Review, 2024-05-14, A. Research Methodology TAC-020]. The sample is not limited to family cases [Southern California Law Review, 2024-05-14, A. Research Methodology TAC-020].
No frequency data for emergency or ex parte custody orders, continuances, discovery sanctions or judge substitution in family cases was found. The evidence base contains one appellate opinion on fee sanctions, cited without party names, and no individual disciplinary decisions, so no practitioner is named here [Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse, 2022-12, PDF p. 20 TAC-030; Southern California Law Review, 2024-05-14, A. Research Methodology TAC-020; California Court of Appeal, 2012-02-23, In re the Marriage of TAC-021].
5. Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
The most consistent finding in the sources reviewed is that conflict between parents is associated with worse outcomes for children, whether the parents live together or apart. How much divorce itself adds, how shared parenting time affects children, and how parental alienation should be treated are contested, and this section presents the strongest evidence on each side.
Conflict between parents
A meta-analysis of 71 studies of children aged 5 to 19 found moderate and small-to-moderate associations between children's responses to conflict between their parents and internalizing and externalizing problems [Child Development, 2008, Abstract CHI-025]. An evidence review states that children's outcomes "are adversely affected by conflict between parents/carers whether adults are living together or not" [J Child Psychol Psychiatry (abstract), 2018-03, Abstract CHI-002].
In a US probability sample of 4,112 adolescent-parent pairs, discord between the parents showed "small but significant associations" with adolescent psychopathology [Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2025 CHI-019]. Most of those parents were married and living together, so the finding is not about separated or litigating parents [Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol, 2025 CHI-019].
In a study of 1,200 child twins, the overlap between conflict itself and behavior problems was environmental, while children's self-blame and sense of threat overlapped with problems through genetic correlations, so not every conflict-outcome association is purely environmental [J Abnorm Child Psychol, 2013-02, Abstract CHI-030].
Divorce as an adverse childhood experience
The original 1998 Adverse Childhood Experiences study measured seven categories of childhood exposure, and parental separation or divorce was not one of them [Am J Prev Med, 1998-05, PDF p. 1 CHI-009]. The CDC's later survey module counts "Parents were ever separated or divorced" as an adverse childhood experience; 28.4% of 264,882 adults surveyed in 2011-2020 answered yes [CDC, 2023-06-29, ACEs Definitions CHI-028]. Its graded health findings refer to the total count of experiences, not to this item alone [CDC, 2023-06-29, ACEs Definitions CHI-028].
A Canadian government summary of a 1991 meta-analysis of 92 studies (more than 13,000 children) reports that differences between children of divorced and intact families were statistically significant but "the size of the differences (effect size) was small" [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007]. It also reports longitudinal research in which some children's problems "were present before the divorce", at least for boys [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007].
A UK government-commissioned review concluded that "family functioning has a greater impact on outcomes than family structure" and that "the majority of children will not be adversely affected in the long-term" [UK Dept. for Children, Schools and Families, 2009-06, PDF p. 7 CHI-013; UK Dept. for Children, Schools and Families, 2009-06, PDF p. 8 CHI-013].
A Dutch cohort that followed 2230 children from age 10-12 found that emotional and behavioral problems rose "in the period after parental divorce, not before", although the effects were small [Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 2022 CHI-023].
Shared parenting time
In a 2009 Swedish national school survey of 147 839 children, those in joint physical custody reported fewer psychosomatic problems than those living mostly or only with one parent, but more than those in nuclear families [J Epidemiol Community Health, 2015-08, Data source CHI-003]. The design cannot rule out that different families choose different arrangements [J Epidemiol Community Health, 2015-08, Data source CHI-003].
A review of 40 studies found that joint physical custody "can have positive effects on the well-being of children and of parents", but that samples were dominated by self-selected, highly educated, low-conflict parents, so "the risks and benefits of JPC are not clear yet" [Family Process (abstract), 2019-06 CHI-010].
Australia's official evaluation of its 2006 reforms found children's outcomes in shared care time similar to, or perhaps marginally better than, outcomes with 1-34% of nights or daytime-only care with the father, and no evidence that the harm associated with family violence or high conflict was greater under shared care time, while cautioning that its measures may have been insufficiently sensitive [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009-12, 2 Evaluation methodology CHI-008]. Where mothers expressed safety concerns, it found that "shared care time exacerbates the negative impacts on children" [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009-12, 2 Evaluation methodology CHI-008].
Two Australian government-commissioned studies found shared overnight care of children under four associated with worse regulation outcomes that were no longer evident by age 4-5 [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 9 CHI-006]. In a sample of 131 high-conflict families, living arrangement did not independently predict children's mental health after four years, but children in shared care reported more conflict between their parents and lower contentment with their arrangements [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 8 CHI-006].
The contrary position on infant overnights could not be archived, so that dispute is not characterised here [Australian Attorney-General's Dept. report, 2010-05, PDF p. 8 CHI-006].
In a US birth cohort of mostly low-income families, frequent overnights with the nonresident parent were "significantly associated with attachment insecurity among infants", less clearly for toddlers; the authors say this does not settle the question [J Marriage Fam, 2013-08, Abstract CHI-024].
A review in a family-law journal reports a Wisconsin random sample of 590 shared and 590 sole residence families in which roughly 15% of couples in both groups described their relationship as hostile, and shared-residence couples were more likely to report conflicts over childrearing (50%) than families where the children lived with their mother (30%) [American Journal of Family Law, c. 2013, PDF p. 6 CHI-015]. The review is a narrative, position-laden review, not a systematic one [American Journal of Family Law, c. 2013, PDF p. 6 CHI-015].
A Family Court Review framework paper proposes matching parenting plans to the "potency, pattern, and primary perpetrator" of alleged violence, from no contact or supervised access to co-parenting, and its authors say the scientific foundation is limited [Family Court Review, 2008-07, PDF p. 1 CHI-011].
The paper is a proposal, not an outcome study; no evaluation of this differentiated approach is in the evidence base [Family Court Review, 2008-07, PDF p. 1 CHI-011].
The parental alienation debate
The World Health Organization removed the index terms "parental alienation" and "parental estrangement" from ICD-11, stating that "Parental alienation is an issue relevant to specific judicial contexts" and that "There are no evidence-based health care interventions specifically for parental alienation" [World Health Organization, n.d., Review CHI-004]. This is a classification decision, not a finding that the behaviour does not occur [World Health Organization, n.d., Review CHI-004].
A UN Special Rapporteur's report states that there is "no commonly accepted clinical or scientific definition" of parental alienation and recommends that States "legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudoconcepts in family law cases" [UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 3 CHI-005; UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 19 CHI-005]. The report rests on self-selected submissions [UN Special Rapporteur, 2023-04-13, PDF p. 3 CHI-005].
A 2018 Psychological Bulletin review argues the opposite: that parental alienation "has been largely unacknowledged or denied by legal and health professionals as a form of family violence" [Psychological Bulletin (abstract), 2018-12 CHI-022]. Its abstract frames it as a call to action, not a prevalence or outcome study [Psychological Bulletin (abstract), 2018-12 CHI-022].
A 2020 Family Court Review article takes a middle position: the concept "remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy", and single-factor models that blame one parent are "inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading" [Family Court Review (abstract), 2020-04, Abstract CHI-020].
A George Washington University Law School analysis of over 2000 published US custody opinions over ten years reports that mothers' abuse claims "are associated with a risk of losing custody, and that fathers' cross-claims of alienation virtually double that risk" [GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; GWU Law School report (abstract), 2019, Abstract: TAC-014].
A rival study of 967 appellate case reports, described in a Colorado State University news release, reported that alienation claims were not being used to override abuse allegations and that gender "didn't seem to play a role" [Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science TAC-026]. The first study's authors published a re-analysis saying the rival study's findings are "not supported by their data" [J Fam Trauma Child Custody (abstract), 2022-11, The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parenta... CHI-014]. No reply from the rival authors was archived [NCJRS abstract, 2022-11, The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parenta... TAC-025].
Both court studies code published, mostly appellate opinions, which over-represent contested and appealed cases, and neither full text could be archived. The evidence base cannot say which study is right [GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science CHI-026; GWU Law School report (abstract), 2019, Abstract: TAC-014].
6. What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
Several alternatives to adversarial litigation have been tried. A few have randomized or controlled evaluations; most have small samples, self-evaluations or none at all. Fee caps and case-time limits have no evaluation in the evidence base.
Mediation
In a Virginia study of 71 families randomly assigned to mediate or litigate a custody dispute in 1983-1986, conflict fell in the following year for mediating parents and rose for litigating parents [Journal of Family Psychology, 2008-02, Participants HRM-004]. Twelve years later, nonresidential parents who had mediated were more involved and kept more contact with their children, "without increasing coparenting conflict" [J Consult Clin Psychol (abstract), 2001-04 HRM-005].
The same project found that whether a family mediated or litigated "did not predict long-term changes in conflict" [Journal of Family Psychology, 2008-02, Figure 2. HRM-004], and the sample is small, from one site, and from 1983-1986 [Journal of Family Psychology, 2008-02, Participants HRM-004].
Australia's evaluation of its 2006 reforms found that "About two-fifths of parents who used FDR reached agreement and did not proceed to court" [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009, Family dispute resolution HRM-015]. It also found family dispute resolution occurring in some cases with "significant concerns about violence and safety" [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009, Family dispute resolution HRM-015].
A two-week 2025 snapshot of 1,239 completed court custody mediations in 35 California courts recorded no agreement in 405 cases, full agreement in 290, a mediator recommendation in 245, partial agreement in 128, partial agreement with a recommendation in 108 and a temporary agreement in 27 [Judicial Council of California, 2025-12, PDF p. 1 HRM-017; Judicial Council of California, 2025-12, PDF p. 4 HRM-017]. Which outcomes are possible depends on the county's mediation model, so the counts are not a settlement rate [Judicial Council of California, 2025-12, PDF p. 1 HRM-017]. California requires separate sessions where there is a history or allegations of domestic violence [Judicial Council of California, 2025-12, PDF p. 3 HRM-017].
A federally funded 1990s survey of 136 court mediation programs found that 20 percent of administrators reported no screening for domestic violence [Center for Policy Research for NIJ, 1997-01, PDF p. 5 HRM-023; Center for Policy Research for NIJ, 1997-01, PDF p. 10 HRM-023].
A randomized trial of child-informed mediation found agreement rates comparable to standard mediation, with more parenting time for nonresidential parents in the agreements; its authors note that "little methodologically sound research has been done on the effectiveness of mediation" [Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2013, PDF p. 1 HRM-022].
Collaborative law and out-of-court models
A Canadian Department of Justice interview study found client satisfaction with collaborative family law "generally high", but "no clear evidence" from a controlled study that collaborative cases cost less than litigation [Department of Justice Canada, 2005, PDF p. 96 HRM-001; Department of Justice Canada, 2005, PDF p. 97 HRM-001].
A practitioner association's survey of 933 collaborative cases reported 86% completed with a settlement agreement and an average total professional cost of $24,185 [Intl. Academy of Collaborative Professionals, 2010-07, PDF p. 4 HRM-033]. The data were entered by the professionals who sell the service, with no comparison group [Intl. Academy of Collaborative Professionals, 2010-07, PDF p. 4 HRM-033].
IAALS's evaluation of its own Denver out-of-court divorce center (158 families) reports 175 to 229 days to permanent orders after an intake phase of about one month, and a lump-sum package that "started at $4,500 and increased to $6,500" [IAALS, 2019-05, PDF p. 7 CST-003]. The center reported that it was "ultimately unable to find an approach that proved economically sustainable" [IAALS, 2019-05, PDF p. 6 HRM-002].
That is a self-evaluation by the organization that ran the center, with no matched litigation comparison group [IAALS, 2019-05, PDF p. 7 CST-003; IAALS, 2019-05, PDF p. 6 HRM-002].
One family, one judge, and active case management
A federally funded study of three unified family courts (406 families, most with several kinds of open case, not divorce only) found possible benefits, including more frequent court monitoring "without lengthening the amount of time a case remains open", but the author says it "lacks a strong comparison group" [Center for Policy Research for NIJ, 2006-11, PDF p. 9 HRM-010; Center for Policy Research for NIJ, 2006-11, PDF p. 5 HRM-010].
In Colorado's proactive case-management pilots (2000 to 2002, 1489 pilot and control cases), cases resolved faster by an average of more than two months, but parties had roughly twice as many in-person court appearances and post-decree motions did not fall [IAALS, 2013-03, PDF p. 8 HRM-019].
Canada's evaluation of its unified family courts found that "some of the results do not show there were any differences in the outcomes" between unified and traditional courts, with some evidence of more efficient use of judicial time [Department of Justice Canada, 2009, Although some of the results are inconclusive... HRM-011].
Parent education
A 2011 meta-analysis of 19 controlled studies of court-affiliated parent education found a moderate positive effect (d = .39), and its authors flag important methodological limitations [Family Court Review (abstract), 2011, Abstract HRM-003].
A 2024 meta-analysis of 40 studies found a small overall effect of 0.24 that was "not maintained at follow-up" [Family Court Review (abstract), 2024-07, Educating for change: A meta HRM-009]. An Illinois follow-up found program parents "did not relitigate less often than parents in the control group", although higher-risk subgroups did [Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1998-10, PDF p. 8 HRM-031; Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1998-10, PDF p. 10 HRM-031]. That study was not randomized and its control group was 43 parents from another county [Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 1998-10, PDF p. 4 HRM-031].
Self-help centers, navigators and limited-scope help
California estimates that court self-help centers "avoid $3 to $5 in costs to public and the courts for each dollar the service costs" [Judicial Council of California, 2022-06, PDF p. 7 HRM-027]. The benefits are imputed from assumed time savings, not measured outcomes [Judicial Council of California, 2022-06, PDF p. 7 HRM-027].
A national scan of 23 nonlawyer navigator programs found that most "primarily gather records of service" rather than outcome data [Georgetown Law Justice Lab, 2019-06, PDF p. 5 HRM-029].
In a randomized study of eviction defendants (not a family case type), about two-thirds of those offered full representation kept their homes, against about one-third of those not offered it; most in both groups had first received limited help [Harvard Law Review, 2013, PDF p. 3 HRM-021].
Fee caps, time limits and simplified trials
Oregon's opt-in informal domestic relations trial was used in 40 Deschutes County trials from 2013 to 2015, but "A statistically valid evaluation, based on users to date, could not be accomplished" [Family Court Review, 2017-01, PDF p. 6 HRM-016].
Alabama's time standard aims for 90% of domestic relations matters to be concluded within 6 months of filing, 98% within 12 months and 100% within 18 months [Alabama Unified Judicial System, n.d., Rule Text HRM-025]. A 2026 Arizona Senate bill would cap fee awards at 15 percent of a party's disposable income or $8,000, whichever is greater, where there are no community assets; its enactment was not verified [Arizona Senate fact sheet, 2026-02-16, PDF p. 1 HRM-024].
No evaluation of a fee cap or a family-case time limit was found [Family Court Review, 2017-01, PDF p. 6 HRM-016; Arizona Senate fact sheet, 2026-02-16, PDF p. 1 HRM-024; Alabama Unified Judicial System, n.d., Rule Text HRM-025].
7. Reforms aimed at the incentives
The reforms discussed here fall into four groups: federal child support funding rules, state shared-parenting presumptions, limits on custody evaluators and reunification treatment, and court-reform principles. Most are recent, and the recent ones have no measured effect in this evidence base.
Federal child support funding (Title IV-D)
Federal law pays states incentive payments from a national pool, shared out by performance on five measures - paternity establishment, support orders, current payments, arrearage payments and cost-effectiveness - combined with each state's collections [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001]. States must spend the payments "to supplement, and not supplant" other program funds [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001; 45 CFR 305.35, 2016-12-20 POL-003].
Congress's research service estimated incentive payments at $532 million for FY2023; combined federal and state administrative spending on the program was $6.6 billion in FY2024 [Congressional Research Service, 2026-01-13, CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure POL-013]. The federal program's preliminary FY 2024 report shows incentive payment actuals of $629,097,000 for FY 2022, and a national caseload of 11,646,025 in FY 2024 [HHS Office of Child Support Services, 2025-07, PDF p. 44 DAT-003; HHS Office of Child Support Services, 2025-07, PDF p. 58 DAT-003]. A 1992 federal audit, under the earlier formula, found incentive payments "were used primarily to fund the State or local jurisdictions' share of CSE costs" [HHS Office of Inspector General, 1992-04-22 POL-004].
None of the five performance measures is a custody or parenting-time measure [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001].
No source in this evidence base makes or supports the argument that these incentives bias custody decisions. This page does not state it [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001; 45 CFR 305.35, 2016-12-20 POL-003; Congressional Research Service, 2026-01-13, CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure POL-013].
Separately, federal law funds state access and visitation programs - mediation, counseling, education, parenting plans and visitation enforcement - from a $10,000,000 national amount, each state's grant capped at the lesser of 90 percent of its spending or its allotment [42 U.S.C. 669b, 2023, (a) In general POL-002].
Grantees reported 106,473 services to 80,565 participants in FY 2018, with parent education the most frequent, but the agency says the data are "not subject to audit or validation" [HHS OCSE, 2020-03, PDF p. 1 POL-012]. A 2002 federal inspection of 254 cases in five states found a potential link between program mediation and more access and visits, but had no control group [HHS Office of Inspector General, 2002-10, PDF p. 3 POL-005].
Shared-parenting presumptions
Kentucky's 2018 Act presumes, rebuttably by a preponderance of the evidence, that joint custody and equally shared parenting time is in the child's best interest; the presumption does not apply to a party against whom a domestic violence order has been entered [Kentucky Acts ch. 198 (2018), 2018-04-26, PDF p. 1 POL-011]. The same Act requires fees against a party whose modification action the court finds "vexatious and constitutes harassment" [Kentucky Acts ch. 198 (2018), 2018-04-26, PDF p. 1 POL-011].
Arkansas (2021) presumes joint custody in original custody determinations [Arkansas Act 604 of 2021, 2021-04-07, PDF p. 1 POL-008]. Florida (2023) requires the party opposing equal time-sharing to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it is not in the child's best interests [Florida CS/HB 1301 (2023), 2023-07-01, PDF p. 2 POL-022]. West Virginia directs equal (50-50) custodial time unless the parents agree otherwise, it would harm the child, or statutory limiting factors apply [West Virginia Code 48-9-206, 2022, sec.48-9-206. Allocation of custodial respons... POL-023]. Missouri presumes equal or approximately equal parenting time, rebuttable by agreement or a finding of a pattern of domestic violence [Missouri statute 452.375, 2024-08-28 POL-024].
An Oregon study of a 1997 joint-parenting presumption reports "less sole custody to mothers, more sole custody to fathers", "more mediation, longer times until the final divorce", and more abuse actions filed [J Empirical Legal Stud (abstract), 2011, Abstract POL-030]. Only the abstract was reviewed, and abuse actions filed are a filing count, not substantiated abuse [J Empirical Legal Stud (abstract), 2011, Abstract POL-030].
A Wisconsin report concluded that "Legislation alone cannot explain the dramatic growth in shared placement", though it may have played a role; Wisconsin's 1999 law presumed joint legal custody, not equal placement [Institute for Research on Poverty, UW-Madison, 2011-12, PDF p. 5 POL-017]. Australia's evaluation found that shared care time rose after its 2006 reforms but that the rise "began well before the reforms were introduced" [Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009-12, 3.5 Care-time arrangements: Community opinion... POL-018].
National Parents Organization, which advocates equal shared parenting, grades state custody statutes on 21 factors; its 2025 grades were 6 A, 10 B, 19 C, 14 D and 2 F [National Parents Organization, 2025-04, PDF p. 3 DAT-012]. Its grading criteria reward the presumptions it advocates [National Parents Organization, 2025-04, PDF p. 3 DAT-012]. It calls on states "to enact statutes creating a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting" and says its 2019 report "is not a study of the actual parenting patterns of separated parents" [National Parents Organization, 2019, PDF p. 3 POL-021].
The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence opposed a 2019 equal-time bill, testifying that its clear-and-convincing standard "ensures most victims will not be able to satisfy the burden" [Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, 2019-03-07, PDF p. 1 POL-020].
A Kansas Judicial Council committee recommended against a similar bill and "does not support any statutory language that creates a preference or presumption that a certain quantity of parenting time is in the best interests of the child" [Kansas Judicial Council, 2018-12-06, PDF p. 5 POL-027]. An AFCC think tank of 32 experts (report published 2014) reported a majority view that presumptions prescribing specific allocations of time "are unsupportable", with several participants dissenting [AFCC Think Tank, 2014-04, PDF p. 2 POL-019]. A Minnesota study group recommended no presumption for or against joint physical custody except a rebuttable presumption against it in domestic abuse cases, and said its recommendations were not unanimous [Minnesota State Court Administrator, 2009-01-14, PDF p. 5 POL-032].
No measured effect of any recent equal-parenting presumption (Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Missouri) was found; their rows are statute text only. This page does not say any of them has improved or harmed outcomes [Kentucky Acts ch. 198 (2018), 2018-04-26, PDF p. 1 POL-011; Arkansas Act 604 of 2021, 2021-04-07, PDF p. 1 POL-008; Florida CS/HB 1301 (2023), 2023-07-01, PDF p. 2 POL-022; West Virginia Code 48-9-206, 2022, sec.48-9-206. Allocation of custodial respons... POL-023; Missouri statute 452.375, 2024-08-28 POL-024].
Limits on evaluators, experts and reunification treatment
A 2022 federal law offers states a grant increase of "not more than 10 percent" if their law, among other conditions, admits expert evidence on alleged abuse only from professionals whose expertise and clinical experience with victims "is not solely of a forensic nature", and bars court-ordered reunification treatment without scientifically valid proof of its safety and effectiveness [Pub. L. 117-103, 2022-03-15 POL-007].
Pennsylvania's 2024 Act creates a rebuttable presumption of supervised physical custody where the court finds an ongoing risk of abuse, and directs courts to make reasonable efforts to appoint guardians ad litem trained in child abuse and domestic abuse [Pennsylvania Act 8 of 2024, 2024-04-15, PDF p. 3 POL-016; Pennsylvania Act 8 of 2024, 2024-04-15, PDF p. 6 POL-016]. California's 2023 law bars court-ordered reunification programs that require no-contact orders, multiday or out-of-state stays, or a custody transfer [California SB 331 (2023), 2023-10-13, 3193. POL-029].
The ACLU of Pennsylvania opposed the earlier version of the Pennsylvania bill, moved to neutral after amendments, and remained concerned about "including a simple assault conviction among the criteria for determining custody" [ACLU of Pennsylvania, 2024-04-15, Summary POL-031].
No evaluation of the effects of these laws was located [Pennsylvania Act 8 of 2024, 2024-04-15, PDF p. 3 POL-016; California SB 331 (2023), 2023-10-13, 3193. POL-029; Pub. L. 117-103, 2022-03-15 POL-007].
Court-reform principles aimed at cost
For privately paid minor's counsel, the 2010 California task force recommended that courts "consider imposing a cap on fees, limiting the time minor's counsel is involved in the case, and setting automatic hearings on these fees so that the parties are aware of the expenditures" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 57 POL-014].
The Family Justice Initiative of the National Center for State Courts, IAALS and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges states that "parties are often required by the court to engage in services and processes that are unnecessary or inappropriate for their case, often at a financial cost", and that when outside professionals are used "the court must not abdicate responsibility for managing the case" [Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 12 POL-025; Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 14 POL-025]. It recommends triage into tailored pathways, including a streamlined pathway for cases that need "minimal court resources" [Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 4 POL-025; Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 15 HRM-030].
These are recommendations; the evidence base has no outcome data for them [Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 4 POL-025; Family Justice Initiative, 2019, PDF p. 4 HRM-030; Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 13 POL-014].
8. What the evidence cannot show
These are results, not unfinished work: each was searched for deliberately and not found. They are the questions a court system, bar or legislature would have to answer with data before anyone could say how the incentives play out in practice.
No data measures legal fees against marital assets, or settlement timing against remaining assets [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002; AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No data ties fees to conflict level, number of issues or case length beyond one commercial survey's self-reported figures [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011].
No family-law-specific share of hourly, flat-fee and limited-scope engagements was found [State Bar of Michigan, 2023, PDF p. 3 BIL-015; Clio (vendor report page), 2026, Clients prefer flat fees BIL-020].
The widely repeated figure that a small share of high-conflict cases takes about 90% of court attention has no primary source that could be found [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No court-records study of whether temporary orders predict final custody was found [Loma Linda University dissertation, 2024-06, Abstract TAC-027].
No frequency data exists in the evidence base for emergency or ex parte custody orders, continuances, discovery sanctions or judge substitution in family cases [Maine Commission on Domestic and Sexual Abuse, 2022-12, PDF p. 20 TAC-030; Southern California Law Review, 2024-05-14, A. Research Methodology TAC-020].
No US court-based measure of knowingly false allegations was found; the US study is from 1990 and covers sexual-abuse allegations only [Child Abuse & Neglect (abstract), 1990 TAC-011].
No evaluation of fee caps or family-case time limits was found [Family Court Review, 2017-01, PDF p. 6 HRM-016; Arizona Senate fact sheet, 2026-02-16, PDF p. 1 HRM-024; Alabama Unified Judicial System, n.d., Rule Text HRM-025].
No measured effect of any recent equal-parenting presumption was found [Kentucky Acts ch. 198 (2018), 2018-04-26, PDF p. 1 POL-011; Florida CS/HB 1301 (2023), 2023-07-01, PDF p. 2 POL-022].
No primary source links Title IV-D incentive payments to custody outcomes [42 U.S.C. 658a, 2023, (A) In general POL-001; Congressional Research Service, 2026-01-13, CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure POL-013].
No 50-state compilation of guardian ad litem or custody-evaluator fee rules for private custody cases was found [HHS Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2021-06, PDF p. 5 DAT-017].
No state-level divorce-cost survey with a published sample size was found. One state-by-state table traces to a 2015 commercial study with no published sample, and in 48 of its 50 states the "cost with children" figure is about 1.5 times the base figure - a multiplier, not a measurement [24/7 Wall St., 2018-11-08, Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce DAT-008]. Another is a desk compilation from one law firm's web page [Self Financial, 2026-09-21, Methodology DAT-010].
No measurement of how often referral relationships or conflicts of interest occur was found [California State Auditor, 2011-01, PDF p. 5 ANC-019; AFCC, 2019, PDF p. 4 ANC-020].
No public cost data for reunification programs, parenting coordinators or forensic accountants was found [Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2021-06-09, Key message ANC-028; Colorado statute 14-10-128.1, 2025, (1) ANC-006; California Evidence Code 730, 1990 ANC-033].
Coverage is uneven. State-specific sources cover 29 states; CT, DC, HI, IA, ID, LA, MS, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, VT, WA and WY have none. The latest per-state court caseload table that could be archived is for 2016 [NCSC Court Statistics Project, 2018, PDF p. 13 DAT-007; NCSC Court Statistics Project, 2020, PDF p. 11 DAT-005].
Several core studies - the major divorce meta-analyses, the two US case-law studies on alienation cross-claims, and the only located scholarly critique of equal-parenting presumptions - were paywalled or blocked and could not be archived, so they appear here only through abstracts, a government summary or a news release, or not at all [Department of Justice Canada, 2002, 2.1 Retrospective Studies CHI-007; GWU Law School study (abstract), 2020, Abstract CHI-012; Colorado State University news release, 2020-12-14, Clearing the way for sound science TAC-026; National Parents Organization, 2025-04, PDF p. 3 DAT-012].
What this page does not claim
The evidence base does not support stating any of the following as fact:
- that litigation typically continues until a family's assets are exhausted
- that fees rise with the level of conflict in a measured way
- that hourly billing dominates family-law practice
- that a small share of cases uses most of the court's time
- that temporary orders determine final custody outcomes
- that false abuse allegations are common, or that they are rare, in US custody cases
- that Title IV-D incentive payments bias custody decisions
- that any recent shared-parenting presumption statute has improved, or harmed, outcomes
- that referral relationships between courts, lawyers and service providers are widespread
Each of these is argued by someone, and some may be true. None is supported by the evidence base behind this page, so each appears here only as a claim with its evidence gap stated next to it.
Related
- The federal layer of the Family Court Reforms Map - the Title IV-D incentive pool, and state-by-state status of reforms such as equal parenting time presumptions.
- Voices on child support - what policymakers, agency heads, judges and researchers have said about what Title IV-D is for.
- The cost of conflict
- Parents can agree
How this was checked
- The evidence base was built before any of this text was written: a claim registry of neutral questions, one row per source, each source archived with a checksum, and every quote copied from the archived text rather than from a summarising tool.
- For every claim, a separate search was run for the strongest evidence against it. Counter-evidence is shown next to the claim it cuts against.
- Advocacy sources are shown as positions only. No factual sentence on this page rests on an advocacy source alone.
- A build check fails the site if this page cites a row that does not exist, quotes words that are not in the archived source, uses a number that is not in a cited row, or states one of the unsupported claims listed under 'What this page does not claim' as fact.
- Sample sizes, dates and places are given with each study. Most sources cover one state or one country; the coverage limits are listed in the last section.
Sources
Every source cited above, with its sample or method and the reliability notes recorded when it was reviewed. 0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off; each entry below says so.
ANC-001 Guardian ad Litem Program (evaluation report)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Program evaluation by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (data FY2013-FY2017, report March 2018): survey of all 284 district court judges (219 responses, 77 percent); file review of 124 randomly selected cases (379 guardian reports, fifty-nine family court and 320 juvenile court); the auditor says the sample was not large enough to be representative and cannot be projected (footnotes 13-14, on the page after the cited recommendation page).
Reliability notes: Government audit. The program is predominantly juvenile/child-protection (the family-court portion is a minority); do not read as private-pay custody GALs. A state-funded model with ability-to-pay fees cuts against the premise that families bear uncapped GAL cost.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.32; pdf p.25. Claim tags: C3.2~ C3.2-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-002 Wis. Stat. 767.407(6) (guardian ad litem for minor children: compensation)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text, current as archived. Sets no numeric hourly rate; the rate is judge-determined case by case.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.2+ C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-003 Mandated Parent Education: Applications, Impacts, and Future Directions
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: narrative literature review; no pooled sample (open-access full text).
Reliability notes: Prevalence figure is second-hand (cites Pollet & Lombreglia 2008, Family Court Review 46(2):375-394, whose full text was blocked). The review does not report fee levels. Authors argue for universal parenting supports (a position).
Pages quoted: section: Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions for Divorce; section: Abstract; section: Expansion of Mandated Parenting Interventions for Divorce. Claim tags: C3.6+ C6.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-004 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.220 (court-ordered child custody evaluations)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Primary rule text (amended effective 2023-01-01 per the rule's history). Sets no fee amounts; fees are set locally or by the evaluator.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-005 Tex. Fam. Code 107.107 (child custody evaluator: conflicts of interest and bias)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (texas.public.law); effective date is the 2015 redesignation shown on the page. The rule shows regulation of such relationships, not their frequency.
Pages quoted: section: (a); section: (3); section: (b). Claim tags: C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-006 C.R.S. 14-10-128.1 (parenting coordinator)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (colorado.public.law). Page states it is current through Fall 2025.
Pages quoted: section: (1); section: (6); section: (a). Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-007 Fla. Stat. 61.125 (parenting coordination)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text (Florida Senate site, 2025 version as archived). Contains a financial-ability screen and an indigency rule, which cut against unscreened cost exposure; it also confirms fees are allocated between the parties.
Pages quoted: section: The Florida Senate; section: The Florida Senate. Claim tags: C3.3~ C3.3-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-008 Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Family Law Proceedings
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline text
Reliability notes: Voluntary professional guidelines, not binding law. Archived copy is a mirror hosted by a Spanish psychology college (the apa.org URL returned no text); the document is the APA 2022 edition. Contains no fee amounts.
Pages quoted: pdf p.14; pdf p.17. Claim tags: C3.1~ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-009 Uniform Probate Court Practice XXXII: Compensation of guardians ad litem: limitation on hours
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court practice text
Reliability notes: Primary court text archived via Wayback (snapshot 2026-05-10). The page shows an adopted/effective date of 01/01/1988 but no amendment history, so the $50 rate is the text as of the snapshot, not necessarily the 1988 rate; it is consistent with ANC-010's 2022 increase from $40 to $50 for state-paid Category F GALs. Applies only to Commonwealth-paid appointments; the page says the rate does not apply where the GAL is paid by a party or from an estate unless the court orders otherwise.
Pages quoted: section: 1.; section: B.; section: D.. Claim tags: C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-010 Memorandum regarding increased hourly rate for state-paid category F GALs
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: administrative memorandum
Reliability notes: Primary court administrative memo (archived via Wayback; live page returned 403). Covers state-paid GAL investigators only; privately paid GAL rates are not set by this memo.
Pages quoted: section: Memorandum. Claim tags: C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-011 Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court Local Rule 39: Custody Evaluation
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: local court rule text
Reliability notes: Single-county rule (effective Oct. 4, 2022), not statewide. Shows a low court-employed fee tier alongside uncapped private evaluators; no data on typical private fees.
Pages quoted: section: Rule 39: Custody Evaluation; section: Rule 39: Custody Evaluation. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+ C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-012 C.R.S. 14-10-127 (evaluation and reports; qualifications of evaluators; disclosure)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a statute-mirror site (colorado.public.law); page states it is current through Fall 2025.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: (a); section: (b). Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-015 JDF 1318 Order Appointing Child & Family Investigator
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court form text (revised January 3, 2022)
Reliability notes: Court order form (JDF 1318, R: January 3, 2022) that applies fee caps set by Chief Justice Directive 04-05; not itself a rule, so typed court report. A CFI is an investigator role, not a full psychological custody evaluator; the cap is presumptive, not absolute. Shows a state-level cap and public payment for indigent parties.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.5. Claim tags: C3.1+ C3.2- C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-016 Supervised Visitation Providers 2026 (court referral list)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court-published provider list (self-reported by providers who signed a declaration)
Reliability notes: Single-county list; fees are provider-reported and the court says it does not screen or endorse providers. Some listed providers advertise sliding scales or free services upon eligibility (not quantified here). No individual providers are identified in this row.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.2. Claim tags: C3.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-017 W. Va. Code 48-9-104 (parent education classes)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text (current code as archived). One state's cap; other states' fees vary and are not shown here.
Pages quoted: section: sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes.; section: sec.48-9-104. Parent education classes.. Claim tags: C3.6+ C3.6~ C3.6-
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-018 OVW Fiscal Year 2025 Justice for Families Program (solicitation)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: funding solicitation (FY2025)
Reliability notes: Primary federal solicitation; shows expected, not awarded, amounts. Grant-funded programs may serve families at reduced or no cost, but the document does not state fees to families. Statutory authority 34 U.S.C. 12464 (VAWA); this is not the Title IV-D Access and Visitation grant program, and it is limited to families affected by domestic or sexual violence, stalking or child sexual abuse.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C3.4- C7.3~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-019 Sacramento and Marin Superior Courts: family court appointees (Report 2009-109)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Audit of two county superior courts (Sacramento and Marin) covering April 2006 to March 2010, requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee; file tests were small, for example nine Sacramento private mediators, five Sacramento private evaluators, five Sacramento minor's-counsel case files, seven Marin staff mediators, five Marin cases with private evaluators, and eight complaints reviewed (report summary, pdf p.6-8).
Reliability notes: Government audit of two counties only, now 15 years old; findings concern court administration (qualification records, complaint logs, conflict policies), not evidence that any evaluator acted improperly.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C3.7+ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-020 Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline text (task force consensus document)
Reliability notes: Voluntary professional standards, not law; AFCC is a professional association whose members include the providers it guides. The existence of the prohibition shows referral payments are regulated, not how often they occur.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.8; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C3.3+ C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-021 New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 05-39
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: advisory ethics opinion on stated facts
Reliability notes: Advisory opinion (not binding); archived via Wayback (live site returned 403). Parties and individuals are not named. Shows that appointment-related conflicts are regulated and addressed, not their prevalence.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.7+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-024 Are child custody evaluations beneficial to family law judges? A study from the judicial perspective
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: two hundred and sixty-eight judges in 42 states; anonymous survey; US; sampling method and response rate not stated in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only, archived from the NYU Information for Practice abstract aggregator (a third-party copy of the publisher abstract); the archived page shows no authors, journal or volume, so the authors and Family Court Review 62(1) are taken from the DOI slug fcre-12772 and are not verified from the archive. Self-reported judicial perceptions, not outcome data; the abstract says empirical validation of evaluation efficacy is lacking.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C3.1- C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Systematic mapping review; databases searched Nov 2020; 1 review article and 54 primary studies, mostly US cross-sectional surveys; no methodological appraisal or synthesis.
Reliability notes: Archived page is the English summary, not the full report; the page shows 'Published 09.06.2021' (day.month.year). Government agency review. It explicitly did not appraise quality or synthesise results and 'is not meant to be used to support evidence-based decision making'; it covers parental rejection/alienation interventions broadly, not US reunification programs by name, and gives no cost data.
Pages quoted: section: Key message; section: Discussion. Claim tags: C3.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
ANC-029 Tex. Fam. Code 107.023 (fees and expenses of ad litem appointees in private suits)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute text via a mirror site (texas.public.law); the fee-determination clause is 107.023(b)(1) (archive heading '(1)'), the payment rule (a) and the no-state-payment rule (c) are quoted; the deposit rule (b)(2) is in the cited text but not quoted.
Pages quoted: section: (a); section: (1); section: (c). Claim tags: C3.2+ C8.5+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-031 A Performance Audit of the Office of the Guardian ad Litem (Report 2005-01)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Performance audit of a state GAL office; reviewed 35 GAL Juvenile Court case files; Utah; 2005.
Reliability notes: Government audit, 20 years old; audit scope was the state office's juvenile-court duties, not private GALs. The private-GAL payment statement is background, not an audit finding.
Pages quoted: pdf p.9; pdf p.6; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C3.2+ C3.2~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
ANC-033 Cal. Evidence Code 730 (appointment of expert witness by court)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Primary statute via a mirror site. It is a general expert-appointment statute, not specific to forensic accountants; it provides no fee data for valuation or accounting experts (a recorded gap).
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C3.8~ C3.1~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-001 ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5 Fees (rule text)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule, not binding law; each state adopts its own version (see state rows). Date is the capture year of the current rule text. Archived via Wayback because americanbar.org returns 403. The "preferably in writing" language means a writing is recommended, not required, in the model text.
Pages quoted: section: Client-Lawyer Relationship; section: Client-Lawyer Relationship; section: Client-Lawyer Relationship. Claim tags: C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-002 N.Y. Domestic Relations Law section 237 (counsel fees and expenses)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text; the mirror's source line says the official text was updated Nov. 27, 2015. Official nysenate.gov and justia.com returned 403 to the archiver, so the statute text is archived from NewYork.Public.Law, a non-official mirror; wording should be re-checked against the official Laws of New York. The quoted text is DRL 237(a); the mirror's heading for it reads '(6)', which is why page_section says (6). The presumption is rebuttable and the award is discretionary.
Pages quoted: section: (6); section: (6). Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.1~ C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the effective date of the current version (amended by Stats. 2010, ch. 352). Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403). Fee shifting here is need-based, not prevailing-party; it depends on the court's findings.
Pages quoted: section: 2030.; section: 2030.. Claim tags: C1.6+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-004 Wis. Stat. section 767.241 (award of attorney fees and other fees and costs)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Date is the capture year of the chapter page; 767.241 was last amended by 2005 Wis. Act 443 per its own history note (the 2025 acts on the page belong to other sections). Primary legislature source; the cited subsection is 767.241(1)(a). Discretionary, so a fee award is not guaranteed.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text. Cornell LII reproduction of the regulation (official nycourts.gov pages returned 403/404 to the archiver). Applies to attorneys in NY Supreme and Family Court matters for divorce, custody, support and similar (see 22 NYCRR 1400.1).
Pages quoted: section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities; section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities; section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 sec. 1400.2 - Statement of client's rights and responsibilities. Claim tags: C1.5+ C1.3~ C1.4~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Date is the Part's effective date (Nov. 30, 1993, per section 1400.1, which applies the Part to divorce, separation, annulment, custody, visitation, maintenance, child support and alimony matters in Supreme or Family Court). Archived from the Wayback capture of an older posted version of the Part (form footers dated 12/94); current section 1400.3 wording may have changed, so check the current rule. Shows that hourly-rate and depleted-retainer arrangements are contemplated by the rule; it does not measure how often they are used.
Pages quoted: section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400; section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400; section: 22 NYCRR sec. 1400. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.1~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-007 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland, Annual Report and Statistical Report, Fiscal Year 2023
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Matters docketed for further investigation by Maryland Bar Counsel in FY 2023 (156 docketed of 1,614 files opened); practice-area percentages as published; per-area counts not given.
Reliability notes: Regulator's own summary. Counts complaints docketed (after initial screening), not sustained violations, and is not fee-specific: it does not say how many family-law complaints concerned fees.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3. Claim tags: C1.7~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the edition year of the Rules of Court page. Shows legal availability only, not how often such engagements are used. Limited scope concerns the scope of work, not the billing basis (the rule contemplates 'the time involved or other basis for billing'), so it is not evidence about the share of hourly billing.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C6.6~ C1.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-009 California Rules of Court, rule 5.427 (attorney's fees and costs based on financial need)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the edition year; the rule was renumbered effective 2013. Procedural rule implementing Family Code 2030; shows that fee-shifting requests are evaluated on hourly-rate evidence, not how many cases use hourly billing.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C1.6+ C1.1~ C1.4~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Complaints received by the Virginia State Bar in FY 2021 (2,924); the area-of-law counts come from the Bar's Chart 2, whose base is not stated in the text; regulator summary, no sampling.
Reliability notes: Regulator's published message, not a dataset; counts complaints received, not violations found. The 66 percent dismissal figure is for all areas combined, so it qualifies but does not specifically describe family-law complaints. Not fee-specific.
Pages quoted: section: Bar Counsel's Message; section: Bar Counsel's Message; section: Bar Counsel's Message. Claim tags: C1.7~ C1.7-
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population study of all 4,898 grievances filed with the Wisconsin OLR in family (1,762, 36 percent) or criminal (3,135) law matters, 2013-2016, involving 2,123 lawyers; OLR-supplied data; Wisconsin only.
Reliability notes: Prepared for the regulator and based on its data; not peer reviewed; archived from the Texas A&M Law faculty scholarship repository. Counts allegations in grievances, not proven misconduct. Fee allegations are a minority of family-matter allegations.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.13; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C1.7+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-012 Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, Annual Report FY 2024-2025
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population: all 2,110 new grievance and inquiry matters received by Wisconsin OLR in FY 2024-2025; no per-area percentage quoted in the section used
Reliability notes: Regulator's own annual report; ranks areas without giving a family-law percentage in the passage used, and is not fee-specific.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.7~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-013 New York Fee Dispute Resolution Program (Part 137) Annual Report 2018
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Population: all cases closed by New York local Part 137 programs in calendar year 2018 (825 cases closed per the report)
Reliability notes: Official program report (archived via Wayback; direct fetch returned 403). Internally inconsistent: the text gives 375 matrimonial and 75 real estate cases, but the Chart 5 data labels sum to 825 with a largest value of 413 [derived: 413 / 825 = 50.1 percent] and a second of 112; category labels did not survive text extraction, so which figure is right cannot be confirmed from the archive. Covers only disputes brought to the program, which has monetary-jurisdiction limits and excludes some categories (the report itself lists dismissals for lack of jurisdiction).
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C1.7+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: practitioner article (no sample)
Reliability notes: Opinion article in a bar journal from 2008, written by a practitioner; it is a position, not a finding, and it discusses a Michigan disciplinary board opinion that is not relied on here. Describes norms and ethical views, not prevalence.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Voluntary online survey of State Bar of Michigan members conducted 2023 for 2022 rates: emailed to 41,065 active members, 18,292 opened, 3,819 completed (20.9% of those who opened; private practitioners responded at a higher rate); family law hourly-rate n = 386.
Reliability notes: Self-reported by Michigan bar members who chose to respond; rates are stated hourly rates by respondents who bill by the hour, so the table says nothing about the share of family-law work billed hourly versus flat.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-016 ABA Formal Opinion 505 (2023): Fees Paid in Advance for Contemplated Services
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Advisory interpretation of the Model Rules, not binding on any state; it addresses advance fees generally and does not discuss replenishment ("evergreen") clauses.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C1.2~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Covers intra-office (lawyer-staff) emails, not client calls or texts, and is not family-law specific; one state's opinion. It quotes ABA Formal Opinion 93-379 on disclosure and padding.
Pages quoted: section: 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 13: Billing at Hourly Rate for Intra-Office Communications; section: Opinion:. Claim tags: C1.3~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-018 Georgia Formal Advisory Opinion 01-1: Billing in standard time units
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Reproduced on a third-party site (Ezel) that labels the text as reproduced from the official source; verify against gabar.org. Not family-law specific and does not mention calls or emails; supports the existence and limits of minimum-unit billing, not its prevalence in family law.
Pages quoted: section: Original opinion text; section: Original opinion text. Claim tags: C1.3~ C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-019 Lawyer Retainers: Definition, Purpose, and Ethics (ABA Law Technology Today, 2025)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: practice-management article
Reliability notes: Vendor-authored content (byline LawPay, a legal payments company) on an ABA site, not an ABA position; typed professional association for the publishing venue only. General practice guidance, not family-law specific, and not a prevalence measure; it shows that evergreen retainers exist as a recognized arrangement. Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: Refilling the Retainer Balance. Claim tags: C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-020 Clio, Legal Trends Report - flat fees (web page)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: method not published on the page used (Clio's Legal Trends Report is based on Clio platform data and surveys; details not archived here)
Reliability notes: Vendor marketing page that summarizes a larger report; edition year and sample are not stated on the archived page; figures are across all practice areas, not family law. Date is the Wayback capture year; the report edition is not stated. Archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: Clients prefer flat fees; section: Law firms are doing more flat fee work. Claim tags: C1.1~ C1.1-
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What the evidence cannot show
BIL-021 N.Y. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.5 Fees (text including 1.5(d)(4)-(5))
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: rule text
Reliability notes: Date is the retrieval year of the current text. Non-official reproduction of the New York rule (official source not archived); lead-in words of rule 1.5(d) are outside the quoted segment. New York is stricter than the ABA model text, which has no signed-writing requirement for domestic relations fees.
Pages quoted: section: Rule Text. Claim tags: C1.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: rule text and state variation compilation
Reliability notes: The compilation shows legal permission, not use; the state-by-state variations were not individually reviewed for this row. Archived copy is hosted by the State Bar of Nevada (nvbar.org), a third-party copy of the ABA CPR compilation. Limited scope concerns scope of work, not the billing basis.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.6~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-023 Limited Scope Representation in Maryland: A White Paper of the Maryland Access to Justice Commission
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: policy white paper
Reliability notes: White paper by a court-affiliated access-to-justice commission (2009) arguing for limited scope representation: a position, not a finding. It describes the model and its rationale (including a la carte pricing) rather than measuring its use or its effect on family-law fees.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.6~ C1.1~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
BIL-024 Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule 20:1.5 (Fees), effective July 1, 2016
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Official rule text as posted by the Wisconsin OLR, archived via Wayback (direct fetch returned 404); the version is the one effective July 1, 2016, and later amendments were not checked. Stricter than the ABA model text on the written-basis requirement.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.2; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C1.5+ C1.2~
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative evidence review (no pooled effect size or count of studies stated in the abstract); reviews research on children and adolescents internationally, UK policy examples.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (University of Cambridge repository record of the accepted manuscript; the full text was not machine-readable). Publication date is not shown on the archived page (only the volume); confirm against the journal. Narrative review by authors who also propose intervention models; most underlying studies are observational and correlational, so the abstract does not establish magnitude.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.1+ C5.3~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Cross-sectional national classroom survey conducted in 2009; 147 839 sixth- and ninth-grade pupils (ages 12 and 15) included from 207 700 eligible; linear regression adjusted for age, country of origin, perceived material resources and parent-child relations; Sweden.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via PMC (PMC4516006). Cross-sectional with no pre-separation data, so selection of families into joint custody cannot be excluded (the authors call for longitudinal data); children's self-report of symptoms; Sweden has a high share of joint physical custody, so results may not transfer to other legal settings.
Pages quoted: section: Data source; section: Results; section: Conclusions. Claim tags: C5.6+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-004 Parental alienation and parental estrangement (WHO ICD-11 frequently asked questions)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: classification-body FAQ statement; no sample.
Reliability notes: The page is undated (copyright line 2026); the date of the decision was not on the page, so it is not asserted here. It is a classification decision and statement of scope, not a finding that the behaviour does not exist; WHO notes the broader 'caregiver-child relationship problem' category covers aspects that health services can address.
Pages quoted: section: Review; section: Review; section: Parental alienation and parental estrangement. Claim tags: C5.4- C5.5~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Thematic report drawing on over a thousand submissions from Member States, international and regional organizations, NGOs, academia and victims (many duplicated, particularly from fathers' organizations) and online consultations; submissions are not a representative sample.
Reliability notes: An independent expert's report to a UN body, not a peer-reviewed study; it advances a position and uses the term 'pseudo-concept'; it is the opposing position to the Harman et al. review and the Colorado State release; submissions are self-selected; the report ends with recommendations, which are positions, not findings.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.2; pdf p.19. Claim tags: C5.5+ C5.4-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Study 1: panel of 131 high-conflict families using community mediation, interviewed over four years; Study 2: Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, national random samples of parents of 5,000 infants and 5,000 children aged 4-5; Australia.
Reliability notes: Commissioned government report, not peer reviewed as a whole; Study 1 is a small non-random select sample of high-conflict families (authors caution against generalizing); infant findings are disputed in the literature (the contrary consensus-report position is not archived here); copy hosted by a county bar association website.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.9; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C5.6- C5.7+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Secondary summary of a meta-analysis of 92 studies (more than 13,000 children, studies before 1991) and of longitudinal studies (Cherlin et al., 1991); the review itself did not pool data.
Reliability notes: Secondary government literature review; date taken from the report-series path (2002_2) because the page shows only a 2022 modification date; summarizes research now 30+ years old (pre-1991 studies); does not replace the primary meta-analyses, which were behind paywalls.
Pages quoted: section: 2.1 Retrospective Studies; section: 2.1 Retrospective Studies; section: 2.2 Prospective Studies. Claim tags: C5.2~ C5.3+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show
CHI-008 Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms: Summary report (Australian Institute of Family Studies)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Multi-study evaluation: 2,005 pre-reform and 10,002 post-reform separated parents (Longitudinal Study of Separated Families wave 1 2008), national parent surveys of 5,000 each, plus the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children; regression modelling; wellbeing mostly parent-reported; Australia.
Reliability notes: Government-commissioned evaluation, parent-reported child wellbeing in the large dataset; authors say their measures may have been insufficiently sensitive; legislative setting is Australia (2006 presumption of equal shared parental responsibility, later amended), not the US; archived via Wayback (live page returned 403).
Pages quoted: section: 2 Evaluation methodology; section: 3.10 Children's wellbeing; section: 3.10 Children's wellbeing. Claim tags: C5.6~ C5.7~ C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Retrospective mailed questionnaire to adult members of one large HMO in San Diego who had a standardized medical evaluation (wave I): 13,494 mailed, 9,508 responded (70.5%), 8,056 (59.7% of the wave I sample) included in the analysis after exclusions; cross-sectional.
Reliability notes: Archived from a third-party copy of the journal PDF (publisher page returned 403). Absence-of-term finding checked by full-text search of the archived copy (zero hits for 'divorce', 'separated', 'separation'); later ACE versions and the CDC BRFSS module differ in item sets. Self-reported, retrospective, single HMO population.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C5.2~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-010 Children's and Parents' Well-Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review. Fam Process 58(2)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Literature review of 40 studies (2007-2018) from North America, Australia and Europe; narrative, not a pooled meta-analysis.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed record, archived via Wayback copy). Review conclusions are limited by the author's own point about self-selection and low-conflict samples; the review is not a meta-analysis and does not estimate an effect size.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.6~ C5.7~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: conceptual and clinical-legal framework paper; no empirical sample; the authors state the guidelines are preliminary and rest on a limited scientific foundation.
Reliability notes: Archived from a copy of the journal article hosted by the Learning to End Abuse program (a violence-prevention advocacy site). The paper is a proposal, not an outcome study; the authors say there is only a limited scientific foundation to build on.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C5.7~ C5.1~ C2.6~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Ten years of US published custody opinions involving abuse or alienation claims (case count not in the SSRN abstract; see the author's slide deck row for the dataset size); published opinions, observational coding.
Reliability notes: Abstract only. The lead author directs a family-violence law center at the authors' university (per her slides) and the project was NIJ-funded; analysis is of published (mostly appellate) opinions, which over-represent contested and reversed cases; the reanalysis dispute with Harman and Lorandos is described in other rows.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.5+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Rapid evidence review, mainly of existing review-level evidence plus targeted database searches (not a systematic search); UK/international literature.
Reliability notes: Government-commissioned review of other reviews; limited time and resources per the report's own method note; no new data; the conclusion that functioning outweighs structure rests largely on observational research and cannot by itself separate conflict from other pre-divorce differences.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C5.1+ C5.2~ C5.3+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Re-analysis of the Harman and Lorandos dataset (design, dataset construction, variable coding and statistical errors criticized); case counts not in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (OJP/NCJRS record). The archived record lists no authors; the author list is from the journal, not the archive (the abstract refers to 'the current authors' study' and 'the Meier et al. study'). An author-side rebuttal of a study that criticized the authors' own work, so it is a party position in an open dispute; no reply from Harman and Lorandos was archived.
Pages quoted: section: The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study. Claim tags: C5.5+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-015 Shared Residential Custody: Review of the Research (Part I of II). American Journal of Family Law
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative review of what the author calls two dozen studies; the quoted Wisconsin study is a random sample of 590 shared and 590 sole residence families, data collected three years after divorce.
Reliability notes: The author's note in the article describes her work on shared parenting and service as an expert witness on shared parenting research; the article is a position-laden narrative review in a practitioner journal, not a systematic review; year inferred (latest reference cited is 2012); relies on older, mostly low-to-moderate conflict samples, so does not address abuse; counter-evidence is in the McIntosh and Australian evaluation rows.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.5. Claim tags: C5.7~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: N = 4,112 adolescent-parent dyads; National Comorbidity Survey-Adolescent Supplement (fielded 2001-2004 per the article's reference list); US; cross-sectional association, age 13-17.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via Europe PMC XML (canonical: PMC12031646). Cross-sectional, so no causal direction; discord rated mainly by the biological mother; most families were intact (the authors report 93% of parents were married), so the association is for discord between mostly married co-resident parents, not separated or litigating parents; the authors list generalizability limits; effect described by the authors as small.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: theoretical and conceptual review; no empirical sample.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (university repository record). Presents a middle position between the two camps; authors are practising custody-dispute researchers and both advocacy movements are described as shaping definitions.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.4~ C5.5~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CHI-022 Parental alienating behaviors: An unacknowledged form of family violence. Psychol Bull 144(12)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Narrative review comparing parental alienating behaviors and outcomes with child abuse and intimate partner violence; number of studies not stated in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed-derived record via Europe PMC). The abstract itself frames the review as a call to action for recognition of the construct; it is not a prevalence or outcome study; its claims are contested in the rows from WHO, the UN Special Rapporteur and the Family Court Review paper.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.4+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: TRAILS prospective cohort, northern Netherlands; 2230 children aged 10-12 at baseline; first four waves (2001/2002 to 2009/2010); multilevel analysis of self-reported emotional and behavioral problems.
Reliability notes: Open-access full text via Europe PMC XML (canonical PMC9209384). Coefficients reported in the abstract are small (0.03), observational design, divorce not randomized, no measure of interparental conflict reported in the abstract; one Dutch region; self-report.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C5.2+ C5.3-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, 20 US cities; unweighted analysis samples of 1,023 families (age 1) and 1,547 (age 3) from a total sample of 4,898 families; longitudinal; attachment and adjustment reported by mothers.
Reliability notes: Open access via PMC (PMC4307616). Sample is primarily low-income, racial/ethnic minority parents, including nonmarital births, so it does not represent divorcing middle-income families; observational, mother-reported outcomes; authors state it does not resolve the debate about frequent overnights.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Method. Claim tags: C5.6- C5.6~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Meta-analysis of 71 studies (from 67 articles) of children aged 5 to 19; English-language publications only; countries not summarized in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Author manuscript via PMC (open access). Measures children's responses to conflict, not exposure to conflict as such; included studies are mostly correlational; the article itself notes that not all children exposed to conflict show problems.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Method. Claim tags: C5.1+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Per the release: 967 US appellate-level case reports in which parental alienation was found or alleged, coded by 19 research assistants blind to the hypotheses; hypotheses preregistered on the Open Science Framework; years of the opinions not stated in the release.
Reliability notes: Press release from the authors' university, so it is a statement of the authors' position, not the paper; the journal article was not reachable (publisher abstracts withheld). The release does not state the cases' jurisdiction (US is inferred). The findings are disputed in a published reanalysis (see the Meier et al. 2022 row). Appellate opinions only.
Pages quoted: section: Clearing the way for sound science. Claim tags: C5.4+ C5.5-
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: BRFSS ACE module, all 50 states and DC, 2011-2020, n=264,882 adult respondents; retrospective self-report about the first 18 years; the page cites a CDC MMWR analysis for the figures.
Reliability notes: Archived via Wayback copy of the CDC page (live page returned 403 to the archiver). Shows classification and prevalence only, not harm from divorce as such; the page's graded dose-response statement refers to the total ACE count, not to this item alone; self-reported, retrospective.
Pages quoted: section: ACEs Definitions; section: Prevalence of ACEs by Category among U.S. Adults, 2011-2020 BRFSS ACEs Module; section: ACEs Prevalence. Claim tags: C5.2+
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 1,200 child twins aged 6-11, Michigan State University Twin Registry; child-reported conflict (CPIC scales) and parent-reported behavior problems; multivariate twin models; US.
Reliability notes: Author manuscript via PMC (open access). Twin registry sample, community not custody-litigating families; a genetically informed design is a qualifier on causal interpretation of observational conflict-outcome links, not a finding that conflict is harmless.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C5.1~
Cited in: Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
CST-001 The Landscape of Domestic Relations Cases in State Courts (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n=147,436 domestic relations cases (about 8 percent of the national caseload) disposed July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 in eleven large urban courts; court administrative case data; time to disposition adjusted by subtracting each site's statutory waiting period; US.
Reliability notes: Court administrative data from eleven large urban courts; not a random or nationally representative sample. Disposition coding is incomplete (only six courts distinguish settlement from default and adjudication; 'presumably' adjudicated). Published by NCSC with IAALS as part of a family-justice reform initiative. Cost and fees were not measured. The same report finds 72 percent of cases had at least one self-represented party and that contested and uncontested cases did not differ significantly in mean time to disposition (pdf p.5 and p.26 of this archive; not quoted). Pre-2020 data.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.19; pdf p.21. Claim tags: C2.2+ C2.4~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-002 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations (April 2010)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: task force report; the findings come from 15 months of information gathering, outreach and discussion, not from a sampled dataset.
Reliability notes: Government task force assertions without a cited dataset in the quoted passages; the $300 per hour and $5,000 retainer figures are unsourced averages. The run-out-of-money statement is the closest official statement to asset or income exhaustion found for claim C2.3 but is anecdotal and does not measure fees as a share of assets. Single state, 2010 (post-recession context).
Pages quoted: pdf p.12; pdf p.16; pdf p.16. Claim tags: C2.1~ C2.2~ C2.3~ C2.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n=158 families served by two iterations of a university-based and a community-based center in Denver; program evaluation (intake data, service records, parent surveys); 73.5 percent completed.
Reliability notes: Position, not a finding: evaluation by the organization that designed and ran the model (IAALS); same document as HRM-002. Self-selected, mostly college-educated clients; no matched litigation comparison group; the 283-day comparison figure comes from a different dataset (Landscape) and is not like-for-like. Fee package is a lump sum and may not cover separate court filing costs. The center closed in 2017, so its cost figures are not current market prices.
Pages quoted: pdf p.7; pdf p.12; pdf p.30. Claim tags: C2.1~ C2.2~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
CST-004 Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts (2011)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model standards document; counts 27 states and DC with overall divorce time standards.
Reliability notes: A recommended benchmark, not data on actual case duration. State standards vary and many are looser than the model. Used here only as the yardstick for the compliance figures reported in the Landscape row. Third-party copy: the NCSC document as hosted on the Texas Judicial Branch website (txcourts.gov), not the NCSC site.
Pages quoted: pdf p.24; pdf p.24; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C2.2~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Texas figures: administrative court filings for the state fiscal period Sept 2017 to Aug 2018; the national figures summarise the NCSC Landscape study sample. Presentation slides; no methods text.
Reliability notes: Slide deck summarising other data; the 72 percent figure is derivative of the NCSC Landscape row. The Texas 40 percent counts petitioners only at the time of filing and so is not comparable to 'at least one party' measures; Texas family law totals include IV-D child support cases, not just divorce and custody. Contrasts with Colorado (75 percent of parties without counsel) and California (80 percent of dissolution petitioners pro per at disposition).
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.3; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C2.5~ C2.4~ C2.2~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: narrative synthesis / perspective article; no original data or sample.
Reliability notes: Perspective piece, not an empirical study; the 5-10 percent range and the 'disproportionate' claim are cited to secondary works (2004) that were not located or verified in this evidence base. No measure of share of judicial time is given. Authors are affiliated with a prevention-science institute and a county court that run parent-education programs, so the article advocates for such programs. Full text via PMC author manuscript; quote is from the abstract. The 250,000-500,000 conversion applies 5-10 percent to all domestic relations filings, which include protection-order, support, paternity and adoption cases (see DAT-006), so it is not a count of separating parents.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C2.6+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-007 High-Conflict Divorce (The Future of Children, vol. 4 no. 1, Children and Divorce)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Secondary review of a study of 1,124 families with 1,875 children recruited from divorce filings in two California counties and reinterviewed at one year and two and one-half years.
Reliability notes: Secondary summary (the primary book was not accessible); the copy was obtained from a third-party host (the journal's own site copy could not be located), but its page headers read 'Children and Divorce, Vol. 4 No. 1, Spring 1994' and 'The Future of Children'; the review itself says the figures 'were not intended as incidence statistics' and that the proportions are linked to California's and the local county's procedures and could differ elsewhere. Two California counties and a study that is now decades old (filing years are not stated in the quoted passage), so age and generalisability are limited. The 10 percent 'substantial' and 15 percent 'intense' legal-conflict figures give about 25 percent [derived: 10 + 15 = 25], a larger share than the 5-10 percent usually quoted. The review elsewhere (pdf p.12) describes 'high-conflict' families as about one-tenth of all divorces.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.3; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C2.4+ C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-008 High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration (2004-FCY-1E)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: literature review and policy options paper.
Reliability notes: Canadian government review, not US data, and about twenty years old; included because it documents that the definition of 'high-conflict' is contested, which limits what any percentage claim in claim C2.6 can mean. It reviews literature rather than court records.
Pages quoted: section: 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict; section: 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict. Claim tags: C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported averages from trial court action plans plus Judicial Branch Statistical Information System (JBSIS) statewide administrative data; reference years not stated in the quoted passage; California.
Reliability notes: Official state judicial council report, old (circa 2004) and California only. The 67 percent figure is an average of court-reported local rates; the 80 percent figure is from statewide administrative data and counts petitioners only. The explanation that cost is the reason is the task force's characterisation, not survey data from litigants. The inference that litigants run out of money is the report's own reading ('These data suggest'). The archived copy shows no cover date; 2004 is the date commonly given for this plan. The third quoted sentence (pdf p.52) is from an appended paper, 'Description of California Courts' Programs for Self-Represented Litigants', dated November 2003, not from the task force's own findings.
Pages quoted: pdf p.14; pdf p.14; pdf p.52. Claim tags: C2.5+ C2.3~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statewide administrative counts of dispositions reported by all California superior courts via JBSIS, fiscal year 2006-07 (family law (marital): 130,213 dispositions); California.
Reliability notes: Official statewide count, but the data are from fiscal year 2006-07 (about 18 years old) and the 'other before a trial' bucket mixes negotiated settlements with defaults and uncontested judgments, so it cannot be read as a settlement rate. Covers dissolution, legal separation and nullity (marital), not post-judgment custody motions. Trial by declaration may be counted as trial. The column mapping (ninth column = family law (marital)) was checked against the table header and the separate dissolution table.
Pages quoted: pdf p.62; pdf p.62; pdf p.62. Claim tags: C2.4~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-011 The Average Cost of a Divorce (reproducing Martindale-Nolo Research 2019 survey figures)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method not published in this archived copy (secondary reproduction of a 2019 Martindale-Nolo survey; respondent count and sampling not given). The original Nolo page could not be archived (blocked).
Reliability notes: Commercial survey seen only through a secondary financial-publisher website (its page says some listed products come from partners that compensate it); the underlying Nolo page was blocked (HTTP 403; Wayback copy HTTP 402). Respondents are self-reported and the page does not describe how they were sampled, so costs cannot be treated as representative and the survey cannot show fees as a share of assets. Medians are given for only some categories. Averages are pulled up by high-cost cases. Table and prose figures conflict slightly (for example $10,600 versus $10,400; $20,379 versus $17,700), apparently because one lists total costs and the other attorney fees; treat them as approximate. 2019 data. The page also repeats, without a source, that divorce 'older studies' show a 77 percent wealth drop, which is not used here.
Pages quoted: section: The Average Cost of a Divorce; section: The average cost of divorce; section: Average divorce attorney fees: $11,300. Claim tags: C2.1+ C1.4+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n=1,000 US adults who finalized a divorce involving child custody in the past two years; online panel (Pollfish); margin of error 4% as stated by the company; self-reported.
Reliability notes: Commercial survey by a software vendor, via an online panel; self-reported costs and outcomes, no verification against court records. 'Settlement' is not defined in the quoted text, and the cost figure excludes support and asset division. Causal direction is unclear (the company's cofounder says more research is needed): complex or high-conflict cases may be more likely to involve two lawyers. Median, not mean. 2021 data.
Pages quoted: section: Study shows parents most likely to settle, share custody when both have attorney (+ other stats); section: Attorneys and custody outcomes; section: Other divorce and custody findings. Claim tags: C2.1+ C2.4+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-013 Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families (Introduction)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: introduction to an edited volume; figures attributed to other 2004 works (not examined).
Reliability notes: This is the most-repeated form of the 'small share, most of the attention' claim, but the passage gives no method and 'attention' is undefined. The primary study it cites could not be located in this evidence base, so treat 8-12 percent and 90 percent as unverified assertions of the professional association. The 'litigation costs drain their finances' sentence is likewise an assertion, not a measurement of fees against assets. The editors and chapter authors work in this field and have a professional interest in interventions for these families.
Pages quoted: pdf p.11. Claim tags: C2.6+ C2.3~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
CST-014 Family justice performance measures (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: guidance web page; no sample.
Reliability notes: Guidance for courts, not data. Relevant because it suggests that courts lack a standard measure of the share of court time used by high-conflict cases; the 'disproportionate resources' claim therefore has no standard court-data definition. Undated page (copyright 2026).
Pages quoted: section: Complexity & conflict. Claim tags: C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-015 Cases and Parties without Attorney Representation in Civil Cases, FY 2015
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statewide administrative court data, all Colorado domestic relations cases filed July 2014 to June 2015 (34,846 cases, 69,951 parties), extracted December 2015; counts entered attorney appearances.
Reliability notes: Official statewide counts, a full population rather than a sample, but one state and one year (2015). Measures attorney appearance as of extraction (December 2015); per the report, a party whose attorney ever entered an appearance stays counted as represented even after withdrawal, and counsel entering after extraction are not captured. It does not record why parties lack counsel, so it does not speak to cost as a reason. Domestic relations here include administrative support orders.
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.2; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C2.5+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
DAT-003 FY 2024 Child Support Services Preliminary Report (Tables P-38, P-52, P-36)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Administrative reporting by state IV-D agencies on federal forms (OCSE-157, OCSE-34, OCSE-396); census of programs, not a sample. Preliminary FY 2024 data.
Reliability notes: Official, state self-reported, preliminary; the report says data reliability information for FY 2024 was not available at publication. Incentive payment actuals for FY 2023-2024 were not yet published in this edition. Tables P-4, P-36, P-39, P-46 and P-52 each list the same 54 jurisdictions [derived: 50 states + DC + Guam + Puerto Rico + Virgin Islands = 54].
Pages quoted: pdf p.44; pdf p.58; pdf p.42. Claim tags: C8.2+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
DAT-005 State Court Caseload Digest: 2018 Data
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported incoming caseload data compiled by NCSC/COSCA from state court administrators; state participation varies by case type (20 and 24 states in the cited figures).
Reliability notes: Official-court-system data but coverage is partial and definitions vary by state. The PDF names states only through chart labels, so the full list of the 24 states is not recoverable from the document. Archived via Wayback copy of the original PDF. The 20-state composition chart labels include DC (19 states + DC); the 24 trend states represent 'approximately 41 percent of the U.S. population' (pdf p.12).
Pages quoted: pdf p.11; pdf p.12. Claim tags: C8.1+ C8.1~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-007 State Court Caseload Digest: 2016 Data (Divorce Caseloads and Rates in 41 States, 2016)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported 2016 incoming caseloads; 41 reporting jurisdictions (39 states, DC, Puerto Rico); census of reporting courts, no sampling; single-tiered systems flagged with an asterisk.
Reliability notes: Official court-system compilation, 2016 data, now ten years old. Missing states, read from the table: Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Counts are of cases filed (court workload), not of marriages ended. The 2018 digest (DAT-005) shows the number of reporting states can differ by case type and year. The source's 'Forty-one states' counts DC and Puerto Rico (39 states). The second quoted segment (pdf p.12) describes a separate 20-jurisdiction composition chart (incl. DC) and is not used in the claim. Archived via Wayback copy of the original PDF.
Pages quoted: pdf p.13; pdf p.12. Claim tags: C8.1+ C8.6+
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method not published: the page cites 'survey data presented in' the Martindale Nolo Research 2015 divorce study and gives no respondent number or per-state sample size.
Reliability notes: Secondary news derivation from a commercial survey; no original per-state Nolo table is cited, and nolo.com returned 403. In 48 of the 50 entries the 'with children' figure is about 1.5 times the base figure (ratios 1.495 to 1.509, consistent with 1.5x after rounding to $100) [derived: ratios computed from the page's 50 pairs]. The page shows Indiana as $1,710 (apparently a dropped digit; 1.5 x $11,400 = $17,100) and Minnesota as $21,300 against $11,400 (1.87x). The pattern indicates a multiplier applied to a base figure rather than a separately measured state value. The same article cites Nolo's 'typical divorce costs $15,500', above the averages of 43 of the 50 states [derived: count of state averages below $15,500], which it does not reconcile. Data are about a decade old. Not independent of the original survey.
Pages quoted: section: Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce; section: Most Expensive States to Get a Divorce. Claim tags: C8.3+ C8.3~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-010 The Cost of Divorce: Where is it most expensive? (state tables, Methodology section)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method as published: desk compilation of state filing fees and attorney-fee estimates from one third-party web page; no survey, no respondent n.
Reliability notes: Weakest class of source: a content-marketing compilation whose only state-level input is a law firm's marketing web page (not named here). Shown for the point that cost-by-state figures online trace to non-survey inputs. Its extremes (California highest, Montana lowest) match DAT-008, but the with/without-children adjustment comes from the Motley Fool page (CST-011), and common ancestry of the state baselines with DAT-008 cannot be ruled out. Not usable as evidence of actual fees paid.
Pages quoted: section: Methodology; section: How much does a divorce cost in each state?; section: Key findings. Claim tags: C8.3~
Cited in: What the evidence cannot show
DAT-012 2025 Shared Parenting Report Card
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statutory coding of every state and DC by NPO's research team (21 factors, weighted algorithm); no sampling; in 2025 only states with relevant new legislation since 2019 were re-reviewed.
Reliability notes: Advocacy position, not a finding: the grading criteria themselves reward presumptions of equal shared parenting, which the organization advocates. The factor weights are not given in the report text, which says only that a weighted factors algorithm was used. Internal inconsistency: the Appendix A text says 10 states and DC received a B, while the summary table gives 10 B grades and the Appendix B listing shows 9 states plus DC under B (10 in total). NPO's own site cites a 2026 law review critique of equal-parenting presumptions, but the article's text could not be archived (publisher 403); no opposing state-by-state grading was found. Appendix A's counts (6 + 10 + DC + 19 + 14 + 2) total 51 states plus DC [derived: 6 + 10 + 19 + 14 + 2 = 51].
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.15; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C8.4+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-014 Statutory Summary Charts index (ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: index page.
Reliability notes: Index page only. The Fordham 2012 appendix itself returned HTTP 403 (and was not in the Wayback Machine), so its contents, including whether it covers fees, could not be verified. Archived via Wayback copy of the page. Date is that of the latest chart listed (6/2020); the page itself is undated (Wayback capture 2025-08-05).
Pages quoted: section: Statutory Summary Charts; section: Forensic Evaluators. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
DAT-017 Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings (State Statutes Series)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statute review of all states, DC and territories, current through June 2021; no sampling.
Reliability notes: Official and genuinely 50-state, but its scope is dependency (abuse and neglect) proceedings, where the state or county commonly pays; it does not describe fee rules or rates for GALs or custody evaluators appointed in private divorce and custody cases, where parties usually pay. Do not read it as the custody-case fee rule. Source inconsistency: North Dakota is listed both as not addressing compensation (fn 28) and as court-paid (fn 29); Pennsylvania appears in fn 27 and fn 28.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,What the evidence cannot show
DAT-020 Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Litem Program (Arkansas)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: state program description.
Reliability notes: One state only, shown as an example of a state-set cap on custody-case ad litem fees. It is not evidence about other states, and the cap applies only when the state pays part of the fee.
Pages quoted: section: Domestic Relations & Probate Attorney Ad Litem Program. Claim tags: C8.5~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
HRM-001 The Emerging Phenomenon of Collaborative Family Law (CFL): A Qualitative Study of CFL Cases
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Qualitative interviews with lawyers, clients and other collaborative professionals: 66 initial interviews at nine sites in the United States and Canada, then 150 interviews across 16 case studies at four sites; no control group; funded by a Canadian research council and the Department of Justice Canada.
Reliability notes: Government-commissioned independent study, not an outcome trial: small, practitioner-selected sample, and cost was not measured against a comparison group (the author says so). Published 2005; the Department states the views are the author's. Archived from the Department's PDF edition.
Pages quoted: pdf p.11; pdf p.97; pdf p.96. Claim tags: C6.2+ C6.2~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Evaluation of 158 families served by one program (on-campus then community-based Center), Denver, Colorado, 2013-2017; scales measured over the course of the process; pre-post within-subjects design (questionnaire before services and after the permanent orders hearing, so completers only); no comparison group.
Reliability notes: Position, not a finding (self-evaluation; same document as CST-003). IAALS designed and operated the Center and wrote the evaluation (self-evaluation by a law-reform research institute, typed advocacy for that reason). Improvements are within-family change, not compared with litigated cases; the program closed. Useful mainly as evidence on feasibility and cost structure of out-of-court models.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.7; pdf p.29. Claim tags: C6.2~ C6.1~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-003 How Effective Are Court-Affiliated Divorcing Parents Education Programs? A Meta-Analytic Study
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Meta-analysis of 19 studies with a court-affiliated program treatment group and a no-treatment control group (d = .39); five outcomes (co-parenting conflict, parent-child relationships, child well-being, parent well-being, relitigation; d = .19 to .61); countries and years not in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only. Follow-up length and reporters are not stated in the abstract; the authors state methodological limits. Superseded in scope by the 2024 meta-analysis in this set, which finds effects not maintained at follow-up.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C6.5+ C6.5~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 71 families who requested a custody hearing (35 randomly assigned to mediation, 36 to litigation), Central Virginia, 1983-1986; follow-up at 5 weeks, 13 months and about 12 years; 12-year sample 50 mothers and 43 fathers.
Reliability notes: Peer-reviewed, open full text. Small single-site sample with attrition over 12 years; couples-level statistical modelling; mediation limited to a few sessions. The short-term mediation advantage did not persist as a group difference in long-term conflict change.
Pages quoted: section: Participants; section: Figure 1.; section: Figure 2.. Claim tags: C6.1+ C6.1-
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Randomized assignment to mediation or litigation of contested custody disputes, followed 12 years after resolution; sample size not stated in the abstract (the same project's sample is described in the secondary analysis in this set); US.
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed record, archived via Wayback; direct fetch returned only a stub). Single-site study of high-conflict, relatively young, low-income families (sample characteristics per HRM-004) from the 1980s; short problem-focused mediation; results may not transfer to today's court-connected mediation.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C6.1+
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-009 Educating for change: A meta-analysis of education programs for separating and divorcing parents
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Meta-analysis: 40 studies, 103 treatment effects, overall weighted standardized mean difference 0.24 (CI 0.14, 0.34); follow-up effect 0.00; meta-regression of moderators; years and countries of included studies not stated in the abstract.
Reliability notes: Abstract only, taken from a vLex mirror of the open-access article. The follow-up confidence interval's lower bound is rendered with a non-ASCII glyph (probably a minus sign) in the archived text, so the interval is not quoted. Few studies measure follow-up.
Pages quoted: section: Educating for change: A meta; section: Educating for change: A meta. Claim tags: C6.5+ C6.5-
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Case-file review of 406 unified-family-court families (average 3.45 open cases each; 1,399 cases and 8,680 hearings in all) in Maricopa County (Arizona) and Deschutes and Jackson Counties (Oregon), with non-UFC comparison families at some sites; interviews with professionals.
Reliability notes: Primarily multi-case families (dependency, delinquency, criminal, domestic relations), not divorce-only; small samples; weak comparison groups (the author's own caveat). The report adds that UFC and non-UFC cases did not differ on continuances or time open and that increased hearings did not translate to better treatment-plan compliance (pdf p.6-7, not quoted here). NIJ grantee report; the document states it has not been published by the Department.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.5; pdf p.9. Claim tags: C6.3+ C6.3~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-011 Unified Family Court, Summative Evaluation: Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Summative evaluation comparing Canadian unified family court sites with traditional court sites (quasi-experimental in intent; case counts are on other pages of the report that were not archived); Canada.
Reliability notes: International comparator (Canada), not US. The year is inferred from the report's URL path; the archived conclusions page does not print a date. Government evaluation of a model begun decades earlier; the evaluators themselves call parts of the design inconclusive.
Pages quoted: section: Although some of the results are inconclusive due to design issues, there is some evidence to suggest that the Unified F; section: Assessing the impact of the UFCs against a more traditional model is challenging with respect to research design and imp. Claim tags: C6.3~ C6.3-
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Multi-source evaluation collecting data from some 28,000 people (parents, service staff, lawyers, judicial officers) plus administrative data and court files; Australia; 2006 reforms evaluated in 2009.
Reliability notes: Labelled international comparator: Australia's FDR-before-court requirement and Family Relationship Centres have no direct US equivalent. Archived via Wayback (original returned 403). Government-commissioned; before/after design with the limits the report itself discusses.
Pages quoted: section: Summary; section: Family dispute resolution; section: Family dispute resolution. Claim tags: C6.1+ C6.1~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Pilot description and evaluation: 40 informal trials, June 2013-December 2015, Deschutes County Circuit Court, Oregon; evaluation by questionnaire conversations with three judges and three attorneys (March-April 2016); litigant survey abandoned for low response.
Reliability notes: Article written by court insiders describing their own pilot; the authors themselves say a statistically valid evaluation could not be done. Informal trials are a simplified procedure, not a fee cap or time limit. Archived via Wayback of the NCSC-hosted PDF.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.6; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
HRM-017 2025 Child Custody Mediation Outcomes Study: Quick Facts
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Point-in-time survey of all completed custody mediation sessions in 35 superior courts during a two-week window (May 5-16, 2025), 1,239 cases, mediators reporting; courts represent over 80 percent of California family filings (per the report).
Reliability notes: State judiciary data, mandated study. Outcomes are model-specific (no-agreement exists only in non-recommending mediation; recommendations only in recommending counseling), so counts are not a single settlement rate and there is no litigation comparison group. Snapshot, mediator-reported. Chart labels and counts are interleaved in the PDF text; the assignment of 108 to partial-agreement-with-recommendation and 27 to temporary agreement is confirmed against the PDF layout.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.3; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C6.1~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Retrospective analysis of court electronic records for five pilot programs in four Colorado courts, 2000-2002, pilot versus control group design, all 1489 pilot and control cases, with post-decree motions tracked about ten years; Colorado.
Reliability notes: Typed research institute: an IAALS (law-reform research center) report written by consultants; the study is an empirical analysis of state court records with pilot and control groups, one of the stronger designs in this area. Pilots were not identical and were small relative to statewide caseloads; not a randomized trial.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.8; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C6.3+ C6.3-
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Randomized study in a Massachusetts district court housing session: treated group N = 76 (offered full attorney representation after unbundled how-to help), control group N = 53, both groups mostly receiving unbundled help first [derived: 76 + 53 = 129 occupants; the source states 129 observations on pdf p.20, one treated case excluded from outcome calculations]; eviction defendants, not family law.
Reliability notes: Labelled non-family comparator: it is evidence about the limits of unbundled assistance in eviction cases, not about limited-scope family-law engagements. Clientele was selected by the legal aid provider's outreach and intake, so results may not generalise. No US randomized evidence on unbundled family-law services was found. Third-party copy of the Harvard Law Review article hosted in Connecticut task-force reference materials (cga.ct.gov).
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.3; pdf p.22. Claim tags: C6.6~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-022 A Randomized Controlled Trial of Child-Informed Mediation
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Randomized controlled trial at a university-run mediation clinic: 47 cases in the combined child-focused and child-inclusive conditions versus 22 mediation-as-usual cases (n stated in the abstract); Indiana, US.
Reliability notes: Peer-reviewed; compares forms of mediation, not mediation with litigation. Small sample. The statement about the 2010 meta-analysis is the authors' secondary description; the meta-analysis itself was paywalled and could not be archived, so no finding of it is stated here as verified. Third-party copy of the APA article hosted on aals.org (the PDF states it is for personal use only).
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.1~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-023 Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence (final report to the National Institute of Justice)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Mailed survey of 136 administrators of public-sector court divorce mediation programs, 30 telephone interviews, and in-depth study of five court programs; US.
Reliability notes: NIJ-funded but not published by the Department. Program-administrator self-report, old (1990s), explicitly preliminary, and it does not measure outcomes for victims. Establishes practices and gaps, not harm rates.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.10; pdf p.5. Claim tags: C6.1~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-024 Arizona S.B. 1657 (2026): family court; attorney fees; cap - Senate fact sheet
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: legislative fact sheet for a bill (no empirical data).
Reliability notes: A proposal, and its enactment status was not verified (the bill-tracking page returned 403). It caps fee awards shifted onto a party, not lawyers' fees. Cited only to show that fee-cap proposals exist without an evaluation.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text (recommended time standards; no evaluation data on the page).
Reliability notes: A recommended standard, not a binding cap, and undated on the archived third-party rules page. No outcome evaluation of this or any other family-case time standard was found in this research (see notes).
Pages quoted: section: Rule Text. Claim tags: C6.4~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Modelled cost-benefit analysis using calendar-year 2019 data (statewide one-on-one and workshop customers) and expert interviews with five self-help experts; California; one-on-one family-case benefit-to-cost ratio 3.31.
Reliability notes: Government report by the agency that funds and operates the centers. Benefits are assumptions applied to filings, not observed differences in outcomes between assisted and unassisted litigants, and cover time and cost only. Does not isolate family-law outcomes.
Pages quoted: pdf p.7; pdf p.7; pdf p.13. Claim tags: C6.6+ C6.6~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-029 Nonlawyer Navigators in State Courts: An Emerging Consensus
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Descriptive survey: 23 navigator programs in 15 states and DC, interviews with more than 60 informants; California JusticeCorps pilot of 257 self-represented litigants' filings (25% assisted, 75% not assisted).
Reliability notes: Typed research institute: a university justice-lab landscape report, descriptive and informant-based; its recommendations (e.g. that independent evaluations are needed) are positions, not findings; the authors say they did not systematically collect outcome data. The pilot is a small non-randomized comparison rated by clerks. Not family-law specific (programs cover family, housing, debt and other case types).
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.32; pdf p.33. Claim tags: C6.6~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-030 Principles for Family Justice Reform (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Policy principles (13) drawn from a national landscape study of domestic relations cases and best-practice review; method for the underlying landscape study not restated in the cited pages; US.
Reliability notes: A reform position and consensus document, not an evaluation: it recommends triage tracks but the cited pages present no outcome data for them. Counted as a position, not a finding.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.15. Claim tags: C6.3~ C6.4~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-records follow-up of 168 program parents (159 with records) from filings in 1990-1991 versus 43 control parents from a nearby county without the program, Illinois; relitigation counted from court records; subgroup analyses by self-reported risk.
Reliability notes: Peer-reviewed but old, non-randomized, small control group from a different county; the archived text is OCR of a scan with some garbled passages (quotes taken from clean pages). Subgroup results are exploratory. Relitigation is an indirect measure of coparenting. Third-party copy hosted on a Northeastern University faculty site, not the publisher's.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.8; pdf p.10. Claim tags: C6.5- C6.5~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
HRM-033 International Academy of Collaborative Professionals Practice Survey, All Cases (July 2010)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Practice study of 933 reported collaborative cases (one entry per case, input by a core professional); US, Canada and UK; July 2010 report; no comparison group in the cited pages.
Reliability notes: Professional-association data entered by the practitioners who sell the service: self-selected, self-reported, no comparison with litigated or mediated cases, and cost figures are not comparable to litigation costs. Archived via Wayback (original URL returned 404). Chart text is interleaved in the plain extraction; the PDF layout confirms 86% completed with a settlement agreement, 11% process terminated, 2% reconciled and 1% other. Component averages sum to more than the total [derived: 20,884 + 3,858 + 4,421 + 1,970 = 31,133 vs $24,185], presumably because each component averages only the cases that used that professional.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.8; pdf p.14. Claim tags: C6.2+ C6.2~
Cited in: What reduces harm: mediation, case management, education and self-help
POL-001 42 U.S.C. 658a, Incentive payments to States (U.S. Code, 2023 ed.)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Statute as codified (2023 ed.); the pool figures for later years are formulas keyed to CPI and were not independently recomputed. The absence of a custody-related measure is read from the list in paragraph (4) and is an inference from absence.[cite: 42 U.S.C. 658a(b)(2), (b)(4), (f)]
Pages quoted: section: (A) In general; section: (4) Incentive base amount; section: (f) Reinvestment; section: (A) In general. Claim tags: C7.2+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-002 42 U.S.C. 669b, Grants to States for access and visitation programs (U.S. Code, 2023 ed.)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Statute as codified (2023 ed.). Authorizes and caps funding; does not state outcomes.[cite: 42 U.S.C. 669b(a)-(c)]
Pages quoted: section: (a) In general; section: (b) Amount of grant; section: (1) In general. Claim tags: C7.3+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Regulation text as served by the eCFR versioner API (current-through date requested 2026-10-01); last amendment shown in source is 81 FR 93568 (Dec. 20, 2016). Regulation describes spending rules, not any custody effect.[cite: 45 CFR 305.35(a), (d)]
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C7.2+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Audit of selected States (number of States not stated in the executive summary archived); report issued under the earlier incentive formula
Reliability notes: Government audit executive summary only (full PDF not reviewed). Predates the 1998 Child Support Performance and Incentive Act that produced the current formula in 42 U.S.C. 658a, so it does not describe the current structure. Included as historical context for how incentive money has been used.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C7.2~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-005 Effectiveness of Access and Visitation Grant Programs, OEI-05-02-00300
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 254 case files from five States (Georgia analyzed separately), case-file review plus parent surveys; no control group
Reliability notes: Government inspection, 24 years old, covers mediation components only; survey respondents may over-represent more stable parents (per the report's limitations); outcome associations only, no causal design. No later rigorous federal impact evaluation of the grant program was located.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.4; pdf p.17. Claim tags: C7.3~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Public law text (whole-act HTML, so the section label is the document top). The statute's own congressional findings (e.g. about courts discounting abuse allegations) are legislative assertions, not independent evidence, and were not relied on. Incentive is conditional on State application and appropriation; the statute also requires judicial and custody-evaluator training (paragraph (3)(C)), a one-year increase term and a 4-fiscal-year limit (paragraph (2)), all outside the quoted segments.[cite: Pub. L. 117-103, div. W, s.1504; 34 U.S.C. 10446(k)]
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C7.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Engrossed bill text as enacted (approved 4/7/21 per the document); strike and underline marks are merged in the PDF text, so rebuttal-standard wording (clear and convincing evidence appears in the text) is not quoted because extraction scrambles it. Enacted text only; no measured effect cited.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C7.1+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-009 Access and Visitation (AV) mandatory grants, program description page
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: agency program description
Reliability notes: Agency web page (updated date as shown on page); describes funding level and permitted services, not outcomes. Page lists the 'about $10 million' figure; the statutory amount is in POL-002.
Pages quoted: section: Access and Visitation (AV). Claim tags: C7.3+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Session-law text (strike/underline merged in extraction). The Act also applies the presumption to temporary orders and modifications (other pages, not quoted). Enacted text only: no source located measuring its effect on Kentucky parenting-time allocations (see notes). The Act's Section 5 domestic-violence carve-out is tied to entry of a domestic violence order. Signed by the Governor April 26, 2018 per the document footer.[cite: KRS 403.270(2), 403.280(2), 403.340(6); 2018 Ky. Acts ch. 198 s.5]
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.4; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C7.1+ C1.6~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-012 Access and Visitation Program Update FY 2018 (OCSE)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Grantee-submitted annual reports from the 54 States and territories for FY 2018; participant count 80,565; data not audited or validated (per source)
Reliability notes: Official OCSE document, but the archived copy is a PDF hosted by a third-party consulting firm (youngwilliams.com), not acf.gov; not matched against an ACF-hosted copy. FY 2018 data are old; a later FY 2024 update exists but was not archived. Self-reported counts, no outcome measures.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C7.3~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-013 The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program, CRS In Focus IF10113
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: CRS summary of FY2024 OCSE Preliminary Data Report and statute
Reliability notes: CRS is Congress's nonpartisan research arm; this is a secondary summary of OCSE data, and the FY2023 incentive figure is an estimate. The archived copy is a mirror (everycrsreport.com); the original CRS product page was not fetched. The source contains no evidence about any effect of incentives on custody outcomes. It also reports a program-effectiveness figure of $4.24 collected per $1 spent (FY2024), which is context for the incentive design.
Pages quoted: section: CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure; section: CSE Expenditures and Financing Structure; section: Visitation Grants and Parenting Time. Claim tags: C7.2~ C7.3+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-014 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Seven in-person meetings, May 2008-February 2010, with focus groups, an attorney survey, over 800 emails and letters, and public hearings; the litigant statements about cost are reported perceptions, not measurements
Reliability notes: Official court-system task force (judicial branch), 2010; recommendations, not findings. The cost statement quoted is the task force's summary of litigant input ('they believed'), not audited cost data. California-specific and 16 years old.
Pages quoted: pdf p.13; pdf p.14; pdf p.25; pdf p.57. Claim tags: C7.5+ C3.1~ C3.2~
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Act as published by the General Assembly (Act of Apr. 15, 2024, P.L. 24, No. 8). The Act also directs a judicial education program (not quoted). No evaluation of the Act's effects exists in the sources reviewed (the Act states it takes effect in 120 days after April 15, 2024).
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.6. Claim tags: C7.4+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Literature and descriptive review drawing on Wisconsin Court Record Data and other studies cited in the report; no new causal estimate; report dated December 2011
Reliability notes: University research institute report under a research agreement with Wisconsin DCF; not peer-reviewed; the views are the author's. Wisconsin has no explicit equal-placement presumption (per the report), so it is evidence about legislative nudges, not about an equal-time presumption. Child-support formula incentives shown here are relevant to the economics of shared placement.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.5; pdf p.8. Claim tags: C7.1~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-018 Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms: Summary report (Australia)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Multi-study evaluation using data from some 28,000 people (parent surveys, professional surveys, administrative and court-file data), Australia, data to about 2009
Reliability notes: Australian, not US; the 2006 reforms introduced a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility (stated in section 3.8 of the same document, not in the quoted segments) and that presumption concerned parental responsibility with a requirement to consider equal or substantial time, so it is not identical to US equal-time presumptions. Child wellbeing findings rely on parent reports. Original page returned HTTP 403 to the archiver; archived copy is the Internet Archive capture of the same URL (via Wayback). Later Australian reforms (2012, 2023) are not covered.
Pages quoted: section: 3.5 Care-time arrangements: Community opinions, prevalence and durability of different arrangements, and trends across t; section: 4 Implications of the findings for the key evaluation questions; section: 1 Background. Claim tags: C7.1~ C5.7~
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Three-day think tank (January 2013) of 32 family law experts (lawyers, judges, mental health and conflict-resolution practitioners, researchers) selected for divergent perspectives; consensus statements are majority views, not unanimous
Reliability notes: Professional association (interdisciplinary); consensus statements of a selected expert panel, not a systematic review or an empirical study. Participants were chosen intentionally for divergent views. A position/consensus document, not a finding about effects.
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.3; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C7.1~ C7.5+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-020 Testimony in opposition to SB 157 (equal parenting time presumption), Senate Judiciary Committee
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: legislative testimony (position)
Reliability notes: ADVOCACY: written legislative testimony stating a position, not a finding; assertions in the testimony (settlement and domestic-abuse percentages) are the coalition's own and were not relied on. The 2019 SB 157 text was not archived; POL-027 concerns different 2018 bills (HB 2529 / SB 257) with a similar clear-and-convincing standard.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C7.6+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-021 2019 National Parents Organization Shared Parenting Report Card
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statutory coding of all 50 states and DC on 21 factors using a weighted algorithm (per the report); grading criteria set by the organization
Reliability notes: ADVOCACY: a position and the organization's own grading rubric, not a finding about outcomes. The report itself disclaims measuring actual parenting arrangements. Figures such as the 80 percent sole-custody statement are the organization's citation to Census data and were not relied on here. 2019 edition; a 2025 edition exists but was not archived. Archived copy is a third-party mirror hosted on a CBS local-station site (newyork.cbslocal.com), not the organization's site; not matched against an NPO-hosted copy.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.14; pdf p.12. Claim tags: C7.6+ C8.4+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-022 Florida 2023 CS/HB 1301 (enrolled), amending Fla. Stat. 61.13: equal time-sharing presumption
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Enrolled bill with strike/underline merged in the extracted text (the sentence stating the presumption itself is garbled by deleted wording, so only the rebuttal-standard and findings sentences are quoted). The archived enrolled text states the act takes effect July 1, 2023 (pdf p.9), which is the date column; a 2023-06-27 signature date seen in a Florida Senate summary was not archived. No measured effect cited.
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.2. Claim tags: C7.1+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives,What the evidence cannot show
POL-023 W. Va. Code 48-9-206, Allocation of custodial responsibility at final hearing
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Current code section as displayed 2026-10-13; the page's bill-history list shows a 2022 Regular Session bill (SB463) among its amendments, date column reflects that. No measured effect cited.
Pages quoted: section: sec.48-9-206. Allocation of custodial responsibility at final hearing.; section: sec.48-9-206. Allocation of custodial responsibility at final hearing.. Claim tags: C7.1+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Current code section (version effective 2024-08-28 per the page; history lists amendments by 2023 S.B. 35 and 2024 S.B. 727). No measured effect cited.[cite: RSMo 452.375.2]
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C7.1+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-025 Principles for Family Justice Reform (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: policy principles drawing on the Landscape of Domestic Relations Cases in State Courts (2018) and national practice; no new data
Reliability notes: Recommendations by a court-reform partnership endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices in 2019 (resolution not archived); principles, not findings; the Landscape study itself was not reviewed here.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.12; pdf p.14. Claim tags: C7.5+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Committee review of bill text, hearing testimony and cited literature at four meetings; no new empirical data
Reliability notes: Official judicial-branch advisory committee (members include judges, practitioners, academics and a domestic-violence coalition director, per the report); a policy recommendation, not a finding. Committee says individual-case complaints more likely reflect misapplication of existing law. Original URL returned HTTP 403 to the archiver; archived copy is the Internet Archive capture (via Wayback). Per the report, neither judiciary committee took further action on the 2018 bills after hearings; later bills (e.g. 2019 SB 157, POL-020) are not covered.
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.6; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C7.1- C7.5+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Chaptered bill text (version dated 10/13/23) from the California Legislature site; original URL returned HTTP 403 to the archiver and the archived copy is the Internet Archive capture. The bill also directs judicial training (Gov. Code 68555 et seq.), not quoted here. The bill carries a popular name honoring a deceased child, deliberately not used here. No evaluation of effects located.
Pages quoted: section: 3193.. Claim tags: C7.4+
Cited in: The services around a custody case: who orders them and who pays,Reforms aimed at the incentives
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: abstract only: sample size not stated in the abstract; before/after analysis of a 'unique data set on divorcing couples' in Oregon around the 1997 law change
Reliability notes: Abstract only (full text not reviewed). Oregon's 1997 law is a joint-parenting presumption, not an equal-time presumption; 'abuse actions filed' is a filing measure, not a substantiated-abuse measure. Single state, one law change, 1990s data.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract; section: Abstract. Claim tags: C7.1-
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-031 Position: SB 55 (Kayden's Law) legislative tracker entry
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: organizational position statement
Reliability notes: ADVOCACY: a position, not a finding. Organization's own account of its changing position; the full page also lists due-process concerns about protection-from-abuse orders addressed by amendment. Included as a counter-position on the Kayden's-Law-style reforms.
Pages quoted: section: Summary; section: Summary. Claim tags: C7.4~ C7.6+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
POL-032 Minnesota Joint Physical Child Custody Presumption Study Group Report
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 12-member study group convened by the state court administrator (per Minn. Laws 2008, ch. 299); consultation, expert testimony and public comment; no new empirical data
Reliability notes: Official state study group; recommendations are stated to be non-comprehensive and not the unanimous view of members (per the report). Fiscal-impact items are projections by a sub-committee, not measurements. 2009 report is dated; Minnesota later changed its statute (not reviewed). Report notes lack of Minnesota data.[cite: Minn. Laws 2008, ch. 299, s. 2S]
Pages quoted: pdf p.5; pdf p.24; pdf p.25; pdf p.22; pdf p.24. Claim tags: C7.1~ C7.5+
Cited in: Reforms aimed at the incentives
TAC-001 ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule text as archived from a Wayback copy (americanbar.org returns 403 to direct fetch). A model rule binds no lawyer until a state adopts it, and state versions vary. Says nothing about how often the rule is enforced in family cases.
Pages quoted: section: Advocate. Claim tags: C4.1+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-002 ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.2 (Expediting Litigation)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule text as archived from a Wayback copy (americanbar.org returns 403 to direct fetch). A model rule binds no lawyer until a state adopts it, and state versions vary. Says nothing about how often the rule is enforced in family cases. The qualifier 'consistent with the interests of the client' means the rule does not by itself prohibit a delay that serves the client.
Pages quoted: section: Advocate. Claim tags: C4.1+ C4.6~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-003 ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(a) (Respect for Rights of Third Persons)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule text as archived from a Wayback copy (americanbar.org returns 403 to direct fetch). A model rule binds no lawyer until a state adopts it, and state versions vary. Says nothing about how often the rule is enforced in family cases. The 'no substantial purpose other than' test is narrow: a tactic with any legitimate purpose is outside the text.
Pages quoted: section: Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients. Claim tags: C4.1+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Text as archived from a Wayback copy (leginfo returned 403 to direct fetch); check for later amendments. The statute caps the sanction by ability to pay; it supplies no data on frequency of awards.
Pages quoted: section: 271.. Claim tags: C4.1+ C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-005 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (Costs; Sanctions), Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: regulation text
Reliability notes: Applies to civil actions generally (including Supreme Court matrimonial actions) rather than to family cases specifically; the rule is discretionary and the text gives no data on how often sanctions are imposed. Archived from Cornell LII because nycourts.gov returned 403 and then 404 via Wayback.
Pages quoted: section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22; section: N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22. Claim tags: C4.1+ C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-006 Wisconsin Statutes section 801.58 (Substitution of judge)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Archived page is the whole of chapter 801, current to the fetch date. Describes a procedural right with timing limits (in the full text: before preliminary contested matters, 60 days) and no showing of cause; no data on frequency or abuse. Applicability to family actions is stated by this reviewer from 'civil action or proceeding', not by the quoted text.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.7+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-007 California Rules of Court, rule 5.151 (Request for temporary emergency (ex parte) orders)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Standard only; says nothing about frequency, grant rates or misuse. Excludes domestic violence restraining orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.3+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-008 ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model rule text
Reliability notes: Model rule text as archived from a Wayback copy (americanbar.org returns 403 to direct fetch). A model rule binds no lawyer until a state adopts it, and state versions vary. Says nothing about how often the rule is enforced in family cases.
Pages quoted: section: Advocate. Claim tags: C4.1+ C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-009 California Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 (Peremptory challenge to a judge)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Text as archived from a Wayback copy; the page shows the last amendment in 2010, so later changes (if any) are not reflected. A statutory procedural right, not evidence of misuse.
Pages quoted: section: 170.6.; section: 170.6.. Claim tags: C4.7+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Survey of 465 custody evaluators, 200 judges, 131 legal aid attorneys, 119 private attorneys, 193 DV program workers (recruited by mail, email and websites; not a random sample) plus 24 survivor interviews in four states
Reliability notes: Grant final report, not published by DOJ (the report says so). Convenience recruitment; self-reported estimates of false-allegation rates, which are beliefs and not a measurement of actual rates. The study's stated aim was to examine the link between those beliefs and recommendations.
Pages quoted: pdf p.6; pdf p.7. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 169-case file sample from court counselors, family court and child-protection files; 129 with a validity determination; 12 US domestic relations courts; surveys and interviews with professionals; data collected before 1990
Reliability notes: Abstract only (PubMed). Old data. Covers sexual-abuse allegations only, not physical abuse or domestic violence. 'Found to involve no abuse' is not the same as knowingly false. Study-unit counts (12 courts) and the 169-case sample are described only in the abstract.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.4+ C4.4-
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 7,672 child maltreatment investigations from 51 child welfare service areas, Oct-Dec 1998, Canada (CIS-98); multistage sample; classification by investigating workers; custody/access-dispute subsample N = 903 (worker-noted)
Reliability notes: Canada, child-welfare investigations (not family-court filings); 'intentionally fabricated' is the investigator's classification. Data are from 1998. Open full text hosted by a children's advocacy center; the article is Elsevier-published and peer-reviewed. Both signs: elevated rate in dispute cases (+), low overall rate and custodial parents least likely to fabricate (-). The authors note an 'intentionally false' classification does not necessarily mean the reporter was dishonest.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.1; pdf p.9; pdf p.9. Claim tags: C4.4+ C4.4-
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Review article with Canadian national data and US/Canadian case law; sample sizes not stated in the abstract
Reliability notes: Literature review and legal analysis, not a new primary dataset; two of the authors (Bala, Trocme) also wrote the 2005 CIS-98 article (TAC-012), so the two are not independent. Funding: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Open full text hosted by a children's advocacy center (nationalcac.org), not the publisher.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1. Claim tags: C4.4+ C4.4-
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Over 2000 published court opinions, ten years, US; coded for claims, outcomes and gender; published electronically available opinions only
Reliability notes: Abstract only (CALiO catalogue copy of a 2019 research report abstract; the later peer-reviewed journal version was not archived). Published opinions over-represent appealed, contested cases and exclude settled and unpublished ones. The abstract takes a position (it calls parental alienation 'pseudo-scientific'), so the framing is the authors'. A rival study disputes the findings (TAC-026, news-release account only); TAC-025 is these authors' reply to it.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract:; section: Abstract:. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
TAC-015 California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 (Motion or application for continuance of trial)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: General civil rule, not family-specific, and not data on how often continuances are granted.
Pages quoted: section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.6~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-016 Delaware Family Court, Emergency or Expedited Relief (Family Court Civil Rule 65.2 guidance)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court guidance page
Reliability notes: Court self-help guidance, not rule text and not data; shows the procedural safeguard (prompt post-order hearing), not outcomes.
Pages quoted: section: Emergency or Expedited Relief; section: Motion and Affidavit for Emergency Ex Parte Order. Claim tags: C4.3~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: ethics opinion
Reliability notes: Alaska only; secondary to ABA Formal Opinion 92-363, whose own text could not be archived (americanbar.org blocked, guessed PDF URL 404). Not family-law specific. Shows the limits of conduct rules (a leverage tactic is permitted inside conditions), not that the tactic is common in family cases.
Pages quoted: pdf p.1; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C4.1~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-019 Wisconsin Statutes section 767.225 (Temporary orders in actions affecting the family)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Statute text only: it shows temporary orders are decided under the final-judgment factors but says nothing about how often final outcomes follow temporary ones.
Pages quoted: section: top of page; section: top of page. Claim tags: C4.5~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 240 LexisNexis decisions citing CCP 170.6, 2021, California; no formal statistics ('suggestive trends'); orders only, dockets not reviewed
Reliability notes: Student note; the sample is reported decisions citing the statute, not all challenges filed, so it cannot give a rate; not family-law-specific (the text mentions family law only as a covered proceeding). 'Do not occur frequently' is the author's characterization of that sample.
Pages quoted: section: A. Research Methodology; section: INTRODUCTION. Claim tags: C4.7~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: single appellate opinion
Reliability notes: One reported opinion, party names omitted; shows that sanctions for settlement-frustrating conduct are available and reviewed deferentially, not how often they are sought or granted. Archived from the Harvard Caselaw Access Project static copy.
Pages quoted: section: In re the Marriage of. Claim tags: C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-022 California Family Code section 3064 (Ex parte custody orders)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Text as archived from a Wayback copy; date is the effective date of the latest amendment shown on the page. Standard only: no data on how often ex parte custody orders are sought, granted or misused.
Pages quoted: section: 3064.. Claim tags: C4.3+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-023 California Family Code section 2107 (Disclosure declarations; remedies and sanctions)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: statute text
Reliability notes: Covers mandatory financial disclosure declarations, not discovery requests generally. Text as archived from a Wayback copy; no data on how often sanctions are imposed.
Pages quoted: section: 2107.. Claim tags: C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
TAC-024 Florida Bar Family Law Section, Bounds of Advocacy (2018; adapted from the AAML Bounds of Advocacy)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: professional guideline
Reliability notes: Voluntary aspirational standards of one state bar section (an adaptation of the AAML national Bounds of Advocacy, whose own PDF could not be archived), not enforceable rules, and not data on prevalence. Acknowledging the temptation is not evidence of how often it is acted on. Archived copy is hosted by the American Inns of Court (inns.innsofcourt.org), not The Florida Bar.
Pages quoted: pdf p.8; pdf p.15. Claim tags: C4.1+ C4.2+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Response article, 23 pages; sample not stated in the abstract
Reliability notes: Abstract only. A response by the original study's authors (TAC-014), i.e. a party to the dispute; the rival study is described only through its university's news release (TAC-026), and no rejoinder by the rival authors was archived. NCJRS lists NIJ grant 2014-MU-CX-0859 and George Washington University as corporate author. Cited to show the evidence is contested, not to resolve it.
Pages quoted: section: The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos' Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 967 appellate-level (country not stated in the release) case reports where parental alienation was found or alleged; coded by 19 research assistants blind to the hypothesis; pre-registered per the release
Reliability notes: News release, not the paper (the APA paper itself is paywalled and could not be archived), reporting the authors' own account; the authors treat parental alienation as real abuse (position); its findings are disputed in a peer-reviewed response (see TAC-025). Tagged ~ because it addresses the same question as TAC-014 from the opposite direction.
Pages quoted: section: Clearing the way for sound science; section: Clearing the way for sound science. Claim tags: C4.4~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,Effects on children: conflict, divorce, and the parental alienation debate,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: 652 parents (ages 19-64, child 3-17) with a US family-court decision; 85-item online survey; social-media recruitment; convenience sample; 3 weeks in 2022
Reliability notes: Abstract only. This is a doctoral dissertation (committee-reviewed, not journal peer-reviewed). Self-reported, convenience-sampled, no court records, no effect size in the abstract; the best public quantitative signal found for the temporary-to-final link and still weak.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C4.5~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show
TAC-028 Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (MD), Family Law Differentiated Case Management Plan
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court case-management plan (goals, not measured performance)
Reliability notes: A stated goal and policy for one county, not a performance report; says nothing about actual continuance rates or time to disposition. Page copyright year 2023.
Pages quoted: section: Statement of Purpose; section: Statement of Purpose. Claim tags: C4.6~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: court rule text
Reliability notes: Rule text only: no data on how many continuances are sought or granted. Shows delay is regulated by court rule in at least this state.
Pages quoted: section: Rule 19. Continuances, scheduling conflicts and consolidation.; section: Rule 19. Continuances, scheduling conflicts and consolidation.; section: Rule 19. Continuances, scheduling conflicts and consolidation.. Claim tags: C4.6~ C4.1+
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Working-group review of other states' laws (31 jurisdictions counted, described as a conservative count); survey answers from 87 attorneys and guardians ad litem (Maine); December 2022
Reliability notes: State working-group report written for a legislature considering whether to create an ex parte process; the 50-state count is the group's own review (it says it is likely conservative); survey respondents were self-selected. The misuse finding quoted is from a 2010 report on the protection-from-abuse system, not family-court ex parte custody orders, and is reported secondhand. No grant-rate data.
Pages quoted: pdf p.20; pdf p.22; pdf p.9. Claim tags: C4.3~
Cited in: Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them,What the evidence cannot show