Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 4 of 8
Process over merit: tactics, and the rules written against them
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.
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].
Sources for this section
0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off. What the explainer does not claim.
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