Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 7 of 8
Reforms aimed at the incentives
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.
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].
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.
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-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
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
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
-
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