In many jurisdictions divorcing couples are court-ordered to participate in divorce mediation to resolve parenting plan disputes prior to a court allowing a case to proceed to trial. Historically, a significant number (40-80%) of these divorcing couples enter this highly stressful legal process having experienced violence and abuse within the relationship (Pearson, 1997). Several researchers have developed typologies that describe couple-level patterns of Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse (IPV/A) behaviors; one research team suggested their typology could apply specifically to such divorcing people (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). In this context, identification and accurate classification of IPV/A can lead to better decisions as long-term, difficult to modify custody orders concerning the children are made during divorce mediation. Accurate identification and classification of IPV/A can also assist clinical researchers designing specialized interventions for couples and individuals experiencing IPV/A, mental health practitioners who may treat these families, and custody evaluators who may make recommendations to the courts. The current study includes a large epidemiological sample of divorcing couples and provides a robust statistical solution with five distinct categories of IPV/A. Two of the five categories were similar to those proposed by Johnson (2006c). The current study also provides descriptions and frequencies of each type of IPV/A, and discusses implications for court personnel, researchers and practitioners.

No abstract

person's "decision-making capacity" 3 or, more broadly, whether the person has "impaired judgment." 4 The concerns about capacity and impaired judgment are so great that most model acts for assisted death suggest or require the involvement of a mental health professional to assess whether the person requesting assisted death is incapable or has impaired judgment. 5 For example, one proposal required a mental health professional to "evaluate the patient to determine that his or her decision is fully informed, free of undue influence, and not distorted by depression or any form of mental illness." 6 This article examines the issues of impaired judgment as well as the capacity to choose, and then to receive, PAD. Because the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, the only state law that allows PAD, has a provision for an assessment by a mental health professional about whether a person has the capacity to make a decision to request PAD and whether the person's judgment is impaired, 7 the article reviews dilemmas and suggestions for how assessments of capacity and impaired judgment can occur under the Act. 8 3 Capacity to form reasoned decisions is equivalent to "competence" but only a trier of fact (a judge or, if requested by the person, a jury) can make a legally binding determination whether a person is competent.

No abstract

No abstract