University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Arkansas at Little Rock: UALR Bowen Law RepositoryNot a member yet
1877 research outputs found
Sort by
Child Protection Mediation Model Mediator Competencies
Get PDFThe inspiration to develop “Child Protection Mediation Model Mediator Competencies” arose from the work completed on “The Guidelines for Child Protection Mediation,” referred to in this document as, “The Guidelines.” “The Guidelines” were developed by a diverse group of experts in the field of child protection mediation (CPM) who are members of the Child Welfare Collaborative Decision-Making Network (CWCDMN) convened under the auspices of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). “The Guidelines” have been adopted by the AFCC and endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Association for Conflict Resolution.
These “Child Protection Mediation Model Mediator Competencies” are based on a CWCDMN workgroup review of the portion of “The Guidelines” that addresses “Mediator Recruitment and Training.” It was determined that delineating the skills and proficiencies that an effective child protection mediator should possess is an important foundational antecedent to the development of CPM training. As such, these competencies represent what CPM programs should expect their mediators to know and what the mediators should be able to do in the mediations.
The model competencies described here identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities of effective CPM mediators. Training is critical to the development of CPM mediators and these model competencies provide a roadmap to create and deliver quality training with the goal that a skilled mediator will demonstrate these competencies on a regular and consistent basis
Contract Interpretation Enforcement Costs: An Empirical Study of Textualism Versus Contextualism Conducted Via the West Key Number System
Get PDFThis Article sets forth an empirical study of a central issue in the judicial and academic debate over the optimal method of contract interpretation: Whether “textualism” or “contextualism” best minimizes contract enforcement costs. The study measured enforcement costs in twelve ways. Under each of those measures, there was no statistically significant difference in the level of interpretation litigation between textualist and contextualist regimes. Accordingly, the study finds no support for either the textualist hypothesis that contextualism has higher enforcement costs or the contextualist counter-hypothesis that textualism has higher enforcement costs.
The study herein was conducted via the West Key Number System. It is the second study of contract interpretation enforcement costs that I have completed employing that tool. In a prior article, I presented the first study and discussed how to use the Key Number System for empirical research generally. This paper expands on the analysis of the Key Number System from the earlier article. It also addresses how the complexity and confusion in the interpretation caselaw create challenges for empirical work concerning contract interpretation
The Sperminator as a Public Nuisance: Redressing Wrongful Birth and Life Claims in New Ways (A.K.A. New Tricks for Old Torts)
Get PDF
