Reimagining communication and elicitation strategies in private family proceedings

References

• Adler, M., 2012. The Plain Language Movement. In: P.M. Tiersma and L.M. Solan, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: OUP, 67–86.
   Google Scholar
• Ainsworth, J., 2010. Miranda Rights: Curtailing Coercion in Police Interrogation: The Failed Promise of Miranda V. Arizona. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, 111–125.
   Google Scholar
• Assy, R., 2011. Can the Law Speak Directly to Its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language. Journal of Law and Society, 38 (3), 376–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00549.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, A., et al., 2017. Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V.K., 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Byrom, N. 2019. Digital Justice: HMCTS Data Strategy and Delivering Access to Justice. https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DigitalJusticeFINAL.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Carbaugh, D., 1989. The Critical Voice in Ethnography of Communication Research. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 23 (1–4), 261–281. doi:10.1080/08351818909389324
   Google Scholar
• Cotterill, J., 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A., 2007. Introducing Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dando, C.J., et al., 2016. Interviewing Adult Witnesses and Victims. In: G. Oxburgh, et al., eds. Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 79–106.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas, B.K., 2002. Reasonable Doubt about Reasonable Doubt: Assessing Jury Instruction Adequacy in a Capital Case. In: J. Cotterill, ed. Language in the Legal Process. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 246–259.
   Google Scholar
• Ejimabo, N.O., 2015. The Effective Research Process: Unlocking the Advantages of Ethnographic Strategies in the Qualitative Research Methods. European Scientific Journal, 11 (23), 356–383.
   Google Scholar
• Faulks, J., 2010. A Natural Selection?: The Potential and Possibility for the Development of Less Adversarial Trials by Reference to the Experience of the Family Court of Australia. University of Western Australia Law Review, 35 (1), 185–196.
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, G. and Weinstein, J., 2004. In the Best Interests of Children: A Proposal to Transform the Adversarial System. Family Court Review, 42 (2), 203–215. doi:10.1177/1531244504422003
   Google Scholar
• Freiberg, A., 2011. Post-adversarial and Post-inquisitorial Justice: Transcending Traditional Penological Paradigms. European Journal of Criminology, 8 (1), 82–101. doi:10.1177/1477370810385434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibb, R., 2019. Communicative Practices and Contexts of Interaction in the Refugee Status Determination Process in France. In: N. Gill and A. Good, eds. Asylum Determination in Europe: Ethnographic Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 155–174.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, J., 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Legal System. London: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, T., 2010. Forensic Linguistics – Advancing Justice. In: K. Richards and J. Uglow, eds. The New Optimist: Scientists View Tomorrow’s World and What It Means to Us. Birmingham: Linus, 217–221.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Fogler, K., and Gibson, S.C., 2012. Do People Comprehend Legal Language in Wills? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (4), 500–507. doi:10.1002/acp.2819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieshofer, T., 2022. The importance of being heard: Stories of unrepresented litigants in small claims cases and private family proceedings. Language and Law – Linguagem E Direito, 9 (1), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Grieshofer, T., 2022a. Lay Advisers in Family Law Settings: The Role and Quality of Advice Provided on Social Media. Social and Legal Studies, 31 (6), 941–960. doi:10.1177/09646639221090132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grieshofer, T., Gee, M., and Morton, R., 2021. The Journey to Comprehensibility: Court Forms as the First Barrier to Accessing Justice. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. doi:10.1007/s11196-021-09870-6
   Google Scholar
• Harris, S., 2001. Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and Defendant Accounts in Trials. Discourse Studies, 3 (1), 53–74.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, S., 2005. In J. Thornborrow and J. Coates, eds. Telling Stories and Giving Evidence: The Hybridisation of Narrative and Non-Narrative Modes of Discourse in a Sexual Assault TrialTelling stories and giving evidence: The hybridisation of narrative and non-narrative modes of discourse in a sexual assault trial. London: John Benjamins, 215–237.
   Google Scholar
• Heffer, C., 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-aided Analysis of Legal-lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hobbs, P., 2002. Tipping the Scales of Justice: Deconstructing an Expert’s Testimony on Cross-Examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 15 (4), 411–424. doi:10.1023/A:1021211730968
   Google Scholar
• Holmberg, U., 2009. Investigative Interviewing as a Therapeutic Jurisprudential Approach. In: T. Williamson, B. Milne, and S.P. Savage, eds. International Developments in Investigative Interviewing. London: Willan, 149–175.
   Google Scholar
• Hough, B. 2010. Self-Represented Litigants in Family Law: The Response of California’s Courts. The Circuit. Paper 52. http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/clrcircuit/52 [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, R., Burton, M., and Trinder, L. 2020. Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases. Ministry of Justice. Available from: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/assessing-harm-private-family-law-proceedings/results/assessing-riskharm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report.pdf1 [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D., 1962. The Ethnography of Speaking. In: T. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant, eds. Anthropology and Human Behavior. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, 13–53.
   Google Scholar
• Hymes, D., 1996. Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. London: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Jackobson, J. and Cooper, P., eds, 2020. Participation in Courts and Tribunals: Concepts, Realities and Aspirations. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jean‐Louis, S., 2021. I Don’t Know What I’m Doing: Using Limited License Legal Technicians in Family Court to Improve Access to Justice. Family Court Review, 59 (3), 599–611. doi:10.1111/fcre.12595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M.G., 1990. Language and Cognition in Products Liability. In: J.N. Levi and A.G. Walker, eds. Language in the Judicial Process. Boston: Springer, 291–244.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler, A.D., 2004. Our Inquisitorial Tradition: Equity Procedure, Due Process, and the Search for an Alternative to the Adversarial. Cornell Law Review 90, 1181, 1216–1217.
   Google Scholar
• King, M., Freiberg, A., Batagol, B. and Hyams, R, 2014. Non-adversarial Justice. Sydney: Federation Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lande, J., 2003. Possibilities for Collaborative Law: Ethics and Practice of Lawyer Disqualification and Process Control in a New Model of Lawyering. Ohio St. LJ, 64, 1315–1321.
   Google Scholar
• Lazer, S. 2021. The Principle of Orality: An Analysis of the Principles Governing the Prevalence of Direct Oral Testimony in the English Adversarial Trial System and the Impact of Reforms to Reduce its Status. Thesis (PhD). University of Huddersfield.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, R. and Tkacukova, T. 2017. A Study of Litigants in Person in Birmingham Civil Justice Centre. Birmingham: CEPLER Working Paper Series 02.
   Google Scholar
• Leitch, J., 2017. Coming off the Bench: Self-Represented Litigants, Judges and the Adversarial Process. Advocates’ Quarterly, 47, 309.
   Google Scholar
• Macdonald, G.S., 2017. Hearing Children’s Voices? Including Children’s Perspectives on Their Experiences of Domestic Violence in Welfare Reports Prepared for the English Courts in Private Family Law Proceedings. Child Abuse and Neglect, 65, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.12.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacFarlane, J., 2013. The National Self-Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants: Final Report. British Columbia. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/lawnsrlppubs/20 [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Maclean, M. and Eekelaar, J., 2019. After the Act: Access to Family Justice After LASPO. Oxford: Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Masson, J., 2012. “I Think I Have Strategies”: Lawyers’ Approaches to Parent Engagement in Care Proceedings. Child and Family Social Work, 17 (2), 202–211. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00829.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masson, M. and Waldron, M.A., 1994. Comprehension of Legal Contracts by Non‐Experts: Effectiveness of Plain Language Redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8 (1), 67–85. doi:10.1002/acp.2350080107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh, J.E., Bryant, H.D., and Murray, K., 2008. Evidence of a Different Nature: The Child‐responsive and Less Adversarial Initiatives of the Family Court of Australia. Family Court Review, 46 (1), 125–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.00187.x
   Google Scholar
• McKeever, G., et al., 2018. Litigants in Person in Northern Ireland: Barriers to Legal Participation. Belfast: Ulster University.
   Google Scholar
• Menkel-Meadow, C., 1996. The Trouble with the Adversary System in a Postmodern, Multicultural World. William and Mary Law Review, 38 (1), 5–44.
   Google Scholar
• Milne, R. and Bull, R., 1999. Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Mindlin, M., 2005. Is Plain Language Better-A Comparative Readability Study of Court Forms. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 10, 55–66.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, S. and Newbury, A., 2017. Legal Aid in Crisis. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Barr, W.M., 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Barr, W. and Conley, J., 1990. Litigant Satisfaction Versus Legal Adequacy in Small Claims Court Narratives. In: J.N. Levi and A.G. Walker, eds. Language in the Judicial Process. Boston: Springer, 97–131.
   Google Scholar
• Oxburgh, G., et al., 2016. Interviewing Suspected Offenders. In: G. Oxburgh, et al., eds. Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 133–157.
   Google Scholar
• Riding, A., 1999. The Crown Court Witness Service: Little Help in the Witness Box. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 38 (4), 411–420. doi:10.1111/1468-2311.00144
   Google Scholar
• Rock, F., 2007. Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Sangasubana, N., 2011. How to Conduct Ethnographic Research. Qualitative Report, 16 (2), 567–573.
   Google Scholar
• Sela, A., 2018. Can Computers Be Fair: How Automated and Human-Powered Online Dispute Resolution Affect Procedural Justice in Mediation and Arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 33, 91–148.
   Google Scholar
• Solan, L.M., 2004. Pernicious Ambiguity in Contracts and Statutes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79, 859–888.
   Google Scholar
• Solan, L.M., 2012. Linguistic Issues in Statutory Interpretation. In: P. Tiersma and L.M. Solan, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: OUP, 87–99.
   Google Scholar
• Stygall, G., 2002. Textual Barriers to United States Immigration. In: J. Cotterill, ed. Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 35–53.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, R. 2012. From ‘Adversarial V Inquisitorial’ to ‘Active, Enabling, and Investigative’: Developments. UK Administrative Tribunals. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2144457 [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Tiersma, P.M., 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tiersma, P., 2010. Instructions to Jurors: Redrafting California’s Jury Instructions. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, 251–264.
   Google Scholar
• Tkacukova, T., 2010. Cross-examination Questioning: Lay People as Cross-examiners. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, 333–346.
   Google Scholar
• Tkacukova, T., 2015. A Corpus-assisted Study of the Discourse Marker ‘Well’ as an Indicator of Institutional Roles: Professional and Lay Use in Court Cases with Litigants in Person. Corpora, 10 (2), 145–170. doi:10.3366/cor.2015.0072
   Google Scholar
• Tkacukova, T., 2016. Communication in Family Court: Financial Remedy Proceedings from the Perspective of Litigants in Person. International Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 38 (4), 430–449. doi:10.1080/09649069.2016.1239362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toy-Cronin, B. 2019. Leaving Emotion Out: Litigants in Person and Emotion in New Zealand Civil Courts. Oñati Socio-Legal Series. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1034
   Google Scholar
• Trinder, L., et al. 2014. Litigants in Person in Private Family Law Cases. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. Retrieved from: www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research-and-analysis/moj [Accessed 15 October 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T., 2000. Social Justice: Outcome and Procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), 117–125. doi:10.1080/002075900399411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar