InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68–75

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry

TheIsraelFamilyCourt–Therapeuticjurisprudenceandjurisprudential
therapyfromthestart
PhilipMarcus
JerusalemFamilyCourt,Israel

article info abstract

Articlehistory: BasedontherecommendationsofacommissionsetuptoreviewthehandlingofFamilyLawcasesinIsrael,the
Received17January2018 FamilyCourtsLaw5755–1995includedarevolutionaryprovision–thataSocialServicesUnit,staffedbysenior
Receivedinrevisedform27May2018 socialworkers,wouldbeanintegralpartofeachFamilyCourt.
Accepted19June2018
Theirmandateincludesgivingassessment,adviceandassistanceservicestolitigantsandtothecourt,andthis
Availableonline7July2018
provision hasbeen broadly interpreted, toinclude mediation andreferrals fortherapy. Theactivities ofthe
Keywords:
Unitareconfidentialandfreeofchargetotheparties.
Therapeuticjurisprudence MorerecentlytheUnitsweregiventhetaskofseeingchildrenwhosefutureisthesubjectoflitigation,tofindout
Familycourt theirneedsandviews;andalsotoserveastheagencywhichpartieswhowanttostartproceedingsarerequired
Socialservices toattend,inordertoreceiveinformationabouttheeffectofproceedingsontheirchildrenandadviceaboutal-
Supportunit ternativedisputeresolutiontoavoidlitigation.
Jurisprudentialtherapy TheresultingsynergybetweenthesocialworkersandtheJudgesensuresthattheneedsofallthoseinvolvedare
metinatherapeuticfashionwherethisisnecessaryandpossible,alongsidethejudicialpowerstomakeordersas
needed.Thusunnecessarysufferingcanbemitigated.
©2018ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.

1.Introduction
The contribution of David Wexler cannot be overestimated. By
bringingthetheoreticalfoundationsoftherapeuticjurisprudenceto
theattentionofcourtadministratorsandJudgesaroundtheworld,he
has alleviated the plight of uncounted individuals, by emphasizing
thatjudicialsystemsdonotfunctioninasterilelawonlyenvironment,
butaffecttheemotionallivesofthelitigantsandothers.Theperception
thatthetaskofthecourtisnotonlytodecidethespecificlegalissuebe-
foreit,butalsotosolvetheunderlyingproblemthatgaverisetothedis-
pute,requiresaholisticviewofthepartiesandtheirrelationshipsand
situations.Ajudgmentofthecourtwhichtakesintoaccounttheenvi-
ronmentinwhichtheissuearosewillhaveamuchgreaterchanceof
preventingfurtherlitigation.
Thisappliesespeciallytothecriminalcourts,whereavoidanceofre-
cidivismisacentralobjective,forthesakeofthefamilyofthedefendant,
hiscommunity,andthereductioninthecostofscarceresources,espe-
ciallycourttimeandincarceration.
Forregularcivilcourts,whichdealinthemostpartwithdisputesbe-
tweenlitigantswhoserelationshipislimitedtothespecificcauseofac-
tionandendswiththefinaljudgment,therearegreatadvantagesto
E-mailaddress:philipmarcusjurist@gmail.com.
AlternativeDisputeResolution,particularlyinthesavingoftimeandre-
sources.ButintheFamilyLawfield,wherethepartiestypicallyhavea
longhistorytogetherbeforethedisputearose,andarelikelytoremain
incontactafterthedeterminationofthespecificissuebeforethecourt,
especiallywhereminorchildrenareinvolved,aholisticapproachises-
sential.Thedangerofjuridogenicharm,thatis,byanalogywithiatro-
genicharm,damagecausedunintentionally bythecourt,simplyby
usingtraditionaljuridicalmethodswhichareinappropriatetothespe-
cificfamily,isveryhigh(MarcusandGottlieb,2012).
AlthoughthefoundationsoftheIsraeliFamilyCourtsystemwere
laidbeforetheconceptoftherapeuticjurisprudencecameintothepub-
licdomain,thesystemnowservesasanexampleoftheapplicationofits
underlyingconceptsinthepractical,everydaycontactsbetweencourts,
litigantsandtheirfamilies.
TheIsraeliFamilyCourtsystemhas,sinceitsestablishmentin1995,
harnessedthejudicialprocessandthehelpingprofessionstogether,in
ordertoensurethatfamilyrelationshipproblemsshould,ifatallpossi-
ble,beresolvedbyconciliationandagreement,andthatjudicialdeter-
mination of disputes should be the last resort, only if all other
possibilitieshavefailed.Thesystemtakesfullaccountofthepsycholog-
icalandemotionalaspectsoffamilyproblems,andthedamagetothe
parties,andespeciallytochildren,whichisaninevitableresultofadver-
sariallitigation.Thelaw,regulationsandcourtpracticesarealldesigned
tominimizeshortandlongtermdamage.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.06.006
0160-2527/©2018ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68– 75
Thispaperpresentsthehistoryandtheideologywhichstandbehind
the Israeli Family Court system in the light of therapeutic
jurisprudence,1andinparticulartheroleofFamilyCourtSocialServices
(FCSS)andexplicatestheroleofjurisprudentialtherapy–thatis,ther-
apyorderedbyorcarriedoutundertheauspicesofthecourt.
Theprogrammesforensuringthatthechildhasafullopportunityto
expresshisviews,andforreferralforconsultationbeforefilingclaims,
willbedescribed. Theexamples givenarefromcasesdealtwithby
courtsandsocialworkers;insomecasestheyarecomposites,andof
coursethenamesarefictitious.
2.TheScheinbaumreport
In1982,wellbeforetheideaoftherapeuticjurisprudencebecame
known, the State of Israel came to the conclusion that reform was
neededinthelegalsystemregardingfamiliesundergoingseparation
anddivorce.Therewasaconsensusthatfamiliescomingbeforethe
courtswereill-servedbythedivisionofjurisdictiontodealwithdis-
putesarisingfromfamilybreakdownbetweendifferentcourts,andby
thetimetakentoprepare,tryandadjudicatethesecases.Inparticular,
there was an emerging realization that litigants and their children
weresufferingbecausecasesofthiskindwereconductedasordinary
civildisputes,intermsofrulesofevidenceandprocedure,withoutsuf-
ficientregardfortheirwelfare.
Inthatyear,acommissionwassetupwhosetermsofreferencein-
cluded:“Toreviewthewaysinwhichfamilylawmatterswerehandled,
andtoproposewaysinwhichthesufferingoflitigantscouldbeallevi-
ated”.JusticeElishaScheinbaum,aJudgewithwideexperienceinfamily
law,wasappointedchairmanofthecommission,andthereport,pub-
lishedinDecember1986,isknownastheScheinbaumreportReport
oftheCommissiontoReviewtheApplicationofFamilyLaw(Hebrew),
1986.
Thereportcontainsacomprehensiveprogrammeforreformofthe
methodsusedbycourtsdealingwithfamilycases,includingsetting
upaunifiedFamilyCourtswithjurisdictioninallcaseswhereafamily
disputeliesattherootoftheissue.Thefocuswasonhelpingnotonly
couples whose marriages were atrisk, but also anyfamily where a
legaldisputearises,byimprovingthefunctioningofthecourtsystem.
However,itissignificantthatbeforeapproachingthestructuraland
legalissues,theopeningsectionofthereport(aftertheintroductory
technicaldescriptionoftheworkofthecommission)dealswiththe
needforassistancefromnon-judicialandnon-legalprofessionals.
“Whenadisputearisesbetweenspouses,thehusbandandwifeneed
someonewhowilllistentothem,andwhocan,withwisecounselorap-
propriatetreatment,trytorehabilitatetheirmarriedlife.Inalargepro-
portion of the cases, a marriage advice organization, utilizing
appropriatemethodsoftherapyfordisputingcouples,canpreventthe
breakdownofthefamilyandguidebothpartiestowaystorestorehar-
moniouslivingandpreventtheinevitablesufferingofchildreninvolved
inthedispute”.(p.7).
ThecommissionpointsoutthatinIsraelsuchorganizationshavenot
becomewidelyavailableandculturallyacceptable,andthat.
“thepartiesapplyimmediatelytojudicialinstitutions….notforthe
purposeofobtainingadviceandguidance,buttopresenttheirallega-
tionsandtowintheircase,andinevitablywhattheysaytothecourts
doesnotrepresenttheirrealfeelings.Insuchacase,thecourtsusually
cannottakeontheroleofguideandadviser,therapistandarbitrator,
whoiscapableofbringingthepartiestoapeacefulresolution.Ajudg-
mentcanonlydecidewhichofthetwoiscorrectintheeyesofthe
law,butisnotabletocalmthedispute.
Forthisreason,weproposethesettingupofaninstituteforcounsel-
lingandfamilywelfare(hereinafter:thecounsellinginstitute)towhich
1 Perhapsthetimehascometoreframetheconceptastherapeuticcourtprocesses,or
courtherapy;jurisprudenceisusuallyunderstoodtomeanthetheoryandphilosophyof
law,ratherthanjudicialpracticeinspecifictypesofcases.
69
thepartieswillbeobligedtoapplyfortreatmentoftheirproblem,be-
forefilingaclaimofanykind,includingmaintenanceanddivorce,aris-
ingfromtheirmarriagerelationship.”(pp.7–8).
Thecommissionexplainsthattheinstitutewouldbestaffedbypsy-
chologists,socialworkersandlawyers;thepartieswouldnotberepre-
sented by lawyers at this stage; and the aim would be to reach
agreements,whetherbyavoidingdivorceor,ifthereisnopossibility
ofthemarriagecontinuing,arrivingatconsentonalltheissuesarising
outofdivorce.
Thereportdescribestheprinciplesaccordingtowhichtheinstitute
wouldoperate,goesintoconsiderabledetailastoitsmethodsofwork
(pp.8–12).
3.TheFamilyCourtsLaw,1995
TheScheinbaum reportgenerated debate amongacademics and
lawyers,andittookuntil1995fortheKnesset,Israel'slegislature,to
enactFamilyCourtsLaw,1995embodyingmostoftherecommenda-
tionsofthecommission.Theseincluded
• AsingleFamilyCourtwithcomprehensiveandexclusivejurisdiction
todealwithallfamilydisputes
• AppointmentasJudgesoftheFamilyCourtonlylawyerswhohave
knowledgeandexperienceinfamilylaw
• Allocationofallcasesrelatingtoaparticularfamilytoaspecifi cJudge
(OneFamily–OneJudge)
• AllowingJudgestodivergefromtheusualrulesofprocedureandev-
idence,wheretheinterestsofjusticerequire
• SettingupaSupportUnit,alsocalledFamilyCourtSocialServices, at- 2
tachedtoeveryFamilyCourt.
TheideologyoftheIsraeliFamilyCourtsystemis,therefore,holistic.
Underthisview,itisinappropriatetoregardthelegalandjuridicalas-
pectsofadisputewithinthefamilyinisolation,withoutfullconsider-
ation of the effects of the judicial process, in all its stages, on the
partiesandtheirfamilies–eventhosewhoarenotlitigants.
Thisconsiderationrequiresthatwelfareagenciesstarttheirinvolve-
mentattheearliestpossiblestage,evenbeforethestartoflitigation.The
veryfirstdocumentfiledincourtmayhavefar-reachingeffectsonpar-
entsandtheirchildren,especiallyifitcontainsallegationswhichthe
otherpartyregardsasbeinguntrueorexaggerated,andthedefendant,
angeredbythefalsity oftheclaims, feelstheneedtorespondwith
equallyormoreseriousallegationsagainsttheplaintiff.Theseverityof
themutualallegationsinandofitselfpreventsthepartiesfrombeing
opentonegotiations.Theirpreparednesstomakeconcessionsorwith-
drawtheirallegationsmaybemadeimpossiblebythelanguageandse-
verityoftheallegations.
Incasesinvolvingchildren,litigationmakeshugedemandsonthe
resources–time,emotionalavailability,aswellasmoney–ofthepar-
ents. Theparents arefully occupied withtheir anger ateach other,
whichmaymanifestitselfasoutrighthatred,andwiththelitigation:
meetingswithlawyers,tryingtofindwitnesses,consideringthetactics
andstrategyoftheproceedings,findingfinancetopaythelawyerand
otherexperts,preparingforcourthearingsandattendingcourt,and
worrying about loss of earnings because of their days away from
work.Allofthesetakeawaytimeandemotionalavailabilityfromthe
children,andthisatatimewhenthechildren,whoaredeeplydisturbed
bythedisharmony,whichsometimesdeterioratesintoverbalorphysi-
calviolence,seetheirfamilybreakingup,andarefacedwithuncertainty
aboutthefuture,needtheirparentsmorethanever.
Aholisticapproachtakesaccountoftheneeds,asopposedtothe
claimsandallegations,oftheparentsandthechildren.Forthisreason,
theIsraelisystemdevotesconsiderableresourcestomakingassessment
2 ThisnamewasconsideredpreferabletoInstituteforCounsellingandFamilyWelfare.
70 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68–75
andtherapeuticservicesavailabletothepartiesbefore,oratleastinthe
stagesimmediatelyafter,thestartoflegalproceedings.
ForthisreasonthepaperwilldealmainlywiththeFCSS:theirobjec-
tives,theirstructure,andtheirmethodsofworkvis-a-visadultsand
childreninvolvedinoraffectedbyfamilydisputes;theirrelationship
withtheJudges;andthespecificfunctionswhichhavebeenallocated
tothem,inlegislationandproceduralrules,sincetheirestablishment.
4.TheFCSS-FamilyCourtSocialServices3
4.1.Structureandoperation
TheFCSSUnitsareattachedtoallthecourtswhichdealwithfamily
issues,includingtheFamilyCourtandthereligiouscourts–forJews,
Muslims,andDruze.Theyprovideservicesfreeofchargetoallwho
applytothecourts.4
TheMinistryofWelfareisresponsibleforprovisionofwelfareser-
vicesinIsrael.Theseservicesincludesocialwelfaredepartmentsinall
localauthorities;centresforchildvisitation;centresfortreatmentof
familyviolence;andwelfareofficersandprobationofficerswhocan
berequiredbythecourtstoproducereportsafterinvestigation.The
FCSSareundertheprofessionalsupervisionofadedicateddepartment
intheMinistry.
TheUnitswerestaffedfromthestartbyseniorsocialworkerswho
werehighlyexperiencedinfamilytherapyandalliedareas,withaccess
topsychologistsandpsychiatrists.Lawyerswereaddedtotheteams
whenitbecameapparentthatthiswasneeded.TheUnitsareattached
toeveryCourtandhavetheirofficesinorneartothecourthouse.
ThemissionstatementandaimsoftheFCSSUnitsareasfollows:
• Topromotesettlementofconflicts
• Toassistboththecourtandfamiliesincrisis
• Toactintheinterestofallfamilymembersandofchildreninparticu-
lar
• Toassistfamiliesinlitigationtosettletheirconflictsoutsidethecourt
• Tohelpcurtailtheadversarialprocess
• Toaddresstheemotional,personalandintra-personalneedsofthelit-
igantandhisfamily
• Toimproveparentingskills.
TheFCSShelpthefamiliesbyprovidingessentialinformationabout
treatmentalternativesanddisputeresolutionservices.Anythingsaidby
thepartiesisconfidentialandtheUnitsocialworkersandthoseworking
withthemmaynotbecalledaswitnesses.Theyalsoprovideshortterm
treatment,counsellingandmediation;theyconductworkshopsfordi-
vorcing and separating couples free of charge; and they have been
givenothertasksaswillbedescribedshortly.
TheFCSSsocialworkersgiveassistancetotheCourtbyreportingon
theresultsoftheirinterventions(butnotthethethingstoldthemby
theparties),andbytakinganactivepartinconversationsbetweenchil-
drenandtheJudge;theycanalsosuggestthattheCourtdealwithissues
whichneedattention,eventhoughthepartiesmaynothavereferedto
themintheirsubmissionstothecourtinthenormalprocessesoflitiga-
tion.Inthisway,theyprovideinvaluablehelptothecourt,byensuring
thatmatterswhichdonotneedadjudicationarekeptoutofthecourt
list,butatthesametimemakingsurethatalltheissuesarisingfrom
thebreakupofthefamilyareresolved,byagreementorbyjudicialde-
cision,therebyleavingnolooseendsthatmightleadtofuturelitigation.
3 Partsofthissectionaretakenfrommyarticle:MarcusP.(2015).
4 Itwasclearfromtheoutsetthatprovidingservicesfreeofchargewouldencourage
widespreaduseoftheFCSS,andremovethepossibilitythatarecalcitrantpartywouldre-
jecttherapeuticinterventionwiththeexcusethathecouldnotaffordit.Inaddition,the
provisionofsocialservicesattheoutsetofproceedingsand,wherenecessaryduringthe
lifeofthefamily'sinvolvementwiththecourt,wouldresultinsavingsofcourttime.
4.2.Initialinteractionofcitizenswiththecourt:therapeutic,notjudicial
Whenthepartiestoafamilydisputewanttostartproceedingsbe-
foretheFamilyCourt,itisimportantthatthefirstneutralpersonthey
meetisasocialworker,whoisbydefinitionnotjudgmentalinorienta-
tion.Thesocialworkersaretrainedtoseethecomplexitiesoftheprob-
lemsfacingfamiliesandtotrytohelp,andnotajudicialfigurewhom
theywanttoimpresswiththerightnessoftheirallegations against
theotherpartysothattheycanclaimvictory.
4.3.Comingtotermswithmaritalbreakdown
Inthosecaseswhereoneofthespouseshasdecidedonseparation
andtheotherwasunawareoftheimpendingendoftherelationship,
hisorherreactionmaybetodenytheexistenceoftheproblem,ortobe-
comestuckinanattitudeofrageandhatredtowardtheotherspouse.A
socialworkerfromtheFCSScanhelptomovethepartywhodidnotini-
tiatetheprocessalongthetrackofcomingtotermswiththeendofthe
marriage,andhelpthespousewhoinitiatedtheproceedingstounder-
standthatthewifeorhusbandneedstimetocometoacceptthenew
situation.ThisoftenavoidsthenecessityfortheJudgetospendtime
dealingwithapplicationswhicharebasedonlyontheemotionalstate
ofoneoftheparties,ratherthananeedforspecifi crelief.
InamajorityofcasestheinvolvementoftheFCSSde-escalatesthe
dispute,byreducingtheemotionaloverloadontheparties,andthe
needtofocusontheneedsofthechildren.5
4.4.Theneedsofthechildren
Inacasewheretheparentscannotagreeonthedivisionofparental
responsibilitiesafterseparation–issuesdescribedintermsofcustody–
andaremakingallegationsagainsteachotherrelatingtoparentingca-
pacity,thesocialworkercan,inmanycases,askthecourttoconsider
towhatextenttheseallegationsemanatelessfromgenuineconcern
forthebestinterestsofthechildrenandmorefrompersonalityissues
oftheparents.Inaddition,thesocialworkermakestheparentsaware
oftheeffectthedisputeishavingonthechildren.Thisoftenreduces
thedisputetomanageabledimensions,andmayobviatetheneedfor
thecourttoappointanexperttoprepareanopinion,andmaybring
aboutanagreement,makinganevidentiaryhearingandajudgment
unnecessary.
4.5.Violenceinthefamily
Ahusbandorwifewhoappliestothecourtforanorderexcluding
the other spouse from the family home under the Law for the
Prevention of Family Violence, 1991, is often in a highly emotional
state,aswellassufferingfromthetraumaoftheactcommittedagainst
himorher.Theapplicantisoftenunawareoftheramificationsoftheap-
plication,oroftheordersought,andinsuchcasestheimmediateavail-
abilityofthesocialworkerisofgreatassistancetotheapplicantandto
theJudge.
Mrs.Acomestothecourtaskingforanorderagainstherhusband,
allegingthathepushedherinthecourseofanargument.TheJudge
asksherquestionsabouttheincidentandtheatmosphereathome.He
isconvincedthatatthisstagetherearegroundsformakinganexclusion
order,banningthehusbandfromthefamilyhomeandfroma100mra-
dius,andstartstocomposetheorder.WhentheJudgereachesthepart
5 Oneoftheintervieweesinthestudydescribedinpara.4.7infrasaid:“Ihavenodoubt
thatN.(theFCSSsocialworker)succeededinbringingustothesituationofdiscussionand
theunderstandingthatiflovediedwehadtofollowthecorrectpathforthesakeofthe
children…IunderstoodthatthethingsIsaiddamagedthechildren…Mydesireforre-
vengecausedmetobelittlethemother…intheFCSSunitIunderstoodthatthethingsI
saidinjuredmydaughterandnotonlyhermother”.
 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68– 75
oftheorderbanningthehusbandfromhavingafirearm,andordering
him to surrender the firearm to the police,6 Mrs. Ais shocked; she
tellstheJudgethatMr.Aworksasasecurityguardandthatwithouta
firearmhewillbedismissedfromhiswork,andthatthefamily'sonly
sourceofincomewillbecutoff.
Faced with this situation, of Mrs. A's apparent ambivalence, the
JudgeaskshisclerktotelephonetheSupportUnit,andtoaskthatthe
dutysocialworkershouldcometospeaktoMrs.A.Withintenminutes
Mrs. Aisspeaking tothe social worker outside the courtroom, and
withinashorttimethesocialworkerhasheardwhethertheincident
describedisaone-offeventoristhelastinaseriesofviolentincidents,
andwhethertherearechildrenathome.Ifso,thesocialworkerwillad-
viseMrs.Aastotheeffectsanexclusionorderagainsttheirfathermight
haveonthem;andwilladviseheronavarietyofalternatives.Onthe
basisoftheconsultationwiththesocialworker,whohasextensiveex-
perienceindealingwithsuchsituations,Mrs.Acanconsiderwhetherto
retractherapplication,orgoaheadwithit,andwhethersheneedstogo
withthechildrentoashelterforvictimsofviolence,forprotection.
Mrs.AreturnstothecourtroomandtellstheJudgewhatshehas
decided.
InanycasewhereaJudgemakesanexclusionorderexparte,ahear-
inghearingtobeattendedbybothpartiesisfixedtotakeplacewithin
7days,asprescribedbythelaw.TheJudgemaythenrefertheparties
totheFCSS,whichisaskedto
• Helptheparentsmakesuitablearrangementsforthechildrentosee
theexcludedparent,ifnecessaryatavisitationcentre,sothatthechil-
drenarenotdeprivedofthatparent(unlessintheinterestsofthechil-
dren it would be inappropriate to arrange contact without a
comprehensiveassessment).
• Helpthepartiestoreachagreementastowhetherthebanningorder
shouldremaininforceorbecancelledoramended.
4.6.ReferralbytheJudge
Atanytimeafterthestartofproceedingsinthecourt,theJudgemay
referthepartiestotheFCSSUnit.TheUnitwillbeaskedto
• Assistthepartiesdeterminewhethertheycanagrreonthirfuture
plans,divorceorreconciliation
• Findoutifthereareotherissuesbetweentheparties,whichtheyhave
notregardedasimportant,andifso,helpthemtoreachagreementon
thespecificissuesorastohowtoresolvethem,andinparticular,
whetherthepartiesarereadyformediation.
• Advisewhetherthereshouldbeacomprehensivereportonthefamily
byawelfareofficer.
Thevalueofsuchreferralsisnotrestrictedtotheanswerstothespe-
cificinstructionsgiven.
4.7.EvaluationoftheFCSS
Inabroadstudycarriedoutin2014–2015,theoutcomesofinterven-
tionsbyFCSSwith3980clientsfrom1950families,whowerereferred
totheFCSSoveran8monthperiod,wereanalysed.Theclientswere
asked, in a telephone survey conducted approximately six months
aftertheconclusionoftheSupportUnitinvolvement,toanswerques-
tionsabouttheinterventionoftheSupportUnit,andtocommenton
their perceptions of the mediation process, and the stability of the
agreementsreached(Bayer-Topilskyetal.,2015).
6 Thelawrequiresthecourttoincludeinanorderexcludingaviolentfamilymember
fromhishomeaprovisionbanningpossessionofafirearm,evenifthepersonagainst
whomtheorderismadeisapoliceofficeroramemberofthemilitary)(sec.2Bofthe
LawforthePreventionofFamilyViolence,1991 ).
71
Whilethesocialworkersestimatedonintakethatthelevelofcon-
flictwashighin63%ofthecases,and78%oftheclientsreportedsome
formofviolencefromthepartner,almost48%oftheclientsreported
agreementsthroughthesupportunitonatleastoneareaofconflict.
Incaseswhereparentingmatters(custody,visitationarrangementsor
childsupport)55%reachedagreementonatleastoneoftheissues,al-
thoughinthecaseofvisitationarrangements, 57%oftheclientsre-
ported stability and satisfaction with the arrangements. In general,
70%–80%ofclientsreportedthatthearrangementswerestable.
Thisrepresentsasubstantialreductioninthelevelofconflict,dueto
theinvolvementofasocialworker;intheabsenceofsuchinvolvement
thedisputedissuewouldhavebeendealtwithbyanadversarialprocess
beforeajudge,whichwouldincreasethelevelofconflictandadversely
affectthechildrenoftheparties,aswellasthepartiesthemselves.
73%oftheclients reported agoodtherapeutic alliance (withno
sustantialdifferencesbetweenmenandwomen),includingpositivean-
swerstothequestions:towhatextentdidthesocialworker:
• Listentoyou
• Allowyoutoexpressyourself
• Showimpartiality
• Understandyou
andamajority(80%ofwomenand68%ofmen)believedthatthesocial
workerwasneutraltoagreatorverygreatextent.
4.8.Information,assessmentandcoordination
Theunderstandingthatitisessentialthatfamiliesindisputereceive
socialservicesupportandassistanceattheearliestpossiblestage,and
thattheFCSShadproventheircompetenceandexpertise,laybehind
LawfortheRegulation ofLitigation inFamily Disputes (Temporary
Provision),2014torequireaspousewhowishestofileaclaimagainst
theothertoapplytothecourt,notbyfilingafullstatementofallega-
tionsandrequestsforspecificreliefandorders,butbyanapplication
for dispute resolution to the parties. This is done in a short form,
whichincludesonlythedetailsoftheparties,withoutanyspecifi calle-
gationsorclaims.ThepartiesarethenreferredtotheSupportUnitand
aresummonedtomeetwithasocialworkerforameetingorseriesof
meetingsfor“information,assessmentandcoordination”.
Thislegislation,whichhasbeeninforceforaboutayearandahalfat
thetimeofwriting,hasseenconsiderablesuccessinseveralareas.
• Thepartiesreceiveanexplanationofthecourtprocessandoftheroles
ofthecourtandtheFCSS,fromapersonwhoisperceivedtobeprofes-
sional, competent, sympathetic andneutral. Thepartiesaremade
awareoftheeffectsoffamilydisharmony,divorce,andhighconflict
litigationonchildren,andwaysinwhichparentscanandshoulden-
deavour to mitigate the children's distress and avoid damage to
theirchildren.
• The meetings often enable the parties to put forward, in a non-
judgmental setting, their feelings andtheir needs, andasaresult
manyrealizethattherearealternative,non-confrontationalwaysin
whichtheycanresolvetheirdisagreements.
• Also,theFCSSsocialworkerwillguidethepartiestodisputeresolu-
tiontechniquesaboutwhichmanyofthemareunaware,including,
forexample,mediationandcollaborativedivorce.
• WheretheFCSSsocialworkerseesthatthereisaneedforconsulta-
tionsortherapy,beitforimprovementofcommunicationbetween
theparties,orforcopingwithachildwithspecialneedsorwithfinan-
cialdifficulties,orforapossiblementalillnessoraddictions,itcanpro-
vide details of agencies and others to whom the parties may be
referred.
• Itisbroughthometoparentsthatitistheirresponsibility,andnotthat
oftheCourt,tomakeproperarrangementsfortheirfutureandthatof
theirchildren;andthatthecourtwillstepinonlyaftertheyhave
72 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68–75
failedtodoso,despiteallthetypesofassistanceavailabletothem
fromstateandprivateagencies.
4.9.Thevoiceofthechild
IsraelissignatorytotheUNConventionontheRightsoftheChild,
Article12ofwhichprovidesthatthechildshouldbegivenanopportu-
nitytoexpresshisopiniononanymatterconcerninghimwhichcomes
beforethecourtfordetermination,andthecourtisrequiredtogivethe
child'sfeelings,opinionsanddesiresappropriateweightinitsdecision,
accordingtothechild'sageandlevelofmaturity.
PursuanttoIsrael'sadoptionoftheCRCaLegislativecommitteewas
setupbytheMinisterofJusticewithaviewinteraliatoapplyingArticle
12.Inordertotesttherecommendationsastothemethodbywhichthe
child'svoicewouldbeheardinproceedingsconcerninghim,apilot
schemewassetupintheFamilyCourtsinJerusalem(theundersigned
wasatthetimeDeputyPresidentforFamilyMattersfortheJerusalem
district,andchiefjudgeoftheFamilyCourt)andinHaifa.
TheFCSSUnitisanintegralpartofthearrangementsforthechildto
expresshisopinion.inanymatterconcerningachildtheparentsare
askediftheyagreethatthechildmayspeakconfidentiallywithasocial
worker,designatedandspeciallytrainedforthepurposeofspeakingto
thechild,fromtheFCSS.
Iftheparentsagree,themeetingwiththechildisheldintheirab-
sence,andthechildistoldthatwhathesayswillremainconfidential;
butthatasummaryofthediscussionwillbegiveninaconfidentialre-
porttotheJudge,whichisnotdisclosedtotheparentsortheircounsel;
onlyifthechildagreeswilltheparentsbetoldwhathehassaid.
ThechildisalsoaskedifhewantstomeetwiththeJudge.
Ifhedoes,thechildisinvitedtotheJudge'schambers,withaUnitso-
cialworkerparticipating;howevertheparentsandtheirlawyersarenot
permittedtobepresent.TheJudgewillhowevergivetheparties,in
writingoratahearing,hisimpressionsfromthemeeting,withoutdis-
closingthechild'swordsorfeelings,unlessthechildexpresslyagrees
thattheparentsshouldbetold.
TheJudgehasthepowertorequirethatthechildmeethimincham-
bers,eveniftheaforementionedprocedurehasnotbeenfollowed.
Inanycase,thechildhasanopportunitytotelltheJudge,directlyor
indirectly,whatisonhismind,withouttheparentsbeingtold.Theop-
portunitytospeakdirectlytotheJudgeiswelcomedbymanychildren,
andensurethatthedecisionismadeafterconsiderationofhisviews,
butnolessimportant, theJudge isabletoassure thechildthatthe
courtdecidesthecase,sothatthechildshouldnotfeelthathehasto
take sides, or that been disloyal to either parent in saying what he
feels.TheJudge,withthesocialworker,arealsoabletoassesstowhat
extentisanythechildhasbeentoldbyaparentwhattosay,andthe
courtcandrawthenecessaryconclusions.
ThepilotoperatedfromJune2006untilMarch2009,andthefind-
ingsoftheresearch,conductedbytheEnglebergCenterforChildren
andYouthattheMyers-JDC-BrookdaleInstitute.7
Theresearchwashighlyencouraging.448childrenwereinvitedto
participate; 99children whohadparticipated wereinterviewed, as
were 73 parents of such children. Interviews were also conducted
withjudgesandlawyers,andwiththedesignatedsocialworkers.
According to the designated social workers, 70% of the children
expressedthemselveseasily;69%wererelaxed;but25%weretense
and26%expressedconcernaboutthereactionofoneoftheparents.
Thesocialworkersalsosaidthattheprocesshelpedbringthechild's
viewsbeforethejudge,butalsotobringtheseviewstotheattention
oftheparents,whoinmanycaseswereunawareofthewishes,emo-
tionalstate,distressandneedsoftheirchildren.
77%oftheparentsexpressedsatisfactionwiththeprocess(31%ex-
tremelysatisfiedand36%satisfied).
7 TheresearchisdescribedandthefindingsdiscussedinMoragetal.(n.d.)
Thechildren'sreactionswerehighlysatisfactory.93%saiditwasa
goodideatoofferchildrenthechancetoexpressthemselves.92%said
they would recommend afriend toparticipate. 62% ofthe children
saidparticipationhadhelpedthem,bybeingshownrespectandconsid-
erationfortheiropinionsandfeelings,bybeinghelpedtodecidewhat
theyreallywanted,andthatinvolvementwiththesocialworkerhad
contributedtoanimprovedrelationshipwithoneoftheparents.
TheroleofthesocialworkersoftheFCSSwasfoundtobecentralto
thesuccessoftheproject.Theyprovidedemotionalsupportforthechil-
drenatatimeofstress,beingperceivedbythechildandtheparentsas
beingneutral,professionalandcaring.
Thepilotprojectwasdeemedtobeasuccess,andafollowupreport
confirmedthefindings(MoragandSorek(2013)),andchapterXX(2),
which provides for the procedure utilized inthe pilot, with certain
changes,wasaddedin2011totheCivilProcedureRules,1984,andis
nowinforce.
Veryoftenthechildwillraise,atthemeetingwiththesocialworker,
issuesandinterestsofwhichtheparentsandmediatorswereunaware.
Ifthechildagrees,theseconcernswillbeplacedbeforetheparents,who
may reconsider arrangements which they previously thought were
rightforthechild.
Mr.andMrs.Breachedanagreement,wherebyMrs.Bwouldhave
custodyoftheirchild,andwouldbeabletoemigratetoacountrysev-
eralflyinghoursawayfromIsrael.TheyalsoagreedthatMr.Bwould
beabletoseehissoninthenewcountry,andthechildwouldcome
toIsraelthreetimesayear.TheagreementwassubmittedtotheCourt
forapproval,asrequiredbylaw.
However,whenthesocialworkerspoketothechild,whowasthen
11yearsold,itbecameclearthatneitheroftheparentshadtoldhim
abouttheplansforemigration,andhewasmostupsetthathewould
havetoleavehisfriends,hisschoolandhisgrandparents,andthathe
wouldhavetolearnacompletelynewlanguageinacountryabouthe
knewnothing.
This was reported to the court, which refused to approve the
agreement.
Mr.andMrs.Cweredivorced,andbyconsentthechildren,girlsaged
14and10,livedwiththemother,andvisitedthefatherwithovernights
twiceaweekandonalternateweekends.
Afterashorttime,theoldergirltoldtheparentsthatshenolonger
wantedtoseethefather.Bothparentsfiledclaimsinthecourt;thefa-
theralleged thatthemotherhadalienated thegirlagainsthimand
themotherallegedthatthefatherhadabusedthechild.
Thechildrenwerereferredtothesocialworker,whospoketothe
children. Theoldergirlwasansurlyanduncooperative adolescent,
andhissisterwastheopposite,acharmingchildineveryrespect.The
14year-oldcomplainedthatthefatherspentmostofthetimewith
theyoungersister,andshefeltneglected,andshedecidedthathedid
notwanttoseeherfather.
AsaresultoftheinvolvementoftheSupportUnit,thesocialworker
wasabletoreassuretheparentsandthecourtthattherehadbeennei-
therabusenoralienation.Insteadofanadversarialhearing,inwhich
eachparentwouldtrytoprovethattheotherparentwasunfit,thepar-
entsagreedwiththerecommendation ofthesocialworkerthatthe
oldergirlwouldseeherfatherwithouthersisteroneoneofthemid-
weekvisits,andtheyoungersisterwouldgotofatheronherownon
theothermidweekday,andtheywouldbothbewiththefatheronal-
ternateweekends.
4.10.CollaborationbetweentheJudgesandtheSupportUnit
AnotherofthewelcomeresultsoftheprovisionofFCSSUnitsat-
tachedtoeachcourtisthelevelofcooperationbetweenJudgesandso-
cialworkersoftheSupportUnit.
Under section 68 of the Capacity and Guardianship Law, 1962,
Judges of the Family Court have very wide powers to take all such
 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68– 75
stepsasmaybenecessaryforthewelfareofachild,evenwithoutaspe-
cificapplicationhavingbeenfiledbyoneoftheparents.
AsanexampleofthecollaborationbetweentheUnitsocialworkers
andtheJudges,therearecasesinwhichasocialworkerisabletodetect
thepossibilitythattherearepsychologicalorpsychiatricissuesthat
needtobeaddressed,andeachUnithasapsychologistandpsychiatrist
availableforconsultation.Insuchacase,thesocialworkercanrecom-
mendassessmentand/ortreatmentforthechildand/ortheparents.
Afterhearingtheparties,thecourtisempoweredtoorderassessment
or treatment, even if neither parent has asked for this, and even if
theyobject.
TheJudgesandsocialworkersalsotakestepstoenhancetheirability
toworktogether.Thistakesseveralforms,including
• meetingsattendedbyalltheJudgesandsocialworkersinthecourt,
addressedbyasocialworkerorJudgeoraninvitedoutsidespeaker
onatopicofcurrentmutualinterest.
• InvolvementofJudgesinlecturingandconductingworkshopsatpre-
appointmentandin-servicetrainingseminarsforsocialworkers.
• InvolvementofsocialworkersandpsychologistsoftheFCSSaslec-
turersatin-servicetrainingseminarsforFamilyCourtJudges.
• ParticipationofasocialworkeratallmeetingsbetweenaJudgeanda
child,includingpreparationbeforeanddebriefingafterthemeeting.
• Consultationonjudicialandtherapeuticactionsinspecifi ccases
4.11.Preventionoflitigation
Thefollowingcaseisanexampleofthevalueofthebenefitsofsyn-
chronicityofthetherapeuticworkoftheSupportUnitwiththejudicial
authorityoftheJudge.
Mr.D.camebeforethecourtwithanapplicationforanimmediateex
parteorderbanninghisparents-in-law, theparentsofhislatelyde-
ceasedwife,fromhavinganycontactwithhischildren.Hiswife,the
children'smother,hadrecentlydiedafteranillness,andMr.Dstated
thattherespondents,thegrandparents,blamedhimforthedeathof
theironlydaughterandhadtoldthechildren,oratleastimplied,that
hewasresponsible.Thegrandparentswouldtalktothechildrenon
theircellphonesinschoolhoursandwhiletheywereatmeetingsof
their youth movements; the grandfather would wait outside the
children'sschoolsoroutsidetheirhousetomeetthechildren,without
consultingwiththeirfather;theirconversationswouldalsoincludein-
appropriatereferencestothesufferingofthegrandparentsinconcen-
tration camps at the time of the Nazi persecutions. These
conversationswereverytroublesomeforthechildren.
Thecourtmadeanorderexpartethatthegrandparentscouldnot
speak tothechildren bytelephone, andthat meetings could bear-
ranged,butonlyinthepresenceofanadult,acceptabletothefather
andthegrandparents,untilfurtherorderoftheCourt.Theorderwas
tobeinforceforthreemonths.Atthesametime,theJudgereferred
thepartiestotheFCSSUnit.
Asprovidedbythelawandrulesofprocedure,theapplicationand
theorderwereservedonthegrandparentsbythepolice.Theirreaction
wassevere,emotionallyandphysically;themeetingwiththepolicere-
vivedmemoriesoftheNazipersecutorsandthegrandfatherhadtobe
hospitalized.
TheFCSSUnitdecidedtoholdseparatemeetings,eachwithasepa-
ratesocialworker;onewiththefather,onewiththegrandparentsand
onewiththechildren.Thismethodwaschosentoalloweachofthose
involvedtoexpresshisfeelingsfully,inatherapeuticatmosphereand
awayfromanypossibilityoffriction.
Thesocialworkersheldatotaloftenmeetingsandmanytelephone
conversations.TheyappliedtotheCourtforclarificationtothepartiesof
thelegalsituation;thatthefatherassurvivingnaturalguardianhadall
thenecessarypowerstomakedecisionsrelatingtothechildren,thathe
hadtoactinthebestinterestsofthechildren,thattheinterestsofchil-
dren usually include positive contacts with the extended family,
73
includinggrandparents,andthatbereavedgrandparentsareallowed,
under Section 28A of the Capacity and Guardianship Law, 1962, to
apply totheCourtsoastoprovide forcontact withthechildren of
theirdeceasedchild. 8
Themeetingswiththechildrenwereheldwitheachoneseparately
andalltogether;itwasclearthattheyweredeeplytroubledbythecon-
tentofthegrandparents' conversations, butatthesametimeloved
themandsympathizedwiththem,andwantedtoremainincontact.
TheSocialworkersthenheldtwomeetingsofthechildrenwiththe
grandparents;thesemeetingswereheldintheneutralsurroundingsof
theFCSSUnit,aftereachofthoseinvolved,thegrandparents,thefather
(who wasnotpresent atthe meetings) andthechildren, hadbeen
briefedastothepurposeofthemeetingsandastopermittedandfor-
biddensubjectsfordiscussion.
Thesemeetingswerehighlycharged,butitwasclearthatthegrand-
parents understood their position vis-à-vis the father and the
grandchildren. Following these meetings, thefatherwastoldabout
themeetings,emphasizinghissoleresponsibilityfortheupbringingof
thechildren,butthathemustconsidertheneedsofthechildrenforcon-
tactwiththeirlatemother'sparents,andtoallowthechildrentowork
outthedifficultieswhichmightarise,withprofessionalhelpwherenec-
essary,andatthesametimetorefrainfromover-protectiveness.
Itwasthenpossibletoworkoutanagreement,includingdetailsof
thefrequencyofmeetings,timesandplaces,andthepresenceofan
agreedthirdparty,andalsotelephonecallsandletters;inparticular,
therewasagreementthatthecontentofcommunicationsshouldbe
suitedtotheemotionalmaturityofeachchild.
Theagreementwasbroughtbeforethecourtforapprovalandwas
giventheforceofaJudgment.
Thiscaserepresentsanimpressivesuccess.
IftheCourthadnotbeenassistedbytheFCSS,inallprobabilityallof
thoseinvolvedwouldhavesuffereddamageandloss.Ifthefather'salle-
gationshadproceededtotrial,hewouldhavebeencompelledtoprove
bywitnessesthatthegrandparentshadinfactsaidanddonethethings
attributedtothem.Thegrandparentswouldhavetriedtoprovethatthe
fatherwasaliar,thattheyhadnotsaidthethingsalleged;orthattheir
allegationsagainsthimweretrue-thedeathoftheirdaughterwasin
factcausedbytheactsoromissionsoftheirson-in-law,whointurn
would have tried todisprove their claims. Thechildren, because of
theirage,wouldnothavebeenpermittedtogiveevidenceandtheir
viewsandneedswouldnothavebecomeknown.
Thetrialwouldhavebeenlongandexpensive,andtheresult,one
wayortheother,wouldhavecausedirreparabledamagetothefabric
ofthefamily.Ifthecourthadadjudgedthefatheraliar,orupheldthe
grandparents'allegationsagainsthim,hewouldlosetherespectofhis
children,andanyorderforcontactbetweenthechildrenandthegrand-
parentswouldhavebeencompliedwith,ifatall,unwillingly.Ifthecourt
hadupheldthefather'scase,thechildrenwouldhavebeendeprivedof
contactwithpeopletheylovedandwholovedthem.
Instead,thecourtheldonlytwoshorthearings,thefirsttohearthe
father'sapplicationandthesecondtoapprovetheagreement;andthe
resultwastothecompletesatisfactionofallconcerned,particularlyof
thechildren,whowereallowedtohaveapartintheprocesswhich
wasage-appropriateandrespectfuloftheirfeelings.
If,ontheotherhand,thefatherhadapproachedasocialworkerof
thelocalauthorityorotherprofessionals,theywouldnothavebeen
abletoensuretheinvolvementofthegrandparents;andevenifthe
grandparentshadcooperated,andthechildrenhadbeeninvolved,the
socialworkerwouldhavebeenlimitedtomakingsuggestions.Without
8 ThisprovisionwasaddedaftertheYomKippurWarof1973,inwhichmanyreserve
andregularsoldiers,fathersofchildren,fell.Itwasseenasnecessarytogivethebereaved
parentsstanding,bystatutetoapplytothecourt.Theprovisionwasmorerecentlyex-
tended,toallowanygrandparenttoapplytothecourtforanorderallowingcontactwith
agrandchild;however,theapproachtothecourtismadebyanapplicationfordisputeres-
olution,whichisreferredtotheFCSS,andnotbyaregularclaim(section28B).
74 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68–75
theauthorityoftheCourt,andtheparties'awarenessthattheCourthad
awidediscretiontomakeordersandenforcethem,itisunlikelythatthe
partieswouldhavereachedagreement.
4.12.Highconflictandalienation
Aswehavepointedout,oneofthegreatachievementsoftheexis-
tenceoftheFCSSisthatinallcaseswherethepartiesmeetasocial
worker fromtheUnit, theyareexposed, manyofthemforthe first
time,toanimpartialprofessionalwithwideexperienceinthefield.
Theseprofessionalsshowthemthatlitigationisnottheonlywayto
resolvetheirdisputes,andemphasisethattheinterestsofthechildren
mustbetakenintoaccount–whichmaynotbeobvioustotheparents
whoareexpectingalitigiousbattle.Wherenecessarytheyarewarned
ofthedangerofallowingormakingthechildrentakesidesinthedis-
pute,andofthepossibilityofrejectionoftheotherparent,including
contactrefusal,ifthisisallowedtohappen.
Inaddition,eventhoughthecasebeforetheCourtmayberestricted
tooneissue–allegationsofabuse,orchildsupport,orpropertydivision,
orcustody–thesocialworkerwillpresenttheadvantagesofreachinga
comprehensiveagreementonallmattersarisingfromthematrimonial
problems,includingthepossibilityofresolvingtheirdifferencesbymar-
italtherapyandavoidingseparationaltogether.
ButtheFCSSarehelpfulevenincasesofhighconflict,wherethe
spousesareunabletoreachagreement,despitepersuasionandtherapy,
onmanyoralloftheissuesarisingfromthefailureoftheirmarriageand
relationship.ItmayseemparadoxicalthataUnitdevotedtohelpingthe
partiestoreachasettlementoftheirdisputeshouldbeabletoassistthe
courtandthefamilydespitethelevelofenmityandevenhatredbe-
tweentheparties.
However,theUnitcananddoeshelpthecourt,andtheparties,at
least their children in a number of ways, provided that the parties
comebeforetheSupportUnitearlyenough.
Itiswelldocumentedthatinmanyhighconflictcases,oneorbothof
thepartiessufferfrompersonalityproblems,includingpersonalitydis-
orders,whichmaymakethemunwillingorincapableofseeingbeyond
theirownfeelingsandwants. 9
Earlyidentificationoftheseproblems,bymeansoftheintakeinstru-
mentsusedbytheFCSS,willusuallyresultinarecommendationtothe
courttorefrainfromreferralstomediation,sincepersonalitydisordered
litigantsmaytakeadvantageofsuchreferralstomanipulatethepro-
ceedingsanddelaytheeventualdecisions.
Thosewhohavepersonalitydisordersarelikelytoengageinmal-
adaptivegatekeepingandalienatingbehaviourswhichdriveawedge
between theirchildren andtheother parent. Early identi fication in
suchcasesmayleadtorecommendationswhichhaveaprofoundeffect
on the children. As I have pointed out in my lectures and writings
(Marcus,2017;Marcus,2018a;Marcus,2018b),itisofparamountim-
portancethatsuchparentingbehaviours,andthedistresstheycause
tochildren,shouldbeidentifiedandhandledattheearliestpossible
stage, before the child ceases to have any contact with one of the
parents.
Forthisreason,wheretheFCSSsocialworkercomestotheconclu-
sionthatthereisaseriousriskofcontactfailure,thecourtcanberecom-
mendedtoactintwoways:
• tomakeclearandunequivocalordersaboutcontactbetweenthechild
andtheparentconcerned,withstrongsanctionsfornon-compliance
(includingthethreatofimprisonmentorfinesforcontemptofcourt);
• toorderthattheparentshaveappropriateadvicesothattheyrealize
theshort-andlong-termdamagecausedbyparentalalienation,and
howtodealwiththeneedsofthechild;andtherapyforthechild,to
helphimcopewiththenewsituationandthepressureshefaces.Fail-
ure by a parent to comply with treatment orders should also be
9
See,forexample,Eddy(2012).
sanctioned,withaclearwarningthatfailuretocomplycouldleadto
atemporarysuspensionofdecisionmakingauthority.
TheFCSSUnitcanalsomonitorcompliancebybothparents,andask
that the case be brought back to the court in the event of non-
compliance.
4.13.Clientsatisfaction
TheservicesprovidedbytheFCSSwereassessedintermsofclient
satisfaction in the report (Bayer-Topilsky et al., 2015) mentioned
above,whichwaspublishedinAugust2015,nearlytwentyyearsafter
the Family Courts Law was passed. The results were positive in all
respects.
Amongthefindings:
• Mostoftheclients(73%)werehighlysatisfiedwiththeservice,even
though63%ofthecasesweredescribedashighconflict,and78%ofcli-
entsreportedthattheyhadexperiencedsomeformofviolencefrom
theotherpartytothedispute
• 73%oftheclientsreportedagoodtherapeuticalliancewiththesocial
worker
• Almosthalf(45%)oftheclientsreportedthattheyhadreachedagree-
mentinatleastoneareaofconflictthroughtheinterventionofthe
Unit
• 70%–80%oftheclientswhoreachedanagreementaboutcustody,di-
vorceandchildsupportreportedthatthearrangementswerestable.
5.Conclusions
Thebeginningsofthedoctrinesoftherapeuticjurisprudenceasa
concept are traced tothe work of Professor David B. Wexler in the
mid-1980's;hefirstusedtheterminapaperdeliveredtotheNational
InstituteofMentalHealthin1987.Theunderlyingidea,thatcourtsof
lawconstituteasocialagentwhichcanunwittinglycausebeneficial
(therapeutic)ordetrimental(anti-therapeutic) results,whichaffect
theimmediatelitigantsandothers,waswellunderstoodinIsrael,and
ledtoreconsiderationoftheadequacyoftheresponseofthecourtsys-
teminfamilycases.
Aswehaveshown,thisappreciationgaverisetoanewapproach,
particularlyintheareaoflawwhereindividualsarefacedwithconflict,
preciselyinthesocialinstitutionwhichisintendedtogivethemastable
andlovingbasisfortheirexistence–thefamily.Itwasclearthatthe
existingstructureofthecourtsystem,andthetechniquesofadjudica-
tion within the courts, were adding to distress and suffering, and
needed reform. But the commission set up to recommend changes
alsosawthatthejudicialprocesswasincapableoftakingproperac-
countofthepersonalneedsofparentsandtheirchildrenwithoutaccess
toprofessionalsfromoutsidethelegalsystem.Furthermore,assistance
fromthecaringprofessions,inordertobeeffective,wouldhavetobe
immediately accessible for the parties, and that this could only be
achievedbyincorporatingsocialserviceswithinthecourtitself.
TheFamilyCourtsLawsetuptheFCSS,anddefinedtheirrolein
broadtermsinorderthathelpcouldbeofferedinavarietyofforms.Es-
sentialtotheachievementoftheseobjectiveswastheappointmentof
Judgeswithprovenexperienceinfamilylawandacquaintancewith
thepotentialcontributionofassociateddisciplines,inparticularsocial
work,psychology(includingchilddevelopment),mentalhealthandpa-
thology.TheFamilyCourtjudgesandFCSSworkershaveannualin-
servicetrainingseminars,inordertobeupdatedastonewlegislation,
socialworkpractices,psychologicalinsights,etc.
Atfirst,involvementofthepartiesintheservicesprovidedbythe
FCSSwasvoluntary.However,ittookarelativelyshorttimeforlawyers
andlitigantstorealizethattherewasalottobegainedbyattendanceat
theUnits,sothatitbecamerareforpartiestofailtocomplywitha
 P.Marcus/InternationalJournalofLawandPsychiatry63(2019)68– 75
recommendationbyaJudgetogototheUnit,ifonlytohearwhatwas
beingoffered.
Withtime,allconcernedwithpolicydiscoveredthattheprofession-
alismofthesocialworkersoftheFCSSwouldenablethemtotakeon
severaltasks,beyondthoseoriginallydesignated.Theseincludedwork-
shopsfordivorcingparents,mediation,andsophisticatedprocessesfor
allowingthechildtobeheard.Itbecameclearthatthesystemwhichre-
quiredthatproceedingsinthecourtcouldbeinitiatedonlybyfilinglists
ofallegationsandclaimsledtocontentionandescalationofdisputes,
andthecourtsneededfurtherreform.Thiswouldrequirethataspouse
whofeltthattherewereseriousdifficultiesinthefamilyrelationships
wouldhavetoapproachthecourt,notbymakingdemands,butbyask-
ingforareferralforconsultation.Theorganizationneededforsuchare-
formwasreadilyavailable-theFCSSwiththeirexperiencedstaffand
established intake and therapeutic approach were ideally suited to
takeonthetaskofholdinginformation,assessmentandcoordination
meetings,andtheyarenowdoingsowithpositiveresults,intermsof
reductionintheseverityofconflictandtheuseofalternativemethods
ofdisputeresolution.
Theresultsreported,thatinalmosthalfofthecasesdealtwithbythe
FCSSthepartiesreachedagreementonatleastpartoftheissuesbe-
tween them, represent a substantial saving of court time; in these
cases,whichwouldotherwisehaverequiredhearingsandpossiblyevi-
dentiarytrialsbeforethecourt,theJudgehadonlytoreviewtheagree-
mentandgiveittheforceofajudicialdecisionorjudgment.
Butaswehaveshown,therearecaseswhicharenotappropriatefor
suchprimarytherapeuticintervention,suchasapplicationsforimmedi-
atereliefwhereviolenceisalleged,orwhereforreasonsconnectedwith
thepersonalityormentalstateofoneoftheparties,itisnotpossibleto
helpthefamilywithouttheexertionofjudicialauthority.Insuchcases,
theFCSSsocialworkersplayanessentialroleinassessingtheneeds,es-
peciallyofchildreninvolvedinsuchsituations,andmakingrecommen-
dationstothecourtastotheorderswhichneedtobegiven.Suchorders,
whichoftenincludearequirementthataparentandchildrenobtainas-
sistance,includingassessmentandtreatment,fromamentalhealthpro-
fessional,maybecalledjurisprudentialtherapy.
TheFCSSareinvaluabletothecourtsandtothepublicinreducing
thelevelofseverityofdisputesinthefamily.Thisistheobjectiveof
therapeuticjurisprudence.
TheIsraeliFamilyCourtprovidesafineexampleoftheeffectiveness
ofplacingsocialworksupportservicesatthedisposalofthecourtandof
thelitigants.FCSSsupplyinputsfromthefieldsofsocialwork,psychol-
ogyandchilddevelopment,andpsychiatry,forpreliminaryassessment,
advicetotheparties,involvementofchildrenandotherroles.
Aswehaveseen,collaborationbetweenthejudgesandtheFCSSis
builtintothesystem.WhenajudgerefersacasetotheFCSSwithin-
structionsastothematterswhichneedevaluation,consultation,and
initial treatment, theFCSScandrawmatterstotheattention ofthe
judgewhichmaynotappearonthesurfaceofthecourtdocuments,
butariseduringtheworkofthesocialworkerswiththefamily,and
needjudicialintervention.
Thecourtremainsincontroloftheprocedures,andtherulesrelating
toconfidentialityensurethattheactivitiesofFCSSdonotimpairtheim-
partialityofthecourtanditsroleasguardianofdueprocess,buten-
hancethelikelihood ofaspeedyandlasting resolution ofdisputes:
restorationofproperrelationshipsinthefamily,andterminatingthelit-
igation,whileminimizingharmtotheadultsandchildreninvolved.
75
ThegoalsofTherapeuticJurisprudencearethusaddressedinthe
IsraeliFamilyCourtsystem.
Acknowledgement
IamindebtedtoSueLehmannMSW,formerdirectorofFamilyCourt
SocialServicesfortheJerusalemDistrictforhercommentsonadraftof
thisarticle.
PhilipMarcus,Judge(retired)JerusalemFamilyCourt
June2018
philipmarcusjurist@gmail.com
www.philip-marcus.com
References
Bayer-Topilsky,T.,Manor,A.,&Szabo-Lael,R.(2015).FamilyCourtSocialServices–Na-
tionalEvaluationStudy.Jerusalem:Myers-JDC-BrookdaleInstitute,EngelbergCenter
forChildrenandYouth.
CapacityandGuardianshipLaw,5722-1962(Israel).
CivilProcedureRules,5744–1984(Israel).
Eddy,B.(2012).TheFutureofFamilyCourt.ScottsdaleAZ:HighConflictInstitutePress.
FamilyCourtsLaw,5755–1995(Israel).
LawforthePreventionofFamilyViolence,5751–1991(Israel).
LawfortheRegulationofLitigationinFamilyDisputes(TemporaryProvision)5774–2014
(Israel).
Marcus,P.(2015).InK.Lynch,&A.Scully-Hill(Eds.),Children'sdisputeresolution:theis-
raeliexperience,ininternationalperspectivesondisputesaboutchildrenandchildpro-
tection.Vol.1.(pp.167–183).TheChineseUniversityofHongKong.
MarcusP.(2017)Parentalalienation,contactrefusalandmaladaptivegatekeeping:how
topreventcontactfailure,lectureatISFLInternationalConference,Amsterdam,2017.
Marcus,P.(2018a).Parentalalienationandcontactrefusal:howtopreventfailureofcontact
betweenparentandchildsubmittedtoJournaloftheSocietyofMedicineandLaw,Israel
2018(Hebrew).
Marcus,P.(2018b).Preventingcontactfailureandalienation:amultidisciplinaryapproach
workshopatafccannualconference,WashingtonDC.
Marcus,P.,&Gottlieb,D.(2012).JuridogenicDamagetoChildrenandWaystoLimitIt:Pre-
sentationatAFCCannualconference,ChicagoIll.
MoragT.andSorekY.(2013)Children'sparticipationinIsraeliFamilyCourtanaccountof
anongoinglearningprocess.
MoragT.,RivkinD.andSorekY.Childparticipationinthefamilycourts–lessonsfromthe
Israelipilotproject,InternationalJournalofLaw,PolicyandtheFamilyPage1of30,
doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebr023
ReportoftheCommissiontoReviewtheApplicationofFamilyLaw(Hebrew)(1986)..Je-
rusalem:MinistryofJustice.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (d). http://www.ohchr.org/EN/
ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx.
PhilipMarcuswasbornandeducatedinEngland.AfterobtaininghisLL.B.(Bachelorof
Laws)degreeatUniversityCollegeLondon,andqualifyingasaSolicitor,hemovedtoJeru-
salemin1978.HewasadmittedasanAdvocateattheIsraelBarin1979,andfromthen
untilhisappointmentasaJudgeoftheJerusalemMagistratesCourtin1995,hewasinpri-
vatepractice.
HeobtainedhisLL.M(MasterofLaws)degreeatHaifaUniversity:histhesis,entitled
HohfeldWithoutRights,formsthebasisforabookheiswriting,tentativelytobecalled
WhyRightsareWrong,andWhattoDoAboutThem.
HeservedasaJudgeoftheJerusalemFamilyCourtfromitsopeningin1997untilhisre-
tirementin2012.
SincethenhehasspokenandpresentedworkshopsonFamilyLaw,includingChildLaw,
ElderLaw,andonthelawrelatingtopeoplewithdisabilities,onfivecontinents.
HeisanexpertconsultanttotheKnessetConstitution,LegislationandLawCommittee,
andontheteamoflecturersforMashav–Israel'sagencyforinternationalcooperation.
Hehaswrittenandpublishednumerousarticles,forexampleonParentalResponsibilities:
ReformulatingtheParadigmforParent-ChildRelationships(publishedintheJournalofChild
Custody),andonpreventionofparentalalienationandcontactfailure,andalsoontesta-
mentarycapacityandonguardianshiprelatingtopersonswithdisabilities.