Study 2 also provides some specificity around the relationship between self-affirmation and self-compassionate feelings; we did not find evidence that self-affirmation affected more general performance perceptions of the self or peer storytelling videos, though our study may be underpowered to detect subtle differences in this dimension of self-compassion. Though we do not definitively rule out this possibility, our results suggest that self-affirmation effects may be specific to affective measures of self-compassion, which is consistent with the affective change in self-compassion we observed in Study 1.
I would never say never and anything is possible in court. But I would say that it really hurts your chances a LOT. There are so many things that could go wrong or you might have an opportunity to win, but not recognize it because you do not know what to look for. If it is worth it to fight this, it is probably worth hiring an attorney. I am sorry to be the bearer of discouraging news. But litigation is always complicated and yours sounds more complex than normal.
Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.
Then, participants were randomly assigned to either watch their own video or a female study confederate’s video, whom participants believed to be the previous study participant. After watching the storytelling video, participants completed an 8-item measure of how they felt while watching the (self or peer) video, which served as our primary measure of compassionate feelings. Specifically, participants rated eight feeling adjectives [relaxed, happy, sad (reverse-scored), proud, embarrassed (reverse-scored), irritable (reverse-scored), nervous (reverse-scored), peaceful] using 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely). These items were summed to create a composite measure of compassionate feelings toward the self or other video (α = 0.83), with higher scores referencing higher compassionate feelings. Importantly, by asking participants, “How did you feel while watching your [the] video?” we were able to specifically probe feelings of self-compassion (or other-directed compassion) in response to this mildly embarrassing, impromptu storytelling playback. More positive feelings result from feelings of compassion, and less positive feelings reflect negative judgments and a critical response to the video. To evaluate the specificity of the self-compassionate feelings account, participants also completed a 9-item measure of their social perceptions in response to watching the storytelling video (see Leary et al., 2007, Study 4). Participants were asked to rate how they (or the peer) appeared in the video on nine performance dimensions [awkward (reverse-scored), confident, nervous (reverse-scored), creative, reasonable, competent, attractive, foolish (reverse-scored), likable] using 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all to 7 = extremely) in response to the question, “How do you think you [the other participant] appeared on the video?” Like the compassionate feelings composite measure, the nine items were summed to create a composite measure of performance perceptions toward the self or other video (α = 0.83), with higher scores referencing higher social perceptions of performance during the storytelling task. Thus, we were able to measure two distinct aspects of self-compassion (and other-directed compassion): feelings of (self-) compassion and performance perceptions in response to the storytelling video. These behavioral ratings of self-compassion are positively related to trait self-compassion in previous work (Leary et al., 2007, Study 4). Participants completed a final demographics measure before being probed for suspicion, fully debriefed, and dismissed.
Strickland v. Washington (1984) Nix v. Whiteside (1986) Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993) Williams v. Taylor (2000) Glover v. United States (2001) Bell v. Cone (2002) Woodford v. Visciotti (2002) Wiggins v. Smith (2003) Holland v. Jackson (2004) Wright v. Van Patten (2008) Bobby v. Van Hook (2009) Wong v. Belmontes (2009) Porter v. McCollum (2009) Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) Sears v. Upton (2010) Premo v. Moore (2011) Lafler v. Cooper (2012) Buck v. Davis (2017)
In 2011, the Federal Judicial Conference surveyed federal court clerks offices regarding pro se issues. They found that only 17 of 62 responding judges report that discovery is taken in most non prisoner pro se cases and only 13 reported that discovery is taken in most prisoner pro se cases.:21 In the same survey, 37% of judges found that most pro ses had problems examining witnesses, while 30% found that pro ses had no or few problems examining witnesses.:22 53% found that represented parties sometimes or frequently take advantage of pro se parties.:23 Only 5% reported problems of pro ses behaving inappropriately at hearings.:24 Respondents to the FJC study did not report any orders against non prisoner pro se litigation.
Canon 4C. A judge may attend fund-raising events of law-related and other organizations although the judge may not be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such an event. Use of a judge’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letterhead, including when used for fund raising or soliciting members, does not violate Canon 4C if comparable information and designations are listed for others.
Do I have the time and resources available to represent myself pro se? As you can see, there is a lot of learn before representing yourself at a child custody hearing. Parents considering pro se representation should carefully consider whether they have the time, determination, and undivided attention necessary to dedicate to this task before deciding to go it alone in court.
FERN A. FISHER is the Special Assistant for Social Justice Initiatives to the Dean at the Maurice A. Deanne School of Law at Hofstra University, and retired Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts and Director of the New York State Access to Justice Program. She is a founding member of the Metropolitan Black Bar Association and a member and past board member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York County Lawyers Association.
Appropriate action may include direct communication with the judge or lawyer, other direct action if available, reporting the conduct to the appropriate authorities, or, when the judge believes that a judge’s or lawyer’s conduct is caused by drugs, alcohol, or a medical condition, making a confidential referral to an assistance program. Appropriate action may also include responding to a subpoena to testify or otherwise cooperating with or participating in judicial or lawyer disciplinary proceedings; a judge should be candid and honest with disciplinary authorities.
Canon 2C. Membership of a judge in an organization that practices invidious discrimination gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s impartiality is impaired. Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as that the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or that it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited. See New York State Club Ass’n. Inc. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 108 S. Ct. 2225, 101 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1988); Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940, 95 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1987); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). Other relevant factors include the size and nature of the organization and the diversity of persons in the locale who might reasonably be considered potential members. Thus the mere absence of diverse membership does not by itself demonstrate a violation unless reasonable persons with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances would expect that the membership would be diverse in the absence of invidious discrimination. Absent such factors, an organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin persons who would otherwise be admitted to membership.
While the Due Process Clause does not require the provision of counsel in a civil contempt case for failure to pay child support when the opposing parent is not represented by counsel, the court should provide "alternative procedural safeguards," such as "adequate notice of the importance of ability to pay, fair opportunity to present, and to dispute, relevant information, and court findings."
In a California study of family matters, one party appeared pro se in 2/3 of all domestic relations cases and in 40% of all child custody cases in 1991-95. California reports in 2001 that over 50% of the filings in custody and visitation are by pro se litigants. Urban courts report that approximately 80% of the new divorce filings are filed pro se.