NCJ Number
109431
Journal
Emory Law Journal Volume: 36 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1987) Pages: 569-573
Date Published
1987
Length
5 pages
Annotation
The alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has often produced practices that are even more inherently biased than the supposedly biased legal mechanisms they replaced, as shown by an analysis of dispute resolution in divorce and child custody.
Abstract
Professor Everett has proposed a return from the current legislative notions of contract to the ancient image of covenant. However, few marriages are truly equal in either a contractual or covenantal sense, because women continue to experience many inequities. Thus, the use of ADR in child custody disputes, as advocated by Professor Everett, will not work. ADR requires equality among the bargainers. Like Professor Everett, Professor Terrell recognizes that conflict is an unfortunate central characteristic of modern life. However, he realizes that the atmosphere of compromise advocated by ADR proponents may not always reach desired results. He also justifiably recognizes the role of individual rights and of the law, to a certain extent, as our community and a reflection of our morality. The alternative suggested by ADR is clearly inadequate and perpetuates the biases it is supposed to address. 5 footnotes.