HELPING ALIENATED CHILDREN WITH FAMILY BRIDGES: PRACTICE, RESEARCH, AND THE PURSUIT OF “HUMBITION”.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 91, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01290.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
Works matching IS 15312445 AND DT 2010 AND VI 48 AND IP 1
Results: 19
1
2
A REPONSE TO SALEM: COMMON SENSE.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 195, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01299.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
3
GUEST EDITORS' INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL ISSUE ON ALIENATED CHILDREN IN DIVORCE AND SEPARATION: EMERGING APPROACHES FOR FAMILIES AND COURTS.
- Published in:
- 2010
- By:
- Publication type:
- Editorial
4
A DISTINCTION WITHOUT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE: RESPONSE TO STEVE BARON AND HUGH MCISAAC.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 201, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01300.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
5
FAMILY BRIDGES: USING INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE TO RECONNECT PARENTS AND ALIENATED CHILDREN*.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 48, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01288.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
6
CHILDREN RESISTING POSTSEPARATION CONTACT WITH A PARENT: CONCEPTS, CONTROVERSIES, AND CONUNDRUMS.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 10, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01287.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
7
COMMENTARY ON “FAMILY BRIDGES: USING INSIGHTS FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE TO RECONNECT PARENTS AND ALIENATED CHILDREN” (WARSHAK, 2010).
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 81, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01289.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
8
WHEN A CHILD REJECTS A PARENT: TAILORING THE INTERVENTION TO FIT THE PROBLEM.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 98, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01291.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
9
OUTCOMES OF FAMILY COUNSELING INTERVENTIONS WITH CHILDREN WHO RESIST VISITATION: AN ADDENDUM TO FRIEDLANDER AND WALTERS (2010).
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 112, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01292.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
10
OVERCOMING BARRIERS FAMILY CAMP:A PROGRAM FOR HIGH-CONFLICT DIVORCED FAMILIES WHERE A CHILD.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 116, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01293.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
11
EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND PREVENTION OF PARENT–CHILD ALIENATION: A FRAMEWORK FOR BALANCING RISKS AND BENEFITS OF INTERVENTION.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 136, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01294.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
12
ALIENATING AUDIENCES FROM INNOVATION: THE PERILS OF POLEMICS, IDEOLOGY, AND INNUENDO.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 153, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01295.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
13
PARENTAL ALIENATION: CANADIAN COURT CASES 1989–2008.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 164, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01296.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
14
ONE CASE–ONE SPECIALIZED JUDGE: WHY COURTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE ALIENATION AND OTHER HIGH-CONFLICT CASES.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 180, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01297.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
15
A RESPONSE TO PETER SALEM'S ARTICLE“THE EMERGENCE OF TRIAGE IN FAMILY COURT SERVICES: BEGINNING OF THE END FOR MANDATORY MEDIATION”.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 190, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01298.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
16
FINE TUNING THE BRANDING OF PARENTING COORDINATION: “. . . YOU MAY GET WHAT YOU NEED”.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 206, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01301.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
17
A CALL TO CONGRESS TO GIVE BACK THE FUTURE: END THE “WAR ON DRUGS” AND ENCOURAGE STATES TO RECONSTRUCT THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 212, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01302.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
18
LIFE AFTER DEATH: THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL STATUS OF POSTHUMOUSLY CONCEIVED CHILDREN.
- Published in:
- Family Court Review, 2010, v. 48, n. 1, p. 228, doi. 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2009.01303.x
- By:
- Publication type:
- Article
19
JANUARY 2010.
- Published in:
- 2010
- By:
- Publication type:
- Editorial