AN EVALUATION OF SUPERVISED ACCESS I: I Organizational Issues

Family Court Review

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 37-50

  Park, Norman W ^a   Peterson Badali, Michele ^b   Jenkins, Jennifer M ^b  

^a BAYCREST CENTRE FOR GERIATRIC CARE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039650469     PISSN: 15312445     EISSN: 17441617     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.174-1617.1997.tb00444.x     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Dabraio, R. (1989). Access for parents and children: An alternative to resolving access disputes. Unpublished program description. (Available from Etobicoke Center for Children and Families, 19 Gieil Agar Drive, Islington, Ontario.).
2. Gunderson, M., & Riddell, W. C. (1993). Labour market economics: Theory, evidence, and policy in Canada (3rd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
3. Jenkins, J. M., Park, N., & Peterson-Badali, M. (1997). An evaluation of supervised access II: Perspectives of parents and children. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 46–58.
4. Kalter, N. (1990). Growing up with divorce: Helping your child avoid immediate and late emotional problems. New York: Free Press.
5. Lubell, J., & Dibbs, L. (1987). The Merrymount supervised access program: Meeting the needs of children in the post-separation crisis. Journal of the Canadian Association for Young Children, 12(spring), 39–45.
6. Nicholson, W. (1992). Microeconomic theory: Basic principles and extensions (5th ed.). New York: Dryden.
7. Peterson-Badali, M., Maresca, J., Park, N., & Jenkins, J. M. (1997). An evaluation of supervised access III: Perspectives from the legal system. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 59–69.
8. Stott, M., Gaier, E., & Thomas, K. (1984). Supervised access: A judicial alternative to noncompliance with visitation arrangements following divorce. Child and Youth Services Review, 6, 207–218.
9. Straus, R. B., & Alda, E. (1994). Supervised access: The evolution of a social service. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 230–246.