Tuesday Sessions

Session Materials (password protected)

Presented by: Dr. Pamela B. Payne, CFLE, CA

Custody cases marked by volatility, repeated litigation, and child refusal are often labeled “high conflict.” Research shows, however, that mutual escalation and coercive control are fundamentally different dynamics with distinct implications for children and judicial response.

This session explores how Nevada courts can distinguish chaotic bilateral conflict from asymmetrical coercive control within the framework of NRS 125C.0035, including the domestic violence presumption under NRS 125C.0035(5). Using a developmental lens, the session examines how children experience chaos versus threat, how refusal behaviors may reflect anxiety or fear, and how misclassification can increase harm.

The session provides a practical analytical structure to align custody determinations with statutory mandates and developmental risk science.

Learning Objectives:

• Distinguish mutual high-conflict dynamics from coercive control and apply
  Nevada’s best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035 with attention to
  developmental risk and power asymmetry.
• Interpret child refusal, alignment, and expressed preference through a
  developmental framework, differentiating loyalty conflict from trauma-based
  fear.
• Evaluate how the domestic violence presumption under NRS 125C.0035(5)
  shapes custody analysis and identify intervention strategies that promote
  stability and safety.

Session Materials (password protected)

Presented by:  Judge John Romero

This workshop will offer participants an opportunity to discuss how these forms of abuse may co-occur within a family environment and the effects on children. The session will include an overview of strategies and resources to enhance system responses.

Learning Objectives:

• Recognize the dynamics of abuse and the impact on children and adult survivors.
• Connect with resources to improve court responses to abuse.
• Identify strategies for possible system change to improve outcomes for families.

Presented by  Dr. Allison List, Ph.D.

For over a decade, the NCJFCJ has provided courts with a trusted trauma consultation process. Now, through our collaboration with the Center for Trauma Recovery in Juvenile Justice (CTRJJ), this service has evolved to offer deeper insights and stronger support for juvenile and family courts. Participants will learn about the updated process, the benefits of this new partnership, and how courts can leverage these tools to strengthen trauma-informed practices.

Learning Objectives:

• Review the NCJFCJ trauma audit process and our history in providing trauma-informed and responsive TA to courts.
• Discuss how the NCJFCJ and the CTRJJ will be working to support one another in the trauma audit process to support sustainable and systemic changes for courts.
• Explain how courts can explore their readiness and commitment to a trauma audit and
  how to request one.

Presented by: Dr. Jennifer Highsmith, Ph.D. & Dr. Suzanne Aberasturi, Ph.D

A review of the differences between psychological, neuropsychological, and educational evaluations, and the reasons for choosing one over the other, based on the question before the court. This will include a review of school programs and supports, as well as common terms used in educational settings.

Learning Objectives:

• Differentiate between psychological and neuropsychological testing and identify when
  each type of evaluation is most appropriate.
• Understand the purpose and scope of educational testing, including how it informs
  learning needs and academic supports.
• Recognize the range of services provided by schools, including special education
  programs and the development and implementation of Individualized Education Plans
  (IEPs).

Presented by: Judge Paige Dollinger, Crystal Hallock & Jacki Hallerbach

Lived expertise can go a long way to help parents feel seen and reduce stigma in judicial systems. The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County has used peer mentors, parents who have navigated child welfare, substance use and domestic violence, to help others do the same. Crystal Hallock has done this work for 19 years and has helped many families to work through their child welfare cases and achieve the best permanency outcomes for families. Expect this presentation to be an eye-opener, with Ms. Hallock sharing her child welfare experience to show the humanity and potential of all parents. Judge Dollinger and Ms. Hallerbach will talk about incorporating peer mentorship into your court program and data on the effectiveness of peer mentorship.

Learning Objectives:

• Understand the role of lived expertise in the courtroom and how peer mentors with child welfare experience can reduce stigma, build trust, and improve parent engagement.
• Examine the structure and implementation of Washoe County’s peer mentorship model, including practical considerations for integrating parent partners into court programs.
• Evaluate research and local data on peer mentorship outcomes to assess its impact on family engagement, case progress, and permanency results.

Presented by: Judge David Connors

The presenter will discuss the importance of procedural fairness, also referred to as procedural justice, in the handling of matters before the judiciary. Many studies show that the acceptance of judicial orders is more closely tied to the participant’s perception of the fairness of the process, rather than the outcome. Primary components of procedural fairness include: understanding (ensuring that all participants understand the process); neutrality (decision-makers acting without bias or prejudice); voice (listening carefully to participants, giving them a chance to voice their questions and concerns and tell their side of the story), and respect (treating all participants with dignity and respect). These issues are even more important in family law matters, in which very often the parties are not represented by counsel.

Learning Objectives:

• Help attendees understand the essential elements of procedural fairness.
• Present specific examples of how to incorporate those elements into courtroom
  interactions.
• Consider unique challenges in family law matters where participants are often
  unrepresented.