Planning for this issue began in May 2020, during the initial crisis stage of lockdowns and vague calls for “pivots.” At that time, Barbara Glesner Fines anticipated need for a “Post-Covid” special issue of lessons learned, and we thought that a publication date of April 2022 was far enough in advance to provide this perspective. We now know that the editorial work of sending out a call for papers, selecting articles, and receiving final submissions had to take place alongside the pandemic as an ongoing source of disruptions and uncertainty. The authors have journeyed with us in this process. Some articles keep focus on the initial impacts from March through September 2020, which was when initial titles and abstracts were due. Others take a longer view, adding waves of new data (and an evolving context) into fall 2021. A third approach transcends the specifics of this crisis to examine online family law services that can operate within and outside of public health crises.

While we are unable to provide a special issue on lessons from a crisis fully resolved, the articles in this volume nonetheless remind us of the chaos and shock of the early months of the pandemic while inviting us to consider long-term lessons learned. We now know that there is no going back to a pre-pandemic normal. For example, online services that were novel have become necessities. In this process, lack of information technology resources has become an access to justice issue. Pandemic impacts have also amplified and exacerbated pre-existing concerns in serving vulnerable populations and ensuring access to justice. Finally, pandemic necessity has accelerated technological innovations that benefit better resourced court systems and populations. As learned through reading across articles, a global pandemic encourages cross-national and U.S. based comparisons of resources and innovations in family law and service.

Articles that remind us of initial and longer-term pandemic disruptions address a wide range of contexts, such as court services, co-parenting, and support for victims of domestic violence. Asnakech Getnet documents access to justice problems in Ethiopia as courts closed during lockdown from March to September 2020, without the resources to offer online alternatives. Focusing on family court in the Amhara Region, she found that women and children were especially vulnerable given that the limited cases courts would hear as emergency cases did not include family violence, child custody, or divorce. Family separation needs had to be postponed, litigants and lawyers were often ill-informed about case hearings, and further confusion was caused by rotating judges on and off cases in a de-densified courthouse. Claire Houston and colleagues describe studies conducted in Ontario, Canada on early pandemic court decisions and professional experiences. Court case assessment was from March to October 2020, while the professional survey collected data during November and December 2020. Their findings reinforce concern over the disparate impact of pandemic stressors and potentially limited benefit of remote services for more vulnerable families. They argue that ensuring greater access to justice through access to technology may require in-person support for self-represented litigants. Rachel Moyer and colleagues continue attention to system “pivots” with special attention on serving victims of domestic violence. Their article focuses on how the Crystal Judson Family Justice Center in Tacoma, Washington quickly adapted in the early months of quarantine. They describe changes in client needs and service delivery that included protection orders, court hearings, community outreach, and victim advocacy. They note which innovations also hold promise outside of pandemic necessity.

Other articles consider broader lessons learned given the ways that the pandemic has amplified previously identified and recurring family law challenges. Audrey Brittingham argues for legal reform when imputing income for custodial parents. Current law inputs income for parents who voluntarily leave work and/or choose to care for children at home. She argues that this is discriminatory towards parents who make these changes in response to systemic crises (such as a pandemic) and in the best interests of their children rather than bad faith. Kristin Gerdy and Benjamin Forsgren characterize the pandemic as one example of how natural disasters create a “Catch-22” in family law. The catch is in how natural disasters cause problems that require parents to file in court while also undermining the ability of courts to hear cases. Using examples from both Covid-19 and Hurricane Katrina, they argue that U.S. courts adapt during natural disasters by offering special masters, “to act as mobile or virtual neutral third-party decision-makers.” They advise preparation for these emergencies through recruitment and training prior to the next disaster.

Finally, several articles address the transformation of reliance on physically located court services to online resources, and consider the long-term impact of these transformations. Ayyoub Ajmi describes a system for automated protection orders created during the pandemic and argues that such a system may be especially important for serving vulnerable populations given the common intersections of family violence with lack of economic resources and attorney representation. Genevieve Heard and colleagues report on both “new risks and opportunities” brought by the pandemic for separated and separating families using family dispute resolution services in Victoria, Australia. Lockdown has become chronic in Australia, and family dispute resolution (“FDR”) service providers have relied on “rapid and wholesale shift(s) to remote delivery via telephone and video conferencing.” Data collected from clients and FDR practitioners between March 2020 and March 2021, help evaluate the advantages, disadvantages, and professional training needs to consider when relying on remote service delivery. Lisa Harker and Mary Ryan also studied the pros and cons of remote services using three “rapid consultations” examining remote court hearings provided through telephone and/or video in England and Wales. Their data collection time frames were during April 2020, September 2020, and June 2021. They share the kind of concern expressed in the Australia article (Heard and colleagues) about the differential impact on more vulnerable families. They also find that pandemic necessities have shifted debate over remote services to nuanced concerns, such as assessment for when remote hearings are appropriate and what access to justice problems may persist. Claire Tomlinson and colleagues finish the volume with another consideration of whether online services could become a “new normal” beyond pandemic contexts. They report from a study examining barriers to parent use of online parent education programs. As found in other articles in this volume, their findings temper enthusiasm for internet-based services by identifying problems of digital divides in resource access and when parents either need technology assistance or greater peer support than automated online services will provide.

While we may not have truly arrived in a “Post-COVID” world, the articles in this issue provide helpful data and evaluation of the ongoing responses to the global pandemic.

这一问题的规划始于 2020 年 5 月，当时处于封锁和模糊呼吁“转向”的最初危机阶段。当时，Barbara Glesner Fines 预计需要一期关于经验教训的“后 Covid”特刊，我们认为 2022 年 4 月的出版日期足以提供这一观点。我们现在知道，作为干扰和不确定性的持续来源，发出征文、选择文章和接收最终提交的编辑工作必须与大流行一起进行。在这个过程中，作者与我们一起旅行。一些文章一直关注从 2020 年 3 月到 2020 年 9 月的初始影响，当时是初始标题和摘要到期的时间。其他人则放眼长远，将一波又一波的新数据（以及不断变化的背景）添加到 2021 年秋季。

虽然我们无法提供关于危机完全解决的经验教训的特刊，但本卷中的文章仍然提醒我们大流行最初几个月的混乱和冲击，同时邀请我们考虑长期的经验教训。我们现在知道，没有办法回到大流行前的正常状态。例如，新颖的在线服务已成为必需品。在这个过程中，信息技术资源的匮乏成为了一个诉诸司法的问题。大流行的影响还放大和加剧了在为弱势群体服务和确保获得司法救助方面先前存在的担忧。最后，大流行的必要性加速了技术创新，使资源更充足的法院系统和民众受益。正如通过阅读文章了解到的那样，全球大流行鼓励跨国和美国

提醒我们最初和长期大流行中断的文章涉及广泛的背景，例如法庭服务、共同养育和对家庭暴力受害者的支持。Asnakech Getnet 记录了埃塞俄比亚的司法问题，因为法院在 2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 9 月的封锁期间关闭，没有资源提供在线替代方案。关注阿姆哈拉地区的家庭法庭，她发现妇女和儿童尤其容易受到伤害，因为法庭作为紧急案件审理的案件数量有限，不包括家庭暴力、儿童监护权或离婚。家庭分居的需要不得不推迟，诉讼当事人和律师往往对案件听证不了解，而且在去密化的法院中轮流审理案件造成了进一步的混乱。克莱尔休斯顿及其同事描述了在加拿大安大略省进行的关于早期大流行法院判决和专业经验的研究。法庭案件评估时间为 2020 年 3 月至 2020 年 10 月，而专业调查收集了 2020 年 11 月和 2020 年 12 月期间的数据。他们的调查结果加强了人们对大流行压力源的不同影响以及远程服务对弱势家庭的潜在益处可能有限的担忧。他们认为，通过使用技术确保更多地诉诸司法可能需要对自我代表的诉讼当事人提供亲自支持。Rachel Moyer 及其同事继续关注系统“支点”，特别关注为家庭暴力受害者提供服务。他们的文章侧重于华盛顿塔科马的水晶贾德森家庭司法中心如何在隔离的最初几个月迅速适应。他们描述了客户需求和服务提供的变化，包括保护令、法庭听证会、社区外展和受害者宣传。他们指出，除了大流行的必要性之外，哪些创新也有希望。

鉴于大流行扩大了先前确定的和反复出现的家庭法挑战，其他文章考虑了更广泛的经验教训。Audrey Brittingham 在为监护父母估算收入时主张进行法律改革。现行法律为自愿离职和/或选择在家照顾孩子的父母输入收入。她认为，这对那些为应对系统性危机（如大流行病）以及为了孩子的最大利益而不是出于恶意而做出这些改变的父母是一种歧视。克里斯汀·格迪 (Kristin Gerdy) 和本杰明·福斯格伦 (Benjamin Forsgren) 将这场流行病描述为自然灾害如何在家庭法中造成“第 22 条军规”的一个例子。问题在于自然灾害如何导致需要父母出庭的问题，同时也削弱了法院审理案件的能力。他们使用 Covid-19 和卡特里娜飓风的例子，认为美国法院通过提供特殊的主人来适应自然灾害，“充当移动或虚拟中立的第三方决策者”。他们建议在下一次灾难之前通过招募和培训为这些紧急情况做好准备。

最后，几篇文章讨论了对物理位置法院服务的依赖向在线资源的转变，并考虑了这些转变的长期影响。Ayyoub Ajmi 描述了在大流行期间创建的自动保护令系统，并认为鉴于家庭暴力与缺乏经济资源和律师代理的共同交叉点，这种系统对于为弱势群体服务可能尤其重要。Genevieve Heard 及其同事报告了大流行给在澳大利亚维多利亚州使用家庭纠纷解决服务的分居和分居家庭带来的“新风险和机遇”。封锁在澳大利亚已成为慢性病，和家庭纠纷解决（“FDR”）服务提供商依靠“通过电话和视频会议进行远程交付的快速和大规模转变”。在 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 3 月期间从客户和 FDR 从业者处收集的数据有助于评估依赖远程服务交付时需要考虑的优势、劣势和专业培训。Lisa Harker 和 Mary Ryan 还使用三个“快速咨询”研究了远程服务的利弊，检查了英格兰和威尔士通过电话和/或视频提供的远程法庭听证会。他们的数据收集时间范围是 2020 年 4 月、2020 年 9 月和 2021 年 6 月。他们和澳大利亚的文章（Heard 及其同事）一样，对对弱势家庭的不同影响表达了同样的担忧。他们还发现，大流行的必要性已将有关远程服务的辩论转移到了细微的问题上，例如评估何时适合远程听证会以及可能会持续存在哪些诉诸司法的问题。Claire Tomlinson 和他的同事们在结束本书时再次考虑了在线服务是否会成为超越大流行背景的“新常态”。他们从一项研究中报告了家长使用在线家长教育计划的障碍。正如在本卷的其他文章中所发现的那样，他们的发现通过识别资源访问方面的数字鸿沟问题以及何时父母需要技术帮助或比自动在线服务无法提供的更大的同伴支持来缓和对基于互联网的服务的热情。例如评估何时适合举行远程听证会以及可能会持续存在哪些诉诸司法的问题。Claire Tomlinson 和他的同事们在结束本书时再次考虑了在线服务是否会成为超越大流行背景的“新常态”。他们从一项研究中报告了家长使用在线家长教育计划的障碍。正如在本卷的其他文章中所发现的那样，他们的发现通过识别资源访问方面的数字鸿沟问题以及何时父母需要技术帮助或比自动在线服务无法提供的更大的同伴支持来缓和对基于互联网的服务的热情。例如评估何时适合举行远程听证会以及可能会持续存在哪些诉诸司法的问题。Claire Tomlinson 和他的同事们在结束本书时再次考虑了在线服务是否会成为超越大流行背景的“新常态”。他们从一项研究中报告了家长使用在线家长教育计划的障碍。正如在本卷的其他文章中所发现的那样，他们的发现通过识别资源访问方面的数字鸿沟问题以及何时父母需要技术帮助或比自动在线服务无法提供的更大的同伴支持来缓和对基于互联网的服务的热情。Claire Tomlinson 和他的同事们在结束本书时再次考虑了在线服务是否会成为超越大流行背景的“新常态”。他们从一项研究中报告了家长使用在线家长教育计划的障碍。正如在本卷的其他文章中所发现的那样，他们的发现通过识别资源访问方面的数字鸿沟问题以及何时父母需要技术帮助或比自动在线服务无法提供的更大的同伴支持来缓和对基于互联网的服务的热情。Claire Tomlinson 和他的同事们在结束本书时再次考虑了在线服务是否会成为超越大流行背景的“新常态”。他们从一项研究中报告了家长使用在线家长教育计划的障碍。正如在本卷的其他文章中所发现的那样，他们的发现通过识别资源访问方面的数字鸿沟问题以及何时父母需要技术帮助或比自动在线服务无法提供的更大的同伴支持来缓和对基于互联网的服务的热情。

虽然我们可能还没有真正进入“后 COVID”世界，但本期文章提供了有用的数据和对全球流行病持续应对措施的评估。