Try to break an idea
Show how one part could create bias, hide safety evidence, increase cost, be manipulated, or violate the law. This is often called red-teaming.
Public review workspace
Help find the failure before a family does.
FJP becomes stronger when people expose legal mistakes, safety risks, incentives that could backfire, missing evidence, unclear language, and better alternatives. You do not have to agree with FJP to improve it.
Founder’s note
“Broken” cannot be the end of the sentence.
Too often, parents and professionals recognize a system problem, name it, and then learn to live around it. This project asks more: identify exactly why a process fails, test a remedy, and do at least one useful thing. Technology, open knowledge, and collective review give us tools earlier generations did not have. We should use them carefully—so future families inherit something better than accepted helplessness.
This belief motivates the work; it does not prove the proposal. That is why FJP invites strong criticism, records uncertainty, and begins with a small test rather than a proclamation.
Lend your expertise without lending your name to an endorsement
Attorneys, judges with appropriate independence, court staff, safety advocates, child-development specialists, researchers, technologists, accessibility experts, economists, parents, and former court users are invited to challenge or improve a defined part of FJP. Reviewing the work does not mean supporting it. Names and affiliations would be displayed only with clear permission. See the participation roles →
Five contribution paths
Choose the contribution you can make strongest.
Do not include names, case numbers, addresses, details that identify children, private court records, or material you are not allowed to share.
Suggest stronger evidence
Share an original research study, official data, a final published court decision, or a serious example that challenges the proposal.
Test the reading of a case
Suggest a publicly documented case. Explain which sources are strongest and what the available record cannot tell us.
Improve the small test
Suggest what to measure, when to stop, who should be included, how to protect privacy, or what would make the plan impractical.
Offer specialized knowledge
Choose one defined legal, safety, research, court-operation, technology, accessibility, economic, or lived-experience question.
Discussion prototype
Open questions, organized for useful review.
This early version stores your draft only in this browser. It does not send or publish anything. Use Export to save your notes until a moderated discussion system is connected.
Could evidence labels cause abuse reports without outside support to be discounted?
The ledger says “not proven does not mean false,” but the screen design and training could still make people treat the labels as a ranking of truth.
Who can correct a professional reasoning chain—and on what timetable?
A traceable conclusion is not meaningful if objections wait until after a temporary arrangement becomes entrenched.
Does scope control move uncompensated work onto professionals?
Budget ceilings may reduce family cost while obscuring real workload or driving qualified people away.
How can lasting resolution be separated from exhausted silence?
Few returns to court can mean stability. They can also mean that returning was too expensive, frightening, or hopeless.
Moderation standard
Open does not mean unbounded.
Critique ideas and evidence
No harassment, threats, doxxing, diagnoses of strangers, or attacks on children, families, judges, lawyers, or professionals.
Protect the record
No sealed or impounded records, intimate images, home addresses, school details, or information that can identify a child.
Disclose interests
Reviewers should state material professional, financial, advocacy, vendor, or litigation interests relevant to the submission.
Make claims revisable
Cite sources, mark inference, answer objections, preserve corrections, and never imply that participation equals endorsement.