Search

INTRODUCTION Although access to adequate sanitation is formally recognized as a basic human right, (1) public toilets have long been flagged as absent necessities by groups marginalized by class, gender, [...]

The widespread adoption of automatic milking systems (AMS) in the United States has afforded dairy cows the flexibility to establish personalized milking, feeding, and resting schedules. Our study focused on investigating the short-term effects of transitioning milking permissions from every 4 (MP4) to 6 (MP6) hours on the 100th day of lactation on milking frequency, milk yields, and cow behavior. Twenty-four Holstein dairy cows were divided into control (maintaining a 4 h milking interval) and test groups (transitioning to a 6 h milking interval) and observed for 6 days. The analysis revealed that parity and treatment had no significant impact on milking frequency, milk/visit, or daily milk yield. However, multiparous cows spent more time inside the commitment pen, while test group cows exhibited more tail-swishing and displacement behavior, approached the AMS more frequently, and spent longer idle times. The interaction between parity and treatment influenced heart rate variability parameters, indicating increased stress in the test group cows. Additionally, the test group cows had greater total and daytime lying frequencies, suggesting short-term behavioral modifications. Despite no immediate impact on milk production, further research is recommended to assess the potential long-term effects on milk yield in AMS farms, considering the identified stress indicators short-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including support for LGBTQ+ youth in legal systems, reproductive treatment access and needs of LGBTQ+ mental health students.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual orientation and gender minority (LGBTQ+) youth and families have been under a social and legislative attack in the United States in recent years, marked by a stark increase in gender‐affirming care bans and religious rights cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. LGBTQ+ graduate students in mental health fields—particularly those who seek to work in family court settings—have specific needs that are often unmet in their educational and clinical training environments. Furthermore, the over‐representation of LGBTQ+ youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems necessitates specialized knowledge and skills that many clinicians and educators are currently lacking. This paper discusses the unique challenges facing LGBTQ+ graduate students and provides research‐based suggestions for professors, administrators, and supervising clinicians who seek to provide a holistic and humanizing educational experience that produces clinicians who can respond to the evolving needs of LGBTQ+ individuals in family court settings and beyond. Key points for the family court community: LGBTQ+ individuals experience unique stressors stemming from identity‐related stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, which can negatively affect their health and success in educational and work settings.Familiarity with this minority stress may motivate LGBTQ+ individuals to pursue careers in mental health, particularly in family court settings.LGBTQ+ graduate students often lack professors and clinical supervisors who are knowledgeable about working with LGBTQ+ individuals, leading to inadequate training and experiences that negatively impact their functioning across domains.Research highlights the need for more culturally responsive and affirming classroom and field training environments to support LGBTQ+ graduate mental health students who seek to make a difference in the legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study sought to understand the lived experiences of 10 formerly incarcerated Black and Latino men in an apprentice program for physical trainers using directed content analysis. Participants described a variety of microaggressions, including those representing known themes (e.g., assumption of criminality) and new (sub)themes (e.g., borrowed legitimacy). They also described new opportunities afforded to them by virtue of their involvement in the apprentice program and their newly found authority. Results indicate that formerly incarcerated men of color experience daily discrimination and re‐entry challenges that may be destabilizing and contribute to recidivism, thus reinforcing the cycle of mass incarceration. The authors suggest further investment in tertiary interventions to buffer against the harmful effects of microaggressions, as well as further research with a critical race lens and primary interventions aimed at ameliorating the societal conditions that lead men of color to come into contact with the criminal legal system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) individuals likely experience more intimate partner violence (IPV) than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. Though the research on IPV among LGBTQ+ individuals is lacking in quantity, available evidence suggests LGBTQ+ individuals have unique risk factors for IPV victimization and perpetration, express identity‐specific reasons for underreporting IPV, and experience types of IPV specific to their sexual orientation and/or gender identities. Bisexual and transgender individuals appear to be at significantly higher risk of IPV victimization compared to their peers. A search of the Family Court Review archives suggests that IPV affecting bisexual parents has never been directly addressed in the publication, nor has IPV affecting transgender or gender‐nonconforming parents, and the last article on the topic of IPV in gay and lesbian relationships (Bunker Rohrbaugh, 2006) was published more than 15 years ago when marriage and adoption rights were unavailable to most LGBTQ+ individuals. The current article provides an updated and comprehensive discussion of IPV within the broader LGBTQ+ community, reviews the limitations of the extant literature and the need for more research, and demonstrates that LGBTQ+ IPV is a complex issue with which all family court practitioners should be familiar. Key points for the family court community: LGBTQ+ individuals experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at similar or higher rates compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers.Bisexual and transgender individuals are at particularly high risk of experiencing IPV.IPV in LGBTQ+ partnerships often occurs bidirectionally, meaning that both partners perpetrate and experience violence or coercive control.LGBTQ+ parents are vulnerable to identity abuse, in which their sexual orientation or gender identity is weaponized by their partner or co‐parent.Family court professionals should familiarize themselves with the unique patterns and risk factors for IPV among the different identity groups under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]