Parenting programs provided through the court system aim to reduce interparental conflict while teaching parents appropriate strategies to help their children through the divorce or separation. However, families often fail to start and/or complete recommended programming. We examined data from 221 separating and divorcing parents in initial court cases in [county, state, masked for review]. Parents were court-ordered, using randomization, to a no program control condition or to complete one of two online parenting programs, Two Families Now (TFN) or Children in Between (CIB). Each program averaged three hours in length. We conducted a series of conditional regression analyses exploring predictors of program participation among those assigned to a parenting program ( N = 151). Seventy percent ( N = 105) of parents assigned to a program participated in the program (i.e., all who started a program also completed it). Parents who reported statistically significantly more years of education, were divorcing versus unmarried, and who had significantly less time since their separation from the other parent were more likely to participate in the program, all with small odds ratios. Our findings indicate that courts and program developers should consider ways to best increase program participation rates, particularly among parents with fewer resources (e.g., decreasing logistical barriers and program burden), along with offering the program close to the time of separation.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of separation and/or divorce. IPV may not stop after separation, as parents who use IPV can continue intruding in the lives of parents who experience IPV due to unsafe parenting arrangements that allow continued frequent contact and thus risk further abuse. Therefore, it is critical that separating/divorcing parents be assessed for IPV and ongoing safety concerns. Parenting arrangements (e.g., physical and legal custody, parenting time) may not include the appropriate protections if IPV has not been uncovered and/or considered. Unfortunately, many existing IPV screens for family court processes have limitations. The Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns-Short (MASIC-S) was designed to address these limitations. Results from the MASIC-S may be used to inform and create parenting arrangements in the best interest of the child. We provide recommendations on how MASIC-S results can guide family court practitioners in parenting arrangement disputes. These recommendations are based on the existing literature and guidelines regarding the relationship between parenting arrangements and child-wellbeing following separation/divorce in the context of IPV. We also discuss areas in which additional research is needed to help determine parenting arrangements most suitable for separating/divorcing parents with a history of IPV. The use of an IPV screen in family law is necessary for effectively considering how to increase the safety and improve the outcomes of parents and children during and after the separation or divorce process.We offer recommendations, based on existing research, to help family law practitioners effectively screen for IPV among separating and/or divorcing parents.We introduce two versions of the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns-Short (MASIC-S), an IPV screening tool we developed for family law practitioners and discuss how MASIC-S screening results can assist practitioners in disputes over parenting arrangements.

On May 30, 2023, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) co-sponsored an international symposium to explore the subject of family court reform. Twenty-eight judges representing eight countries and including numerous North American states and provinces met in Los Angeles, California, to identify the most pressing challenges facing family courts and to document promising approaches to improve practice and outcomes in family court cases. They focused on domestic relations cases, as opposed to child welfare and juvenile justice matters. Prior to the symposium, participants responded to a survey about family court reform efforts in each participant's jurisdiction. Judicial officers attending the symposium represented diverse legal systems with some common and many different practices and challenges. After a day filled with small and large group discussions, participants identified key takeaways and made recommendations emanating from the day's discussions. Family court systems face tremendous challenges, including recruitment and retention of judges, high caseloads and backlog, increased numbers of self-represented litigants, heightened parent-child contact problems, many high conflict cases, and a lack of financial support to meet families' and children's needs for various services. Changes to family courts are necessary to improve outcomes for families and children and to inspire public trust and confidence in the family justice system. Eliminating the adversarial nature of family courts must be an overarching goal of family court reform. Existing judicial resources must be utilized more effectively. Efforts must be undertaken to enhance respect for the institution of the family court, including the need for cultural competence among judges and for awareness of unconscious and implicit bias. Appellate judges must have prior family law experience in order to render the most appropriate appellate decisions. Case management processes, such as early case conferencing, triage, binding settlement conferences, virtual conferences, focused hearings, chambers hearings, digitizing court processes, and hearing officers, can help alleviate some of the problems facing family courts. Family courts should use empirically validated court procedures and family law interventions, with the specific goal of helping families and children in court achieve outcomes that improve their lives as a result of family court involvement.

In family mediation, it is critical to screen all parties for intimate partner violence (IPV) to identify cases in need of specialized approaches designed to be safer. However, few mediation clinics screen systematically or use validated tools. A court-affiliated family mediation program implemented an IPV screening tool, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns-Short with the Danger Assessment for cases involving contested child custody issues. The current study evaluated parties' (maximum n = 1,982) responses to two administration formats of that tool, with cases being randomly assigned to online self-administered or online screener-administered. We compared the two screening formats for: parties' completion of the screen by the court-assigned due date; the level of IPV victimization reported; and whether parties qualified for specialized mediation based on the IPV reported. Results suggest that parties are more likely to complete a screening by the due date when administered by a screener. Regarding Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns-Short with the Danger Assessment score, the screening format and gender interaction were statistically significant; females' scores were higher than males' in all possible comparisons of female and male reports, with the highest levels of victimization reported by females in the screener format. Subsequently, women who were interviewed by a screener were the most likely to qualify for specialized mediation. Results suggest that courts may detect more violence by implementing screener rather than self-administered tools and could consider innovative strategies for cases reporting IPV (e.g., making specialized mediation the default approach if mediation is appropriate).

Using data from a study examining forms of mediation designed to be safer for separating parents reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV; Holtzworth-Munroe, Applegate, et al., 2021; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, et al., 2021), the current study compares three groups, cases that reached mediation agreement ("mediation agreement group"), did not reach mediation agreement and returned to court ("no mediation agreement group"), or went to court without attempting mediation ("court group"). Ninety-eight cases started mediation and 68% did not reach agreement. Sixty-six cases went to court without mediation. The mediation agreement group reported better outcomes, immediately (e.g., felt safer, less upset, higher satisfaction, faster case resolution, more likely to address issues and interparental communication limits) and one-year later (e.g., higher satisfaction, fewer court orders), than the other groups. The court group only differed from both mediation groups on a few measures (e.g., lower satisfaction, less likely to exchange children at parents' homes). The no mediation agreement group reported more negative outcomes than one or both other groups (e.g., less satisfaction, more harassment from other parent, less social support at follow-up). In mediation designed to be safer for cases reporting high levels of IPV and with parties willing to try mediation, reaching agreement was associated with positive outcomes, and not reaching agreement was associated with potentially concerning outcomes. Research is needed to identify risk factors for not reaching agreement. Additional services may need to be provided to such cases.

Purpose We investigated intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization level ever in the relationship, as reported by parents at baseline, as a predictor of outcomes within each of three different dispute resolution processes: traditional litigation (n = 67 cases), shuttle mediation (n = 49 cases), and videoconferencing mediation (n = 50 cases). Method The sample included court cases of separating or divorcing parents reporting high levels of IPV victimization. Parent and case level immediate and one-year follow-up outcomes were examined. Results Within all three dispute resolution types, higher baseline IPV predicted higher levels of ongoing IPV and harassment at follow-up. Results within the traditional litigation group were mixed. Higher baseline IPV was related to parent reports of feeling less safe and more upset during the process, less positive perceptions of the process, less confidence that the other party would follow the resolution, and in the year following case resolution, greater likelihood of re-litigation. But higher mother reported baseline IPV was associated with greater likelihood of sole legal custody being granted to mothers, and higher father reported baseline IPV was associated with greater likelihood of joint legal custody and fewer parenting hours for mothers. Some results raise concerns about videoconferencing mediation (i.e., higher IPV was related to lower levels of party reported feelings of safety, longer time to resolution, and at follow-up, higher levels of concerning interparental relationships). Most results had small effect sizes. Conclusions Recommendations for family law professionals to better serve separating parents reporting high IPV are suggested.

Family courts are increasingly interested in online parenting programs for divorcing and separating parents, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. To our knowledge, no previous study has evaluated the barriers to and facilitators of parent participation in these programs for family law cases. We interviewed 61 parents in the midst of family law cases regarding their perspectives. While many parents viewed online parent programs positively (e.g., convenient), they also reported barriers to participation (e.g., technology problems). We offer recommendations (e.g., communication about program benefits) to support courts as they decide whether to continue ordering online parent programs following the pandemic.

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.

A majority of separating parents seeking family mediation report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether mediation is appropriate for such parties is controversial. Modified mediation approaches may enhance party safety by keeping them physically separated (e.g., shuttle and videoconferencing mediation). Unfortunately, little research exists regarding whether parties reporting IPV attend mediation, even proposed safer forms, and whether attendance is related to IPV reported, type of mediation provided, or parent gender. We examined IPV-related variables as predictors of court-referred mediation attendance among cases reporting high levels of IPV. Specifically, we compared cases that did or did not attend mediation. Cases were part of a larger randomized controlled trial that included shuttle and videoconferencing mediation conditions (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2020). No statistically significant findings emerged on several variables. However, parents reporting higher levels of IPV, even among this high IPV sample, were the most likely to not attend shuttle mediation. That finding held for both parents for level of reported injury but only for mothers for reported level of IPV victimization. While replication is required, efforts should continue to examine and develop dispute resolution interventions to provide safe, appropriate, and appealing services for parents reporting high levels of IPV, perhaps particularly for mothers.

Many divorcing/separating parties seeking mediation to resolve family-related issues report intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization from the other party in the case. It is imperative that mediation staff screen parties for IPV so they can make informed decisions regarding how to proceed with mediation. Existing IPV screens for mediation have significant limitations. We examined three methodological approaches using item response theory that address these limitations by increasing the efficiency and clinical utility of an existing standardized IPV screen for mediation, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (N = 904 mediating parties). We identified three subsets of items, with initial evidence for their validity, focused on helping mediation staff identify high levels of IPV or parties at risk for potentially negative mediation outcomes or needing specialized safety accommodations in mediation. Clinical recommendations are provided indicating which approach is most promising to be used in mediation settings. Overall, findings help advance understanding of how item response theory methodology can enhance the precision of IPV screening in mediation.

We conducted an evaluation of a court-initiated randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes for parents assigned to either a no-program control group or one of two online parenting programs-Two Families Now (TFN) or Children in Between (CIB)-among 221 parents in initial divorce or separation court cases. We gathered parent report measures of family functioning at study entry, completion of program, and 1-year following study entry. We also gathered and coded court records to capture the content of the document resolving issues and occurrence of relitigation in the following year. All findings became statistically nonsignificant when a Bonferroni correction was employed. Before correction, however, a few statistically significant differences between groups emerged. Immediately following program completion, there were no study condition differences on measures of parental beliefs and intentions regarding parenting. One year following study entry, three statistically significant differences between program and no-program conditions emerged. Those assigned to a program reported significantly less intimate partner abuse and had less relitigation in court than those in the no-program condition, both with small effect sizes. Contrary to hypotheses, parents assigned to a program reported less social support than parents in the no-program condition. Overall, the findings do not provide strong support for the two investigated brief online parenting programs, demonstrating the need for continued rigorous evaluation of online parenting programs for divorcing and separating parents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

We report 1-year follow-up outcomes from a randomized controlled trial involving parents resolving separation or divorce-related disputes and reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV). We compared traditional litigation to two mediation approaches designed to protect parent safety (i.e., shuttle and videoconferencing) at a court-annexed mediation division. The sample was not nationally representative, limiting generalizability. We found no significant differences across conditions in parent reports of satisfaction with the process, level of continuing IPV or interparental conflict, parenting quality, parent functioning, or child functioning. Parents in traditional litigation, relative to parents in mediation, reported significantly more social support. Also, parents in videoconferencing, versus those in shuttle, mediation reported more PTSD symptoms from IPV. Based on coding of legal records, no significant condition differences emerged in relitigation rates in the family court case or charges of study case IPV-related incidents. Given few differences across study conditions, including in satisfaction levels, in contrast to the immediate outcomes, the 1-year follow-up findings do not clearly favor mediation or litigation. We conclude that when both parents in cases with reported high IPV are willing to mediate, mediation designed with safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to traditional litigation. We consider implications of our findings; for example, we discuss implications of the form of videoconferencing mediation examined for conducting online mediation, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This article addresses the training of mediators participating in a randomized controlled trial ("RCT") that examined the outcomes of family law cases with children in which parents reported high or concerning levels of intimate partner violence ("cases reporting high IPV"). In the RCT, we studied two specialized forms of mediation designed to protect the safety of IPV survivors (shuttle or videoconferencing) compared to each other and to traditional litigation. In implementing the RCT, the researchers utilized a three-part program to train the participating mediators with: (1) a manual; (2) in-person training; and (3) ongoing peer consultation. Though this three-part training regimen is utilized in RCT research scientifically testing interventions, to our knowledge this was the first such training program in the mediation context. Results supported a finding that the combined use of a manual, training, and peer consultation is helpful for mediators who lack prior training in mediating cases reporting high IPV by providing protocols to conduct mediation in these cases and helping ensure participant safety and satisfaction. The researchers were fortunate to collaborate with a mediation program that understood and appreciated the need for, and the importance of, this three-part training program to test the two models of mediation. The researchers hope other mediation programs will consider the use of these tools to better train mediators, thus benefitting the parties involved in mediation, particularly those in cases reporting high IPV.

This randomized controlled trial, involving parents seeking to resolve their separation- or divorce-related disputes and reporting high levels of intimate partner violence (IPV), compared return-to-court (traditional litigation, n = 67 cases) to 2 mediation approaches designed to protect parent safety (i.e., shuttle, n = 64 cases; videoconferencing, n = 65 cases) at a court-annexed mediation division. We present immediate outcomes. which showed some favorable results for mediation. Both mediation approaches were perceived as safe by mediators, and parents felt safer in mediation than in traditional litigation. Parents in mediation were also more satisfied with the process than parents in traditional litigation. Return-to-court cases took 3 times as long to reach final resolution as mediation cases. Mediators tended to prefer shuttle over videoconferencing, and videoconferencing cases were half as likely to reach agreement as cases in shuttle. Through coding the content of the document that resolved case issues, we found no statistically significant group differences in legal custody, physical custody, or parenting time arrangements, and few differences in the likelihood of the document specifying a variety of arrangements (e.g., how to handle missed parenting time) or including safety provisions (e.g., supervised child exchanges). We conclude that in cases with parents reporting concerning levels of IPV. when both parents are independently willing to mediate, mediation designed with strong safety protocols and carried out in a protected environment by well-trained staff may be an appropriate alternative to court.

The majority of civil cases in the United States involve at least one pro se party—more often than not, at least one litigant is unrepresented by legal counsel. Despite efforts to provide pro se parties with information that decreases the procedural complexity of litigation, wide access to justice gaps persist between counseled and pro se litigants. We argue that, while helpful, information alone is not enough to close access-to-justice gaps, because the mere presence of counsel gives represented litigants a persuasive edge over pro se litigants in the eyes of legal officials. Two randomized experiments with civil court judges (Experiment 1) and attorney-mediators (Experiment 2), wherein only the presence of counsel varied (while other case-related factors were held constant), found that legal officials, on average, devalued the case merit of pro se litigants relative to otherwise identical counseled litigants. This case devaluation, in turn, shaped how legal officials expected pro se (vs. counseled) litigants to fare as they sought justice. Judges, attorneys, and mediators forecasted that pro se litigants would experience the civil justice system as less fair and less satisfying than counseled litigants, especially when the dispute resolution mechanism was trial (vs. mediation). These results suggest that perceptions of case merit are strongly influenced by a litigant’s counseled status. Comprehensive solutions to address access-to-justice gaps must consider ways to reduce legal officials’ biased perceptions of pro se litigants, so that they are not underestimated before their cases are even heard.

Objectives: Family mediation is a popular alternative dispute resolution process for settling family-related issues pertaining to relationship dissolution. Some mediators rely on typologies to help understand the intimate partner violence (IPV) dynamics of mediating parties. However, little is known regarding the applicability of existing theoretically driven IPV typologies to samples of divorcing or separating couples seeking mediation. Additionally, there is a lack of data exploring potential factors, such as personality or criminality characteristics, important in explaining differences in IPV dynamics among mediating parties. The current study sought to address these issues. Method: We examined 382 separating and mediating couples using latent class analysis and confirmatory latent class analysis to test the application of the Kelly and Johnson (2008) typology, a prominent IPV typology of separating couples. We selected the best-fitting model to then detect differences across subtypes on personality and criminality characteristics. Results: The results demonstrated 4 subtypes, 2 of which are described by Kelly and Johnson. We found differences across subtypes in men's reported levels of antisociality and number of protective orders issued against them. Conclusion: Findings suggest that IPV typologies may be helpful to mediators in understanding the IPV dynamics among divorcing or separating couples and in deciding if specific patterns of IPV are more or less conducive to the mediation process. Personality and criminality information may assist in establishing safe family arrangements. However, mediators should be careful when using typologies, as there may be subtypes in this population not described by Kelly and Johnson.

This is a book review of How Mediation Works: Theory, Research, and Practice by Stephen B. Goldberg, Jeanne M. Brett, Beatrice Blohorn-Brenneur, with Nancy H. Rogers. How Mediation Works is intended for a wide range of audiences: practicing mediators; aspiring mediators; those who may refer cases to mediation; participants in mediation, including parties and attorneys; managers who facilitate disputes; and those interested in mediation without a specific plan to engage in the practice (who the authors call "mediation learners"). The book is a well-written, thoughtful, easy-to-read, organized, and concise overview of mediation practice. The book is divided into six chapters: (1) conflicts, disputes, and their resolution; (2) dispute resolution processes; (3) the roles of the mediator and the disputing parties at each step of the mediation process; (4) dealing with difficulties; (5) mediation and the law; and (6) suggestions for aspiring mediators. Though not an authority for family law mediation, the book provides many insightful observations and suggestions that would be instructive and helpful to any mediator or individual with an interest in mediation. Key Points for the Family Court Community: This is a book review of a new addition to the mediation literature. The book is a "short and sweet" overview of mediation practice and issues for experienced and new mediators and those without mediation experience.

This is a book review of How Mediation Works: Theory, Research, and Practice by Stephen B. Goldberg, Jeanne M. Brett, Beatrice Blohorn‐Brenneur, with Nancy H. Rogers. How Mediation Works is intended for a wide range of audiences: practicing mediators; aspiring mediators; those who may refer cases to mediation; participants in mediation, including parties and attorneys; managers who facilitate disputes; and those interested in mediation without a specific plan to engage in the practice (who the authors call “mediation learners”). The book is a well‐written, thoughtful, easy‐to‐read, organized, and concise overview of mediation practice. The book is divided into six chapters: (1) conflicts, disputes, and their resolution; (2) dispute resolution processes; (3) the roles of the mediator and the disputing parties at each step of the mediation process; (4) dealing with difficulties; (5) mediation and the law; and (6) suggestions for aspiring mediators. Though not an authority for family law mediation, the book provides many insightful observations and suggestions that would be instructive and helpful to any mediator or individual with an interest in mediation.