Suchergebnisse

Divorce mediation, an alternative to litigation when resolving disputes raised by the dissolution of a marriage or the separation of unmarried parents, has gained popularity over the past few decades. Yet, research is needed to better understand what processes make family mediation successful and for whom family mediation is successful. To study predictors of reaching agreement in family mediation, we gathered data from divorce and paternity cases at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law Viola J. Taliaferro Family and Children Mediation Clinic. Numerous factors, including history of intimate partner violence, father's reported concerns about participating in mediation, higher levels of father's income, number of mediation sessions, and attorney representation, were associated with lower rates of agreement. Associations between significant predictors are presented, as well as the combined impact of attorney representation and a history of relationship violence, which together significantly predicted lower agreement rates. The implications of these findings for understanding family mediation processes are considered.

While other authors have regarded both the presence and the absence of attorneys in family law mediation as cause for concern, little attention has been given to the questions raised when one party is represented and the other is pro se. This article presents data on mediating parties' premediation concerns, fears, and feelings of preparedness, as well as their postmediation satisfaction with the mediation process. The mediating parties are grouped based on each couple's representation status, for example, both represented by attorneys, both pro se, or one attorney‐represented party and one pro se party (mixed representation cases). The data show that mixed representation cases are the most likely to report concern, fear, and unpreparedness. Mixed‐representation cases also reported the lowest levels of satisfaction after the mediation. Some implications for mediation practice are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.

We coded the content of mediation agreements reached by families receiving parenting‐related mediation services at a law school community clinic. We compared agreements reached by families identified as having or not having a history of intimate partner violence (IPV) on a variety of issues hypothesized to be related to risk of future interparental contact and conflict and thus violence. Families with and without a history of IPV did not make significantly different legal or physical custody or parenting‐time arrangements. Nor did these groups differ in specifying the details of how to handle some issues that could lead to future conflict (e.g., making up missed parenting time). They also did not differ in the likelihood of agreeing to supervised visitation or exchanges of children in public places. However, agreements of families with a history of IPV were more likely to include safety restrictions (e.g., restrictions on interparental fighting, physical discipline of children, substance use) and counseling referrals. We discuss implications of the study findings in the context of the debate surrounding mediation with families who have experienced IPV.Key Points for Family Court Community:
The appropriateness of mediation with families exhibiting a history of IPV is a focal point of debate in family law.
This work compares the content of mediation agreements reached by families with and without a history of IPV in a law school community clinic.

We examined the association between parents' (N = 52 mothers and 52 fathers) and children's (N = 27) reports of interparental conflict and child difficulties in a family mediation setting. Parents' reports of conflict were moderately associated with children's reports of exposure to parental conflict, but only fathers' reports of conflict were associated with children's reports of negative responses to parent conflict. While mothers and fathers agreed on their child's difficulties, only mothers', not fathers', report of child difficulties were moderately related to child reports of child difficulties. Mothers' and fathers' reports of conflict generally were not strongly associated with reports of child difficulties. In contrast to parent reports, children's reports of exposure to parents' conflict were moderately and significantly related to self‐reported child difficulties and moderately related to parents' reports of child academic difficulties. The magnitude of the association between the child's report of interparental conflict and self‐report of difficulties was stronger than the association between parent report of conflict and parent report of child difficulties, suggesting that parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parent conflict/violence or the problems their child is experiencing.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Family law stakeholders prioritize the creation of parenting arrangements that are in the best interest of the child; however, it is unclear how to gather information about the child and the child's perspective in order to inform such arrangements.
The study results suggest that parents may not agree with each other or with the child about important family issues, such as parent conflict and child difficulties. For example, parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parental conflict/violence when in the midst of custody negotiations.
More research is needed to determine the best method for gathering information about the child during custody proceedings. In the meantime, it is important to gather information from multiple sources and to consider the agreement and differences across such sources of information.

A large number of litigants in family court are proceeding without legal representation and placing a significant burden on court personnel and judges. It is unclear whether this trend toward self‐representation is also true for litigants in family mediation and whether these clients also place a significant burden on mediation programs. Given concerns about mediating with violent couples, another important question is whether the type of representation differs between nonviolent couples and couples experiencing intimate partner violence and/or abuse. This article is an exploratory study of litigants in mediation in Arizona and Indiana, two very different jurisdictions. We provide descriptive statistics concerning the types of representation of clients entering mediation in these jurisdictions and the number of sessions attended by attorney‐represented versus pro se clients. We also provide descriptive statistics concerning the levels and types of violence and/or abuse reported by pro se versus represented litigants. We then explore the relationship between representation, violence and abuse, and reaching agreement in mediation. Implications of the findings for mediation are considered.