Suchergebnisse

Building on existing evidence that destructive interparental conflict and intimate partner abuse (IPA) share research methodology and predict the same adjustment difficulties across numerous areas of child development, this article brings awareness to differences in terminology across disciplines and the impact these nuanced differences may have on families. We begin by identifying two main streams of scholarships followed by a discussion of research methodology similarities and differences. Important implications of differences in naming conventions for practitioners, legal and academic scholars, and victims are then discussed. Finally, we encourage professionals from both scholarships to consider referencing the other's terminology and using comprehensive assessments to better promote the well‐being of families.

The central point of this paper argues that measuring physical violence alone is insufficient to detect relational distress in child custody/parenting time mediation samples. We present empirical findings from a large study attending custody/ parenting time mediation. Results suggest that the most economical and efficient screening tool should include measures of coercive controlling behavior. Our data suggests that coercive control is able to account for other victim distress variables crucial to mediation, including victim fear, victim safety and ultimately the fairness of the mediation process. We recommend that researchers continue to refine measures of coercive control to be used in custody/parenting time mediation settings.

The changing nature of family court and increasing awareness of mental health challenges force family lawyers to navigate tricky legal, ethical, and practical issues. This article reviews increased complexity for litigants as a result of procedural changes in the current family court, the rise of pro se representation, and statutory changes encouraging shared parental care of children. It analyzes common legal and ethical challenges for attorneys representing potentially impaired clients. It details practical means of supporting clients and increasing their capacity to engage meaningfully in family court matters. This roadmap can guide lawyers in improving their knowledge and skills in order to meet legal and ethical standards for representing family law clients with mental health challenges.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
Trends such as procedural changes in the current family court, the rise of pro se representation, and statutory changes encouraging shared parental care of children require significant engagement and competence on the part of litigants.
Family attorneys have a complex task in representing a possibly impaired client, as they must gauge the client's level of functioning throughout the legal process to ensure the client has sufficient capacity to participate meaningfully.
Legal requirements and ethical guidelines address and shape many aspects of an attorney's interactions with a client living with mental illness.
Experienced attorneys can support clients in maximizing their capacity to engage in family court proceedings.

AbstractThis article introduces a specific standard to the mediation community with the idea of sparking debate that would lead to a commonly accepted standard for competence to participate in mediation for divorce. It delineates the broad contours of an assessment process using the proposed standard and examines practical implications and next steps for mediators related to the establishment of a common standard. It then describes how the proposed standard could be incorporated in mediation trainings, model rules, and state statutes and regulations, leading to more uniform and equitable decisions and increasing the pro‐cedural fairness of divorce mediations within and across jurisdictions.

The purpose of this study was to carefully measure Intimate Partner Abuse (IPA) behaviors among a large (n = 864 couples) sample of pairs of husbands and wives who were mandated to attend divorce mediation and then to: categorize the behaviors into theoretically‐driven types of IPA, determine the number of cases screened out of mediation for any reason, and investigate whether measured outcomes of mediation (primary physical and legal custody) were related to IPA. Results indicated that rarely was IPAnotreported—the most frequently reported IPA behavior was psychological abuse (98% of wives; 97% of husbands), followed by physical abuse (58% of wives; 54% of husbands), escalated physical abuse (62% of wives; 50% of husbands), and sexual intimidation, coercion and rape (56% of wives; 29% of husbands). Rarely were couples reporting IPA screened out of mediation (5%), and rarely were supervised parenting time or restrictions on contact between parents included in mediated agreements made by couples reporting IPA (6.5%). The overall level of IPA was unrelated to the specific terms of mediated agreements; however, by far the most frequent type of mediated agreement the couples' negotiated in mediation was for primary physical custody to go to the wife and for the husband and wife to have joint legal custody (59% of cases). Analysis of the implications of these findings and policy recommendations are included.

Anecdotally, judges, court staff and behavioral health providers working in the child welfare system indicate that families commonly return to the system after a termination of parental rights. The current study is the first to empirically investigate these families who return to the system with new children. Results show that although only a small proportion of families returned after a previous termination of parental rights, these families often returned multiple times with new children. Future research should attempt to replicate these results in other jurisdictions and focus on risk and protective factors to better understand the needs of these parents and children, and determine how to better support them within the child welfare system.

As the Hispanic population grows in the United States and the child welfare system, it is necessary to examine how experiences of Hispanic families differ from those of White/Caucasian families and to assess whether Hispanic families' needs are properly addressed. This literature review will examine research on the outcomes and experiences of Hispanic families in the child welfare system and how case characteristics interact with the experiences of Hispanic families. This article will then explore theories for Hispanic families' different experiences and conclude by recommending future directions and solutions for improving the experiences of Hispanic families in the child welfare system.

Screening for intimate partner violence and/or abuse (IPV/A) in family mediation is important, perhaps particularly among cases without attorney representation. While most mediators agree that it is ideal to consider IPV/A in case planning, there is less agreement regarding the need to universally and systematically screen for IPV/A among all cases. Such attitudes are of concern, given research in other fields (e.g., medicine, couples therapy) and our own research in a family mediation clinic, which documents that the lack of consistent and formal IPV/A assessment results in underdetection of IPV/A. While a variety of IPV/A screening measures exist, each has shortcomings. Thus, our research and clinical experience led us to develop a new IPV/A screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC). We discuss features of the MASIC and provide the full measure in the Appendix. The MASIC is a behaviorally specific IPV/A screen that assesses various types of abuse (e.g., coercive control, stalking, physical violence) over the course of the relationship and in the past year. It is administered as an interview to build rapport and assesses lethality indicators and offers optional recommendations for procedural changes in mediation based on IPV/A. Although we have begun relevant research, it is important to note that the MASIC has not yet been validated. Nonetheless, we recommend the use of systematic IPV/A screens in family mediation and suggest that such measures may prove especially important in providing unrepresented parties a safe and appropriate environment for mediation.

AbstractThe Crystal Judson Family Justice Center (CJFJC), like many advocacy programs for survivors of intimate partner violence, transformed its structure and operating procedures amid the COVID‐19 pandemic. The first confirmed case of COVID‐19 in the United States was in Washington State, where CJFJC is located, and Governor Jay Inslee acted quickly with a strict stay‐at‐home order. This paper describes the pre‐pandemic, in‐person service model used at CJFJC and then the transition to a fully online service model utilizing phone, email and online procedures and platforms. The rapid transition posed many opportunities to learn how to provide services during public pandemics, and how to provide services virtually. We conclude with detailed lessons learned from the experiences of filing domestic violence protection orders online, Zoom court hearings, innovation surrounding community partnerships, and information technology development.

AbstractThis study investigated the effects of a highly interactive, online cognitive‐behavioral youth coping program: Children of Divorce‐Coping with Divorce (CoD‐CoD; Boring et al., 2015) on children exposed to high levels of interparental conflict (IPC). A multiple‐baseline experimental design (N = 9) evaluated within‐subject intervention effects on change in daily positive and negative affect before, during, and after the intervention (nobservations = 462). Participants were youth ages 11–16 who reported high exposure to IPC and whose parents had filed for divorce or parenting plan determinations in the prior year. A significant interaction effect indicated change in positive affect, but not negative affect, between the intervention and baseline phases. Positive affect linearly decreased during the baseline phase and flattened during the intervention phase. Results indicate that CoD‐CoD was effective in interrupting a decline in youth‐reported positive affect in a high‐IPC sample, which may indicate a buffering effect against depression. Critical future directions include conducting large‐scale randomized trials with children from high‐IPC families to assess for whom the program is effective and assess long‐term effects across a broad range of important outcomes.

Recently, several researchers have suggested additional items be included to the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) questionnaire for a younger population (children ages 10–17). Two sets of items have been proposed by Finkelhor and colleagues. However, it is unclear which set of items is the most useful in an emerging adult population. The current study compared the original ACE questionnaire with two revised sets of items proposed by Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, and Hamby in young adults. The best model depended on the outcome used as the original ACE questionnaire was the best fit in predicting depression, but the revised models were the best predictors of anxiety and perceived physical health. Future studies should continue to investigate whether these new items continue to improve the usefulness of the ACE scale or whether these items become less salient across the life span.