Search results

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.

AbstractOn 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.

The past fifty years have borne witness to increases in parties representing themselves and mediating, rather than litigating, in divorce and other family law cases. In this article, we review changes in family law; discuss challenges for self‐represented litigants and mediators working with them; review guidance developed by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the American Bar Association (ABA); and discuss state ethics opinions, guidelines, and rules. We conclude with our proposal and urge the AFCC and the ABA to draft Model Rules of Practice for Mediating with Self‐Represented Parties to assist states in implementing appropriate rule changes.

This study investigated whether reported levels of intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or abuse (IPV/A) victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues. Whether or not parties reached agreement was analyzed for 105 cases at a law school mediation clinic. Agreement content was coded for the 71 cases that reached agreement. Levels of IPV and IPV/A were determined separately for males and females, using a standardized measure. Regression models were utilized to examine reports of IPV or IPV/A as predictors. Results indicated that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns; levels of partner violence/abuse predicted numerous issues in mediation agreements, including arrangements regarding legal custody, parenting time, holidays, child exchanges, interparental communication, safety restrictions, counseling referrals, child support, financial arrangements, and other miscellaneous topics (e.g., relocation). However, some findings were consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A; for example, increasing levels of male‐perpetrated IPV/A predicted increased likelihood of making an agreement to share legal custody. Further research is needed to resolve the longstanding debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.
Key Points for the Family Court Community
This study adds to the debate of whether divorce mediation is an effective and safe process for parties demonstrating IPV/A.
It examines whether reported levels of IPV and IPV/A victimization are related to reaching agreement and to the content of mediation agreements of parties seeking to resolve family‐ and child‐related issues.
Results provide some evidence that mediation may help families with a reported history of IPV and IPV/A address a variety of concerns.
However, some findings are consistent with concerns raised about the use of mediation with parties reporting IPV and IPV/A.
Findings have implications for the practice of family mediation with parties reporting a history of IPV or IPV/A.

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.

This article summarizes ideas for future directions in the field of family dispute resolution, as discussed by legal experts, social scientists, and other participants at the Indiana University–Bloomington conference on family dispute resolution. Five major categories of future directions were discussed: (1) clarifying differing goals for work in this field; (2) recognizing, understanding, and assessing for heterogeneity among couples and families facing divorces, break ups in adult relationships, and reconfigurations of adult relationships with the children ("relationship dissolution"); (3) testing our assumptions and commonly held beliefs about relationship dissolution; (4) empirically testing the efficacy of interventions for families experiencing relationship dissolution; and (5) disseminating research findings to those on the frontline.

This article describes a developing interdisciplinary approach to training legal students and psychology students at Indiana University–Bloomington (IU) to work at the intersection of their disciplines. The approach provides strong clinical training while emphasizing the necessity to scientifically evaluate interventions with separating couples. The training includes a combined academic course and clinical training program in divorce mediation offered through the IU Maurer School of Law, and a series of graduate‐level seminars and clinical practica through the IU Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. The manuscript reviews the historical settings for the pedagogical approaches and interdisciplinary opportunities, details the offerings and rationale for the training components, and discusses ongoing research projects stemming from the interdisciplinary collaboration, including research designed to test the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary training for students in both disciplines.

AbstractIntimate 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.

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.

AbstractFamily 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.

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.

We examined potential predictors of initial court agreement and 1‐year relitigation in a sample of contested paternity cases involving unmarried parents coming to court to establish paternity, child support, and other issues. Cases participated in an RCT of a parent program and of a waiting period between establishment of paternity and court hearing. We controlled for RCT study factors and used baseline assessment data to predict likelihood of reaching full agreement in the initial court hearing and relitigation in the following year. Findings suggest that cases in which parents get along better outside of court are more likely to reach agreement and less likely to return to court. Additionally, particular parent demographics predict lower likelihood of reaching initial agreement (e.g., parents are non‐White, father earns below $10,000 yearly), more relitigation (e.g., parents are non‐White, mother earns above $10,000 yearly, father has children with others), and less relitigation (e.g., father earns above $10,000 yearly). Child demographics and most parent relationship characteristics did not predict outcomes. We discuss findings and offer suggestions for court interventions.

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.