Suchergebnisse

AbstractA 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.

AbstractUsing 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.